[ Page 5213 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Marketing of northeast coal. Mr. Lea –– 5213

Discussion of Bill 42 at UBCM convention. Mr. Barber –– 5213

MEL Paving legal costs. Hon. Mr. Phillips answers –– 5214

BCR contract information. Hon. Mr. Phillips answers –– 5214

Relocation of Quesnel Green residents, Mrs. Dailly –– 5215

North Thompson fall fair grant. Mrs, Wallace –– 5215

Convention cancellations. Mrs. Dailly –– 5215

Presenting petitions

Future of Vancouver Resources Board. Ms. Brown –– 5216

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 89.) Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 5216

Public Recreational Facilities Act (Bill 90) Hon. Mr. Bawlf.

Introduction and first reading –– 5216

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 9 1) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 5217

Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act (Bill 82) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5217

Mrs. Dailly –– 5219

Mr. King –– 5223

Mr. Stupich .. 5227

Mr. Cocke –– 5230

Mr. Wallace –– 5233

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5237

Division on second reading –– 5239

Apprenticeship and Training Development Act (Bill 76) , Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5239

Ms. Sanford –– 5240

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): All of us in British Columbia are pleased when one of our citizens achieves international recognition. In the gallery today is Miss Ticki Ruthven, who is a constituent of mine, living with her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Ian Ruthven on West Saanich Road. Ticki is in the Speaker's gallery, sir, and just a short while ago – last month – she was one of those who helped Canada score an international triumph at the Inter-Pacific pony club rally in New Zealand. She is 19 and a member of the national team that captured the Nations Cup in the grand prix jumping event, which, Mr. Speaker, is the top competition of the rally. Canada was followed by Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Britain and Japan. She has been given special permission today – excused from her work as a student at Royal Jubilee School of Nursing. I would like the House to congratulate her and to welcome her and her parents.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of enjoying the company of two friends of mine visiting the Legislature this afternoon, Mr. Shane Dyson and Tom Sigurdson. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, a momentous occasion almost escaped the attention of this assembly today; one of our members attained and was promoted to the rank of senior citizen yesterday. I would ask the House to wish the member for Kootenay, the Hon. George Haddad, a retroactive happy birthday.

Oral questions.

MARKETING OF NORTHEAST COAL

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Mines. During the minister's estimates earlier this year, the minister stated that unless an agreement was reached by this summer – that's the summer just passed – for Northeastern coal, with contracts signed and negotiations consummated with markets, then probably the escalation of costs for development would put Northeastern coal out of the frame of development for some time to come, I wonder if the minister could now tell us whether this past summer an agreement has been signed for marketing of Northeastern coal. If so, where to?

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, negotiations for marketing are underway at this time with the Japanese.

MR. LEA: Also, during the estimates of the minister, he scoffed at the idea that further development of southeastern coal would not go ahead because of the slump in the steel production in Japan. Now that has happened; orders for coal from southeastern B.C. have been cancelled, are not going ahead. I would like to know whether or not the minister has met with industrial interests concerned in southeastern B.C. to talk over their situation, and what those answers have been. What are we looking forward to in coal in southeastern B.C.?

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're going through a short-term problem at this time with markets or with the production of steel in the world, of which Japan is a very eminent part. That steel production has caused the downturn in the demand for coal at this time, be it from southeastern British Columbia or be it from northeastern British Columbia. However, in view of the fact that the problem is temporary in nature, I am optimistic for the long range prospects for coal coming from British Columbia.

MR. LEA: Would the minister inform the House which interests in Japan B.C. is negotiating with at the moment for coal orders?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, as a government we're not negotiating a coal sale. It's a private company by the name of Denison.

MR. LEA: Is the government, then, Mr. Minister, involved in these negotiations with Denison and Japanese interests? Is the government involved and, if so, in what way?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

DISCUSSION OF BILL 42

AT UBCM CONVENTION

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mayor Muni Evers of New Westminster, past president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, has laid a serious charge of breach of promise against the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . I'm informed that on Friday, Mayor Evers of UBCM indicated that the executive of the UBCM, which strenuously opposes section 28 of Bill 42, said that the minister has given his promise to the executive of the UBCM to allow discussion of Bill 42 at the convention.

My first question, Mr. Speaker, regarding this apparent breach of promise by the minister to the

[ Page 5214 ]

UBCM is: did the minister in writing, or by any other means, give an undertaking to the executive of UBCM to delay passage of Bill 42 until it could be discussed at their convention September 21 to 23 of this year?

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. minister can disregard the expressions of opinion, but certainly he should answer the question that is before him.

HON. MR. CURTIS: "May, " Mr. Speaker, with respect. . .

Pushing aside all the speech, I understand the question. No, no firm commitment was made to delay passage of any legislation pending the annual conference of the UBCM. Mayor Evers has established a reputation recently for missing meetings but making lots of statements.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate – and I'm sure Mayor Evers will as well – the minister's reply.

Can the minister tell us whether or not he took an undertaking of any kind to discuss the bill in any form at the UBCM convention and, if so, in what form are those discussions to take place now that the bill has been passed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member r will recall that meetings were held with area associations of municipalities – Kootenay-Boundary, Okanagan, Vancouver Island, and so on – while the bill was on the order paper through the first months of this year. No change is contemplated with respect to the discussion of Bill – 42 and other legislation which affects municipalities at the UBCM. There will be a session. I think that was arranged and clearly understood. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it was expected, surely by the UBCM and perhaps by members of this assembly, that municipal legislation would have been passed long before last week.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if, in his opinion, Mr. Evers is incorrect or misleading in his statements that he assumed there was a commitment by the minister to discuss this before the convention.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Pretty iffy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question, and, therefore, the answer, are based solely on news reports. I've not had contact, nor has my office received a call from Mr. Evers in this regard.

MR. BARRETT: Will the minister contact Mr. Evers to discuss the statement in the paper with him, so that there will be clarification in the public's mind?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have frequent contact with a number of mayors in British Columbia and Mayor Evers can call me or I may call him.

MEL PAVING LEGAL COSTS

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): I would like to answer a question that was asked some time ago by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) with regard to the MEL Paving settlement: the total legal cost was $804,730. The settlement – the compensation payable under the contract – was $1,500, 000. The refund of security deposit, $273,242; funds on deposit in the Supreme Court of the Yukon Territories, $77,947; interest under Prejudgment Interest Act, $360,000; costs and disbursements, $288,811. That's a total of $2,500, 000.

With leave, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question asked the other evening by the member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: Dealing with the first question, the hon. member for Vancouver East would like to now proceed on the matter.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. The legal costs altogether were $804,000. That includes, I suppose, the $288,000 that was paid to Russell Du Moulin for the plaintiff; is that right?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that supplementary question as notice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no.

MR. MACDONALD: I might as well get my skis and go for the winter.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister wish to give a reply to a second question?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Go ahead.

BCR CONTRACT INFORMATION

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The first member for Vancouver Centre asked me to obtain certain information during the railway bill the other night. I'd like to supply that information today, albeit a little late. But I did try to contact the member at 5:30 on Thursday night, without success.

The Chinook Contracting and Engineering Ltd. contract awarded July 15,1976, in the amount of

[ Page 5215 ]

$10,268, 812; the value of work done as of April 6,1977, being the date of the termination of the contract – $5,999, 553.14. Value of work to complete the contract, therefore, would be $4,269, 259.

RELOCATION OF QUESNEL GREEN RESIDENTS

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): This question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. With reference to Quesnel Green, could the minister, and will he, give a guarantee to those residents who have decided to move from Quesnel Green because of the government's change in policy? I believe some of them will be relocated if they wish at the Metric new housing development. My question specifically is: will he guarantee that those who make that decision, if they do decide to move – that's still up in the air – will be given accommodation of equitable square footage to that which they had in Quesnel Green?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I am reluctant to say that they would be given equitable square footage because indeed that may not be the case, but the ministry is making every possible attempt to assist those who wish to relocate. Clearly if they were not satisfied with what was offered, then other accommodation would be sought. Whether it is the same size in each instance, I'm simply not prepared to indicate today. I would think, though, that is one of the logical criteria to be used in the relocation process.

NORTH THOMPSON FALL FAIR GRANT

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. According to public statements the North Thompson fall fair has been given a grant of $2,500, but I understand this grant has not been received. Can the minister tell me whether or not this grant is to be made and, if so, when?

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): I'll take the question as notice.

CONVENTION CANCELLATIONS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Would the Provincial Secretary confirm that there have been four major cancellations of conventions at the Hyatt Regency and the Bayshore, and also that the Harrison Hot Springs Hotel reports 11 major convention cancellations and other hotels have reported increased cancellations? Could she confirm that?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question, no, I cannot confirm those specifics in those specific hotels.

MRS. DAILLY: I know this is the minister's particular area of concern, about tourism, and I am sure that if this is a fact she should certainly be concerned, so I wonder when she does check on it if she can report back on these figures to the House and what policy perhaps, besides the smile campaign, she can consider to remedy it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Perhaps the hon. member would like to be apprised of the government's steps in regard to the U. S. anti-convention bill, which is really the cause of the cancellations.

The convention legislation has resulted in some cancellations – and I cannot confirm for which hotels although I can certainly get that information. There are specific conventions within British Columbia that have been cancelled because of the fact of the misunderstanding that emanates from a U.S. bill which precludes people allowing expenses for tax deductible expenses on their convention travelling.

Our stand has been that we have asked the dominion government – and it was as a result of the pressures from this government – to meet with the U.S. government to try to have Canada excluded from the legislation. In the meantime, Mr. Trudeau has met with Mr. Carter over this legislation. Mr. Chretien, the hon. minister of economic development, has met with his counterpart in Washington on it. It is a question of the two governments of Ottawa and Washington trying to come together and negotiate an exclusion for Canada at the behest of all of the provincial governments of which British Columbia has led the way in trying to get the negotiations underway.

In terms of how many have we lost, it is evident now to British Columbia that we are losing less at the present time because the U.S. convention planners are beginning to understand the legislation better. As the education of this particular programme is explained and the education gets to each of the convention planners, we find we can accommodate U.S. conventions very, very easily. As the hotels are beginning to understand the legislation, we are losing less than we did before.

There is a federal-provincial conference at the present time; it will begin tomorrow. We have a very strong plea at that conference, along with the other provincial governments, to the federal government regarding the same legislation.

Presenting petitions.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr.

[ Page 5216 ]

Speaker, I would like to ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia and the Legislature assembled:

"The petition of the undersigned residents of the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, humbly showeth that the Minister of Human Resources, the Hon. William Nick Vander Zalm, has issued many illogical and conflicting public statements in his attempts to justify Bill 65, which would abolish the Vancouver Resources Board."

The petition, Mr. Speaker, was signed by 72 organizations and by Mr. Broom, manager of the Bank of Montreal at Main and Hastings Streets; Mr. Draper, manager of the Royal Bank of Canada at 540 East Hastings Street; alderman Harry Rankin of the city of Vancouver; Mr. J. Power, president, Marine Workers and Boilermakers Industrial Union Local No. 1; Mr. Bruce Eriksen of the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association; Ms, Libby Davis of the same association; Ms. Jean Swanson and myself as a member of this Legislature. Shall I read the petition?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I draw your attention to standing order 73 (2): "On the presentation of the petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be allowed." However, I would say that does not preclude the reading of the petitioning words themselves, because they are the petition that you are about to present.

MS. BROWN: Right. I'd just like to read it and I checked standing order 73 before.

"The case for the people and for the Vancouver Resources Board appears in an editorial by Ken Kiernan entitled: 'Why Be Political?' in the August, 1977, Vol. 1, No. 4, issue of Unity News which is published by the B.C. Social Credit Party. It says: 'Why should I take an active part in any political organization? Why not leave it to the politicians to look after? We elected them to do the job, didn't we? If one attempts....’”

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I stand corrected, hon. member. Under standing order 73 (2) ....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Under standing order 73 (2) , the material that you may present is a reading of the prayer included with the petition. The petition may be found to be in order or not in order.

If it is found to be in order, hon. member, it will then be read out at the table of the House following that decision after presentation.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that is the usual way in which it is done, but I thought you had given me permission. You had specifically given me permission to read the petition and this is the reason why I proceeded.

MR. SPEAKER: I observe, hon. member, that I stand corrected.

MS. BROWN: I thought you were setting a precedent, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Not in any way, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Not at all? Okay, fine, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Not intentionally, at least.

MS. BROWN: I will accept responsibility for your error, Mr. Speaker, and read the prayer.

"Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your hon. House may be pleased to pass an Act for the purpose of the above-mentioned or to take such other action as may be desired and as is duty-bound your petitioner will ever pray." Dated the 6th day of September, 1977."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Introduction of bills.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 89 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ACT

Hon. Mr. Bawlf presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Recreational Facilities Act.

Bill 90 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 5217 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 91 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Second reading of Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

COLLEGES AND PROVINCIAL

INSTITUTES ACT

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I hope Bill 82 is not going to be discussed in second reading in the same context as Bill 33. However, I would like to welcome the five remaining members of the opposition who have stood here to hear some introductory remarks about this particular bill. While it may not, in the opinion of the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) , be the bill of the century, we certainly believe in the ministry that it is the bill of the decade. The preparation for the day in which our regional colleges and provincial institutions should become entities in their own name, be fully accountable for their actions, and have the autonomy and responsibility equivalent to some of our more senior university institutions has been this long in coming.

The legislation was developed after wide consultation. That consultation is still taking place today and will take place for many months into the future. This is a piece of legislation that we are keen to have work and work well. To that end, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to those members who are still in the House some individuals who have just today come over to present their views to the ministry on ways in which the legislation could be improved.

From the College Faculties Federation we have, in your gallery, sir, Mr. Fred Smith, Patrick Thomas, Gerry Ehman and Al Cone – all representing the College Faculties Federation. We have some representatives of the Employers Council who are also here today to give the minister and the ministry the benefit of their views.

The legislation itself is the result of almost 18 months of extremely hard work, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the deputy minister, Dr. Walter Hardwick; Mr. Andy Soles, who is the chief of our post-secondary division; others in the Ministry of Education; and many in the Ministry of Labour. The bill itself is really a joint effort between the two ministries.

We needed to appoint two commissions to tour the province and give us background information as to what would be needed for this particular legislation before we were in a position to draw up the specific components of it. The Winegard commission toured British Columbia on behalf of the academic side, looking particularly at articulation to the senior years. Of course, the Goard commission travelled the province looking at the vocational needs. The findings of these two commissions, in addition to some material that was already available when the government took office, have all been incorporated into this legislation, which, as I recall, went through more than 70 drafts.

I would like to set out, Mr. Speaker, something of the philosophy and the goals which underpin this legislation. We believe that the colleges should be comprehensive institutions, offering a wide variety of courses to meet both regional and provincial needs. We believe they should be accessible to students who may vary widely in their interests, their abilities and their academic preparation. We believe they should be responsive to the legitimate needs of the communities which they exist to serve and that they should be deeply concerned about enhancing the quality of life in their respective areas of the province. They should participate in the development and support of cultural and recreational activities. They should conduct information seminars, they should participate with the community in all facets of that community's life. To do this they need to have a full measure of autonomy and self-determination.

But above all, Mr. Speaker, we believe these institutions should prepare students for rewarding careers in business, industry or the social services. They should be capable of upgrading the academic and technical standards of those who need such upgrading. They should equip every student who seeks to have it with a marketable skill. In many ways, Mr. Speaker, the colleges have done quite a remarkable job in carrying out the mandate and making a significant contribution to the life of this province in the face of what all have agreed is inadequate legislation. Their efforts have been less co-ordinated than they should or could have been.

To improve the situation and provide truly effective vehicles for these colleges and institutions, we have developed within this legislation, two major instructional councils. These will operate in conjunction with a third council – the management advisory council – to provide needed administrative co-ordination. These councils will provide a means whereby our post-secondary department and others can receive the kind of useful input from people who are knowledgeable in the needs of the province for trained manpower. It will help us at the legislative

[ Page 5218 ]

level to establish our educational and our training priorities on a more informed basis. Finally, and this cannot be overlooked in the context of today, it will provide us with the information which we need to provide effective programmes in occupational and academic counselling. Again and again, it has been brought home to ministry officials and myself that we lack the capability in this province of giving good advice and counsel to our young people, to tell them what the opportunities and what responsibilities are, but above all, to give them this information which interests them vitally about their careers and what opportunities this province will have to offer them when they enter the world of work.

We will be appointing to these two instructional councils people who have a broad view of the educational and training needs of British Columbia and, indeed, of Canada – people who have a genuine interest in education, who have a sense of fiscal responsibility and some talent in management, people whose experience and expertise and leadership in their chosen occupation or profession is well recognized throughout the province.

The management advisory council will maintain a close relationship between the field and our senior ministry officials, ensuring that major decisions are not made in isolation from those whose responsibility will go to carry out the policy from within their institutions. It's a means by which we can develop the essential ongoing communication.

The role of college councils will be clarified. They'll be called college boards; they will be established as corporate entities. Up to this time, these college councils have simply been agents of participating school boards, from which the council was constituted. In some cases, as many as eight school boards were involved in a single council. While that made for a broad base for decision making, when one considered the different interests of each of these school boards, the college council as an independent entity was often handicapped in furthering the interests of the region as a whole.

In the matter of financial support, the new legislation corrects an inconsistency which has existed in the financing of post-secondary education in this province since the inception of the colleges some 12 years ago. Only for educational programmes at the college level, and only, Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia, have local taxpayers been required to pay directly a portion of the cost of post-secondary education. It has been a gross inequity on the part of local taxpayers in the rural areas of British Columbia. This bill will assure 100 per cent of the operating costs. This inconsistency will remove in excess of $20 million per year from the local tax burden.

Nevertheless, the new legislation makes it possible for every school district to be a part of a college region and thereby receive college services. Up to this point, a number of school districts in. the province have been left out of this important process: Princeton, Creston, Sooke, Saanich and others. Now they will all be included; they will have opportunities for representation on the college board.

In some cases, Mr. Speaker, the individual school districts do better than that. They have opportunities for representation on two boards in situations where geographical or transportation factors suggest the wisdom of an arrangement of this kind. The new legislation clarifies the relationship between the colleges and the Universities Council. The Universities Council also has jurisdiction for the overlapping area: the first two years of university programmes. The academic council under this Act will operate through that Universities Council.

Our universities, as far as the academic side of these comprehensive college programmes are concerned, are the recipients of the product, and therefore the universities potentially have the power to make or break the academic programme at a college by whether or not they accept that product as having received the equivalent credit for the student, as if the programmes had been taken right at that university. By making the academic council for these colleges work through the Universities Council, we can assure that these programmes will be co-ordinated and that universities will accept, with full transferability of credit, the academic programmes at our colleges. It's very vital that we have this articulation, that protection be built in for the colleges, but at the same time a mechanism for accountability exists.

The new legislation makes it mandatory that college performance may be assessed or reviewed every five years. Maybe that's something we should have for our universities as well. When the bill for education is as great as it is, surely the review process should not only result in giving the public a greater measure of confidence in the value received for these huge amounts that we lay out in education each year, but give the colleges themselves the confidence that comes with having outside evaluation of their programmes and having passed that with flying colours.

For the first time, Mr. Speaker, faculty and students will have the legal means of participating in the development of curriculum and educational policy through the establishment in each college of a programme advisory committee on which both faculty and students will serve. We think it extremely important that the advice of the professionals who provide the educational service, and the students who receive it be properly taken into account in the administrative decision-making of the institution.

The bill makes it possible for us to achieve a new rationalization and co-ordination of the programmes offered. At the present time a number of programmes

[ Page 5219 ]

similar in content, but bearing a variety of titles or designations, exists. This is confusing to potential employers. It makes it difficult for the graduates because they have to communicate often exactly what the credentials they've obtained may mean. Under this new Act the ministry has the authority to establish provincial certificates and to bring some standardization to the programmes offered. This will be distinctly in the interests of the students, of course, Mr. Speaker. With any educational institution, it's the acceptability of the graduates that really makes the reputation of the institution. So, indirectly it's going to be a tremendous boon to the institutions as well.

Mr. Speaker, in an innovative way, the bill addresses the whole troubled area of personnel relations for the first time, faculty will have some real alternatives in settling matters related to their salaries and benefits, the terms of appointment and employment. There's a good deal of confusion at the present time. At some colleges there are as many as three instructional unions. Hours and hours, days, weeks or months can be taken up with negotiations. This exercise can encroach upon the time needed for vital educational matters. It can build up adversarial relationships. It can create a climate of confrontation. All of this, Mr. Speaker, strikes at the very essence of what an educational community should be devoted to doing as a common enterprise.

Faculties will have full choice as to whether they wish to pursue the professional or the trade union route.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, without destroying grassroots initiative or dampening enthusiasm, or destroying entrepreneurship at the local or institutional levels, Bill 82 provides a means of broadening the mandate of the college to serve all of the province as well as continuing in a major way to serve their own regions. It brings a new sense of order and direction to a vitally important and exciting area of education.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, it provides a sound base upon which we can build for the future. Therefore I move second reading of Bill 82.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the minister and we appreciate the fact that he did give us some opening remarks, although, in listening to his remarks, I could hardly relate them to the bill which is before us, It is most interesting – the great areas of controversy which he so glibly skipped over.

Mr. Speaker, he opened his remarks, as you recall, by calling this the "bill of the decade." I would like to ask him which decade? After looking at this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this bill has returned us back two decades in the history of community colleges in this province. I say that, Mr. Speaker, not only speaking personally here as a member of the opposition, but in reflection and reflecting from the many points of view which have been heard from, from many of the people who have spent years of their lives in trying to develop a community college system in this province that would be unique. They did accomplish it and it has become known throughout the world. I know when I was minister, many visitors used to come to my office to discuss the community college programme in the province of British Columbia.

In this bill this minister seems determined to destroy the original concept of the community college. It is interesting to note that the new bill doesn't even have the word community in it any more; it just refers to colleges. I think it is tragic that those people who put in all those years of hard work are now going to find that the college system in this province is no longer going to be given an opportunity to reflect the true needs of the people of the community, Mr. Speaker. This minister has seen to that by the legislation he is presenting here today. It is centralized legislation. I don't know why the minister doesn't level with us right here in the House and tell us that is the direction that he, as minister, wishes to take the colleges of this province, It is centralization. There is no question about it and it is probably, ultimately, leading to further centralization in other areas such as salary negotiations.

It was interesting when the minister mentioned that the bill was a combination of 18 months of work. I do think, in all fairness, the minister could have referred to the fact that under the NDP government we first initiated a task force on the whole preparation of a college Act. That task force, Mr. Speaker, travelled this province to get community input, Yet, here we have the minister presenting a bill where, in very few areas, do I see any reflection of the true community feeling that he received response from. He must have had reports on it; the report was published. No attention seems to have been paid at all to what the community said about community colleges. In almost every area of this bill, we see a repudiation of the participation which the NDP attempted to give to the people of this province to help create a new Community College Act.

Before I go on to more specific remarks on the bill – and I will keep to principle in second reading, Mr. Speaker – I do want to make this other point. I think it is absolutely shocking that there are many educational groups in this province who knew when this bill was going to be debated in this House, The minister informed other groups outside this province basically when this bill would be coming forward. But the members of the opposition had approximately two days – not even that much – warning. As you know, Mr. Speaker, legislation and order of legislation is changed wry quickly, even overnight, in this Legislature.

[ Page 5220 ]

Here we are debating a bill, We knew it was out and certainly we have done our work, but I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that when other groups are given the information before the members of the Legislature I consider it complete disrespect by that minister for the members of this Legislature.

The other appalling thing is that in meeting with some of the groups on this bill, I understand that the minister has stated that following second reading approval, representatives of his ministry will be moving out to discuss the bill. The main purpose, Mr. Speaker, of those meetings – and I would like to read this – will be to enable the ministry to gain input for the development of regulations for the Act. Shades of the discussion of Bill 33 all over again. That means, therefore, that we are being asked as members of this Legislature to debate a bill which the minister has quite openly suggested may possibly have changes made, but they will be done by regulation in conjunction with the complete educational community involved.

Well, I'm glad he's having discussions with them after the bill has been brought in, but we're asked to stand here and debate a bill which could perhaps be changed completely with no input from the members of the opposition. It's an arrogant way of handling legislation and this minister has done it twice to us, with Bill 33, and now again with this Act. After all, I suppose this is really just a waste of the minister's time to have to debate this bill in the House and perhaps it is a waste of ours as members of the opposition, if the regulations and changes are going to be discussed after we leave this place. So, really what are we dealing with? If the minister has made these suggestions that there are going to be regulations I think he should by now, after all these months of study, be able to have an Act before us. It shouldn't need travelling around the province for a whole lot of regulation changes. Why didn't he move around the province as we had planned to do following the preparation of a working paper on the bill? We intended to get input from all involved in producing our working paper.

This Act has been produced in relative secrecy as far as I know, and now there are a few crumbs being handed out to the groups which are very aggrieved and concerned that they can come in and speak to the minister now, when the bill is before the House. Yes, I can see there have been meetings with the deputy minister and perhaps the odd one with the minister, by the groups involved, but it was mostly input coming from the groups with very little output from the minister. I must say that I'm shocked but maybe I shouldn't be, because we know this minister, we know his manner, his arrogance in dealing with legislation in this House and his treatment of the opposition.

I would like to start going through, without being too specific, a reaction to some of the points made by the minister in his opening remarks. I find it so ironic that the minister states that one of the main purposes of the new boards which have been established by this minister in this legislation will be to work with the community. This is really an ironic statement, Mr. Speaker, when he has stripped the college boards of this province of any real decision-making powers, whatsoever. Do you know, basically, what is left to the college boards of this province? To hire the principal. Very little else, because every other decision they make has to be checked and counter checked and approved by the various councils which this minister has set up.

The minister can see across the floor here that this map, if we really look at it, is just a design of the convoluted pattern of approval-making which the boards must go through before they can actually find out what decisions have been made, and what they can do. It's a jigsaw puzzle. It's going to create chaos and confusion in this province and yet this minister says that he's given them more autonomy. Hogwash, Mr. Minister. I would wonder why anyone would want to serve on a college board of this province with so little to do. The interesting thing is they can hire the principal, and the principal is their employee and yet the minister at the same time has set up a management committee comprised of the principals of the community colleges who in turn will be making decisions on what the college boards will do. I ask you, Mr. Minister, have we ever had such a situation before where the chief executive officer hired by the college board actually has more decision-making power than the board members who have employed him?

Then we look at the faculties and their input. They have been stripped of it completely. I would like and hope that the minister, when he completes second reading debate, would explain to us what difference there is between a university board and a college board. Is the college board really a second-class citizen group? Is that what he is telling us through this legislation?

The university faculty has the right to elect members of the board of governors. Even the non-academic faculty has representation brought in under the NDP administration, and yet this college legislation does not allow for any direct participation on the new college boards established by this minister. It has been stripped from the faculties and the interesting thing to look at is, the NDP brought in that original legislation which gave the right for faculties and non-academics to sit on university boards. I don't think we've had any complaints. I think that by and large it has boosted the morale of the university. It did the same with BCIT, who also have the right to elected members, and I think it has done nothing but good. It has made everyone feel part of

[ Page 5221 ]

the institution. This minister is determined, however, to strip even this away. After all he wants to run it – let's not have any doubts about this – this minister's intention is to have complete control and centralize educational systems in this province.

It's interesting to note what he's done to BCIT. Yes, BCIT went through a number of struggles. Any time you create a new Act there are problems, but they have settled down. BCIT is functioning very well under the statute created by the NDP and yet, for some unknown reason, this minister has decided to strip them of that and repeal the statute. He's decided to move BCIT in with this Act that he's produced here today. For what reason? Why? Is he dissatisfied with BCIT? I think he owes it to BCIT to explain why they have had this stripped away from them. BCIT was working very well. It's a unique institution. They certainly should have articulation with the colleges, but to put them under the same Act.... I think the minister has an explanation to make to this Legislature and to BCIT as to why he has done this,

But once again, the minister glossed over all this when he spoke. As I say, you would hardly know he was talking about the bill in front of us. There's no question, Mr. Speaker, that the thrust to centralization is inherent in this bill, as it is in almost every other department of this government. The establishment of the provincial councils, no matter how the minister may rationalize it, gives little doubt of this trend to centralization.

Now I know that to move in on centralization may make the minister's job easier – he's not going to have to have to respond to the local community and the local boards. He's going to be able to make the decisions. But making it easier for the minister is not creating a better educational programme in our colleges in this province. Easy handling, less problems – the minister has obviously put that ahead of the true needs of the communities of this province.

I note that he has denied the right, as I said before, for faculty and student representation on the boards and on BCIT. Now he says there will be a mandatory programme advisory committee. But what's lacking – which we will go into in more detail in the committee stage and which I hope the minister will discuss – is what are the terms of reference of this committee he's talking about in the Act and what's the procedure by which the faculty and student representation will be chosen? It's very vague; very vague. Yet it's become an accepted thing that the employees should have an opportunity to sit on boards of management.

This minister talks about this being the bill of the decade when he's moved us right back again to the old days of the Socreds when they looked askance at direct decision-making done by faculty and students. That doesn't mean that the faculty and students should be in complete charge. No way, Mr. Speaker; I have never adhered to that. But certainly they have a right to an elected position and some input into the management decisions, and that's been taken away from them.

I think the minister should explain to us why he's taken it away, For what reason? I accept the fact that it wasn't there until the Act came in. But the minister is well aware that in all community task force discussions, generally speaking, it certainly came through that faculty and students certainly expect and hope for election on the boards. Not just because they asked for it, Mr. Speaker, am I supporting it, because I know sometimes as minister you can't accede to every wish of every group in the academic community. That I concede. But the minister only has to look, as I said earlier, at UBC, Simon Fraser and UVic, which do have this right for elected representatives.

I would like him to be able to tell us if there are any problems. And if there are problems, then he better be fair and equitable. He better stand up and remove this same right from those boards or else he is saying: "I believe it's wrong, but I believe that the universities have a special place in this province, over and above the college system." You can't have it both ways, Mr. Minister. Level with us. If you don't believe in faculty and student representation, then why the universities and not the colleges?

When I say that, I most certainly hope that the minister will give some reconsideration to this very bad area of his Act, Knowing this minister, I don't know. He's dumped this bill here today; he's had very little consultation. It's obvious what way he's going so, frankly, I have very little hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will see any major changes. I want to reiterate again: if he does bring in any changes, obviously, as a member of the opposition, I'm not going to be privy to the discussions. I think it would be better if we just folded our tents and went away, as far as that minister is concerned. We certainly don't intend to, Mr. Speaker, because it's the job of the opposition, whether the minister believes in oppositions or not, to speak our piece here. What a change from the days when he was over on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this whole problem of the councils which he has set up is really causing great concern to most of the educational community involved out there. One particular area is the whole matter of establishment of academic programmes, and the concern that the Universities Council must weigh college academic budgets against similar submissions from the universities. It might be argued, Mr. Speaker, with some justification that the colleges could express concern, as I'm sure they will, at their chances of success in budget allotment. I think the minister had better be able, to allay the fears of the colleges on this, but I don't know how he can because he set up the structure.

[ Page 5222 ]

Now the Universities Council will have the right, then, to weigh the academic requirements, Mr. Speaker, of the community college versus those of the universities. And what chance and what justification and what rationale is going to be used here, and what guarantee is there going to be that the community colleges are going to get their fair share of the budget? And why has the minister done it? Why has he done it? Is it his university bias showing through again? It appears to be. And what specific criteria, Mr. Speaker, will be used by the councils in determining which course or which programme shall be funded in which college?

There is going to be a lot of rigidity in the procedure. I think the whole hope of the community college people was that some of the rigidity would be removed. But instead I think we're going to find more rigidity created in the whole procedure that this minister has, presented us with in this Act. Imaginative and innovative submissions can suffer a very serious disadvantage, and that was the essence of the community college in the province of British Columbia.

I think there is going to be a great deal of frustration and delay – far more than we ever had before. I just once again have to say that I think we have to look at the design of this college on one sheet of paper, this college Act, to see the utter chaos which the college boards will be faced with. But I don't think it really matters because the college boards, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, have really one major job and that's to hire the principal who can turn around and tell them what to do.

The college administrators, Mr. Speaker, will be required to divide budget requests based on academic and occupational curricula. And then we have the third body, as I mentioned earlier, the management advisory council, which will review financial requests for capital development, libraries and support services, and presumably the continuing education programme. Now if this is the way it's going to operate according to this Act, which budget, for example, includes the salary of a faculty member who teaches English – and I hope the minister will be able to answer this – to a class which includes university transfer, nurses and technical programme students?

The minister has the power to designate the appropriate council responsibility for various programmes, and it's going to be very, very interesting because, with the minister really in full power, in control, we're going to have an opportunity finally to find out what his educational philosophy is. After all, he's decided to run the system.

I think the biggest problem is going to be that management committee. I don't think the college principals who've been placed on it are really happy with it, Mr. Speaker, because perhaps they're going to be too close. They're going to have a conflict of interest because what they know are the community needs of their college against being put into a highly centralized provincial decision-making area.

Mr. Speaker, the personnel relations and the bargaining sections of this Act are unbelievable. The minister has created a whole new Labour Code for the faculties and the employees of the colleges and the provincial institutions of this province – a whole new Labour Code. I wonder how this went by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) .

I think he has a lot of explaining to do. He has actually told groups that if there are any complaints about this abridging the Labour Code, his Act is the superior Act and will make the final decisions. So with one swoop in this Act he has created a new code of collective bargaining arrangements for the colleges and the provincial institutions of this province.

One could only suggest that only a person with the great desire for power and complete control could ever bring in an Act such as faces us here today to debate in this very short time that we've been given, Mr. Speaker. It certainly points to a trend toward provincial bargaining. I think the minister should stand up in second reading, as I said earlier, and level with the college people in this province that he does want to centralize, that he does want to have control. Then everyone can go back to their merry way. The college boards can forget about having any real decision making and perhaps, come another time later, there will be an opportunity, through another government, Mr. Speaker, to give back decision making to the people who understand it, who've used it well in the last years.

I do hope again that the minister, when he stands up, would explain to us why he has ignored the community task force report that was initiated under the NDP. Why didn't he produce a working paper for discussion to avoid this frantic, last-minute running over by groups to the minister, hoping that the Minister will bring in some changes?

We know this minister. He doesn't intend to bring in changes here to be debated by the members of the Legislature. If he's going to bring in changes, he's going to bring them in on his own, at his own time, discussing it with the educational community but giving no opportunity for the members of the opposition to take part in a proper debate on this bill which he's put before us today.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there was no question that a new college Act was needed in this province – no question at all. That's why I want to repeat that we initiated the development of one when we were in office. But to be standing here in September, 1977, and have presented to us this so-called bill of the decade, which is really returning us back 20 years in our community college system in this province, is really a tragedy. This minister is responsible for it and, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it fits in with the

[ Page 5223 ]

pattern of this minister – his complete disregard for what the people out there want to see. He's decided which route he's going and obviously he's hoping this debate will end quickly so he can go on his merry way. But, Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of other members in this Legislature in the opposition who have quite a bit to say about this bill, particularly when we hit committee stage, I think it's one of the most disappointing bills of the decade. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I'm very concerned about the bill that's being considered for second reading this afternoon, particularly from the industrial relations viewpoint, and that's what I propose to address my remarks to this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, I find a very alarming trend – I suppose one could call it a characteristic – about this government with respect to a number of statutes that have been introduced during this current session. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that the general law of the land is acceptable for the majority of the citizens but when it comes to the government, they do not feel obliged to adhere to and recognize the same standard of law that applies to the citizens of the province. As a consequence, the minister decides to write a new Labour Code to suit his purposes when the government has a particular interest in the area being discussed.

I find the bill before us, Bill 82, to be most objectionable from a variety of standpoints, but fundamentally because it sets out a new standard, a new framework of law for a select group. It is not the position of the government apparently to adhere to the general law that applies to all others in the province, both in the private sector and with respect to working people particularly. This is bad law, in my view. I think it's dangerous law when we see retroactive legislation or when we see selective legislation, legislation that applies on a selective basis to some people in the province but not to others.

Surely if the government has any confidence in the Labour Code of British Columbia, then the Labour Code should be the framework of law by which people attain certification and under which they bargain collectively in this province. Instead we see the government, when it suits their own narrow purposes and their own selfish interests, insert into new statutes a new and selective framework of law that is applicable for their own narrow purposes.

One of the general tenets of industrial relations is that there should be an impartiality with respect to the acquisition and termination of bargaining rights. The government should not be involved in designating by statute what is an appropriate bargaining unit or what is an appropriate union to represent working people. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the Labour Relations Board has been set up. It's a quasi-judicial agency which is at arm's length from government. It is staffed by people who are independent of government, people who are well versed in industrial relations, representing the business community, the trade union community, and the legal community of industrial relations and labour law.

The whole theory of the independence of the Labour Relations Board is to bring about impartiality in terms of the decision-making that must go on. I'm sure that everyone knows, in this day and age, Mr. Speaker, that industrial relations is a most complex issue of high conflict between groups in society. Therefore if order is to be preserved when decisions are made, it must be seen that those decisions are made after a fair and impartial hearing by people who can consider the evidence, consider the root causes of conflict and come forward with decisions that are both judicious and, above all, impartial.

But what we have before us now, Mr. Speaker, is a bill that completely bypasses that whole process and applies a new framework of law to the regional colleges. It is a framework of law where the government, in the most arbitrary, autocratic and high-handed fashion, designates a restricted choice in terms of who shall represent the professional staff in the first instance, and one that also uses parameters and guidelines that are completely outside the Labour Code of British Columbia. In other words, the general rule of law is thrown overboard and a very selective and autocratic mechanism is brought in to replace it.

As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely repugnant when government brings in, as this one has been very wont to do, legislation that is retroactive, in some cases, and selective. Surely good law, as a fundamental premise, should be applicable equally to every person and every corporation in the province. There should not be selective lawmaking.

We have before us, Mr. Speaker, three statutes that have been tabled in this House that, in effect, embody a new Labour Code, applicable to a select group of people in the province who this government wants to deprive of the general applicability of the law that affects all the rest of the citizens of the province of B.C. I find this an absolutely unforgivable approach. I find it, as I said, autocratic and high-handed and I find it divisive, too, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder what the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has to say about this bill. He is the custodian of labour law – generally and historically – in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not even here.

MR. KING: He is the man who must protect the integrity and the credibility of industrial relations in the province. He is the individual who is most responsible for the climate of industrial relations attitudes that prevail in the province. He is the

[ Page 5224 ]

individual who must take the responsibility for developing a more stable climate of industrial relations, one that would allow our industry and commerce to function without the incidence of too many interruptions. But he is more than that, Mr. Speaker. He is the individual who must take the responsibility for guaranteeing the rights of working people in the province.

I'm glad that he's just entered the chamber because I'm extremely curious to find out what the Minister of Labour's reaction is to these bills which usurp his jurisdiction and fly completely in the face of the basic concepts contained in the Labour Code of British Columbia. The Minister of Labour, after all, is responsible for guaranteeing the rights of working people to join the trade union of their own choice.

Mr. Speaker, under this statute, professional staff in the regional colleges no longer have the right to choose the organization to represent them in the collective bargaining system. The minister, in his high-handed and autocratic way, has interfered with the fundamental right of working people in this province to choose the organization or the vehicle that they think is most effective in representing them. Now it's true they've got a choice to some degree, but it's a selective choice, Mr. Speaker. It's a very selective choice.

HON. MR. McGEER: What's selective, about it?

MR. KING: I would point out to the Minister of Education that in the normal context of labour law in this province, a group of workers is free to select one of a number of trade unions having jurisdiction in their area, or they're free to kick them out through a decertification process. They are free to organize a new trade union if they so wish. But under this particular statute, Mr. Speaker, the minister, apparently out of a desire to prohibit the danger of fragmented bargaining, is restricting the agencies that the workers can choose to represent them. That is the destruction of a basic freedom, Mr. Speaker.

You know, it's fine for the Minister of Education with his academic theories to question the things that working people hold very fundamental and dear. But I want to say....

HON. MR. McGEER: Tell us how you set it up at ICBC.

MR. KING: Well, I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. Under the ICBC, it was a new corporation; it wasn't an interference with existing trade unions and units. There was an opportunity for the Workers there to decide, through the Labour Code and through the Labour Relations Board, the choice of the organization they wanted to represent them, precisely. I want to say....

HON.MR. McGEER: You forced them into one union.

MR. KING: That's not true.

HON. MR. McGEER: Certainly you did. I'm not criticizing you for it; I just say sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

MR. KING: Well, it's not true, You don't understand the framework, apparently. But I want to say this, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. McGEER: You've got selective understanding.

MR. KING: At least I have an understanding for the concerns and rights of working people in this province. I want to say that the Minister of Education with his arrogant attitude has demonstrated little concern, regard, or understanding – none whatsoever.

I do not argue, Mr. Speaker, with the objective of trying to prevent a bunch of fragmented units and innumerable rounds of bargaining, where you have the propensity for whipsawing; that's poor industrial relations. It's not good business from any standpoint. But I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is still the fundamental right of working people to organize a trade union if they wish, and to join it within the parameters of the law; to throw out that organization if it's not representative of them and to choose a new one whether it's an existing one or a newly organized one. The problems with fragmentation can be remedied through provisions already in the Labour Code, and perhaps, if the Minister of Education would talk to his former Liberal colleague, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , he would start to understand that there are mechanisms in the code to come to grips with those problems. What we've got is the chaos of four different labour codes in this province under this coalition. Perhaps that's why we're getting the fragmentation of policy by this government because they're made up themselves of a fragmented coalition. Perhaps they don't talk to each other, Mr. Speaker. I have some sympathy for them if they don't, because I can think of better people to talk to.

Mr. Speaker, there's no rhyme nor reason to the framework brought forward in the bill that's before us. The bill not only goes into restricting the right of workers to determine their own organization. It goes into another area, which is the parameters of bargaining. A new concept is introduced altogether in terms of the collective-bargaining process, I forget what he euphemistically refers to it as. I believe it's.... Oh, yes. It's the "fair-comparison method." Mr. Speaker, I know something about the "fair-comparison method." I presume the minister

[ Page 5225 ]

was talking to some of the academic community in the Maritimes, because that's where that concept emanated from. It emanated from a professor who lectures in labour law at, I believe, Dalhousie University. In fact, it has been introduced to some degree in the Maritimes, where their wage scales and where their standard of living are comparable to our minimum wage laws in the province of British Columbia ...

HON. MR. McGEER: Not for academics.

MR. KING: . . . and where trade union organization is at an absolute minimum, because of reactionary policies of former Liberals, Mr. Speaker. That's the last place in the country, if one will recall, where the RCMP were called out to prevent the workers from organizing their own union in the woods industry down in the Maritimes.

HON. MR. McGEER: Academics are well paid.

MR. KING: So to apply a new concept of labour....

HON. MR. McGEER: Academics are as well paid there as here.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's too bad that under our system, working, productive people were not more handsomely rewarded and some of the haywire ideas...

HON. MR. McGEER: You should go down there and organize.

MR. KING: ... that are voiced in this institution by some academics were not brought in to better perspective. That's a regrettable fact of life, I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, this kind of thing, laid down as a yardstick and guideline in this bill, is absolutely unacceptable. I do not disagree with experimentation in terms of labour relations. I think some experimentation is a great thing, but I suggest that experimentation should be undertaken by some people who know something about it. Obviously the Minister of Education has no sense of the history of the trade union movement in this province. He has no sense of nor understanding of industrial relations and new concepts that are coming forward- If anyone is to experiment, I suggest it should be the Ministry of Labour, not the Ministry of Education. The idea that professional staff are tied down under this framework is really a continuation of the wage freeze in the province of British Columbia under the guise of a new system of collective bargaining. The government is saying in effect: "Here's the funding we're prepared to provide, and here's a formula for determining how that'll be apportioned out by reference to what they call 'comparable functions' in the private sector, "

Mr. Speaker, the free-market aspect of collective bargaining is removed with this tool. Who is it removed by? It is removed by a government which says that it believes in the open-market system. They are supposed to be free entrepreneurs. The irony is, Mr. Speaker, this gang of free entrepreneurs believe in freedom of the market for the guys with the money and the corporations, but it is much too good for the working people of the province. It's much too good for them or the small businessman. The worker is no longer free to bargain the price that he will accept for his labour. Certainly not the professional employee. He is required now to go through a government development test called the fair-comparison method. He's obliged to go through this process and justify, by comparison with other functions, the wage he's demanding for his labour, his service and his intellect.

I want to ask, Mr. Speaker: is the Minister of Education prepared to set his own compensation levels on the basis Of Comparison with other functions in society? I think that would be a most interesting exercise. That is something that we might well look at in this institution sometime. What are the functions of working people? What are the functions of everyone in our society to be valued at? The irony is that the Minister of Education is prepared to set a limitation and an evaluation on the functions of working people, but let everybody else be free to demand all that the traffic will bear. Let the hotline demand his $200,000 a year; let the professor at UBC demand his $54 000 a year and use computers on the side to make a little bit more to feather his nest in the private sector. Let the hockey star sign contracts for $4 million. But by golly, when it comes to the old working stiff negotiating what he believes to be a fair return on his labour, the only commodity he has at his disposal, we are going to restrict him, The open market is too good for him. What a bunch, Mr. Speaker.

There are a number of other things here, Mr. Speaker, which I want to address myself to in terms of the selectivity of this bill. The bill apparently refers to some disputes that may ensue. I want to tell you that these disputes are going to be myriad, because this is an amateur bill in terms of industrial relations. I predict, Mr. Speaker, with regret, that there is going to be chaos in the regional colleges when it come to, first of all, determining certification, and secondly, when it comes to bargaining agreement. I see that in many clauses the minister has referred the problems to the Labour Relations Board. How can the Labour Relations Board apply legislation that is completely alien to them? Their authority resides under the Labour Code of British Columbia.

The Minister of Education tells us that when it

[ Page 5226 ]

comes to conflict between this statute and the Labour Code, the Colleges Act supersedes the Labour Code. There are going to be constant tests of the Labour Relations Board's authority to even determine some of the references the minister has made to them. I'm appalled at the sloppy draftsmanship and at the lack of thought that has gone into sections of this bill and others.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what that gang has been doing when they sit for hours in that cabinet room framing legislation in isolation from communications or dialogue with the people that legislation is set to control. I don't know what they have been doing. This is the gang that was swept into power on December 11,1975, suggesting that they were a competent, businesslike administration. My God, Mr. Speaker, when I see some of the provisions in the statutes they have brought into this House, it terrifies me. The main beneficiaries are going to be the fraternity to which the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) belongs: the legal fraternity. They will make millions of bucks like the contractors did up in the BCR, millions of bucks off the sloppy draughtsmanship contained in many of the statutes this government has brought in.

I want to ask the minister one question, Mr. Speaker. I'm not getting into the sections of the bill. I'm talking about the first part of it, where we see the designation of a professional employee, I wish he would tell me what the intent is of that section. "Professional employee means an employee of an institution who provides educational services directly or indirectly to students, and includes an employee who is a librarian or an administrator."

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer; I'm a humble railroader. But I have had some experience with industrial relations, and according to my interpretation, that section includes the janitor and it includes the steam engineer, because they certainly provide a service indirectly to the students through the maintenance of the institution. I want to ask the minister if it is his intent that we now have lumped together in one bargaining agency the professor giving his lectures and the janitor cleaning the floors in the institution. Somebody has to make that interpretation; who is it going to be?

There's a complete departure from the normal terms that have been tested in the courts, that have been tested in industrial relations cases not only in B.C. but also nationally, and there's a complete departure from the language that has been tested and interpreted through industrial relations tribunals.

I want to warn the minister that he's heading for chaos in terms of even determining the unit and the employees contained in that unit. I wonder if the minister has talked to his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) . The Minister of Labour has a device in the Labour Code which is intended and designed to come to grips with the problem of fragmentation. If there's a multiplicity of trade unions in any industry, our government, when we were in office, took the position that we were not going to interfere with workers' rights to join the union of their choice, but we think it's wrong for them to whipsaw at the bargaining table with round after round of bargaining in the same industry, so we appealed to their responsibility. We said: "Look, either come together and bargain as a unit maintaining the flexibility to have your own organization, or we'll put you together for the purposes of collective bargaining only." We introduced sections 57 and 58 of the Labour Code which allowed us to do precisely that.

I want to ask the Minister of Education: why didn't he rely on the same mechanism to solve the problem that he anticipated in the colleges? It's there; it's available ' it's well thought out; it's tested and it has been proven workable in some cases in B.C. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that beyond that it certainly acted as an inducement for the trade union movement to be responsible and to recognize that it can't play the Russian roulette game in terms of bargaining and having five or six different unions all with the propensity to shut down an industry in a given year.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, I think that if any more showed up in the House it would contribute that much to the understanding of this chamber, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. I don't think it would help at all. I just wish the cabinet would start speaking to one another. It's incredible that here we have the Minister of Education introducing labour law – ill-advised, ill-prepared labour law – and we have the Minister of Labour sitting there with a face a foot-and-a-half long sulking at him. He won't speak to him. They have no communication. The result is chaos for the people in this community.

MR. BARRETT: Three ex-Liberals and they don't even talk to each other after switching parties.

MR. KING: I don't know why they don't talk to each other.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Minister of Education that I'm going to have a great deal to say on this bill when it comes to the committee stage the section-by-section examination of the statute because it doesn't hold water. I would hope that the Minister of Labour, before that time, would start discussing it with his colleague, the Minister of Education, and point out to him that not only is it full of flaws in terms of the credibility of this approach, but also there's another very damaging and

[ Page 5227 ]

important dimension to it, Mr. Speaker. That other important and very damaging dimension is the threat that this bill poses to the rest of industrial relations in the province.

How can any industry or trade union rest secure today knowing that this government is capable of, and apparently prone to, introducing selective legislation applicable to small groups, changing the ground rules for small groups? How can the forest industry, for instance, test secure that the ground rules of the labour law in this province are equitable, fair and applicable to all workers? They have to feel threatened themselves when they see this approach taken to a select group of people in the colleges.

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that there are not only going to be reverberations down the road from the colleges, who feel the main brunt of this approach to industrial relations, but there are also going to reverberations and real problems created in the general industrial relations community of B.C. I'll tell you what that results in. It results in a climate of instability. It results in a climate of fear and uncertainty. It makes people jumpy, you know, When that happens, you're not going to get thoughtful, co-operative relationships with industry and the trade union movement, because they feel threatened. That is the concern of the Minister of Labour because he is the general custodian of industrial relations, and he should be concerned.

I can't fathom for the life of me why he has sat idly by and allowed these incursions into his jurisdiction to continue in statute after statute introduced in the House this session. He has sat silent; he has not made a public statement indicating that the integrity of the Labour Code in the province of British Columbia is secure and that he will defend it. Instead he sits silently and watches the erosion of rights that the working people should generally and totally enjoy in the province of British Columbia. I predict major problems, Mr. Speaker.

I think I'll let it go at that for now and deal more extensively with the specific objections I have during committee stage of the bill.

MR. STUPICH: I couldn't let this particular legislation go through without saying something, in view of the fact that one of the regional colleges is located in my constituency. I was going to say it's one of the more successful ones, but I'm not sure that's true. I just don't know enough about the activities of the others; I don't know the extent to which they have been accepted in their communities as educational institutions. But I do know something about the beginning of it, the way it has carried on and something of its plans for the future.

I was one of the people originally invited to be a member of the steering committee when this institution was first being proposed, not necessarily for Nanaimo but for somewhere in the mid-island area. I did participate in that programme along with quite a wide committee from the community. The people who were managing the campaign were hoping that they could generate a lot of interest in the minds of the public about what was to British Columbia a relatively new concept – a way of bringing higher education closer to people who might wish to take part, a way of trying to arrange for that particular type of education to perhaps more adequately reflect the needs and desires of the people in that community, not simply the community where it's located but the community that it was designed to serve.

I was sold on the concept very early and I did my best to help the committee working on this to sell the idea to the people of Nanaimo and surrounding areas successfully. There was a lot of concern, a lot of suspicion at the time that people were being asked to sign a blank cheque on what would very soon be reflected in their taxes. There was a lot of concern about that, although all we were doing at that time was trying to sell the idea of a plebiscite where the voters would say whether or not, without getting into the specifics and without considering whether or not it was going to be something that would be paid for later, they agreed with the concept of a regional college. At that time not all of the school districts participated but most of them did agree with the concept and did support it.

I thought at the time that such an institution should be entirely supported by the senior levels of government financially. During the 1972 election campaign, the NDP did promise that with the election of an NDP government we, would move very quickly to take over the Complete responsibility at the provincial level for capital costs associated with regional colleges in the province of British Columbia. One of the very early Acts of the NDP government was to keep that campaign promise.

Apart from the capital, I thought an increasing share of the operating costs of community colleges should be paid for by senior levels of government. At one time I argued that not just an increasing share but 100 per cent of the operating costs should be paid for by senior levels of government.

With respect to the promise and the action to take over complete responsibility for the capital costs of regional colleges, we did that. But we also left the door open to some kind of co-operation with the communities involved so that we could have capital projects on college campuses that were not necessarily associated only with the work of the regional colleges. It was possible for projects such as those to be financed in part as educational projects, in which case the provincial government would be entirely responsible for the funding, but in part also

[ Page 5228 ]

as community projects, in which case it was up to the community to come up with the balance of the funding. We did propose that, we made that available, and some colleges – certainly Malaspina College – did take some advantage of that.

So although the provincial government was accepting the 100 per cent responsibility for funding the capital costs of regional colleges, we did also leave the door open for the college itself to come forward with some kind of a proposal that would be supported by the community it served, a proposal for further capital costs that would be accepted and paid for by the participating communities around that college.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The legislation before us doesn't seem to provide for that. It does say that the college will be financed entirely – the 100 per cent operating costs as well as capital costs – by the community. From the beginning of this concept, the idea was that the communities being served by a particular college would have the option of instituting programmes and introducing new courses that they felt were particularly suitable to the communities concerned. In the case for Nanaimo, for example, it was very appropriate that there be a course for logging, because that's the economic basis of that particular community. There were other courses that were concentrated on at Nanaimo that other regional colleges abandoned completely. They certainly didn't concentrate on them to the extent that we did in Nanaimo.

There was that opportunity and it was expected from the beginning of the programme that different regional colleges would have different emphases according to the desires and the needs of people in the community. The legislation before us, I suppose you might say, still provides for that. There still is a local council; there still is the possibility of things being done differently. But in order to achieve it now, it's not simply a matter of people at the local level reaching a decision and then selling the Minister of Education on that course of action. It's a matter of selling not only the local council but another council, or one or two or three councils, depending upon the mix of instruction, and eventually getting the minister to approve any such possibility.

It would seem to put an almost impossible hurdle in the way of getting permission for any particular college to embark on any slightly different direction or to bring in any new course. I am worried about that. I wish we had retained in this with respect to the operating funds, as we did under the NDP, the possibility that the local council might go in a slightly different direction and bring in something different, something new, possibly the hope that someday the

Ministry of Education would accept the total responsibility for that – something a little different without having to go through this business of having to get approval from everybody else, if the local taxpayers were prepared to pay the cost of that themselves. I would certainly prefer that method.

I'm concerned about the extent to which the Minister of Education is getting more and more involved in appointing people. I'm concerned, I suppose, because of the action of this particular minister and the appointments he has made. I believe he was going to table some correspondence and reply to my charge, but to the best of my knowledge I haven't seen that, although with the agriculture committee meeting all around the province I have missed a lot of what's gone on in the House.

I do recall very early in his term of office as Minister of Education what he did to Malaspina College. We had what I thought was a good council. It wasn't just what I thought; it was the advice that I got from the council itself – of course, they were prejudiced – and from the president of the council, and of course I suppose he might be prejudiced as well. But from all reports that I had, the Malaspina College council was working well. I recall that most of the people on that council were people appointed when the college was first established by the previous Social Credit administration, whoever the minister was at the time. There was a change of ministers, and I think that change took place while that council was still serving,

When the NDP was elected, one of the first groups t o approach myself, the representative for Cowichan-Malahat – and other MLAs as well, I'm sure – and the Minister of Education was the Malaspina College council, led by the president of that college council. They asked us to reappoint the same members that the government had appointed previously on the grounds that they were doing a good job, on the grounds that the college was going through a particular phase of activity, had gone halfway through it, and they would like to have the same people carry on because they knew what was going on. Without any real consideration of making changes solely for political purposes, we accepted the advice from that college council and we did reappoint the people as their terms expired. We took the advice of the college council.

The only new names added were when people retired for whatever reason. Although the college council always had other names to draw on, sometimes we introduced our own. There were two names in particular that we added that I can recall. I know that same thing happened when there was a change of government when this minister took office. I didn't see the letters but I was certainly reassured by the Malaspina College council that the two people in particular that we had appointed were very

[ Page 5229 ]

acceptable to that college council. They were doing a good job and it was their hope – and they told me they had passed this hope on to the Minister of Education – that the same people would be reappointed to the college council. It was certainly my hope that it would be, too, because I believe it would be best serving the interest of Malaspina College if those people had been reappointed.

Mr. Speaker, that didn't happen. As far as the representative from Nanaimo city itself was concerned, I have nothing against the person who was appointed. I have nothing particularly in favour of him either as far as his appointment to the Malaspina College council was concerned. To the best of my knowledge, he showed absolutely no interest in the Malaspina College activities in any way at all up until the time of his appointment. I don't know whether he has since. To the best of my knowledge, he took no part in school board activities of any kind prior to the time that he was appointed by the Minister of Education as a representative on the college council; he took no part in municipal government to the best of my knowledge. The only part that he did play in politics at all to the best of my knowledge – and I'm fairly active in the community; I have fairly close ties there – was to accept the position as president of the Social Credit Party for Nanaimo constituency. That would apparently be his only qualification for this minister to have appointed him to that college council.

He displaced someone who had been appointed by the NDP Minister of Education, but someone who was working very well as a member of that college council, someone who for the first time introduced the labour element to that college council. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that it was the Nanaimo Labour Council that was called upon in the beginning as part of the steering committee. Representatives of the Nanaimo-Duncan branch of the Vancouver Island Labour Council were called upon to support this plebiscite, to support the Malaspina College, and they always supplied people to take part in campaigns whenever the question of supporting Malaspina College came up. So labour's support for that particular college, I think, is exemplary and shows their concern for what was going on in the community.

Yet the first act of this particular minister with respect to that college council was to discharge a person who was on there who had come from one of the labour unions, who was serving the college council well according to all reports I've had, to replace that person with someone who had previously shown absolutely no interest in civic affairs other than to be the president of the Social Credit Party,

Another member of the council maybe should have been replaced by the NDP administration. I heard reports that there was nothing wrong with what he was doing as a member of council, he just wasn't attending meetings nearly as regularly as most members were. I knew this and on that basis discussed with members of the college council and the president the possibility of replacing that person with someone who would be more active. I knew that there was some danger in doing this because that person was the vice-president of the Social Credit Party in the Cowichan constituency. However, I was assured by the administration of the college that even though as a very active businessman, Herb Doman, president of Doman Industries Limited, found it difficult to get to all the meetings, nevertheless they felt that his advice and experience on the college council were worth having. They urged me to recommend to the Minister of Education that he not be replaced in spite of the fact that he wasn't attending the meetings very regularly. I accepted that advice because my whole concern in this from the beginning was the good and welfare of Malaspina College. My concern was how we could improve Malaspina College so that it would serve the residents of that community in a better way. I accepted that advice and Mr. Doman was re-appointed to the college council.

However, a new administration came in and Mr. Doman was appointed to some other government board – in recognition of his services to the community as vice-president of the Social Credit Party, no doubt. With Mr. Doman retiring, with the vice-president of the Social Credit leaving it, who would we find to replace him but his comptroller. Again there seems to be no other reason for this person to be appointed to the college council. He is certainly a man with some experience and one who could contribute something to the college council, no doubt, but they didn't look very far, Mr. Speaker, in looking for someone to replace him. They apparently put into that position the person recommended by the person who was leaving it. That's the kind of consideration that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has given to the appointments he has made, purely political appointments.

He appointed one other person in the game, the only qualification that I've been able to find out about is that he was active in the last campaign to elect the Social Credit member unsuccessfully. Now this is the minister who is coming before us and telling us about the councillors who are going to be appointed by him and who are going to have the authority to say what will happen to Malaspina College.

Mr. Speaker, it was bad enough before. Before we had a college council that was appointed in part by the government, and named in part by the school boards that were members of that college council – certainly very heavily laden with Social Creditors,

[ Page 5230 ]

but nevertheless there was some opportunity to get others on there. That college council then could go to the minister and make their case about what was going on or what might go on. Now it's going to be once more removed. The minister will be responsible for appointing all those members. They will then have to go through one, two or three councils depending on what they're doing, maybe a combination. Again they will go through councillors who are appointed entirely by this minister, this minister who has shown by his record that his only interest in making appointments will be the political impurity of the people who he is naming. I have no evidence of any appointment that he has made anywhere – and I haven't looked at all of them in detail – of anyone other than an active Social Crediter.

Malaspina College has been serving people well, could serve them even better and I'm hoping will continue to serve the residents of that area and of a larger area. I'm hoping that in spite of this legislation that the minister is determined to put through, and the evidence that he would apparently intend it to be nothing other than a political tool that he can manipulate as he chooses, I have every hope that Malaspina College will survive even this attack and that it will go on to bigger and better things. I despair a bit. I know it's in for a tough time with this minister in control and the kind of appointments that he is going to make, but I still hope that in the long run Malaspina College will prevail. I hope in the long run for the people of British Columbia that even our educational system will prevail and that it will serve the people of the province, not because of this minister, Mr. Speaker, but in spite of this minister.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I cease to be surprised at anything that this minister does, or, as a matter of fact, most ministers of that government. I recall vividly when I saw this bill and a number of other bills that have come down from this minister, and from a minister who is sitting very close to him right now, vesting in themselves great powers, that party that in 1975 had the audacity of using as their insignia a seagull and claiming to be the party to provide freedom.

You know, that was probably the most miserable joke ever played on the people in this province. It was a miserable joke played by some very artful performers, including radio personalities and including elitist academics. This bill tells it all – Bill 82. It's a sign of the times. You know, that seagull, Mr. Speaker, was part of the thinking in there. They were thinking in terms of the gullible public and, up until now, that's the way they've been treating the whole situation – sell freedom. That's what they did – they sold freedom – and they delivered autocratic control.

Mr. Speaker, the governance aspect of this bill vests in the minister total control. At least he's had the decency not to call them community colleges any longer. The communities' input into their own colleges is certainly reduced to the extent that the minister has the last say on everything that happens.

I had to smile when the people were out discussing the proposed legislation – the minister's bureaucrats – and people were asking questions. Many times the answer came back: "It is only enabling legislation." Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's enabling legislation all right. It enables the minister to do whatever he likes. I'm not going to use that old worn out cliche: "Well, it might be all right with this minister, but what if somebody else takes his job?" As far as I'm concerned, probably the most dangerous Minister of Education is sitting right in this room, right now, as Minister of Education.

The minister has proven, as shown by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) , that he's incapable of thinking any other way than politically; incapable of making decisions around education as opposed to politics. Every move that minister has made in the past number of years has been political to the extent that he has abused the word "Politics." He's a chameleon, and a chameleon he stays, not any longer even trying to sell freedom; not any longer even suggesting it, and I have to laugh.

They're having a little joke among themselves, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , whom I'm very disappointed in. Your section 28, Mr. Minister, is an absolute disgrace to this country. The Minister of Education, of course, perpetrates it, although a lot more diplomatically than you did. You came right out and said you've got the right to do it. This minister is able to wrest the power by seeing to it that there are so many steps to go through before a decision is made that by the time it gets to his office, the people who are asking for a decision have forgotten what they asked for in the first place. That's a very, very useful tool, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McGEER: Vicious attack. Most uncalled for.

MR. COCKE: I suggest that if you read the bill, just go through it very quickly and take a look at what "enabling legislation" means. The backbenchers, those solemn supporters, why don't you read this one just for fun? It will be your first this year, but read this one just for kicks. Take a look at the number of times, the number of clauses that call for order-in-council situations. There are nine clauses at least – that's just thumbing through it very quickly -that give all the power over to the cabinet. This is a group of people who were concerned about a few orders-in-council a few years ago; now they rule by order-in-council. Enabling legislation, Mr. Speaker, is

[ Page 5231 ]

dangerous legislation, particularly this sort. They circumvent the Legislature. This bill circumvents the Legislature, This bill goes back to that cabinet and once this bill is through and passed, then the cabinet decrees.

Watching the way that cabinet does its work, I would suggest very strongly that the Minister of Education will decree. Whatever he thinks, whatever he decides is the direction to go in the provision of post-secondary education in this field, that minister will make the decision, and he'll have the support of his henchmen. He doesn't even have to worry about the Munchkins any longer – those people in the back bench – because no longer are they even participating. No longer do they participate – only his cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I really worry about this. The community colleges are no longer community colleges; they're McGeer colleges. Everything the minister does is aimed at building monuments to himself, but hopefully that minister will meet his just reward in politics and find himself a job in academia, where he belongs, and somebody else will come along and change a lot of the courses that he has started here. I agree that there was a need for a community college, post-secondary bill in this province. There is no question about it. There was commission after commission reported back to ministers for the last number of years and the reports were unanimous in that respect: there was a need for a community colleges Act. But the need for this Act was never expressed in the way it's set up.

Mr. Speaker, just for a moment let's took at governance. Let's start at the top. We've got the minister's office. Then in the academic area we have the Universities Council empowered to make decisions around college funding. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Universities Council is necessarily preoccupied with university problems. So therefore, their decisions around this particular area I don't think will necessarily reflect the needs of the, colleges. The further you get the community colleges away from the community, the more harm you're doing our education process.

The minister, if he should survive in politics, has a direction that he's set for himself. That direction is to take away power from the school boards, from school trustees, from any local community effort, Mr. Speaker, he's proving it here.

The opening parts of the bill indicate that the college boards are empowered to run the institution. But how, Mr. Speaker, in the name of heaven, can you run an institution if you don't have any power, if all the power is vested in other councils and finally in the minister's office? None of the boards are elected any longer. They're all appointed either by school boards or by the minister. There's no provision, Mr. Speaker, for board members to come from the student body, no provision for board members to come from the faculty, nor, Mr. Speaker, are there appointments from the local school boards within the areas.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest they have a dilemma, and their dilemma is: how do we run things when we haven't got anything to say, any last word?

I'm just terribly concerned that they're not going to reflect the needs of our communities. I think in terms of Douglas College, a college that has become so very much a part of a number of neighbouring communities. They become so very much a part because they have been part of those communities, because the people were acting from pure knowledge. They know the needs of their own communities. No longer do you see that. You see an advisory board.

Why kid the troops? Why have it enshrined in legislation that they're empowered to run the colleges when in fact succeeding clauses in the legislation take away all their powers in either direction? They take away their powers with respect to budgeting and their powers with respect to the provision of education.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has a great deal to account for. I know he pressed this. That minister is going to gain quite a reputation. We have a long weekend and the minister puts up his hand in cabinet or caucus and says: "I want my bill first."

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't go to caucus.

MR. COCKE: Remember what he did with Bill 33. Exactly the same performance: "I want my bill first." The government Whip and myself were discussing it the other day. We surely thought that it wouldn't come until later in the week. I'm going to give up talking to the government Whip because every time I do, I find that we're flying right in the face of a sensible, co-operative House and we have this kind of situation. "I want my bill." So now he's got his bill. Okay, it's before us, Mr. Speaker; it doesn't make it any better. I don't blame him for wanting to surprise us every time with his bills. So far, the bills that he has put forward have been abysmal.

He's a failure, Mr. Speaker. He's a failure as an administrator, he's a failure as a proper Minister of Education, but he's a great success as a dictator.

Another thing, too. That freedom fighter – this great lover of freedom – the first thing he does is to see to it that there's no election anywhere in the board appointments. There are no elections, no students. I'll never suggest that the faculty and students should be top dogs. I know at one time that that was our party policy. Thankfully it's changed, back to what were our suggestions when we were government. We don't find any of that kind of freedom here. The freedom lovers and the seagull flyers have forgotten everything that they proposed when they were seeking election. Say anything, do

[ Page 5232 ]

anything, but beg the question, Mr. Speaker. What did the B.C. School Trustees Association have to say about this bill? Mr. Speaker, they're not known as being particularly progressive in terms of politics. They're known as being relatively conservative, careful people. But what did they have to say about Bill 82?

" 'Bill 82, Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, could create bureaucratic buffers" – this is the very first line; they don't waste any time about it – "between the Minister of Education and community representatives.' said Cliff Atkins, president of the B.C. School Trustees Association and past member of the Capilano College Council."

I say, Mr. Speaker, it's not "could." But it would design to see to it that nobody but the minister has anything to say about how the colleges run hereinafter. Mr. Speaker, they go on.

"While recognizing the need for a separate Colleges Act" – we recognized that need, too, as I suggested earlier – "Atkins said Bill 82 could remove control of colleges from local communities and place it in the hands of three provincial councils to be appointed under the Act. These councils, which could control curriculum and funding of colleges, will be responsible only to the minister."

That's what it's all about, Mr. Speaker. That's what it's been a11 about ever since they've been government. That's why they meet at 7:30 in the morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven.

MR. COCKE: Seven o'clock in the morning. And they have to meet and meet and meet, that cabinet. No wonder, because they're vesting in themselves all the authority in this province. Nobody else is allowed to have anything to say about the way this province is run. The hell of it is, Mr. Speaker, they're running the province into the ground.

MR. BARRETT: But nobody knows as much as they do.

MR. COCKE: Oh, that's right. You have that kind of misapprehension. There's an [illegible] around this minister; everybody knows he's a genius when it comes to sexing whales and when it comes to delivering scientific papers. I won't put him down in this particular area. He's very good. But as a democratic politician, he ain't. He just isn't, Mr. Speaker, and he's proven it every time he's stood and in everything he's done. Mr. Speaker, it's a shame. Let me just go on a little more with this news release. "The system of provincial councils could reduce college boards to mere advisory boards." They said could." Mr. Speaker, let me just repeat this. The minister didn't hear it.

HON. MR. McGEER: Think of something different for each one.

MR. COCKE: "The system of provincial councils could reduce college boards to mere advisory bodies." I say to you, it will.

The minute this thing is passed, it's a fact accomplished. You could no more share responsibility and you could no more share power than jump to the moon. It's not in your makeup. It's not in your personality. You prove it every day. Mr. Speaker, they go on to say that it'll limit the ability of local representatives to communicate with the minister on college needs, because you have to go up the ladder. By the time it gets to the top of the ladder, who's interpreting what? Something that's said down there at the advisory board – let's not call them college boards – and then the advisory board decides on a particular Course. That course goes from council to council and finally to the minister. By the time it gets there, it's been completely changed. Or it could be. And if it hasn't been changed by the time it comes up the ladder, Mr. Speaker, I'll guarantee that minister will change it, change it to suit his needs, either his personal ego needs or his political needs. But it will not reflect the needs for community education in this province- He doesn't know the direction and he never will. He sticks his nose out of a university long enough to be elected in politics. As a matter of fact, he has two occupations even now. He is trying to run ICBC, trying to be Minister of Education and still writing scientific papers. There is a minister who is so divided lie shouldn't be taking this kind of responsibility, because he hasn't got the time. Yet he is doing it; he's vesting in himself all this authority. Mr. Speaker, when they say "trust us, " I say I don't trust them, nor will I trust them, because every move they make tells me I cannot trust them.

Mr. Speaker, just take another look at this bill; just go through it carefully. Going back again to this business of the order-in-council possibilities here, the enabling legislation, there are nine different areas where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has powers to write regulations, power to do this, that and the other thing – nine different areas.

Okay, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what is going to happen. They are going to write the rules after the fact. They're going to write the rules as it becomes convenient. Somebody decides they want to go in a certain direction, the government writes the rules after the fact, no rules in advance, no appeal to the Legislature – order-in-council, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that the minister clearly indicates his direction just by the governing sections.

The other areas, Mr. Speaker, some of my

[ Page 5233 ]

colleagues have talked about. The former Minister of Labour talked about that aspect and his concerns over that. The former Minister of Education told her concerns. Generally speaking, in the three areas that this bill covers, we're most unhappy.

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact there doesn't seem to be a flaming, screaming herd out there – I don't see a demonstration on the lawn – I hear a lot of dissatisfaction. I hear dissatisfaction in my community; I hear quiet dissatisfaction everywhere I go. In the Okanagan and everywhere I go and discuss Bill 82 1 hear dissatisfaction from those people who are directly involved in providing education. They don't love it, Mr. Speaker; they were not properly involved in this bill. They were asked to react to certain committees that went out and their input was ignored.

What we have here is a bill that was probably written by the minister, If he smoked, I would suggest that it was written on the back of a cigarette package – it could have been. Mr. Speaker, it is a bill written by the minister to suit his needs, not the needs of the colleges.

Even the principals who are involved in his second line, the management council, don't like it. Who likes this bill except the minister and his faithful cabinet colleagues? I suggest to you that the backbenchers haven't read it so they don't know whether they like it or not.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I don't think the Minister of Labour likes it.

MR. COCKE: One of the things we have found in discussing bill after bill after bill is that we see one member of the government, sometimes two, of the cabinet, stand up and defend their position. What else do we see that's notable? The backbenchers only vote. They don't get up; they don't discuss a bill. Why should they get involved? They've got faith.

Really and truly – take off your blinders, you used-car people! For heaven's sake, take off your blinders and realize what a dangerous cabinet we have in this province and what a dangerous minister We have. Read the bill, I pray you, just before we vote on it. Glance at it or, maybe to satisfy me, pretend you are glancing at it.

Mr. Member, have you ever seen them take out a bill book and look at a bill? Do you think they do it in caucus? Oh! You know something? They have a little discussion. A cabinet member waltzes in and says: "This is what I want to do today, friends."

AN HON. MEMBER: He hands out prepared speeches.

MR. COCKE: That's right, and away they go.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry about this bill. I'm sorry that the community concept is lost. I know that the province will be sorry that the community concept is lost. I don't know all of the colleges in the province intimately, but I sure know the community programmes put forward by the Douglas College, programmes that were innovative, programmes that were community-centred, programmes that I suggest to you, under this minister and under this new Act when it is proclaimed, will disappear.

Tremendous achievements have been made by the community colleges. Fantastic achievement has been brought about by BCIT. In technological terms, they have done a fantastic job. Yet the minister looks at them with their several needs and decides to throw them all into this situation and says: "You will react to me; you will react to my needs instead of the reverse." Instead of the minister saying: "We, parliament, we, in the Department of Education will react to the needs of the community. . . ." No, no dice, Mr. Speaker. That might cost a buck or two, and those preoccupied with the bottom line could not possibly let this one get away.

Education is a big area, Mr. Speaker. One area that I wish the minister would think about is that there is a stigma around one word in this province and that's "occupational." Unfortunate but true. Why in this Act are they insisting upon calling the one side "academic" and the other side "occupational"? Why not "vocational"? What's wrong with the word "vocational"? Certainly there's no stigma around that word, whereas there is a stigma around the word "occupational." If you know anything about the public school system in this province, you'll know that there are some students who are consigned to a particular area called "occupational" and, generally speaking, it's viewed as something less than desirable. So why "occupational" and why not "vocational"? Anyway, that's a small point.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, cannot be supported by the New Democratic Party. We cannot support a bill that vests power in the hands of one man or one cabinet. We prefer, Mr. Speaker, to think in the terms of the direction that we were going – an announced direction – and that is – open it up; let the community react; let freedom reign. We're not seeing that here in any way, shape or form. No, we won't vote for this bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): One of the features about this bill, I understand, is that the minister has made it plain to concerned board members and others that he is not prepared to make any substantial amendment to this bill. The minister may choose to confirm or refute that statement, but in my consultation with college directors this is my understanding. There will be no substantial amendment to the bill, which of course suggests that the debate is futile. I always felt that the main

[ Page 5234 ]

purpose of this arena is to put in as many ideas as one thinks might be productive and hope that the government will listen. Perhaps this minister should reconsider his attitude, because some of his cabinet colleagues have shown a great deal of reason and patience and wisdom in former debates by listening to the opposition and accepting amendments.

It's distressing to me that, in reading the minister's introduction in the Blues of the bill of second reading this afternoon, he stresses consultation as being a very important procedure which preceded the drafting of this bill. I would suggest to the minister that while a great deal of consultation did go on before drafting the bill, many people are unhappy with the final draft. It would surely make sense that this being the case, the minister should at least be willing to consult with those same people now that the bill is before us in the hope that perhaps some amendments they might suggest would make it a better bill. I can't see how that is anything but a reasonable and positive approach by many members of college councils and, particularly, the board of governors of BCIT. I mean to talk a little bit specifically about them in my comments later.

My first general comment is that it is very strange to stress consultation, which stops the moment the bill appears, when in point of fact there are a great many people willing to make positive and constructive suggestions to try and improve the bill.

It's also an unusual bill coming from a government that espouses decentralization and local autonomy. No matter how well motivated the minister was in trying to bring the college structure into a more realistic format, to do so by involving the colleges and technical institutes with three new councils constituting another layer of bureaucracy between the local board members and the department seems a very strange way to interpret the word "decentralization." On top of that, there are many sections in the bill, of course, which give the minister enormous authority and, in fact, have caused many persons in the educational field at the local level, and at the board level in colleges, to consider that that is one of the main intentions of this bill – to draw more centralized power to the minister and his ministry. This was certainly not the general philosophy that was espoused by this government when it sought the support of the voters in 1975.

Some general comments I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, relate to that central principle in the bill that local autonomy is seriously reduced and, worse than that, the democratic concept of electing certain people to boards and college councils is gone. I feel sure that most people in this province not only want to have strong local involvement in schools and hospitals, but also would like to have some measure of authority to elect the people they wish. Although all school board members are elected, and only some hospital board members are elected, in this new situation all the members on boards of colleges will be appointed. I very firmly believe that's a retrograde step.

Regardless of the appointment of these directors, the responsibility and authority of college councils will definitely be diminished by this legislation. Some of the sections which we can perhaps more specifically quote in committee stage, Mr. Speaker, state that the minister shall establish, in consultation with councils, policy respecting post-secondary education and training in the province. The ministry will presumably work with the three new councils as well as the present universities council, which makes a total of four in all. Many people in the post-secondary field are very apprehensive that we've introduced another layer of bureaucracy between the people who really have the best intentions of colleges at heart and the minister who, in effect, through this bill, really holds all the cards and all the power. Not only has this been stated publicly – and some of the persons stating that publicly have been quoted by other speakers in the House this afternoon – but also, in discussions with individuals concerned about colleges and BCIT, they were quite clear in their feeling that the new councils will be a barrier to communication with the ministry and the colleges.

I think it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, to mention that the province of Alberta, for some years, had both a universities council and a colleges council. I hope the minister is really listening to this part because both were eliminated five years ago because they were inadequate administrative mechanisms.

Another general point that I think speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, is that the management advisory council in particular, which is to be composed of the principals of the colleges plus the principal of BCIT, is unlikely to work well because essentially the principals will have two bosses and will cease to be effective in their role as the chief executive officer of the particular college or institute by which they are employed. I would be interested, when the minister winds up second reading, if he would perhaps tell us to what degree he consulted with principals or to what degree the principals were aware of this pending recommendation to set up a management advisory council. This seems to be an area, perhaps More than any other in the bill, which is giving concern to board members at colleges and at the BCIT.

The designating or provincial institutes, Mr. Speaker, suggests that there could be a proliferation of these separate and specialized institutions. Research has shown that small institutions of this nature do not make efficient and economic use of the funds available. It would also be important to be reassured by the minister as to whether or not there is likely to be any great proliferation of institutes, as can be designated in this bill.

[ Page 5235 ]

Just to return a moment to the whole question of increased, centralized power, the minister in this bill has the authority to approve or disapprove bylaws of any college board. I was quite amazed to find in a section which happens to be section 17, Mr. Speaker, that the minutes of all board meetings have to be sent to the Minister of Education. It just seems.... I notice the minister's frowning. He probably doesn't even realize that power that's in the bill. But section 17 talks about the powers and duties of a board: "The board, at a conclusion of a meeting, shall forward a copy of the minutes, including the resolutions and bylaws dealt with, to the minister."

HON. MR. McGEER: We're just interested in the bylaws, because they require ratification.

MR. WALLACE: The minister interjects that he's just interested in the bylaws, but we've already heard and I've already mentioned in my comments, that of course, the minister insists in this bill that he shall approve or disapprove all the bylaws. But this other section also deals not just with bylaws; it deals with resolutions. Does the minister feel that he has to have the minutes of every board meeting of every college sent to him with every resolution that was moved or voted on? In any case, the idea is ridiculous. The minister's already got a large enough portfolio; the suggestion that he should try to spend his time pursuing the minutes of all the board meetings of all the colleges and institutes is just rather ridiculous. But it does convey the message loud and clear that the minister wishes to have a very tight and firm and authoritarian kind of control over the colleges and technological institutes. I expect that in committee stage, Mr. Speaker, we'll get into the whole question of personnel relations, but I would certainly like to ask this question right now: why has the minister made it mandatory that a vote be taken by staff who have already gone through the motions and the procedures to become certified? I understand that 13 of the 14 colleges concerned are already certified and they have their union. Yet in this bill, the minister quite arbitrarily tells them to take another vote. Then, I suppose, this government wonders why the trade union movement in British Columbia accuses this government of being anti-union. I think if I was a trade union member, Mr. Speaker, and I saw the government acting in this way in respect to one particular group in society, I would be most suspicious about their willingness to be fair and evenhanded in their attitudes to trade unions. In this situation, we have many professional staff who have elected to become represented by a trade union as a bargaining agent, they have fulfilled the requirements of existing legislation. This, in particular, relates to BCIT as I will mention a little later. Now they find a bill tabled in the House which tells them to go through the whole business all over again. It leaves the very clear implication that if this government isn't anti-union, it certainly wants to create some kind of doubt in the minds of these people who already have a certified union bargaining for them. It leaves a very unpleasant impression that the minister's just trying to create a little bit of mischief in the whole area of employer-employee relations as they relate to the colleges and the B.C. Institute of Technology.

From the comments that have appeared in the press from the union movement, I can well see that this government is creating the impression that it is determined to be a little tougher, perhaps, on unions than on management. I suppose, without breaking the rules of this House, I can say that there's another piece of legislation we'll be debating which was tabled today, which could certainly raise exactly the same fear in the minds of trade unionists. Mr. Speaker, we've had such relatively tranquil relationships in the education field. When one thinks of some of the other areas of labour management problems in other types of work, in other occupations, why on earth does the Minister of Education have to start stirring up a hornet's nest when in point of fact, particularly again at BCIT, both sides – employer and employee – are more than willing to volunteer the comment that they're very happy with the sound relationships which have pertained between the employer and the union concerned.

In fact, to get back to the matter of consultation, Mr. Speaker, the minister states that there has been 18 months of consultation. While I recognize that the minister doesn't necessarily have to follow the requests or recommendations of different groups in the course of consultation, one recommendation which was unanimous, I'm told, by BCIT was that the present system not be tampered with. Admittedly, the time during which the union has represented the professional staff of BCIT is short, I understand, but within the period of time that it has existed the relationship has been very satisfactory. The request that went to the minister from BCIT was to leave well alone. But instead of that, we have a situation in this bill where the whole business of voting all over again to determine what the staff want is made mandatory when in point of fact the staff have already not only been given the opportunity to express their views but have done so and have become unionized. So I really would want to know why the minister has suggested in this bill that these professional staff should start all over again and go through the business of expressing their wishes as to who should represent them or whether in fact they are to be represented by a trade union.

With specific regard to BCIT, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I've discussed the matter, at least by correspondence and telephone. I want to present briefly but very fairly and squarely the position BCIT

[ Page 5236 ]

has taken as a result of Bill 82.

I know that when we keep talking about consultation, the minister refers to the Goard report. I just want to quote from page 12 of the Goard report which says: "Technological programmes are generally given at BCIT. First year may be taken at a college and transfer credit obtained. Career programmes are delivered at the colleges, " And just listen to this final sentence on page 12, Mr. Speaker: "The commissioners regret that owing to time constraints they were unable to thoroughly examine the area of career and technical programmes."

I'm sorry the minister is yawning. Maybe he doesn't find this amusing, but the people at BCIT don't find this bill amusing. "The commissioners regret that owing to time constraints they were unable to thoroughly examine the area of career and technical programmes. Therefore, they are not prepared to make recommendations on these programmes at this time."

Now, Mr. Speaker, BCIT was advised about a year ago that the route they should follow in order to provide their input to drafting this legislation was through the Goard commission. Considerable effort was made by BCIT in its presentation to the commission. Its brief was supported by the staff and student association, and the one objective was to retain the BCIT Act. All briefs agreed that the relatively new Act, 1974, was working well. In other words, not only was the relatively new Act working well but also the staff relationships which I referred to a moment ago were satisfactory.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

To just quote from page 13 of the Goard report, it says: "The mandate of the commission was to conduct an examination for the government on methods of improving the scope and effectiveness of technical and vocational training in British Columbia." That was the range of the mandate, and yet we find in the summary of the report that the commissioners did not have time to examine properly programmes where technological training is involved and therefore were not prepared to make recommendations on these programmes at the time they issued this report. So although that was their mandate, Mr. Speaker, BCIT has not had an opportunity to inform the Ministry of Education fully or adequately of the concerns about Bill 82.

These concerns, as far as BCIT is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think are very valid. I don't profess to be deeply knowledgeable or know all the specifics about the concern of BCIT, but the discussions I've had and the statements that have appeared in the press, particularly by the principal, Mr. Gordon Tom, I think again are very reasonable and bear review by the minister. I hope the minister will confirm or refute my opening statement that he's not prepared to make any substantial amendments to this bill. If that is the case, we can save a lot of time and wind and energy and a whole lot of other wear and tear on our stress mechanism if we don't have to stand here and make proposals, knowing there's not a ghost of a chance that the minister is going to listen to them.

BCIT is not only satisfied with the existing legislation, but it's a relatively simple bill of about 15 sections compared to this very complex bill of more than 80 sections, together with the very complicated sections dealing with personnel relations. I would like to ask the minister to confirm, if it is correct, that BCIT strongly requested the minister to leave that institute under its existing legislation for the reasons I've mentioned.

Another area which concerns the administration at BCIT is the fact that the board of governors would likely be involved with all four councils because of the composite nature of the courses and training that BCIT provides. In particular, the board of governors is concerned about the management advisory council, which is to be composed of the principals of each college together with the principal from BCIT. It's to be expected that the board of governors wonders how the BCIT principal would fare around the table of the meetings of the management advisory council where presumably a competitive spirit could very readily develop in trying to determine how BCIT would get its appropriate and fair share of the pie.

BCIT makes it very plain that it does want to co-operate with the colleges, and it wants the best system for the whole province, but it feels very strongly that it is so different from the college programmes and the different goals of colleges compared to BCIT that to lock them in with 12 other colleges and their principals on the management advisory council will be very much to the detriment of the programmes and the public image and the quality, even, of the diploma or at least the way the public will look at the new status of the diploma which will be awarded at BCIT.

They're also deeply concerned about the whole matter of funding – again because of the interposition of three councils, with the minister appointing the membership of these councils. If BCIT cannot be left to continue on its own satisfactory way under existing legislation, it has made it plain, Mr. Speaker, that it would prefer to come under the singular purview of the Universities Council, I'd like to ask the minister if he would care to comment on that when he winds up second reading. Would he not feel that because of the apprehension voiced by BCIT regarding Bill 82, and its willingness at least to come under the Universities Council, that probably at this relatively late stage in the legislative process they might still be able to come to the minister in Victoria

[ Page 5237 ]

and discuss that possibility with him? Or, as I said earlier, is the die cast and are there to be no significant changes to this bill?

One particular change in this bill which again the board of BCIT is unhappy about – and I as an individual am very unhappy about – is the fact that there is to be no representation on the board by alumni or employees or students or staff. This is very disappointing, again in the particular example of BCIT where the system has been working well. It's also surprising to me that that trend, if anything, was spreading in educational circles – the trend to have representation on boards of governors from sectors of the population who are most concerned about what went on in that particular institution. We now have student representation at universities, which I think is an excellent idea. I thought it was the kind of enlightened thinking about many of our post-secondary institutions which was much to be welcomed and supported. But here we find a move in the opposite direction. It will not be possible under the new legislation to have students or faculty or alumni on the board.

It is true that many of the appointments that the minister has made in recent months have been welcomed as being good appointments of well-equipped people to serve on the board of governors. This minister may not always be Minister of Education and this may not always be the government of the day. This particular thrust in the bill leaves the door wide open to the most regrettable kind of political abuse whereby political appointments could be made and there would be no checks or balances in the form of a student voice or a voice of someone on the alumni, staff or faculty.

In fact, in our complicated society today – and I am thinking again of the professional groups in particular, like the medical profession – there is an increasing trend to have lay representation. For example, there is the council of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. This matter has been implemented in other provinces such as Ontario. There is an ever-increasing public feeling that a voice of that nature in a highly professional group is an excellent one to maintain balance and perhaps to speak out at times when the professionals are a little too close to their own pet subject.

Another question I would like to ask the minister is: whose idea was it that this kind of representation on the board of governors of BCIT be wiped out? This is particularly at a time when representation at the universities by exactly the same groups – namely, the alumni, staff and students – has been implemented in recent years and is working very well.

There are just so many parts of this bill where we seem to be moving in the opposite direction to ideas that have just been gaining ground, not only in British Columbia but also in other provinces and jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom. I find this bill very disappointing. It is certainly contradictory in a variety of ways, as I have tried to outline, to the thrust which I thought this government intended to bring to its legislation – namely, decentralization, more local autonomy and a wider cross-section of representation on college boards and similar institutions, not only educational ones but also hospital boards and others.

There is no question that some attempt was necessary to bring college education into a more efficient and modern format, but this certainly isn't the way to do it. When one stops to think of it there is the potential for an absolutely bureaucratic nightmare with these four different councils interposed between the minister and the people trying to run the colleges and BCIT. I think that this is a very ill-designed way to try to provide a more modern and reasonable way of operating our college system, For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I can't support this bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that some of the members opposite who have spoken on this bill will not be supporting it, I think time will prove that this will be hallmark legislation which will serve the cause of education in general, and the cause of institutes and community colleges in particular, in a very superior way. I can understand the NDP, but I am disappointed that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) would not wish to associate himself with something that, in our view, will be such a signal success.

Dealing with some of the comments raised, first of all, by the member for Oak Bay, who raised many questions about BCIT and the individual Act which it has to govern that institution, it's our view that BCIT has done so extraordinarily well in the fields in which it has had responsibility that under an Act of this kind, in a competitive way, it's going to do far better financially than it could in any other fashion. If it were to be under the Universities Council it would almost be certain to get the thin end of the stick. It would do very badly relative to the universities that have various graduate programmes to finance as well as a whole series of professional schools. I would think that BCIT would be walking right into a trap to get associated with that.

Similarly, Mr. Speaker, it may seem that you do better if you have your own special Act and lobby the government and try and go an independent way from the mainstream of institutes and colleges and so on. But, as the member points out, this government may not always be in power and certainly not this minister. What you would undoubtedly find is precisely the opposite. They would tend to be neglected by a ministry because they would be lobbying continually and would therefore tend to get

[ Page 5238 ]

shoved to one side. The ones that were working through the established councils and had a prepared case as to their particular sphere of influence would do much better financially. I can only say I can understand why BCIT would want to have this special, unique treatment, but I really think that by stepping into the mainstream of the educational thrust in British Columbia they're going to do far, far better as an institution.

Several members, particularly the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , raised this question of professional relations or personnel relations. "Professional, " I guess, is the choice of the colleges. But if they wish to go the trade union route, of course, they can do that. The legislation permits it and they're extremely welcome to do so. We only draw the line at one thing, and that is to have several professional unions representing a single college. The member opposite said how terrible it was that people couldn't have freedom of choice. But I would remind him that in the corporation that government established that I unfortunately have to administer at the present time, they wouldn't permit a variety of unions. At least in the colleges we're not forcing the professional people to be in the same union as the staff and the non-professional support. You stuck them all together at ICBC. I'm not complaining about what you did, but I think it's just a little bit hypocritical to stand up and criticize this minister for suggesting that all the professional people in the college, if they wish to be in a union, be in one union. I can't see anything unreasonable and certainly not inconsistent with NDP policy. So, Mi. Speaker, that is one place where we absolutely draw the line. We say one professional union if you're going to go the union route, and that's fine.

Why do you have confirming votes? You have confirming votes because we're providing a professional alternative, one that wasn't available under the former administration. And because the faculties now have a choice which they didn't have, we're merely asking that in a democratic fashion they exercise the choice. If things are as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan suggests, then, when the choice is made, those who are in the colleges will take the trade union route and that will be it.

I can't see, Mr. Chairman, why, a government should be criticized for giving options and opportunities that weren't there before. Because everything that the official opposition wants is there. Certainly the standards that have been followed in industrial relations as far as this bill is concerned are far more generous than what the NDP was prepared to allow with the one corporation that they set up themselves. Their own creation. Only one in their time, ICBC, was theirs. It lost $187 million in two years. It established an all-Canadian record for corporations, public or private, but it was theirs.

They were responsible for the industrial relations. They were responsible for creating that corporation. That corporation represented your standards for industrial relations and it certainly represented your standards for management. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this particular legislation certainly sets higher standards than the NDP set when they were in office. I find that one criticism a little hard to accept.

One of the members asked about the matter of governance and we certainly have provided in this bill that there be faculty and student representation through these compulsory advisory councils that are established. As I said during second reading, we agree with the member that this is an important function and that it should be fulfilled. We've provided this route where this kind of input is mandatory as far as the board is concerned. We think that this will work well.

The members have told me how wonderful the present system is. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that that isn't quite the case, I have had so many complaints about the governance of our various educational institutions that I've gone to four former Ministers of Education to ask if they ran into this kind of thing when they were ministers, because it was certainly not something that I anticipated. The answer in each case was the same: "We never had any trouble of that kind; we never had complaints. We don't understand what it's all about." Yet I can tell you that this Minister of Education has had an absolute flood of them. Because of that, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to look to other methods of handling what the member for Oak Bay says is an important principle. We're going to try this method. If it works well, then we may introduce it as a university model. I don't know. But we do want to try something just a little bit different than we've got today because, quite frankly, it hasn't all been peace and tranquillity.

MR. WALLACE: Are you getting all the complaints from the universities?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes. All of them. So that's why it's dealt with in this fashion.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said: "Well, why do you do it in the colleges and not in the universities?" Well, we want to see if this will work. We think it will and we hope it will. But no, Madam Member, we're not prepared to say that your system was the answer. I can tell you it's produced far more headaches than it's produced successes.

Now just one small item, Mr. Speaker, before I finally move second reading. There have been several complaints from the opposition this afternoon about the fact that this bill was called on this day and what a terrible thing it was. Mr. Speaker, I sat for many years in opposition in this side of the House. It was taken for granted in all those years that when a bill

[ Page 5239 ]

was introduced into this House that was time for people to understand that bill, to prepare their position, and be prepared to debate it at any time. The fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have an opposition not prepared to debate any bill at any time testifies more than anything else to the incompetency of that group opposite. Once a bill is introduced in this House and once you've had an opportunity to read and study it you should be prepared to debate it at any time. Seek your consultations, not have a party Whip over here give you advance notice of three or four days so that the members who wish to take the day off can do so. It's the responsibility of the opposition to be prepared to debate any measure at any time, once it's been introduced. I say that if you can't do that, you're not even fit to be opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS – 28

NAYS – 16

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 82, Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING

DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. L, A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): The legislation that you have before you, Bill 76, is in many respects a companion to the legislation which the House has just dealt with in second reading, the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act.

The Minister of Labour joined with the Minister of Education in the appointment of the Goard commission to concern themselves with vocational and trade training in the province of British Columbia. As the debate has just shown, even though the opposition doesn't seem to have recognized it, significant advance has been made, particularly through the establishment of the occupational training council as the principal vehicle by which it will be assured that in this province vocational and trade training facilities will be made available to meet the needs of a growing work force and of an expanding economy.

As we contemplated the recommendations contained in the Goard commission report it was obvious that certain companion changes had to be made in legislation falling within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour – in particular, that legislation which deals with apprenticeships and trade schools. The legislation which you have in Bill 76 accordingly flows principally from that major change. At the same time, it was recognized that improvements could be made in the apprenticeship legislation. As a consequence, while presently under the legislation dealing with apprenticeships we have a provincial apprenticeship committee, there is being established for the first time a provincial apprenticeship board which will have significant responsibilities with regard to qualifications of persons to move into the apprenticeable trades and to act as a basis upon which certain appeals can be taken from decisions of the director of apprenticeship.

Also with regard to apprenticeship agreements and the content thereof, very specific provisions are now being made in the legislation to ensure that not only can existing apprenticeship agreements be fully recognized, but also, in the future, there will be more consistency with respect to apprenticeship agreements than has perhaps heretofore been the case. As well, this legislation has made possible the expansion of those trades which can be deemed to be apprenticeable trades. The legislation is a definite improvement, in my view, accordingly.

I must, however, Mr. Speaker, point out to the members, without dealing with specific sections, that contained within this legislation is the provision of clear responsibility for the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with other provinces and other governments which are a necessary ingredient to any comprehensive manpower policy for British Columbia. Manpower is one of the major responsibilities – if not, indeed, the major responsibility – of the Minister of Labour. It is one which is too often overlooked in the enthusiasm which is given to discussions of industrial relations.

[ Page 5240 ]

The manpower development responsibility is, and will remain, that of the Ministry of Labour. However, one cannot ignore the fact that in the discharge of this important function there is the need for a necessary close relationship with the Ministry of Education. It is through the facilities which that ministry can provide that the essential training function so important to the development of manpower policy can be carried out.

In some provinces it has been deemed by the government appropriate to place the manpower responsibility in one ministry, the Ministry of Education. I think it is nonetheless to the credit of the province of British Columbia that there is this joint area of responsibility and that the two ministries, each with their own particular thrust with regard to manpower, are joined together in this combined legislation in these two bills.

As well as dealing with apprenticeship and the essential manpower responsibility, the legislation also brings up to date the legislation with respect to trade schools. Trade schools, as registered under the legislation of this province and as will be registered under Bill 76, themselves form an essential component of vocational and trade training in British Columbia.

There is a growing recognition that outside of the school system itself there are opportunities to be presented to young persons entering the work force and those who are in the work force and require a continuing education programme to upgrade their skills, to use educational concepts that are available in the work place itself. So-called industrial training concepts are becoming more and more recognized as a worthwhile instrument for the development of a highly skilled work force which is required in order to meet the obligations of the economy. As a consequence, this legislation is being used as the opportunity to bring the Trade-schools Regulation Act into the 1970s.

Lastly, in examining the legislation which deals with all aspects of training, we have considered the legislation that was introduced by the former government called the Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act. Under this ministry, Mr. Speaker, it has been determined that youth employment programmes should largely be emphasized which will enable the young persons during the course of their school careers to have the opportunity to engage in meaningful work experiences which themselves will contribute to their educational programmes as well as assisting them in completing those programmes.

Therefore there is enshrined in this legislation specific provision for continuity in employment programmes of the nature that has been seen in this province in 1977,1976 and also 1975. It is a commitment of this government that such employment programmes will continue, not as special employment programmes but as a part of each annual recurring season when young persons in school have the opportunity to take employment. It is the intention henceforth that the estimates of the Ministry of Labour will contain provision so that those programmes can be continued and expanded.

The experience of previous years indicates that there is a growing opportunity for this to be done, with major benefits for young persons for whom this is often the first experience in the work force. We are finding, on the part of young persons who are engaging in this kind of programme and the employers who are offering the opportunities, a growing recognition that this is a most valuable experience and one which under encouragement can be of even greater benefit.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MS. SANFORD: I note that the minister did not, in introducing second reading of this bill, indicate that it was just a housekeeping measure. He has done that in terms of another bill that he has introduced that we're not going to discuss now, Mr. Speaker. But he indicated that other legislation he has introduced more recently than this is, in fact, just housekeeping. I feel that this bill is probably the one that might deserve the title "housekeeping" more than the one that we're not going to discuss, Mr. Speaker, because what in effect is happening here is that the minister is attempting to streamline and put together legislation that was formerly contained in three separate statutes. He is combining them and attempting to improve the apprenticeship programme and the trades training in the province. I don't fault him for that, except that I feel that the major changes in the whole apprenticeship programme, the whole matter of what emphasis should be placed in terms of the programmes that are available to students in this province, have not been met in this particular statute.

What about fitting people in with the jobs that they may be seeking? What about the training there? What about the analysis of the capabilities and the ability to match people to the job and the apprenticeship programme that they may be seeking? Mr. Speaker, the bill itself is one which we are certainly not going to oppose, because I think it is a step in the right direction in trying to follow the recommendations of the Goard commission and an attempt to consolidate and streamline the whole approach to apprenticeship and training.

But the minister said it was the companion piece to the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act. I'm sorry, based on the fact he says it is the companion piece, and that the Goard commission itself was the result of both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education's initiative. But the Minister of Labour did not speak to explain, under the companion piece – that is the Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act –

[ Page 5241 ]

why, in fact, he allowed the Minister of Education on his own, seemingly, to proceed with the kind of anti-labour, anti-industrial relations bill that we've just discussed. I'd hoped that the minister would get up and state why he, as the minister responsible for the Labour Code, allowed that Minister of Education to intrude directly into his jurisdiction and responsibility, and not even to during second reading of that bill, get up and explain to this Legislature why he is in fact not prepared in this case to defend the Labour Code. That to me is confusing and....

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the minister is concerned, that we may be referring to the last bill. But the minister himself just said that this is in fact companion legislation. They're one and the same; they result from the Gord commission, which was instituted by the initiative of both the Ministers of Education and Labour. These are companions; they're tied together. Yet on the important bills with respect to colleges, introduced by the Minister of Education, which intrude into the minister's own jurisdiction in the labour field, he did not speak.

Certainly we had no satisfactory explanation from the Minister of Education about the reasons for his anti-industrial relations, approach in Bill 82.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are some questions that I would like to ask the minister with respect to this bill. For instance, one of the pieces of legislation which is being repealed under this Act is the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act of 1955. In that particular piece of legislation there is a section which says that the director shall arouse and promote interest in the adoption of apprenticeship in trades. Now that section, Mr. Speaker, has been left out of this new bill, and I'm wondering why the minister has chosen to leave out the section which in fact promotes interest in apprenticeship and trades. Why should the director not have that ability to promote the apprenticeship programme in the province? That was included in the last bill but it's not here. I hope the minister will be able to explain why that has taken place.

I'm wondering if perhaps there will not be enough money available to the minister – because the minister can, through this legislation, allot moneys for that programme – to allow the director to promote the interest and arouse the interest in the apprenticeship programmes of the province. Is that why? I hope that the minister will be able to give us some indication why he has not included that.

But I think the most important question that can be asked of this minister relates to what these people are going to be doing once they have gone through the apprenticeship programme and have received the trades training that this bill provides for. What are they going to do when under this administration we have over 104,000 people unemployed? The greatest number, Mr. Speaker, are among the young. They are the ones who are seeking training and apprenticeship programmes and they are the ones who are not able to find any work. We just learned today that that whole southeast coal development is falling by the wayside. We had also understood that the northeast coal development was going to go ahead by mid-summer. We'd have some decisions about that. We're told today, "No, we're still negotiating."

We still find the rate of bankruptcies increasing in the province. We find that there is no new major investment, no new initiatives. The government is allowing Railwest to close down, laying off employees. The Public Works department is laying off employees and the ferries have laid off people who were employed aboard the ferries. This government is doing absolutely nothing to try to provide jobs for these young people, or for anybody who is looking for work, but it's usually the younger people who are involved in these apprenticeship programmes. What's the point of streamlining and trying to upgrade and update and improve the apprenticeship and trades training programme in this province when the government does nothing about the 104,000 people who are unemployed? I think that is the most important question to be asked under this particular bill that we have before us.

I'm wondering if the minister hopes, or anticipates through the provisions of this statute that more apprentices will be trained in the province. I'm wondering if the minister has through this statute any hopes or aspirations for improving the situation as far as the training of women is concerned in the apprenticeship programmes. During the discussion of the labour estimates the minister indicated that, yes, he was heading in that direction, and things were improving. Yet we find in checking with the figures released through Canada Manpower that there are Virtually no women who are involved in the apprenticeship training programme at this stage. Will this new legislation improve that situation? When we have a list of trades and industries in this province where we have still not one single woman involved in the apprenticeship programme, I would like to know what the minister hopes, through this new legislation, will improve that situation. We have trade apprenticeships such as the autobody repair, 378 male apprentices, 0 female. Bricklaying, 207 apprentices, 0 female. Carpentry, 1,748, 0 female. Iron workers, 119 apprentices and no females and the list is a long one. I could leave it with the minister if he would like to have that information.

The minister, as I pointed out earlier, is able to allocate funds for this programme. Now I have many concerns with respect to the kind of funding that will be made available to this programme introduced

[ Page 5242 ]

through this new Act, because we're going to have so much fragmentation in terms of funding that's available for training and education. We are already seeing the Minister of Education again looking for money to provide to independent schools, private schools and parochial schools. We are wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether or not there is going to be any money left for training, teaching, colleges, universities and apprenticeship programmes to enable this programme to be the improvement that the Minister of Labour has indicated in his opening remarks it would be. I would like to make one minor suggestion to the minister. I notice in the definition section of the bill – this rather surprises me and I would draw the attention of the minister to this – a trade school means a person. I am drawing this to the attention of the minister this time so that he could either explain during second reading what that definition means Or introduce an amendment before we get to committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I've never heard of a trade school meaning a person, but it says ". . . means a person who teaches a trade to students." I suspect that it might be the result of sloppy drafting, and I would certainly appreciate clarification if in fact the minister has an explanation for that definition.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this bill will, in fact, improve the situation in terms of apprenticeships for people, particularly young people who are the ones who are seeking training and apprenticeship programmes. I hope it will do that. I hope the minister will be able to have sufficient money in order to make the programme effective. I hope that more women will, in fact, be involved in apprenticeship and trades training as a result of this bill, and I hope that the waiting lists, which are still sometimes as long as two, three and even more years behind for some apprenticeship programmes and trades programmes will, in fact, be improved or eliminated through the introduction of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Wallace moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.