[ Page 5413 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Future B.C. Coal demand. Mr. Lea –– 5413

Monitoring of Revelstoke Dam. Mr. King –– 5415

Activities of Greek Connection. Mr. Levi –– 5416

Dumping of sewage into Lake Skaha. Mr. Gibson –– 5416

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 89) , Second reading.

Mr. Barber –– 5416

Mr. King ... –– 5418

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5421

Division on second reading –– 5425

Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act (Bill-82) Committee stage.

On section 6.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5425

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5425

On section 7,

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5426

On the amendment to section 7.

Mr. Cocke –– 5426

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5426

Mr. Wallace –– 5426

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5426

Mr. Gibson –– 5426

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5427

On section 7 as amended.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5427

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5428

Mr. Cocke –– 5428

On section 8.

Mr. Gibson –– 5428

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5429

Mr. Cocke –– 5429

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5429

On section 9.

Mr. Gibson –– 5429

Hon. Mr. McGeer 5429

Mr. Wallace –– 5430

Hon. Mr. McGeer 5430

Mr. Gibson –– 5432

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5433

Mr. Cocke –– 5433

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5433

Mrs. Dailly –– 5433

On section 10.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5434

On section 10 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 5434

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5434

Mr. Wallace –– 5434

Mr. Gibson –– 5434

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5434

On section 11.

Mr. Wallace –– 5435

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5435

On section 12.

Mr. Cocke –– 5435

Mr. Wallace –– 5435

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5436

Mr. Gibson –– 5437

Mrs. Dailly –– 5438

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5438

Mr. Cocke –– 5438

Mr. Mussallem –– 5439

Mr. Cocke –– 5439

Division on section 12 –– 5439

On section 13.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5440

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5440

Mr. Wallace –– 5440

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5441

On section 14.

Mr. Wallace –– 5441

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5441

On section 17.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5442

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5442

Mr. Wallace –– 5442

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5443

Mr. Cocke –– 5443

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5443

Mr. Wallace –– 5443

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5443

On section 27.

Mrs. Dailly –– 5443

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5443

On section 28.

Mr. Wallace –– 5444

Hon.Mr. McGeer ... 5444

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have two lifelong friends of mine from my home community of Texada Island, Keith and Nan Johnson. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): We have in the gallery today about a dozen members of the carpenters union of Victoria, headed by a friend, Rick Ferrill. They're here, concerned about the progress of the bill we will shortly be debating. They're friends of ours and I'm happy to welcome them. I ask the House to join me in doing so.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Today I would like to introduce a delegation from the Vancouver Status of Women. This is a women's research team and included in that delegation are Summer McGee, Leslie McDonald, Judi Morton, Janet Beebe, Elza Girard, Annemieke Hamer, Lillian Chen and Bonnie Baldwin. This group is here to meet with ministerial officials to determine government follow-up on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Don Jantzen, a former executive assistant to the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is visiting the House today.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make welcome all of those who have not been introduced in the gallery and provide a little more time for those tardy ministers to get into their seats for question period.

If no further ministers arrive, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can have an indication from the House Leader whether the benches will be more representative later on in the day and we could delay....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Question period will begin in just a few moments, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to delay question period until later this afternoon.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Any further introductions-?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to delay question period until there are more ministers in their chairs,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member serious?

MR. LAUK: Yes.

Leave not granted.

Oral questions.

FUTURE B.C. COAL DEMAND

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I have a question for the Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. At the chamber of commerce symposium in Vancouver last week on the economic future of British Columbia, a representative of Fording Coal was there. In his submission to the economic symposium he said that, at best, British Columbia can look forward to seven million tons of coal being called on from western Canada. We may share in that between here and Alberta. I should add that he said that was a very optimistic outlook -1982. Maybe 1985, he said, is a more reasonable date when we can look towards seven million more tons.

Can the minister confirm whether or not -whether industry has given government those figures - seven million tons is within the ballpark of what the government's figures are in terms of the coal demand by 1982 and 1985? I'm speaking of metallurgical coal.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I'm not able to confirm that figure. The government's estimates are somewhat higher.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary, I don't know what "somewhat" means. Could the minister explain to the House what "somewhat" means - how much higher - and the date, also?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The minister stated that those were somewhat low, according to the government's figures. I'd like to now know what the government figures are.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll get more definitive figures for the hon. member.

[ Page 5414 ]

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. The Premier of this province is presently in London, and he is still making announcements about the future development of northeast metallurgical coal deposits, at a time when statements by those in the field - that is to say, private industry in the province - say that it will be at least 1990 to 1995 before northeast coal is economical for bringing on stream. Can the minister reconcile the Premier's statement with, first of all, his statement to the economic symposium, and the statements of these experts in private industry?

HON. MR. DAVIS: As I recall, a number of the hon. members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) were very optimistic about exports of coal from the northeastern corner of this province a few years ago. Naturally, those who have interests in the southeastern corner of the province are not all that enthusiastic about developments in the north, and I think we have to look to both ends of the province for sources of supply. The resources are large, and the world's reserves of oil and natural gas are diminishing. Coal will be a vital resource, and British Columbia has lots of coal.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The question has obviously been too complicated from a Rhodes scholar point of view. I would like to make it a lot more simple....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Leader ...

MR. BARRETT: Who is correct, Mr. Minister, about coal development, you or the Premier?

HON. MR. DAVIS: We are both right on. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: You're both wrong.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Are there further supplementaries?

MR. LEA: Could the minister tell the House whether any representative of government has been in touch with the Premier since the economic symposium, and the Minister of Energy's statement, to inform him of what is happening here in terms of the coal and the new story that's coming out of government? Was anybody in touch with the Premier by telephone, informing him of these developments here in British Columbia?

MR. BARRETT: And who gave the permission for the long-distance phone call?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, not to my direct knowledge, but I will make inquiries.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. The minister indicated to the House, by inference at least, that the people making these statements about northeast coal were interested in southeast coal - that is, Fording and Kaiser. Not true. Mr. Southworth is an advisor to interests. in both areas, who has stated northeast will not go ahead before 1995. Could the minister confirm that it is the government's information that northeast coal cannot proceed until the 1990s?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, I cannot confirm that statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Another supplementary - can the minister inform the House if the government has information that northeast coal cannot come on stream soon? And, if so, when? Can he furnish the House with that information? The people of British Columbia are very concerned about the statements made last week, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'm on a supplementary, too. Government spokesmen indicated, particularly at the time of the announcement about a year ago, , that thousands of jobs that were going to be developed by 1980 in the Peace River area through northeast coal, There was a 10-million-ton annual export threshold required for economic development. I believe the transportation and other studies have been done on this basis.

, The minister now seems to be agreeing that there are going to be only about seven million tons by 1985 from western Canada. How can he reconcile these statements? Will he give us an undertaking in the House today that it is still the intention of the government to develop northeast coal by 1985? Or have they abandoned that and the promises they made?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, it is still the government's, intention to develop northeast coal. The precise year at which a figure, for example, like 10 million tons per annum - which is a threshold number - is reached, is a matter for market determination. If the markets are there - and they will eventually develop, of course - then the large volume export will occur. In the interim, smaller quantities may have to move.

MR. LEA: The seven million tons that are being put forward by private industry for western Canada

[ Page 5415 ]

and southward.... They are saying that the entire seven million tons, if it all came to British Columbia, could be handled by industry. Kaiser is saying it, Fording is saying it and Cominco is saying it. The only people who aren't are government.

The question is this: if southeastern coal interests are saying - and they are - that if it is seven million tons and they get all of it, the private money can go into develop southeastern coal and supply that market, why private industry wants to know, would the government put public funds into taking coal out of the ground, when private industry is in place with infrastructure and willing to put the money in? Why would government consider going anywhere else but to southeast coal and to private industry for money, when the infrastructure is already there? Why would they do that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to try to answer an iffy question like that. I should comment, however, that the hon. member should know that as much as nine million tons per annum have already left British Columbia. Where the seven million ton figure comes from in that relationship, I don't know.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that we're talking about seven million increment over what has already been exported per annum. My question by way of supplementary is this: it is clear that the trip by the Minister of Economic Development to Japan switched Japanese emphasis on the importation of coal from B.C. to Australia. Would the minister finally admit and confirm that the Minister of Economic Development bungled his trip there, which was an economic disaster to the province of British Columbia?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I caution that in the question period questions need to be framed as questions and need not be made as speeches, however short.

MONITORING OF REVELSTOKE DAM

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. In light of the tremendous concern that has been expressed from the Revelstoke city council and various other agencies in that community, will the minister reconsider the structure of the monitoring committees he has set up with respect to the Revelstoke Dam and provide for local representation on those committees?

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I think that the people of Revelstoke misunderstand the implications of the amendment to the conditional water licence. I look forward to the opportunity of meeting with the mayor of Revelstoke and clarifying the matter for him. I don't believe that they fully recognize that in the consultation process they will be directly involved.

MR. KING: Supplementary. Can the minister confirm that the committees that have been struck to monitor Hydro's performance and measure the social and economic impact and the other committee respecting environmental impact are composed entirely of government civil servants? Is that not a fact?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's not a fact, because the committees haven't been struck yet, but the appointment will be by the comptroller from those ministries and agencies of government that are directly concerned with the possibility of adverse impacts upon the community. However, the definition of those impacts will be as a result of consultations between the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and the local interests, whatever they might be. The committee will be there to monitor those discussions and to make recommendations to the comptroller as to what orders and directions he should make as a result of those discussions. He'll be there as much to protect the city of Revelstoke as anything else.

MR. KING: The community of Revelstoke is not looking for paternalistic protection, Mr. Speaker. Rather, they are looking for some joint participation in the decision making. I appeal to the minister in all sincerity to reconsider and allow some local representation on the committee that has the authority to monitor Hydro's performance. That's the issue.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member continues to misunderstand the amendments to the order. It's not for the question of monitoring B.C. Hydro's performance but to monitor consultations between the two parties who are directly interested in the adverse impacts. It is for that purpose that the committee is being established. If the member is suggesting that local participation should be on the committee, then I assume he would want participation by Hydro as well. Then everybody who's involved is going to make the decisions.

MR. KING: More centralized control.

MR. BARRETT: When you read the Blues, will you say it's a mistake?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order?

[ Page 5416 ]

ACTIVITIES OF GREEK CONNECTION

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): A question to the Attorney-General. Several weeks ago there were two articles in the newspaper dealing with the unfortunately named "Greek Connection" and the Bank of Montreal. Can the minister inform the House as to whether the commercial crime squad of the RCMP have completed investigations into this matter? Also, because I've got a feeling he's going to take it as notice, could he tell us whether his ministry officials have been in touch with the bank inspectors of the federal government regarding this matter?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I don't have any specifics to respond to that question today, so I'll have to take it as notice. But I'll obtain the answers for you.

DUMPING OF SEWAGE

INTO LAKE SKAHA

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that he's just granted the city of Penticton a permit to dump up to three million gallons of extra sewage into Lake Skaha per day, I'd like to ask the minister if to his knowledge there's any concrete evidence to show that this sewage will not have the effect of aggravating and making worse the milfoil problem.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the Environment): The Minister of the Environment has not granted any permits. The director of pollution control has granted a permit, which is appealable, and we have been advised by many people that indeed it will be appealed. So it's not permanent this time,

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister was not the status of the permit. My question to the minister was whether he had evidence that it would not cause harm before the branch granted that permit. Does he have studies?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Until the appeal process is heard, there's no way of knowing what the final conclusion and status of that permit may be. The appeal may perhaps either discharge the permit outright or may modify the permit or may call for certain precautions to be taken in treating the effluent. We therefore at this time do not know precisely what the effluent may be. We must know that before we know what effect it would have on the lake.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on Bill 89.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria adjourned the debate. He had spoken four minutes of his time and has the remaining time left at his disposal,

MR. BARBER: The bill we're debating today is the first serious political mistake the Minister of Labour has made since assuming office, It's obviously proven to be the worst blunder of his career since entering politics. There are a number of reasons why it should be withdrawn, not the least among which is the fact that the minister announced, after defending it for two straight days in a very heated and argumentative fashion, that it was finally all a mistake. But the problem is that no one believes him.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Just be accurate.

MR. BARBER: There are three principal reasons why we in the opposition - I gather the combined opposition, indeed, will be voting against the bill - are particularly opposed to it,

The first and most important reason, of course, is that it's very ill-considered and foolish legislation. It's a bad piece of law. It sets a dangerous precedent. This bill will have the effect of wrecking a climate of labour peace that was struggled for and achieved under the predecessor of the Minister of Labour in this province.

This minister has as well, through this bill, substantially damaged a relationship which he apparently had successfully created with at least certain members of the executive of the B.C. Federation of Labour. In that extent, surely no matter what party he belongs to, any Minister of Labour entering such a course is following a very mistaken course indeed.

We had, prior to the introduction of this bill, a delicate and effective balance. It was working. It was a balance of powers and of authority, a balance of precedent and a balance of interests. Those interests were balanced fairly among and between public and private sector interest groups; among and between private employees and public employees; and included the creation of a Labour Relations Board, which, we may indeed shortly discover - I don't know - is not itself happy with this bill, I have no information to offer, but I would be very surprised if they were particularly delighted with this section either.

This is a bad bill because it's damaged a climate of

[ Page 5417 ]

labour peace and because it's damaged a working relationship the minister had and used to enjoy with the B.C. Federation of Labour. It's upset, perhaps irrevocably, a delicate balance in labour-management relations in this province, which was working. One has to ask the question - and it's not in the least hypothetical, Mr. Speaker - who wanted this bad bill. Who wanted this particular piece of damaging legislation?

Were there employer groups which wanted it? If so, would the minister name them, tell us when he consulted them, how he found out and what influence he had? Were there members of his caucus who wanted the bill? Perhaps they're the real authors, and the minister himself is once again their patsy.

Perhaps, indeed, no one wanted this bill but a few rather selfish, partisan interests, a few rather selfish business interests, who seem not to care about the effect this bill is having on the destruction of a peaceful labour relations climate in this province. It's reasonable and appropriate and fair to ask who wanted this bad piece of legislation. Was there a crisis in this province prior to the introduction of this bill, Mr. Speaker? Was there a crisis that demanded the attention of this kind of legislation? There was not. There was no crisis in labour relations in this province until the minister brought this bill down. There was no crisis that had to be dealt with. All that has happened is that the minister has created a crisis which he's now hoping to solve by telling us how sorry he was that, indeed, one particular provision of it, which he defended so mightily was, after all, a mistake. In our opinion, on that ground alone - the poor and unnecessary quality of such legislation - it should be withdrawn.

There are two other principal grounds why the minister would be well advised to discharge this bill today and proceed with it no further. This bill has substantially damaged the minister's own credibility. Many members of the opposition have pointed out that he previously enjoyed the reputation of the strong, silent minister of cabinet; that if anyone could be trusted in that coalition over there to retain a cool, even and level head about himself, it would be this minister. It's clear that wasn't the case at all. He panicked. It's clear that he hadn't read the bill. It's clear that he didn't understand the bill. It's embarrassingly obvious that he defended it in ignorance, and he panicked. One wonders who really wrote the bill, and one wonders whose interests are really being served by it. Having falsely and foolishly defended one particular provision of this bill, the minister, two days later tells us it was all a mistake.

The second principal reason why this bill should be withdrawn is because the minister must surely realize it has damaged his credibility. The problem the minister has, Mr. Speaker, is that no one believes him. He has introduced not one shred of evidence to persuade anyone that it was a mistake, To the contrary, the only evidence we have is that it was deliberate from beginning to end and, at the very end of it, when the minister realized what trouble he was getting into, he panicked. He now purports and pretends that it was a mistake.

The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) said earlier in this debate, and I concur with him wholeheartedly, that if the minister doesn't believe we're a bunch of fools, and doesn't believe that anyone should think of him that it was a pretence and a hoax and it really wasn't a mistake, let him produce evidence to the contrary. Let him produce witnesses, be they draftsmen from the Ministry of the Attorney-General or his advisers in the Ministry of Labour who would, under oath, testify that this was a mistake. The problem the minister has is that his credibility has been damaged, perhaps irrevocably, by his pretence that this was a mistake.

This is after all, Mr. Speaker - and it has been pointed out before - a piece of amending legislation. It's very peculiar to think of a mistake being made in an amending bill because the nature of the legislation is that they have to go out of their way to alter it. Had no mistake been intended, no amendment would have been forthcoming. Had no mistake, as the minister now calls it, been planned and designed, then there would have been no amendment for us to discuss. The point is, we could only come to this position because a conscious decision was taken to amend it. The amendment did go through numerous readings of the committee, which the minister himself chairs - the legislative committee of cabinet.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not true.

MR. BARBER: I'm sorry, I apologize. I understand it was true. Perhaps I should say of which the minister is a member. Mr. Speaker, we can only conclude it is part of a design, the foolish nature of which is becoming more and more obvious all the time. The second major reason he should withdraw this bill, therefore, is that he has damaged his own credibility.

The third principal reason why the bill should be withdrawn is because it is part of a package. It is because it is part of a design which this minister, deliberately or not, has been part of himself since taking office. This bill reveals the performance of a weak, servile, dilettante Minister of Labour, who is willing to give in to the most reactionary, backward, anti-labour elements of his own coalition. The minister is, after all, a Liberal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I interrupt you? I'm enjoying your speech.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So am 1.

[ Page 5418 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: However, debate on second reading provides opportunity to scrutinize the terms and the principles of the bill. If the member wishes to attack the minister himself, that must be done during estimates.

MR. BARBER: Ah, yes. We did that then too, Mr. Speaker. We're concerned in a humanitarian way for the future career of a minister who would introduce a bill like this. There are some people who thought he might have been Premier one day. Most of them think so no longer because of the mistake he has made with this bill. So out of respect for his own career ambitions, we urge him to withdraw it.

Perhaps a moment of silence in regard to the passing of the once great, now-lamented Minister of Labour....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind the member again.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm almost through anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, in more ways than one.

MR. BARBER: The point that this opposition unanimously makes, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a dangerous and damaging bill. Trade unions in this province have behaved most responsibly since the new Labour Code was introduced. Over a period of time relationships were established, authorities were created, precedent and tradition were created, and the Code was working. The minister himself has informed this House of just how well that Code has been working. Why now does he wish to tamper with it? Why, when tampering, does he botch it and bungle it and blunder it so badly?

In our view, Mr. Speaker, that's because the minister is finally revealing himself to be the weak and dilettante minister that some of us have suspected him to be all along. It's a dangerous law that has wrecked the peace; it's a bad bill that's damaged his own credibility. It deserves the support of no member of this House. We oppose it as strongly now as ever we did before.

MR. KING: In winding up debate on this particular second reading of this particular bill for the New Democratic Party, I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I feel actually very sad about having to engage in this particular debate. I certainly would have much preferred to have seen the minister withdraw the bill and hold it over for reflection - that second look that some of the Social Credit predecessors used to talk about - certainly in order to give time for the people affected by the bill to consult with the minister and to give their advice and their recommendations.

But I have to ask the question also, Mr. Speaker: why was it necessary to introduce this particular legislation at this time? It is a fact that there is a relatively calm, tranquil industrial-relations climate in the province. There has been a dramatic decrease in the man-days lost due to strike or lockout activity in the province over the past year, and there are a variety of reasons for that, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister himself has kept a calm hand on the rudder, a steady hand. I think the Labour Code and the structure set up by it has contributed to the building of that climate. I believe also that probably the most profound factor in terms of heading off industrial unrest has been the anti-inflation programme, because that did set fairly narrow parameters within which the trade union movement was obliged to negotiate. It decreased the opportunity and the propensity for strike or lockout action flowing from negotiations.

Now these three factors have combined; and regardless of what we may say in this House as partisan politicians, the reality is recognized, I think, by the industrial relations world that these three dimensions have contributed to a relatively easy time for the Minister of Labour - a calm climate which he could have used to build confidence and positive programmes, Rather, Mr. Speaker, he has introduced a bill which is extremely controversial.

There are some government members who feel that these amendments are designed to assist working people. Well, nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Even if the minister feels that way, to be patronizing enough to take the position that we shall tell the workers what is good for them when obviously they don't like the message nor the cure nor the medicine is sheer stupidity.

We heard an interesting presentation, Mr. Speaker, by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) yesterday. I was saddened by that presentation also. I think the Minister of Labour was embarrassed by the presentation, but the Minister of Labour must accept some responsibility. His incursion into amending the Labour Code of British Columbia at this particular time can have no other effect than to generate and whip up high emotion on both sides of this issue. That emotion, that imprudence was inherent in the speech of the member for Dewdney yesterday. I'm just going to read back two of the comments that the member for Dewdney made yesterday in his speech, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I can't hear the member for Revelstoke-Slocan,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have just a little order in the House? If extended conferences are necessary, perhaps they could take place in the foyer.

[ Page 5419 ]

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) yesterday gave a dissertation about how he loved the working people, and how the employees of his business were protected by him. He made this remark: he said his father organized his men. Mr. Speaker, that shows in the first instance a very patronizing, paternalistic attitude towards working people and their independent right to determine their own preference, whether they wished to be organized or not. This is part of the problem; it is ignorance, Mr. Speaker.

Aside from that, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) makes constant guttural growls from his seat but seldom has anything intelligent to say. If he read the statute he would understand that any interference by an employer in the preference of his employees to join, or refrain from joining, a trade union is an unfair labour practice. It is a breach of the statute.

MR. JJ. KEMPF (Omineca): I have belonged to more trade unions than you have.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, how many trade unions one belongs to is hardly the fact. The fact in the issue is what is the law, and what does the law provide? The law provides that it is the free choice of employees in any plant to determine whether they wish to belong to a trade union or not. They should in no way be coerced, intimidated, persuaded or dissuaded by the intervention of an employer.

So the member for Dewdney displayed his ignorance of that fact in the paternalistic attitude that leads to unfair labour practices in this province. Most inflammatory of all, the member made this statement: he said he is afraid of big unions led by violent men. Mr. Speaker, that is inflammatory. That is irresponsible, and the suggestion that we have that kind of problem in British Columbia is completely without foundation.

I find it appalling that the Minister of Labour would introduce a statute which generates that kind of emotion. Maybe that explains his introduction of the bill. Maybe it is that kind of inflammatory hostility in the back benches of this government that is responsible for the minister introducing this statute. I don't know. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that emotion is going to be generated in opposition to this statute also. I fear that emotion is going to compromise a relatively stable climate of industrial relations in this province that has been enjoyed over the past year, for whatever reason. I think it's imprudent,

Labour is not going to view this statute just on its merits alone. Labour is not going to measure this statute just by the clause by clause provision. Labour is going to look instead, Mr. Speaker, to the total implications of this session in terms of their security. They are going to look at Bill 65, and Bill 68, and the

Labour Code amendment. They are going to look at the Statute Law Amendment Act, which prohibits faculty associations from ever belonging to a trade union again, in our universities.

The gross cynicism of this government's suggesting that they might withdraw the offensive section of the Notre Dame bill, when in the Statute Law Amendment Act they have a bar to ensure that no trade union will ever be formed in the faculty associations again, is scandalous - absolutely scandalous, and an act of sheer cynicism.

Mr. Speaker, if that is the approach of this government to generating labour's trust and co-operation in this province, then I have to fear for the future, The trade union movement of this province and the working people are going to be concerned not only with these real legislative initiatives in this House, but with the statements made by other ministers. I have spoken about them before.

They are going to be concerned about the fact that this Minister of Labour has failed to stand up and defend the integrity of his jurisdiction. He has failed to defend the rights of working people against the imprudent statements of his colleagues. His silence has inferred his weakness and his inability to stand off the more reactionary suggestions of the back bench.

I disagree with my colleague, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) only to this extent - he said the minister has made no other mistakes until now. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. The first mistake the minister made is in respect to his imprudent action in the Workers' Compensation Board where he brought chaos for one year until that mess was cleaned up. His imprudent and arbitrary dismissal of a fine Workers' Compensation Board chairman, who had brought humanity to that agency, created chaos there. Now he's made his incursion into the Labour Code.

Mr. Speaker, after standing in the hall and after meeting in press conferences and defending the motivation behind his amendments, he came to the sudden realization that it was all a mistake - that, in fact, he didn't understand the amendments that he had introduced and defended for two days. He said: "I withdraw the most significant part of it." Now this is.... I don't want to rub the minister's nose in that, particularly.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not true! Be accurate - that's all I ask,

MR. KING: I think that's accurate. If that's not accurate, the minister can correct me. But as I understand, and recall it - and the first set of amendments is still before us - they provided for a 55 per cent mandate requirement for trade unions to gain certification. That was certainly the central

[ Page 5420 ]

aspect of the first list of amendments. Two days later we received another list of amendments to the amendments, and the minister said: "It's a mistake; it's all a mistake."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's what the press said.

MR. KING: The press said that and then the minister got up and confirmed the press report. My point is that that certainly impairs the minister's credibility and the confidence of the industrial relations community in the minister's ability to understand what he's doing and to maintain control of the situation.

That's incompetence, Mr. Speaker; it's great incompetence. Or is it a strategy? Was this whole thing, including the interference of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , the interference of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the inflammatory statements by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , all part of a deliberate, careful strategy by which this government would whip up emotion in the industrial relations world that would justify a harder approach - an approach that perhaps would go much further than these amendments, to the extent of right to work laws and to the extent of even outlawing an opportunity to organize some plants in this province. Is that the case? We don't know.

I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether the staff of the Ministry of Labour has consulted to any effective degree on the development of these amendments, because I had the opportunity to work with the staff of the Ministry of Labour for some years, and they're highly competent and they're highly vocal, too. I just cannot understand the senior staff of the Ministry of Labour allowing the kind of shoddy bill to come into this House that the minister presented in the first instance. So I'm inclined to think this was a political bill. This was a bill conjured up in the Social Credit caucus and cabinet rooms without the participation and guidance of senior departmental officials - and the minister fell on his face. Whatever one of those three reasons, Mr. Speaker, it's a blow to the future, in terms of any hopes for a more enlightened and more co-operative industrial relations climate in this province. I certainly regret that.

I'm not going to deal with the section by section weaknesses in this bill, Mr. Speaker, at this point. I can assure the minister that when it comes to committee consideration of the statute, I'm going to have a great deal to say about some of the sections which, in my view, set us back very many years in terms of an opportunity to organize the unorganized in this province.

But I return to my initial comments, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that there was absolutely no urgency about the introduction of this bill. There is no situation that justifies compromising the stability that does exist at the moment, inflaming emotion and creating a relationship of confrontation with the trade union movement, which the minister has done. Whether he's done it intentionally or unintentionally, that is the consequence. I suggest that the value or the benefit to be derived from this bill certainly doesn't warrant those serious problems. I can think of no urgent reason why this bill had to be introduced.

I don't know whether the Employers' Council had a role in persuading the minister that these changes should be brought about. It's interesting that on September 2 the Employers' Council of the province of British Columbia issued a Labour Day message, "Thoughts on Labour Day" - an editorial. I don't know whether they had already made their submissions to the minister with respect to amendments to the Code and were satisfied he was bringing them in, or whether perhaps they were trying to cover for the minister's failure to issue a Labour Day message himself. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough for the Minister of Labour to abdicate his responsibility to protect the rights of working people.

The minister has to be seen to be a strong minister; he has to be seen to be dedicated to protecting the rights of workers. That's basically what labour law is all about. It's fine to be equitable and even-handed. One must do that. But remember this, Mr. Speaker: labour law in the first instance was developed to shore up and to protect and to establish a relative balance of economic equality for employees which is not there otherwise. Unless we have a minister who is dedicated to improving the lot of working people through guaranteeing their rights to organize, to bargain collectively, to be free from coercion and intimidation in pursuit of their legal rights, then we have a Labour minister who in my view should not hold the portfolio. We have failed to hear that kind of statement of policy from the Minister of Labour. Against the incursions and the interference of his colleagues and their anti-labour statements, the minister has been silent.

The minister has received recommendations from the Employers' Council and other industry groups with respect to amendments to the Labour Code. Instead of at that point holding it wide open so there is equal representation from labour, he's played that a little close to the vest, I believe, and as a consequence he's compromised his image of impartiality and his dedication to protect the legitimate rights of workers in the province.

Now in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this. The Minister of Labour at one point tried to justify some of these amendments with respect to the increased percentage of workers in a unit that is now required before application can be made for

[ Page 5421 ]

certification by suggesting that he was doing that because so many of the applications based on the 35 percentage limit had failed before the board. Now if that's the case, I guess we have to assume that that created a thorny problem either for the Labour Relations Board to cope with or in terms of the stability of the industrial relations climate.

I would certainly like the minister to clarify his statement in that regard. The fact that a union applies and fails to win a majority, as far as I can understand.... My involvement has not only taken me through that exercise with a trade union but it has taken me through that exercise sitting in the Minister of Labour's office as well, and I see no detrimental side effects from a trade union applying and losing a certification attempt. Certainly, in my view, the consequence would be that that union would attempt to sign up a better percentage before making application the next time around. But there's certainly nothing lost or nothing damaging in terms of the time of the Labour Relations Board or anything else by allowing them to apply with the 35 per cent.

Conversely, Mr. Speaker, in many cases, particularly in the service industry where you have small units, the 3 5 per cent can be crucial, very crucial in terms of going in with a quick organizational campaign and getting the vote before an employer becomes geared up to indulge in all of the unfair labour practices that are in his arsenal. I suggest that if the Minister of Labour would review the statistics flowing from his own department, he would understand the can of worms that he's opening up.

1. will the minister review for his own edification the number of unfair labour practice convictions that were dealt with before the Labour Relations Board last year?
2. will the Minister of Labour review for his own edification the amount of dollars in unpaid wages that was collected by the labour standards branch of the Ministry of Labour last year?

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these two factors alone will demonstrate very clearly what goes on out there in the unorganized sector when we have to rely upon the tender mercies of employers. Either the department has to protect them or they organize into a trade union so they can protect themselves. To suggest that the unfair labour practice thing is something that is minimal and not experienced too often is belied, Mr. Speaker, by the records of the Labour Relations Board in dealing with unfair labour practice charges. When that occurs, Mr. Speaker, it's a subtle process, a very subtle process that is hard even for the Labour Relations Board to adjudicate.

The minister is now putting more weapons in the arsenal of the employer to indulge in those subtle nuances that can discourage and intimidate his employees from expressing and indulging in their true wishes as to trade union membership. This is the danger of the bill. I am not going to go into it in great detail at this stage, because we will be discussing it in committee. But so far, the only excuses the minister has put forward for the introduction of this bill simply do not bear any weight and simply do not stand up when they are scrutinized, from the records of his own department or from any other system of appraisal.

So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I must say that the New Democratic Party opposes these amendments in the strongest possible way. I feet no joy in witnessing the dilemma and the embarrassment which the minister has put himself in, because I honestly fear that down the road that minister is going to end up with more egg on his face. His ability to cope as an effective Labour minister in this province has been compromised already. I truly believe that his effectiveness will be impaired, certainly more dangerously if he proceeds with this reckless bill that is before us now.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge the Minister of Labour to reconsider, to consult with those people who are available and certainly non-partisan in a political way, but can give him good sound advice in terms of where he should go in terms of this particular statute. We will be opposing this bill very strongly.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I am indebted to the members of the opposition for the care in which they have addressed themselves in the course of this debate to the issues. That care has resulted in virtually no opposition being expressed to this bill, regardless of the criticisms which they may have levelled against me as a minister, my colleagues or the other members of the government in this House.

That's the sum total of what this debate has been all about. I thought I was listening to a replay of the tapes of Hansard of last year. I just happened to get the Hansard 1976, as Hansard quotes the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . I would like to read the words into the record, so that they will be clearly spelled out not only once, but twice.

MR. KING: That'll be your most intelligent submission to this debate.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): God, I hope not.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we will see whether the member still feels that way. One of the basic reasons for introducing these amendments, expressed in the course of debate, was to expand the opportunities for employees to express by secret ballot whether or not they wish to be represented by a trade union, surely one of the basic aspects of

[ Page 5422 ]

democracy in the workplace.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on page 3167, June 28,1976, during the course of debate on the Labour Code, the hon. member for Revelstoke was expressing his fears. He said: "Yes, I'm afraid of the secret ballot, and if you had been listening to what I say, you would understand why. I'm afraid because it is a statement that this government does not trust the trade union movement." Imagine! The member for Revelstoke is not applauding his desk for that statement. A year ago, you said you were afraid of the secret ballot, because it indicated some lack of trust of this government for the trade union movement.

MR. KING: With respect to what?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to the regulation of their own internal affairs, which is an adequate measure of the respect which that member has for the trade union movement.

MR. KING: Be honest for a change.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: So we're selective about ... he's being selective now about what secret ballots he likes. He likes secret ballots in some cases; he doesn't like secret ballots in others. He likes democracy sometimes; he doesn't like democracy on other occasions.

MR. KING: Tell me what secret ballot the lawyers pass on who's going to practice law in this province. Would you tell me that, eh, Mr. Legal Beagle?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, in order to carry on a logical debate which can be understood by all members in the House, I would ask the hon. minister to please address the Chair, and the other members not to interrupt him, according to the provisions of our standing orders.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Do I dare quote further from Hansard, Mr. Speaker, or will it perhaps arouse some concern among the members which will make debate difficult?

MR. KING: Please do.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Page 3169 of Hansard, June 28,1976, still dealing with the debate on Labour Code amendments....

MR. LAUK: Tell us when you're reading and when you're making it up.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm reading now a quote:

Mr. Speaker, the minister has lost his credibility with the working people of this province, and I regret it. I regret it because I think it spells great problems for the future of the province and the public. The public, who felt they were going to be served by some legislative remedies, are going to find that the converse is true - that in actual fact the minister's foolish and arbitrary interventions will only serve to inflame the industrial relations climate in this province....

He said this, mind you, in June of 1976. May I remind you, in June of 1976, halfway through a year which produced 800,000 lost man-days of work in the province because of industrial disputes. He went on to say: ". . and create the inevitable consequence of unprecedented economic and industrial relations conflict in B.C." That's what he said about legislation that we brought in last year, dealing with the use of a secret vote - amendments to the Labour Code.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have difficulty in understanding the nature of the member's debate. You see, I have high regard for him as a member of the trade union movement and as a person who had a major hand in dealing with the Labour Code of British Columbia. Yet in 1976, in the midst of dire industrial conflict in the province of British Columbia, he criticized us for bringing in an amendment involving a secret vote. Here, in a year when we have relative industrial peace, he's also criticizing legislation which in part deals with the use of the secret ballot.

It is suggested that we shouldn't bring in this legislation because this is the year of industrial peace. And yet last year, he suggested that we shouldn't bring it in because that was a year of intense industrial conflict. Now you can't have it all ways, Mr. Speaker. When do you ever bring in legislation which is necessary to bring about needed changes in the statutes of this province? You can't do it in the Labour Code when it's peaceful and you can't do it when they are at war.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well enough to know, the member says. If needed changes are obvious with respect to the Labour Code of British Columbia, this government, will bring those changes before this Legislature for today. We will not be deterred in doing so by threats made by union leaders that they will expose the workers of this province to dire economic consequences just to inflate their own political egos.

MR. BARRETT: Fearmongers.

[ Page 5423 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Fearmongers? There are the fearmongers across there, Mr. Speaker, in the opposition. Throughout the whole of this debate, they have talked about the terrible consequences there will be from these amendments. They said the same things in 1976. Now they were wrong in 1976, and I predict that the workers of this province will recognize the appropriateness of this legislation and they will prove them wrong in 1977 as well.

It was suggested - and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan did - that we should have delayed this legislation. There should be a second look, time for consultation. Others have suggested that, somehow or other, we should have gone through a process whereby all parties in the industrial relations community would be involved in designing these amendments. I think he's right. Because of the emotion which amendments to labour legislation produces, I think he's right.

I only wish, however, that when he was Minister of Labour he had followed that same advice, because he brought in Bill 84 in this House, which caused grave, major concerns in the industrial relations community and incurred for that member the enmity of the trade union movement. He didn't consult with anybody before he brought them in. Mr. Speaker, his experience with Bill 84 and the high level of political debate we have had with respect to this Bill 89 leads me to the conclusion that there will be another method followed. We have brought in these amendments on this occasion, following processes which have been followed in the past. Submissions are made through the office of the Minister of Labour and the department with respect to needed changes. That's the process. Careful examination is given of them and decisions are made as to what amendments can appropriately be brought before this Legislature. It may be that this process is wrong. As a result, with respect to other significant amendments which are obviously needed in the Labour Code - and I'm not prophesying that they will be here next year - it is my intention to establish a mechanism where we will use some other technique.

There will be the fullest opportunity for consultation in advance of legislation being brought on the floor of this House. When that occurs, Mr. Speaker, I don't wish to have members of the opposition standing up making inflammatory remarks in this House in order to gain the support of the trade union movement, who don't want any changes in the Code. None at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The member speaks of time for consultation. Let me advise you, Mr. Speaker, that while some people have reacted in a political way to this bill, other responsible trade union leaders in this province have acted in just the opposite way. Officials of the Ministry of Labour have before them at this very moment - and I expect that they will have before them in the days following this debate on second reading - constructive proposals to improve Bill 89. That's what the process is for, to allow people constructively to examine the legislation which is being debated in this House and to make recommendations for its improvement - not to come along and use their political muscle to stifle any legislative initiative by government. If we come to that stage, Mr. Speaker, then this assembly becomes the servant of people outside this assembly instead of the servant of the people, and we are intending to support the people.

I say quite clearly to groups of employers in this province and to trade union leaders, that as government we will not knuckle down in this Legislature to their individual demands. The former government didn't do it - and I would expect that they would have supported that statement by pounding their desks in this chamber, but they sat silent. silent.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): You're a hypocrite!

MR. KING: You're out of control.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I must look at some comments made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan who is the major spokesman for the official opposition in this debate. He criticized the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) , who spoke yesterday from lengthy experience as an employer and a manager of business, and suggested somehow or other that in his remarks he indicated a paternalistic attitude toward the trade union movement, or to the employees of its organization. That's one of the problems with that member. He doesn't recognize that we have in this province responsible employers, concerned with their employees and with their ability and their right to organize. They're being supported by employers in this province. He doesn't recognize, either, that the purpose of these amendments is to ensure that practice is enhanced in this province, not destroyed. It's to support activities of that kind that this bill is before this House today. If they would only take the time to examine the legislation and read the words very carefully placed in it, they would recognize that would be the case. I look forward to hearing the member for Revelstoke-Slocan and others in debate in committee stage when they will have to address themselves very specifically to the sections in this bill. We'll see then what answers they have to place before this House.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan also suggested that somehow or other this legislation was dictated

[ Page 5424 ]

by other members of the cabinet, or by the Employers' Council and not supported by the officials of the Ministry of Labour. I have only this to say in that regard: he's wrong again,

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not dictated by the other members of this cabinet, or by members of the government party, or by the Employers' Council, or anybody. The decision is made in the Ministry of Labour as it properly should be, and I trust it was during the days when he occupied that office.

I have to concern myself with one aspect of the debate which was raised by the second member for Victoria. He said something which I support. He said the Labour Code of British Columbia is working. He's right, it is working. It is working with the active support of this government and of this minister. It is working today and it will work tomorrow, and it will work more fairly for the workers of this province and for the employers of this province, as a result of the passage of the amendments in Bill 89.

1 was commenting yesterday in a congratulatory way to the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) for her contribution to the debate. I think she was absent at the time, but I'm happy to restate it. Yes, the unorganized worker is something that the Minister of Labour and the government must be concerned about.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't show any concern in that bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, there is concern in this bill, because the organizing process provided under our Labour Code is one that has benefits for the worker, but it can also be extremely disruptive. When I indicated that the 35 per cent application level was where most applications fail, it was because of concern for that that we've increased it to 45 per cent, because we know the trauma that takes place when organizing activities are carried on, and it becomes double trauma when they fail.

The trade unions are put to a great deal of expense and effort in order to organize workers in our work force. And that's their right. The Code enshrines that. But to do that and to fail places the trade union movement and the workers who have supported the trade union in a most difficult situation. And so the amendments are designed to decrease the failures.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. KING: Oh, how incredibly weak!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are no so blind as those who will not see, nor deaf as those who will not hear. But the worst of all are those so rigid in their approach and so philosophically doctrinaire that they will not think. And that's the criticism I have to have of the opposition.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): They have to have something to think with.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But you know, in the matter of unorganized workers, I suppose I should remind the first member for Vancouver-Burrard, who expressed her concerns about the unorganized workers, that the former government, under the Minister of Labour, who is now the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , was also concerned about the unorganized worker, Did they make any changes in the Labour Code to make it easier to organize? They did not. Did they provide any greater assurance that organizing activity would be more successful? They did not.

MR. KING: You've got to be kidding!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, what the former Minister of Labour did was to establish a mechanism whereby he could improve the employment standards of this province to protect the unorganized workers whom the trade union movement wasn't able to organize. As the result of that activity - which is still going on - because it was so badly done by the former minister, we will be bringing before this Legislature employment standards legislation which will again lead all of Canada with regard to the rights and benefits of the unorganized. I suppose when we bring that legislation forward we will be charged with being anti-labour, because we're supporting the unorganized workers and, therefore, somehow interfering with the rights of the trade union movement to organize those workers by making them more satisfied with their unorganized position. I trust that's not going to be the nature of the debate we will hear next year.

I believe I've answered some of the questions posed by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , who, I felt, dealt properly with the principle of the bill, and I congratulate him. I only wish that some of the other members of the House who have knowledge in these matters had taken the time to consider the bill.

MR. LAUK: You should have stayed with him, instead of crossing the floor.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He certainly sees the fundamental principle, which is the question of the public interest. The only difficulty I have with the member's speech is that he couldn't find any balance in the bill. He found some things that were good and

[ Page 5425 ]

some things that were bad but they didn't balance. I trust that his bank is not run the same way. Because again, you see, I thought I was listening to a replay of Hansard.

If I could refer the member again to page 3169 of Hansard on June 28,1976, when we were debating amendments to the Labour Code of British Columbia, the member said: "There's a lack of balance." He also said: "There is no clear and present need, that I can ascertain, for introduction of these particular measures at this particular time, even though, as I said, Mr. Speaker, I essentially agree with the measures." So, you see, he said the same thing yesterday when he engaged in debate. There wasn't any balance and he couldn't see any reason for their being brought in at this particular time, even though he essentially agreed with the measures. I wish to give the member for North Vancouver-Capilano nine out of ten for consistency. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe he's really a wind-up doll.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Then, of course, he also dealt with the red flag to labour and so on, which I think he would now recognize was not the case with the legislation brought in last year. I think on careful consideration he will recognize that it's not the case this year either.

Mr. Speaker, I've enjoyed the debate. I look forward anxiously for the official opposition to have the opportunity to discuss the bill in committee. They've had a good time with some inflammatory statements. They have repaid some of the campaign contribution obligations that they built up in 1975. 1 can only assume, therefore, that they're grateful that we gave them this opportunity. They did it last year and they did it again this year. I'm afraid it wasn't very successful. I think they may have given all they can in the way of money's worth.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't get their money's worth.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We will have the opportunity of dealing very specifically with the amendments in committee. At that stage we will also have the opportunity to deal very specifically with my error. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, for the last time that it was my error, not anybody else's. It's so simple to make that even the opposition will see it clearly when we deal with the amendments and they read them for the first time.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 23

NAYS - 17

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

Bill 89, Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977, 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: Committee on Bill 82, Mr. Speaker.

COLLEGES AND PROVINCIAL INSTITUTES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 82, Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 6.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, on section 6, in the first subsection, where it allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to designate a college region, I just have one question on that to the minister. That is: what criteria will you use for the designation of college regions?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, as in the past, the regions which will be served by a college will be determined by the convenient geographic boundaries which can conveniently be served by an educational centre. These college regions grew up over a period of time without all of the areas of the provinces necessarily being served. The purpose of this Section 1s to patch up the holes, if you like, and to see that all areas of British Columbia have the benefit of the educational services that can be rendered by a community college.

[ Page 5426 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I consider that a very inadequate answer because under the NDP government we had the whole province designated in areas. I accept the fact that there may be one or two school boards which did not come in, but we had the whole province designated. What I don't understand is that in here it is going to give you the power to designate them, so are you planning a change from the present designation? The whole province, for the information of the minister, is already covered by college regions. That was one of the accomplishments of the NDP government. I am asking you if you are planning any change in the regions. That's all the question is.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we are certainly not locking ourselves into the past, so we would not want to prevent an opportunity to improve just because it would satisfy the vanity of the former government. The objective here is to see that the province of British Columbia is served. I think the former minister, if she thinks about it, will recognize the common sense of having such flexibility built into the Act.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment to section 7 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, the amendment is for "at least five" being substituted for "five." I suggest, however, that the minister has been asked for a guarantee of larger boards than five. As a matter of fact, there has been some question that it should be a minimum of nine. I just wondered if the minister would comment on what he thinks in terms of "at least five."

HON. MR. McGEER: We're prepared to concede that five can be a little on the slim side, particularly if people are ill, away on vacation or otherwise prevented from being at a meeting. It has proved to be a problem in the city of Vancouver, which has just five members on their board of governors. So we want to be able to provide for more than five, though not necessarily nine. It will be somewhere in there at an effective size.

MR. COCKE: The minister is obviously hung up with five. It's a number he just can't get off. It strikes me that he could have moved closer to nine and accomplished what he is obviously trying to accomplish.

We recognize that by the number of amendments that have been coming in to all the bills that have been before us this legislative term, there has been a great deal of bungling on the government's side. I think that minister has just shown us that while he wants to improve the Act, he's having grave difficulty in doing so.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I just wish to add my voice to back the views of members of college councils whom I've already spoken to who feel that you can't operate an effective committee system with only a core group of five people, and that an absolute minimum of seven would be required. I wonder if the minister, who has repeatedly told us about his willingness to consult with the people concerned and the knowledgeable people with experience in the college field, could tell us: did he not receive a specific request from college representatives that it should be a minimum of seven?

HON. MR. McGEER: Some have suggested seven; some have suggested nine; some have been satisfied with five.

MR. WALLACE: Not very many.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, how many have had to serve with five? You see, opinions vary, and that's why there is this flexibility built into the Act: so we would be able to accommodate wishes that are not uniform in this matter. Somebody may come into your office or come into mine and say seven. That doesn't make it the magic number or the correct one. As I say, circumstances vary.

While some may consider it a hardship to be depended upon to make a quorum - and this point has been repeatedly made to the ministry -sometimes it's not a bad idea to have people committed to the extent that they have to be there just to make a quorum. That's the way you may get a commitment from people who otherwise might find a compelling activity in their own community when it just wasn't convenient to attend a meeting. So we're trying to strike a balance here.

We're not attempting to lock ourselves into any number. One lobby group may say one thing, another lobby group another. But with this flexibility in the Act, we'll have a greater opportunity to satisfy people according to the circumstances of their particular region.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, certainly I support this additional flexibility. I want to make a representation to the minister in terms of the college which serves my own constituency. It should certainly be more than five. The number of

[ Page 5427 ]

community interests that have to be represented on that council require that.

There's a consequential question relating to this section once one exceeds the number of five. Again, let me relate it to my own constituency. Capilano College currently serves the North Shore and Howe Sound, as the minister knows. There is therefore an entitlement in the school districts concerned under this legislation to appoint two out of a board that now might be considerably more numerous than five. The balance of school board-appointed members could change very considerably as compared to the members appointed to the provincial government,

Now the minister may say that the boundaries are going to be changed so that Capilano College serves Vancouver and Burnaby too, and that may redress the balance. So if that's the answer with respect to Capilano College, that's one answer. But there are other parts of the province where once the council is expanded, the possibility of only one appointee from each school board will mean an overwhelming nomination of the board by Victoria-appointed members of the board.

I ask the minister if he could comment on that and perhaps build some flexibility into the Act to allow local appointment in such a way as to preserve an approximate balance, whatever the number of the board members might be.

HON. MR. McGEER: One specific, Mr. Chairman, with respect to that particular college. It would be our hope that north Burnaby and Sechelt would become part of that Capilano district. That would change the balance somewhat, to partially answer your point. Secondly, if you look at the amendment to subsection (4) - we're not supposed to be debating that - that does build in the kind of flexibility that would make it possible....

MR. GIBSON: It's still only one person, though, from each school district.

HON. MR. McGEER: This is what we have at the present time and we wish to be able to make it more than one if the circumstances so warrant - but not to serve on one board. A given district that couldn't adequately be served by one college might have a member sitting on another board. That's the second way in which we build in a little protection and see that the widespread communities that are satellite to the central place where the main facility is built will be guaranteed service.

It's an important point to strike the balance, and I can assure that the ministry is acutely conscious of the dangers of centralization. You take a defensive position and you build your budget around the core facility and then let the province waste. You'll see dotted throughout this bill protective measures to guard against that kind of thing happening. We require certain programmes to be supplied that will guarantee service to the whole of the region. We're well aware of your concern and we've made some moves to cover that in the bill itself.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: I move the second amendment on the order paper, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

MRS. DAILLY: Although I'm sure the two amendments that the minister brought in after listening to some concerns from the groups who met with him are appreciated, despite these two amendments, we still have something inherent in this section which bothers me personally very much and, I think, a number of other people. We could conceivably end up with college boards in this province with no elected people at all. Now that apparently is the philosophy of the Social Credit government in respect to community college boards in this province, but I really think I should remove that word "community." Obviously, if you can have a situation where there are no elected people at all, I don't know how you're going to get that community input,

So first of all, I want to ask the minister specifically why it is that you have not listened to representations made by numerous people. If you won't go for elected boards, why have you not at least followed other recommendations which have allowed groups within the province such as faculties, teachers and community organizations to give their name to you? I think we should hear from you about that.

But first of all, may I say I'm really opposed to the fact that we could end up with college boards in this province with no elected officials? Some of the trustees may decide they do not wish to serve, and according to the Act, they can appoint anyone they wish. So that's my first question.

And my second question is: as you're going to have provincial councils in this Act, why is it that when it comes to the appointment of your own government appointees whom you make, you're not going to require residency in the area? You've imposed all these provincial councils. Now you're going to set up college boards where there are no elected people, possibly - there could be some board members - and then on top of that, the college regional districts could end up with government appointments all, say, from the city of Victoria or from the city of Vancouver. Why have you not put a

[ Page 5428 ]

residential qualification in there?

HON. MR. McGEER: The reason the section comes out the way it does is precisely because we did listen to the representations made to us. It was the specific request of school boards that they have the flexibility to select one of their elected members or a person in the community of their choice, making the point that double duty was a fairly onerous task in some instances. They felt their interest as a school board would be better served if they had the flexibility to appoint somebody from the community to act on their behalf. That's why that section was put in. I would hope in the overwhelming majority of instances that school boards would choose one of their own rather than somebody who was appointed. If they failed to take their full responsibilities in this respect under the Act, I suppose this government or some future government will want to amend that section.

With respect to the appointees supplied by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the reason why there isn't strict requirement for residence is so that the experience that might be extremely valuable to a college could be supplied through a government appointee, though a particular person who had those qualifications might live just outside the district.

Again it's to provide opportunity better to serve the community colleges rather than to restrict it, but since the majority of people will be coming really via the locally elected route, even if school boards may pick a proxy rather than one of their own to represent them, nevertheless that principle is there. I think the bill adequately serves the point that the minister was raising.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think we signified at the very outset that we thought it was a bad bill, that the minister had his head in the clouds of elitism. This Section 1s very much a part of that. He listened out of one ear and he heard representations on behalf of the school boards. I'm not sure how many would have made that point with the minister, and I'm sure some would have said: "Give us an opportunity to appoint other than our own." That may be the case, but look at the ministerial appointments. While the school board appointments, and the other appointments, are restricted with respect to the region, the ministerial appointments are not. The ministerial appointments come from that minister. They can live anywhere at all. They can have any kind of interests at all. As long as they are "Social Credit" I'm sure they'll get along just fine with the minister. If in fact they're not, then the regional aspect is the real consideration.

Mr. Chairman, that's the problem. Why would you put in a restriction for the school board appointments and not put in a restriction with respect to residency for the ministerial appointments? The minister says it's if they just live across the border. What do you mean? They just live across the province. According to your own legislation, you could appoint a person living in Dawson Creek to be on the board of Douglas College, which is so dear to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , I'm sure.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that's the basic criticism.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, at some point in this bill I want to bring up the question of continuing education. Perhaps this Section 1s as good a section as any.

Continuing education is listed as one of the three objects of a college, but it doesn't receive a great deal more mention throughout the bill. I happen to believe that continuing education is one of the most important aspects of society that the colleges can serve. There is always a little bit of difficulty in finding the line of demarcation where the school boards leave off in continuing education and the colleges take up the task, but the minister, I know, has received representations from the B.C. Association of Continuing Education Administrators. I imagine this is a letter that has been sent to all MLAs. They regretted the fact that among the various pieces of machinery set up in the Act - the various councils - there was no provision for what they suggested as a continuing education council, which would be sort of a fourth piece of machinery.

Well, I don't happen to support that particular suggestion, that particular remedy, but I do support their feeling that there should be, both in terms of policy and more in the legislative framework, attending to and encouragement for the role of colleges in continuing education. I just want to read into the record the experience of these administrators as to how continuing education, if it is not specifically recognized, can sometimes not do as well as other more prominent areas of the college. I'm quoting from their letter here now:

"Unfortunately, in the past, experience has shown that some institutions have paid little regard to the needs of the part-time student who's often the last to receive services and funding and the first target of cuts during times of budgetary stringency, yet in terms of cost effectiveness, the part-time area of post-secondary education is by far the most economical. It would appear inevitable that the proposed three-council structure will perpetuate the neglected state of the part-time student."

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that it is not

[ Page 5429 ]

inevitable. Perhaps under this particular section, where continuing education is specified as one of the three objects of a college, the minister might tell the committee how he would propose that it be ensured that this obligation not be overlooked.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it was so it would not be overlooked that it was one of the three objects that were included. The very fact that it's here in the bill, I think, testifies to the concern of the ministry. We share the objects that are outlined in the letter that was read by the member. I can assure him that continuing education will be a very significant priority of the ministry in the years ahead. I really think that we have addressed it because this is the only section where we lay out the objects, and this is one of the three, which is not bad.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, very often in public activity things don't happen unless there's an agency or a group that's charged with their happening.

I wonder if the minister could tell us on which of the three governing councils - the academic, the occupational or the management - will there be that particular responsibility for monitoring and ensuring that given colleges are carrying out their duties in the continuing education part,

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, they will all share the responsibility. Some continuing education programmes are in the vocational sphere, some are in the academic sphere, and some will come under the purview of the administrative council in the event that they are overlooked. So continuing education is going to get three kicks at the cat. I think it is going to do all right.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's the problem of centralization, where the minister and the government is the last word. For an example, as I said in second reading, I have watched Douglas College in their continuing education programme reacting directly to the needs of the community, the respective communities that Douglas College serves, The ability for this type of a set-up to react to those needs I suspect will be impaired, because you have to go through far too many councils and boards before you can have the need provided. You might have some need in a particular area this year. I suggest that with this kind of a set-up where one has to go through so many different groups in order to satisfy your needs, what will happen will be that it will be responded to a year or two after the need has subsided, and something else has taken its place.

There should be some area here so that the community can be reacted to immediately by this programme. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that won't be the case.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't want to prolong the discussion, Mr. Chairman, but the bill does precisely the opposite of what the member is suggesting. You claim this bill is centralizing power. That's what your colleague to your right said. It's doing precisely the opposite; it's decentralizing power. You claim that it's centralizing power on the one hand, and then you complain about the people who are in between the ministry now and the applicant to the colleges, who will be decentralists. Therefore you are arguing opposite sides of the question.

You must remember that up until the present time it has all been within the palm of the ministry. A lot of things that should have been done have not been done, simply because the staff is small. The demands in the many areas of education are great and legitimate needs simply didn't get attended to. It's by this process of establishing the councils to help take up this responsibility that we are going to see that these needs are satisfied, by decentralizing. You may think that this is a proliferation of councils but this is, in the ministry's view, an effective way of getting the responsibility more out in the field where it belongs. I'm sure the members would approve of this. A little less political, a little more objective and, we think, a great deal more effective.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we will be discussing, later o n in the bill, centralization vis-à-vis decentralization. Let me say this: the structure of this bill allows for nothing more than an advisory board at the community level. That is what they have become, an advisory board at the community level. Implementation, Mr. Chairman, requires that you go through three or four levels. We all know that they have to go through five levels ultimately to get the minister on the academic side and four levels on the vocational or, as the minister calls it, the occupational side.

If he calls that decentralization, well, that's decentralization in his mind, but it sure doesn't allow for the kind of implementation that we would like to see from a decentralized position.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MR. GIBSON: This section gives the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to designate provincial institutes. I wonder if the minister has in his mind a comprehensive list of what institutes might in due course be designated, either now or later.

HON. MR. McGEER: All which presently exist.

[ Page 5430 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, that's the usual kind of rather arrogant answer we get from this minister. We are asking what colleges in the near future are likely to be designated. The minister gave us that cheeky answer that it is all that is presently existing. I presume he is referring primarily to BCIT. In second reading debate we tried to emphasize that there are many valid reasons why BCIT is sufficiently of a unique nature that it should not be included under this Act with 14 colleges, in the first place. It's quite obvious that the minister has rejected that argument as he has every right to do. I don't think that we on this side of the House would try to study legislation and bring some constructive and positive suggestions to debate to just get that kind of curt, cheeky answer.

I'd like to repeat the question. The minister has brought institutes under the same Act since section 9 says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may designate provincial institutes." Surely the minister has other institutes in mind. It might give me a better opportunity to reconsider my position in voting on certain sections of this bill in relation to the inclusion of provincial institutes under the same Act as colleges if the minister might give some idea what institutes are to be designated in the future.

HON. MR. McGEER: The ones that currently exist are not just BCIT and the Burnaby Vocational Institute.... We've got an institute for art and a marine training institute at the present time. These would all be initial candidates.

MR. GIBSON: Marine training, did you say?

HON. MR. McGEER: Marine training centre, yes. We're actually seeking a site for it at the present time, but there'll be a principal site and then there'll be the branches of it. We need to get something in at Alert Bay and up in Prince Rupert. We're looking for a location for the art institute at the present time. But BUT and Burnaby Vocational Institute are, of course, located out on the Burnaby site. We have the Haney Educational Centre and the Vancouver Vocational Institute, both of which will need to be expanded and which will probably have a combination of these as a specific vocational institute. But others, I'm sure, will evolve as time goes on.

MR. WALLACE: Could I just clarify, Mr. Chairman, then, that the art institute and the marine training institute will be designated by the minister under this bill? This is his intention. He mentioned that they were candidates. I wish we could be a little more direct. Are they or are they not to be designated?

HON. MR. McGEER: Not immediately, Mr. Chairman. As soon as they're properly established and constituted - that is, at a stage of evolution where they could become a proper, independent and viable corporation. The Act is a permissive one. It's not our intention to dash helter-skelter into the future. We've got to wait until each of these can stand on its own feet. They're not going to have the protection of a ministry or another institute to carry them. Therefore it's not going to be done overnight.

MR. WALLACE: Finally on the section, Mr. Chairman. Within the realm of institutes rather than colleges - such specific types of education as the art institute, marine training and the highly sophisticated technological training at BCIT - is it beyond the minister's reconsideration that there might better be an Act for institutes in British Columbia separate from the Colleges Act, for the many reasons that have been outlined in the debate already and for the clear additional evidence that the minister has brought to debate? With the different nature, compared to the colleges, of the art institute, marine training institute and BUT, would it not make a lot of sense to perhaps simplify the government relationship and the administration and supervision of institutes by having them under a separate Act?

This is certainly the greatest concern of BCIT at the present time. As we go down the road, as the minister pointed out, there may well be in months or years ahead other institutes designated. It will mean bringing a very substantial number of colleges and institutes together under this one Act. The kind of curricula they're providing are certainly not similar. In fact, t here's an amazing diversity. The apprehension being expressed by BCIT may well one day be expressed in turn by the marine training institute, the art institute and any others that are designated. Is it too late for the minister to give reconsideration for providing a separate Act for institutes?

HON. MR. McGEER: It would certainly be too late in this session. We're criticized on the one hand for having too many councils and too many bodies, and then on the other hand for not creating enough.

We are, as I've explained many times, moving to restructure the methods of accountability and the methods of funding in a way which we think will be much more effective than in the past. Since the mainstream is shifting, we don't want to create any educational orphans. In this restructuring, we certainly don't want BCIT to be left behind. So this is why they're in this new structure. As I've explained to the board of governors at BCIT whom I met the other evening, I think they're going to fare extremely well under this particular bill.

The proof of the pudding, of course, is always in

[ Page 5431 ]

the eating. If the new structure set up under this bill works so well that people want even more - and we wouldn't be accused of proliferating councils and boards and so on - I don't think the door would be closed to future developments at all. But this is a pretty significant step, to create these independent corporations and to shift the mainstream of funding and accountability. I think we ought to take that first step before we consider another.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think, just for completeness of this debate, I'd like to just quote the comments of one John D. Dennison, who, I believe, is known widely across Canada as an educator of some renown. He has taken the trouble to analyse Bill 82. He ends up by stating:

"In essence, it appears that few convincing arguments can be made for the inclusion of BCIT within the Act. It seems more logical to pay heed to the unique nature of the institute, to accept the legislative history of the past few years and to recognize the present and potential qualities of the institution, by reaffirming BCIT under its current status." Now, this isn't a person who is Socred or NDP or Conservative or anything. He's an educator who has analysed Bill 82, and he is a man of great reputation in the educational field.

I think it's an additional affront to BCIT for the minister to stand up today and tell this House that he had a meeting with BCIT on Tuesday evening after giving them, literally, a few hours' notice that he would meet with them.

This Bill 82 has all kinds of distant ramifications. I've received the copy of the telegram from the Vancouver Board of Trade, asking for the same considered approach to what is a very far-reaching and important piece of legislation. For the minister to inject into the conversation that, yes, he met with representatives of the board of BCIT the other evening.... It is literally true, but to have done so on Tuesday evening, after having told them on Tuesday afternoon to get over here in a hurry and he would meet with them, and then to suggest that that constitutes some legitimate, reasonable and mature kind of consultation between government and a group of educators who are intimately influenced and concerned by this bill, really is just stretching things a little bit. I think it should be clearly understood on the record that it was the most token, superficial kind of consultation that they were afforded, after tabling of this bill. I think that many of the points that they've put forward, even if the minister still disagrees with them, are absolutely valid.

We also have other bodies, like the Vancouver Board of Trade, which consists of employers who must surely be very concerned about changing styles and legislative provision for occupational and vocational training. There again, the undue haste with which we're dealing with this kind of bill - in the same way that we dealt with the labour bill - I think, will do nothing but bring legislation into effect that will have to be amended very quickly. That will take up more time and cause a lot of energy and output and money when, in point of fact, a little delay right now and a little longer opportunity for people like the Vancouver Board of Trade and BCIT to meet in some more considered and less hasty, urgent atmosphere would do this bill a whole lot of good.

It seems to me there are so many points that have been raised - many of them of a constructive nature. They're not just decrying the bill and being negative. I've got all kinds of reaction on my desk, the whole of which, frankly, I haven't had time to read and study. But it seems to me that the best legislation always comes from reviewing all the reaction that the minister can or should receive, and then taking some time to digest it and bring in an amendment. But, instead of that, it seems that we're going to bring the institutes under this Act when, in point of fact, a little more thought would probably show that there's at least an equal number of reasons to have a separate Act for institutes.

I just feel that it still isn't too late to delay debate on this bill and listen to several of the many suggestions from these sources and others that I haven't quoted. In particular, I feel that the statement by Professor Dennison is another example of the fact that BCIT may well have the calibre and status of its operations seriously impaired by including it under this bill, and within the terms outlined as to board structure and the exclusion of faculty, students and others from the board.

I wonder if the minister feels he's really done justice to these people by giving them about six hours' notice to come and say their piece, knowing very well, as he said earlier on, that there can be no substantial amendment. Perhaps it was an insult even to give them a hearing, when the minister had already made up his mind that there could be no substantial amendment. I ask again, as I asked in second reading: is there any possibility of substantial amendments, if the members of the opposition can put forward convincing arguments?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we've ever had a more leisurely session of the Legislature than this one. It has gone on two or three months longer than any previous one in history. Certainly the drafting of this bill was done with extensive consultation with all those who would be affected, extending over a period of 15 months of active work. It's perfectly true that Professor Dennison was not one of the people who was consulted. I don't think we had anybody from the education faculty at UBC, though we did have

[ Page 5432 ]

people from those institutions that would be directly affected. So we gave very careful consideration to the structure and drafting of this bill over a period of some 15 months. There was very extensive consultation with the bodies that would be affected.

I think no institution has had more ministry staff time on a variety of issues, including this one, than BCIT. For individual lobbying of an institution they are certainly the most vigorous. We have as a result of these many hours and months of work developed a structure which we acknowledge does not satisfy everyone. No bill can succeed in doing that. We've listened to and taken into account the many submissions that have been made to the ministry, including those by BCIT.

I wish, as I suppose all members of the government and perhaps the opposition do, that we knew exactly when the bills would be discussed. We'd be able to schedule appointments with people before the bills came up for a second reading or committee, so that they could be given an opportunity to present all of their arguments - which we did with BCIT. It would be nice if we could give a month's notice, and spend a day or two with each group that asked for time to present their points of view. Unfortunately it just isn't possible to give that amount of advance notice or to spend those periods of time. It's the nature of the legislative process. The members want to debate the bill on the floor of the House. We never know when it's going to be called, and therefore it's not that easy to schedule time away from the floor of the House.

I can assure you that we have listened to the groups. We have carefully taken into consideration all the submissions that have been made. Any new ideas we've always been prepared to listen to, and have incorporated many amendments on the order papers as a result of these submissions. One can always argue, I suppose, to spend more time thinking it over further delay a little more, have another hearing, meet with another group. You could make that argument about every single bill and delay everything into the hereafter. I suppose what the opposition should do is to find all the specific loopholes and then when we've exhausted that say: "Well, let's just take a little more time and hear a few more people and other things maybe uncovered." I suppose that might happen, but, Mr. Chairman, sooner or later decisions have to be made and progress has to be achieved. Despite the fact that the opposition have given some indication they're not going to support it wholeheartedly, we remain convinced that this bill is going to be an excellent structure from which progress can be made in our colleges and institutes. The minister and the ministry are both convinced that great days are ahead, and that includes for BCIT.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, at the outset, since his name has been raised, I would like to join with the member for Oak Bay in paying a tribute to the analysis done by John Dennison on this particular legislation. I think it was a very useful piece of work. This kind of external academic analysis is the kind of thing that can contribute greatly to the level of debate in this Legislature.

The minister indicated that he has had on this bill a problem of consultation. The minister is a man of very great experience in this House and considerable wit. I can't imagine that it will have escaped him that there exist devices known as legislative committees which are set up for solving this kind of problem for him. I just say in passing that he could very easily have asked the legislative committee on education to listen to BCIT and other people interested in this particular legislation. He chose not to do that, but certainly that was a solution open to him. In my opinion, it would have been preferable to late night meetings on a few hours' notice with the important boards in this province. The minister, in speaking of the inclusion of BCIT in section 9 in this bill, referred to his concern that without inclusion in this bill they would become institutional orphans - I think that was the word he used - outside the mainstream of the educational process but, somehow I can't go for that, Mr. Chairman. BCIT occupies a unique place in our province.

The minister and his government, I know, are concerned with manpower questions; they're concerned with economic development. BCIT has a unique position with respect to these concerns in our province. The colleges are numerous. BCIT is sole; it is individual.

When we consider that this particular institute, which is a capital-intensive kind of training facility, is going to have its budgetary requirements dealt with and adjudicated by a board which will be overwhelmingly dominated by colleges with quite different kinds of requirements, one has to be concerned as to whether or not these institutes, and particularly BCIT, are going to get the kind of concern and consideration which in the interests of the provincial economy they should get. Educational institutions can never, in the nature of things, get enough funds to satisfy them.

The management council will be looking at distributing scarce resources. When it looks at this problem and at the - some might argue -disproportionate amount of money that has to go to satisfy the capital-intensive requirements of a place like BCIT, how easy it will be for the college representatives, not in any improper way, but in an entirely natural way, to say: "Well, it's about time we cut those fellows back and spread it around among the rest." It could be that some such spreading decision is right, but that decision should be made

[ Page 5433 ]

not by the persons who would be the beneficiaries of it, but by some authority that is a little bit more detached.

So I'm rather concerned about melding the two together. I suppose the proper section to express that in terms of a vote is not this section, but a later one. But this dialogue has to be carried on at some time and it might as well be here. I'm very concerned about BCIT becoming an institutional orphan not because of exclusion from this Act, but rather because it's included in this Act.

Before, it was in no way an orphan; it was a place with an identity and powers and legislative recognition of its own. With inclusion in this Act, that situation will change and it may become that very orphan status that the minister fears.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would have anticipated, perhaps, a rather different argument from the member, Mr. Chairman. I would have thought the complaints might have come from the proponents of the community colleges, who would have thought that BCIT would have an unfair advantage in competing for funds made available under these councils because of the reputation that the member talks about, where, by comparison, they would seem to be doing a superior job. Therefore they should be able to get the lion's share of the funds. If anything, the structure would work to their advantage.

I suppose people always have the feeling: "Well, if I just don't go through that, but go directly to the minister or to the government, that's where I'm going to do best." But very often, that's where people do worst, simply because in coming directly, the ministry gets very defensive and standoffish, lest it be accused of giving favoured treatment.

You're really far better off, particularly if you have quality programmes, to have these measured against other institutions; that's how you win. If anything, I would have thought that BCIT would be given an unfair advantage over this. Since I'm always accused of being an elitist anyway, I suppose I'd be the kind of minister who would say the best should prosper.

In any event, BCIT, because it's done well in the past and because it's recognized, is bound to do well in the future and I think it will do particularly well as a result of the structure that we've provided for it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I rather thought that we would be discussing this under 83. However, this is a very good place - particularly this and the next section - because when you put the minister's intentions together, you see that BCIT will be run directly by the minister: his appointments. And there'll be no room for the kinds of appointments that are now available - students and faculty - to add the ... we're never suggesting that they should be in the majority, but certainly to add to the mix.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is quite right when he describes himself as an elitist. He's proving it here again. He's not really listening to the people at BCIT, who are not.... Oh, I'm not alone in suggesting that they should be pulled out of this Act and that they should continue on their present Act, and it can be improved. But certainly there's no particular reason to give them one or two sections in this Act and, I think, impoverish them to some extent. They have been a tremendously enriching institute in this province. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped by the time we got to section 83 that the minister would have been bringing in a motion to rescind that section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on section 9, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I suggested that the conversation has been around that very question. But anyway, Mr. Chairman, the minister has now indicated that BCIT will come under section 9. Under those circumstances he's obviously saying that there will be no rescinding the section, and I think that's a shame.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister will indicate to us how this particular institute works to the ministerial level and whether or not the competition and opportunity for access to funds will be impaired by this particular direction that he has chosen.

HON. MR. McGEER: The BCIT board of governors, as the member knows, is appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council at the present time so I can't see that there will be any disadvantage by this particular Act.

MRS. DAILLY: I didn't quite hear the minister's answer. He's mumbling into the mike. May I say that it's very difficult to pick up his answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said they're appointed by the L-G.

MRS. DAILLY: But the minister knows - if we heard correctly - that under the BCIT Act it is made up of student and faculty representation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the BCIT Act would be better discussed under the following section.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, there has been free-wheeling discussion allowed to other members in the opposition on the matter of BCIT.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair may have been lax in allowing it to go quite this far under this section.

[ Page 5434 ]

MRS. DAILLY: It's going to be debated anyway, so I'm quite willing to wait for further debate on the whole area of BCIT when we hit section 83, as long as it is understood, Mr. Chairman, by all that we have an opportunity to do it then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 10 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to ask the minister why the members serve on the board at pleasure rather than for a term certain of two years. It's always been my view that when appointments are made at pleasure, that gives the government an additional degree of control. I would ask the minister why he feels that kind of control is needed here, assuming he has confidence in the board members in the first place.

MR. WALLACE: So you can hire and fire.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, all Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council appointments are at pleasure in any event. Certainly. You just have a rescinding order.

MR. WALLACE: Under this section, Mr. Chairman, the appointment of nine members does not include the existing situation where alumni and students and others can serve on the board. I just want to clear up, if I can, comments made by the minister in second reading which conflict completely with the written statement of the principal in a letter of August 5 which was sent to the advisory committee members. I want to quote a sentence from the principal. He states:

"The proposed legislation implies concern with regard to faculty, staff and student representation on the board of governors; and while this was viewed by some as a potential conflict-of-interest situation, all members of the board of governors present indicated that this had not been a problem at BCIT in the three-year experience of the BCIT board of governors."

Now the minister in second reading made the statement - and I haven't got the Hansard in front of me - to the effect that indeed there had been problems. I thought that in areas such as secondary and post-secondary education, including the universities, the trend was to bring a wider cross-section of interested parties in as participants on boards.

I just want to try and determine two things: whether in fact the universities can now expect to be told in the near future that it is not a good idea to have students....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would be better debated under section 12.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, Mr. Chairman, you're being very picky this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not at all, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: I'll do it under 12. It could be included. We're talking about the composition of boards under section 10. Now if you want to be that picky, go ahead; I'll do it under 12.

MR. GIBSON: The minister, in replying to my point, stated that all order-in-council appointments are at pleasure. That's not the case. Our order-in-council appointments are at pleasure if the legislation so indicates and are there for a term certain if the legislation so indicates. If they are for a term certain, then the government cannot, as the minister indicated, issue a simple rescinding order. Persons having to be discharged in such cases, unless particular cause is specified, requires more formal ways of doing it, such as the passage of legislation. I simply do not see why for such a short appointment as two years the minister finds it necessary to be able to retain the ability to fire a member of one of these institute boards any day of the week. I don't see why that's necessary.

It is obviously not the kind of point that is going to cause the passage, or lack of passage, of this piece of legislation. It's just another case of keeping control over these, hopefully, somewhat autonomous institutions that I think is not good.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the argument is quite an academic one because even if it is at pleasure, one passes a rescinding order. If it is not at pleasure, one still passes a rescinding order. I don't want to get into a constitutional argument with the member. That wouldn't profit the House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, that's nonsense. If it is a term certain, you can't pass a rescinding order; the person is in there for a term certain, and that's what I say it should be.

[ Page 5435 ]

Section 10 as amended approved.

On section 11.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, section 11 deals with the objects of a provincial institute. I think, again, that it is worth mentioning the unbiased comments of Professor Dennison. He points out that there is very little indication in this Act as to the definitive role of these different educational facilities, such as the colleges and the institutes, and no outline of what expectations are held from these particular facilities.

Under this section of objects it is very non-committal, other than to refer, of course, to an earlier section which gives a little more detail. Certainly there is no clear indication as to what kind of results and philosophy underlie the legislation. I wonder, in regard to the absence of any outline of philosophy and goals for the institute, if this is related to the fact that the Goard commission didn't have time, by its own admission, to look at the technological field.

I would just like to quote again from the Goard report, on page 12:

"Technological programmes are generally given at BCIT and the first year may be taken at a college and a transfer credit obtained. 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 any recommendations on these programmes at this time."

Is that anything to do with the reason that there is no clearly articulated object, or any clearly spelled out outline of what this government expects from institutes such as BCIT?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, obviously it would be rather awkward to attempt to include in a statute the aims and objectives of every educational institute in British Columbia. It would be a struggle even for some of the institutions to describe their own objectives. On one occasion we invited the universities to do so and found that they were really quite incapable of describing what they themselves might wish to do in the future. This makes it rather more difficult for anyone else to attempt to integrate the several parts into a logical whole. Clearly something of this nature must be done if we are to deliver the realm of educational services in the province that the public and the students have a right to expect.

Therefore what we will be doing in the future i consulting with the individual institutions, inviting them, in the first instance, to chart their own courses for the future, and to examine some of the parts and see where there is duplication and where there is deficiency. On this basis, we will attempt to develop the kind of futuristic picture which the member for Oak Bay desires to see, and which we desire to produce. We will be working on this whole sphere in the coming months and, hopefully, before too long, we will be able to produce such a document, again, after consultation with the institutions which will be involved.

Section 1 I approved.

On section 12.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, section 12 reads:

"No employee or student of an institution shall be appointed to, or continue as a member of, the board of an institution." This is the firing section. This is the section where the minister gets rid of people who are intimately involved in education. We're not suggesting they should be in the majority of a board, but why shouldn't they be considered and their particular talents be engaged by the minister as opposed to being rebuffed by the minister?

I suggest that he's making a terrible mistake here.

Here we have a situation where there has been some good direction, some thoughtful direction. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are regressing. He's afraid that some of the thoughts of those people who are intimately involved in the working of an educational institute might be dangerous. I think that's a sad situation, Mr. Chairman, and the minister should pull this section right now.

I hardly even expected to find it from him, particularly in view of the fact that he has been involved in higher education most of his life and he knows the contribution that students and faculty make within that particular environment. Now he's saying: "We're going to turn our backs on those people and we don't want to hear any more from them - maybe from an advisory standpoint, but certainly we don't trust them to be part of the decision-making process." Ridiculous, Mr. Chairman.

Get rid of section 12 right now.

MR. WALLACE: I understand this is the section where we should be dealing with representation on the board of BCIT. I would like to place on record a letter that was written by the principal, Mr. Gordon

Thom, dated August 5, in which he wrote to advisory committee members and made the following statement:

"The proposed legislation implies concern with regard to faculty staff and student representation on the board of governors; and while this was viewed by some as a potential conflict-of-interest situation, all members of the board of governors present indicated that this

[ Page 5436 ]

has not been a problem at BCIT in the three-year experience of the BCIT board of governors."

Now the minister during second reading of the debate made it very plain that in his experience there had been many problems. Now I can't recall the precise words that the minister used and I don't wish to put words in his mouth, but the clear intent of the minister's answer was that for anyone to suggest that it had been nice and smooth and that the presence of students and faculty had not created some problems on the board was wrong.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to find out, in debating this section, just where the precise facts of the matter lie. If the minister is suggesting that this section had to be written in because of an unsatisfactory situation which now exists, I would suggest that he's seriously questioning the statement in writing by the principal of an institute who wrote openly and honestly, as he saw it, to the advisory committee members.

This isn't just an issue of what's going to happen at BCIT; I'm sure the three universities in British Columbia are wondering if they're going to have their right to choose representation on their board of governors challenged or taken away from them. In the second-reading debate, the minister left the impression that perhaps he would be looking at the universities. Based on the experience of this bill, there might well be some direction, even though we all give lip service to university autonomy. I suggest that if universities, for example, wish to have student representation in their decision-making process, it should be their right to make that choice.

Here we have a clear conflict between what the minister said in second reading and what Mr. Thom, the principal, has stated in a letter of August 5. Who is right, Mr. Chairman? If the principal is correct in saying that.... I'll just quote him again: "All members of the board of governors present indicated that this had not been a problem at BCIT in the three-year experience of the BCIT board of governors." If the minister says there have been problems to justify his exclusion of students through section 12 of this bill, he should at least stand up and tell us the nature of these problems and why he considers they were severe enough to justify telling BCIT that from the date this bill is passed, the only people who will make the decisions will be appointed by the minister and there will not be faculty or students, although I notice that a student who is only on a continuing education programme is not disqualified, That's an odd little crumb or some kind of apology, suggesting that things aren't quite completely exclusive for students.

[Mr. Kahl in the chair.]

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) suggests that maybe this subsection (2) in section 12 allows somebody who's interested in some such pursuit as wine making to take a course in wine making at BCIT and still be eligible to sit on the board.

MR. GIBSON: That's not a crumb; that's a grape.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Liberal leader, I think most of us prefer grapes to crumbs. But seriously, this is a section which seems to run against the concept in the decision-making process and all educational fields. When we look back to the '60s and all the unrest that presided in post-secondary facilities and in universities, a lot of that was related to the unrest felt by the students that they had no realistic input into what post-secondary education facilities should be providing, though I know there was a great deal more to it than that. One of the elements in the thinking of students in these days that led to riots and unrest and the Kent State kind of disaster involved a wish by students to serve on something more than an advisory committee and to have some real input.

We all know in this House that, at least when you have a vote in this House, you can have some real Opportunity to make your voice heard and perhaps have some real influence. But sitting on advisory committees is something else again, which is at least one step removed from where the real influence can be felt. I think this is a retrograde step. But, more importantly, I would like the minister to justify why he's taking this retrograde step. Could he tell us what the problems have been?

HON. MR. McGEER: There are some 99 educational enterprises in British Columbia. I'm not quite sure of the number that will come under this Act, but it would be, perhaps, 21. There will be a commonality of approach to the 2 1.

I certainly don't intend to take up the time of the House by detailing all of the problems that have occurred in all of the institutions with respect to their governance, But it's my distinct impression that things have not gone as well in the past three or four years as in the five decades before that. We will certainly be trying out a somewhat different system, which really places the boards in the position of being generalists, rather than to have special interests directly represented.

But if the member looks at sections 13 and 14, he will see that provision is made for precisely the kind of input that he suggests. It's our view that this is hardly a retrogressive step, but a quite progressive one, which, in our opinion, will work extremely well. But again, it's one of these measures that needs to stand the test of time. It's our conviction that it will be a success.

[ Page 5437 ]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, congratulations on your promotion.

I noted that the minister rather wistfully compared the governance of institutions in the last 10 years with the tranquillity and calm of the previous five decades. But the world has changed, and we're in a world where students, and every member of our society, have an expectation of a voice of the decisions that affect their lives, particularly the decisions that affect them closely and uniquely in their own communities, their places of work and their places of education.

As one of the members said earlier on, nobody is suggesting that students or staff should have control of a college board. But they should have a voice -there should be a guaranteed voice there, in fact. Here we have a section that not only fails to guarantee there will be a voice, but it guarantees there will not be a voice from the people who make up the college - the staff and the students. They will be excluded, by this section, from the governing body of the college. That, to me, is just extraordinary.

This comes from a minister who is in a cabinet with another minister who is taking a serious look at industrial democracy, which, in the private sector of our economy, is the analogy. Except, of course, the case is far stronger, in my view, in the public sector.

That's just the kind of world we're living in today, when people can perform better if they're working together under decisions made, to some extent, in a collegial sense. After all, that's what a college is: it's a collegial place. Experience would seem to teach that things work better in that way. The minister's been very vague in saying: "Well, there have been some problems." I'd like him to say exactly which problems. He said he didn't want to take the time of the committee. I think I can assure him that a good many members of this committee would like to have the time taken so that we can understand. What are the case examples? What's the chapter and verse? Where has this system gone wrong that it has to be proscribed and excluded from possibility of the governance of the educational institutions of this province?

Mention was made before of the paper done by Professor Dennison on this Act. He's been very frank, Professor Dennison has, and said: "Unfortunately, there's no evidence to suggest that such representation" - that's faculty or student representation - "either improves or reduces the effectiveness of the board." That's not what the minister said. The minister is quite satisfied in his own mind that it reduces the effectiveness.

Let him give us case examples, because Professor Dennison goes on to say: "Notwithstanding such lack of empirical data, there are many faculty and students who express the view that such representation leads to increased confidence in the board and higher morale within the college community."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. GIBSON: That's a normal thing. You'd expect, Mr. Chairman, that would lead to greater confidence and higher morale because you have a bit of a voice in what's going on.

Then the next sentence is: "The general impression seems to be that the experience of the university board of governors provides no evidence that faculty and student representation produces major problems, and in fact, adds an important dimension to the discussion at the board level." That's Professor Dennison at the University of British Columbia, the minister's own university. Has he talked to the board of the University of British Columbia on this particular subject? What did they have to say? What other boards has he talked to and what did they have to say? Where is the chapter and verse? Where's the case example that would require such a serious step to be taken as this, the exclusion of a certain class of person from representation in any way - with any small voice - on the body that governs their activities for a considerable part of the day of most of their year?

The minister said that there's going to be something called an advisory committee. Is that what it's called?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: An advisory committee, and that students and faculty would be able to be on that. Well, now, that's very nice.

HON. MR. McGEER: A programme advisory committee.

MR. GIBSON: Programme advisory committee.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: But the question is - so they're on an advisory committee, what powers does that committee have? The power is in the board. It's very clear from other sections here. What does the board do? It will establish and maintain courses of instruction, provide a programme of continuing education, promote the objects of the institution, determine all questions relating to the academic and other qualifications for admission or continuation of a student in a course of instruction at the institution, prepare and submit budgets, and so on. This is the guts of the institution. This is the body that has that power. To say that students and faculty will be able to have the honour and privilege of being on a

[ Page 5438 ]

committee that's advisory to that group is just not good enough. They have to have a voice where the action and the authority is, and that's at the board level. In my view, quite the contrary to this section, there should be provision ex officio for such members rather than excluding them completely from being on there. So I say again to the minister: in the face of the general philosophical trend of this part of the 20th century, the evidence adduced by Professor Dennison, and in the face of what's happening in the private sector of the economy, why does he feel it necessary to turn around and head in the opposite direction in this colleges Act, and make it impossible for those most affected by the decisions of the college board to have a voice at that board? What are the case examples that would drive him to that conclusion? If he can't provide that kind of case example then to me this Section 1s totally unjustifiable.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to go over all the arguments in favour of shared decision-making on boards in this province, I find it absolutely incredible that we have to stand here in 1977, and try to convince this Minister of Education that this should be done.

He was actually standing there when he last spoke, Mr. Chairman, suggesting that he has progressed in going back. He said: "We're going back and we're looking backwards at five decades when things were better." So he's suggesting we go backwards to make things better. In this particular case, his opinion seems to be that as far as the colleges go, no faculty and student representation. He hasn't given us one specific reason, so I join the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) in asking the Minister of Education why. If he's intending to move on this, I want to repeat my question to him which I asked during second reading: are you intending to remove faculty and student representation from the university boards?

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I imagine he is, but I think we should know about it here and now. I do think that no one is going to leave this Legislature without finding out, hopefully, why the minister wants to do this. He did say specifically - we did get this out of him in second reading closing - that there were actual examples of where student and faculty representations were not working. We're willing to listen to those examples, Mr. Chairman. Although philosophically we could never agree with the minister, because we do believe in this party in shared decision making. Certainly, as the Liberal leader says, not majority control, but the right of students and faculties - the people who are part of the institution - to have some input on the elected level.

I won't go on any further on this, but I think we're going to wait to hear from the minister now. We need examples. Why?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, in view of what the member for Burnaby North had to say, I'm surprised she didn't move to do something about all the regional colleges, which, of course, had government appointees as well as school board representatives, I think her arguments are hardly consistent with her term of office. As I've said many times before, Mr. Chairman, we have a model that we think will work extremely well. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We'll just see which method works best,

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) referred to trends and how necessary it was to be part of a trend. I think we've discovered, Mr. Chairman, that not all trends in education are good trends. We're discovering today that maybe it wasn't a bad idea to specify those things that should be taught in school. I know that was contrary to a trend, but we bucked the trend and I think that the system at the elementary and secondary level is better because of that. We hold that it's not a bad idea to examine students. This is greeted with horror, because it really wasn't part of the trend, Mr. Chairman, I've spent most of my life in educational systems of one kind or another, and I'm not impressed with arguments about trends. As I say, this is a model that we're convinced will work very well, and there will be the test of time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what the blazes has all that got to do with the questions that have been asked? Nothing - I submit. The fact is, the minister gets up and immediately opens up with a specious argument suggesting that the former minister could have done something about it. The only reason he's here is because of a working paper, which, incidentally, got convoluted and worked in a rather improper direction, as far as I'm concerned. However, the former minister did, in fact, institute students on the governing bodies of BCIT and other institutes, particularly in the university area. But the minister says: "Go against the trend; see how it works." What a hell of an argument. "Go against the trend and see how it works." I just can't believe it.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Let's do away with elections and see how it works. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: It must be that the minister's head is so high in the clouds, the rarified air up there has, to some degree, distorted that otherwise good intelligence. I just can't believe what we're hearing

[ Page 5439 ]

here.

MR. G, MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): It's a great pleasure to rise and address you on this very important section. Somewhere in the Holy Scriptures there is a statement that goes something like this: "There is a time for living and a time for dying. There is a time for everything under the sun."

AN HON. MEMBER: "To everything there is a season, "

MR. MUSSALLEM: "To everything there is a season" - thank you. Can you help more along those lines? But the time for learning is when they're in the institution. It's not the time for managing. This is what you have to consider.

For example, I have the ability to fly a light aircraft, as other members of this House have. But before I can fly or manage a transport aircraft, I've got to learn that procedure. And I have no idea of it at all. So you ask me to go in there and manage the teaching and learning process of a 747. 1 don't know a thing about it, but I'm going to be in management. I'm going to tell you how to teach me to fly that airplane. That's what you're asking.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the fact is: there's a time for learning, and that's what these people are in there for. These pseudo-democrats give me a stomachache.

MR. WALLACE: Withdraw!

MR. MUSSALLEM: There's a time the students are in BCIT or any place - the university or the school. This committee thing makes me sick. We're on committees for this, committees for that. We want to have students on the boards of education. Well, that's going too far. The students have their time to get on the board of education when they have graduated from that school. That's the time.

I'm not a redneck. I'm not far to the right. I believe in the centre way, the reasonable way. But to say to us that we have to put students on the boards of educational systems is ridiculous. The students haven't got time for that if they're doing their job.

MR. COCKE: Oh, George, sit down. Forget about it.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Will you tell that hon. member for New Westminster this? He gets up at every excuse and every opportunity. Never do I use those terms on him - which I should have done. And although I have some respect for him occasionally, I'm gaining, as time goes on, less and less. It is time he realized that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue on section 12.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, I'll continue and I think it is very important. An hon. member here said to me; "Well, what is one student in nine going to do?" Well, I am going to tell you, I have been in this business for a long time - in business, in management and all these matters. One person can cause more disruption and more disorganization than a student in a school or a learning institution than all the board combined and they have done it.

They are there to learn. You had the experience in Simon Fraser University; you had it there. Now, what do you want - to go through this process again? I say to you, no, it is a wrong process. These pseudo-democrats don't know what democracy is. I do and we do, but they do not.

But I tell you, let the students earn their spurs, their qualifications to do the job, and then let them be on the board - not before.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, he has answered all our questions. We wondered what influenced the Minister of Education to do what he has done. It's obviously the Munchkins. That bunch in the back bench who leaned on him to exercise this kind of a principle that has no principle at all. I guess he's in their hands.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Playing to the gallery.

MR. COCKE: George, if you are slightly uncomfortable, we will give you an opportunity to vote and we will do that right now.

Section 12 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 21

NAYS - 15

MR. COCKE: When reporting to the Speaker, would you tell him the Munchkins won again? (Laughter.)

[ Page 5440 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not in order, Would you please....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I will slightly rephrase it. When you are reporting to the Speaker, could you please report that a division took place on this section and ask leave to have it recorded in the Journals of the House?

In addition, Mr. Chairman, would you ask the Speaker to take note that the federal NDP candidate for Vancouver Centre, Margaret Mitchell, is in the gallery here with us today.

On section 13.

MRS. DAILLY: Section 13, Mr. Chairman, states that all bylaws which come into force by a board have to be approved. They can't come into force, actually, until they are approved by the minister. Now this certainly belies the earlier statement made by this minister that this bill is not a centralized bill. In fact, he stated, it is restoring the economy and decentralizing. Yet here we have bylaws having to be approved by the minister.

Also, I think the minister should explain to us ... if you follow this section and it becomes proclaimed, would he say that a collective agreement is a bylaw? If that is so, then that means the minister would have full control over all collective agreements signed in this province. I think that this minister....

I see the minister looking puzzled and I will tell you why he is looking puzzled, Mr. Chairman. It's because this is a cumbersome, very poorly written, convoluted Act. When we talked earlier about consultation, I think if the minister had had consultation, had had a working paper distributed to all those concerned, as had been the intention of the NDP administration, he wouldn't be in this mess today, having to stand in the committee and answer questions that I can see he himself is quite puzzled about. Anyway, as far as the bylaws go, my specific question to the minister is: would bylaws include a collective agreement? But first of all would the minister please answer why he wants to take unto himself the power of approving a board's bylaws? This was never done before, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McGEER: A collective agreement would be a contract, not a bylaw. I was a little puzzled because I wouldn't quite understand how one might interpret a collective agreement as a bylaw. However, it may be possible, and that one would mystify me if it were the case.

The reason for having bylaws referred to the ministry is so that we can be aware of specific actions taken by boards and make certain that they're within the jurisdiction of the board and to provide for cross-communication. So it's really a communication safeguard rather than any attempt to restrict the freedom and initiative of the board. I might add that most of the work of the board would be done by resolution, which, of course, requires no reference to the ministry at all. So only in unusual circumstances would matters be referred to the ministry, and in those instances where they are, the ministry would be in a position to give them legal and consultative advice. It's not unheard of in many Acts, Madam Member.

MR. WALLACE: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I wish the minister, in relation to section 13 (c) , would give us some kind of idea within which areas he would in fact refuse to confirm the bylaws. It's the old story: "Trust us." The minister is saying that he wants this kind of authority to reject bylaws written by an institution. Again, as someone said a moment ago, we're dealing with highly responsible people serving in very important roles in the post-secondary education field. Surely if they're to be trusted with the kind of authority of being a member of such a board, they should be trusted to write the bylaws.

The minister keeps trying to tell this House that this is not a bill to increase centralized power in the hands of the minister, and yet here we have in this section the most obvious way in which final and complete authority is invested in the minister, who can refuse to approve a bylaw under subsection (I 3) (c) . In effect the minister is telling the board who has been elected and passed a bylaw....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The member for Revelstoke-Slocan interjects that it's a similar thrust to section 28 in the Municipal Act where the minister, given some unique insight as to what is not good in the public interest, can overrule municipal bylaws. Here again we have the minister in effect telling board members of a college: "You may want this bylaw and you may have passed it by a majority vote or even a unanimous vote, but I, the minister, refuse to agree with that bylaw, " So again, I wonder if the minister could tell us what examples have happened in the past that have caused him to ask for this power in this subsection.

I would also repeat my strong opposition to the concept in this section that students and others can be represented on the advisory committee. I'll say more about that under section 15. But under subsection (b) , Mr. Chairman, it states that the board shall establish a programme advisory committee. I've had some discussions with board members who feel that it would be much more appropriate to call it a curriculum advisory committee or a curriculum and programme advisory committee, the idea being that it suggests a wider and clearer definition of the terms of

[ Page 5441 ]

reference for these advisory committees. I wonder if the minister has given thought to including the word "curriculum" along with "programme."

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, the words were considered and, of course, shades of meaning of words are different according to the individual. One may prefer "curriculum, " another may prefer "programme, " but we can't please everybody's shade of meaning because they're not all equivalent.

With respect to the power to approve bylaws, the members opposite have quite correctly recalled that it exists in other Acts. It's a provision which both municipalities and governments consider to be appropriate. Certainly the official opposition had an opportunity to remove that while they were in power if they felt that it was working that badly.

As far as colleges and institutes are concerned, those are not new powers. The colleges and institutes, other than BCIT, are under the direct control - total control - of the ministry as it is, while BCIT has all its bylaws approved by the ministry. The areas to be covered by bylaws are under a subsequent section, which we'll be coming to, Mr. Chairman. I won't encroach on the committee by discussing these, but I do reiterate that most of the work of boards can and will be done by resolution. Where it transgresses the reasonable boundary of what becomes a resolution and what becomes a bylaw, then this provision is there, as it is in the Municipal Act, for co-ordination and for legal advice.

The reason that the Municipal Act has this provision is the same as is suggested here: namely, to see that there is some reasonable co-ordination between what goes on in one municipality versus another - similarly with the bylaws of our colleges and institutes.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. WALLACE: I'm really fascinated, Mr. Chairman, that when one person shouts "no" and nobody shouts "aye, " the ayes have it. It just confirms that the opposition's had it.

Quickly, on section 14, Mr. Chairman, since we're having to accept the minister's insistence that the best that employees and students will have will be a voice on advisory committees, I'm very interested in section 14. It states that the bylaws will have to be accompanied by a statement specifying the measures which the board has taken to ascertain the opinions of students and professional employees respecting the bylaws or amendments. Now what measures is this meant to encompass? In other words, would there be a referendum, or would it be by balloting, or what? It seems to me that's a very specific phrase in section

14, specifying the measures that the board has taken to find out what the students and employees think about the bylaws. What measures does the minister have in mind?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the intent of this Section 1s to require the boards to think through their management methods and to demonstrate thereby that their process of consultation will achieve the objectives that the members have requested in debate under earlier sections of the bill. By putting this in express language in section 14, 1 think we're meeting the arguments that the members have raised earlier in the debate,

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, that's the whole point! The opposition parties are unhappy that the representation will not be on the board. Now we're trying to find, if the only representation is through advisory committees, some assurance that these advisory committees will in fact be something more than just a facade to present the impression that the students on the advisory committee can express a point of view which will get to the top level of management, which is the board.

I say that the minister has written in a phrase specifying the measures the board will take to prove that the students have realistically been consulted and their views passed on. What methods does he have in mind, or is this just a sop in this section to try and make the opposition feel that perhaps the advisory committee route is an adequate replacement for full representation on the board when in point of fact we just don't accept that at all? What methods does the minister have in mind for ensuring that the students' point of view has been realistically heard and taken into account through the advisory committee?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, surely the member doesn't think that the ministry throws sops at the opposition. We're usually accused of doing nothing of the kind. But we're not presuming by this precisely what the board may choose as the direction for complying with section 14. To do so would impose the sort of rigidity that the members have complained about.

I might add that while we've passed this section, the simple presence of a student or a member of the faculty or staff on the board of governors doesn't ensure at all that their opinion will prevail...

MR. WALLACE: It will be heard.

HON. MR. McGEER: ... or that any meaningful consultation will take place.

MR. WALLACE: But it will be heard.

[ Page 5442 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, but it's so easy when you're in a minority and all the members argue for a minority that you just consistently ignore the person, or vote them down, and that really doesn't achieve an objective.

MR. WALLACE: I know the feeling, Pat.

HON. MR. McGEER: It doesn't achieve an objective, but specifying a process of consultation does achieve an objective. We'd be limiting that if we were attempting to prejudge precisely how a board might best achieve that result. All these institutions are not the same. The member earlier this afternoon pleaded eloquently regarding the differences between institutes and community colleges. We quite recognize that, Mr. Chairman, and it's through the flexibility, while maintaining a principle, that we take that into account.

Therefore we won't limit the ways in which section 14 might be complied with, and it's our intention, as we divest power from the ministry itself, to engage in extensive consultation with the colleges and institutions in the field with respect to the manner in which their governance can be improved and made more effective, just as their programmes will be made more effective because of the increased sums of money which we anticipate the ministry will be able to make available under this Act.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive approved.

On section 17.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, section 17 (l) (c) is most interesting. I would like to read it to the House. Remember the board we're talking about is the board that the minister emphatically has said will not be allowed to have faculty or student representation on it. This board may also, under subsection (c) , "determine all questions relating to the academic and other qualifications for admission or continuation of a student in a course of instruction at the institution."

So there we have it. There is no wonder that BCIT and the college faculties and even the college boards of this province are uptight about this legislation. Here we have a board with no representation from the people who have to do the teaching and those whose receive the products of that teaching, and that board is going to make all the decisions in relation to the teaching that goes on in that institution. That's the way it reads.

Now this minister can stand up and say: "that's not the intention, we're flexible within our principles, " as he said before, which I think needs some explaining. It may not be the intention, but it's there in the Act. Why did he put it in?

Secondly, if he has it here, I want to ask him as someone who is on leave of absence as a university professor - albeit in research, I don't know if he does some teaching or not - would that Minister of Education be happy to return to UBC and have this kind of clause inflicted upon him as a faculty member? Would your children when they go to UBC - or perhaps they've been through and gone, some of them - be happy to know that there is no input? The whole thing is run by a board which doesn't even have to have any elected members, which could be all appointees. I think this is disgraceful. It's shocking. This from the Minister of Education who used to sit on this side of the House and complain about the lack of progress in education. He is determined to move us right back, as he said himself, maybe by five decades.

My question to the minister is: will you please explain why you are invading the academic prerogatives here which have always been left to some degree with the academics and the professionals? I certainly think that the board should have an opportunity to work with them, but you're stripping the faculty of any opportunity. Could you give your explanation for this or have you simply decided to take us back, in this province, educationally, into the past century?

HON. MR. McGEER: The ultimate responsible authority for each of these corporations is the board of management of the corporation. Therefore they must take ultimate financial and academic responsibility. I see nothing wrong with assigning or assuming responsibility for management of a corporation, be it one that manufactures widget or one that looks after the affairs of an educational institution. Somebody has to do it, and that somebody is the board of management.

MR. WALLACE: In the section 17 (3) , 1 want to raise the point that I don't think was adequately answered in second reading where subsection (3) says:

"The board, at the conclusion of a meeting, shall forward a copy of the minutes, including the resolutions and bylaws dealt with at the meeting, to the minister, the occupational training council and the academic council."

In the second reading debate the minister made the point that it was only bylaws that are required to be forwarded and I presume they're relating to subsection (1) (e) , with five different areas in which bylaws may be passed.

Why does the minister want the minutes of the meeting? If, as the minister suggested in second reading, he just wants to be kept informed of bylaws, why does the minister want a copy of the minutes of the board meeting? Once again, it leaves the very

[ Page 5443 ]

clear impression, intentionally or otherwise, that the minister wants to have a very tight, centralized control over what's going on in the boards of all these colleges. Again, it suggests that there is a specific thrust in this bill to diminish the authority and autonomy of colleges. This subsection clearly states that the minister wants a copy of the minutes of the board meetings.

Now I still reject the idea that duly appointed members of boards should have to get the minister's approval for the bylaws in the first place; I've already expressed my opposition to that. But now, on top of that, the minister wants a copy of the minutes of all the board meetings. This just seems to be another needless intrusion into the affairs of the college boards. More than that, it seems to be a bit of an insult that the minister doesn't really trust them to go about their business in a responsible fashion.

Would the minister consider deleting the phrase that says, "forward a copy of the minutes"? Make it simply, "forward resolutions and bylaws." But why does he want a copy of the minutes of board meetings? I don't suppose he'll ever have time to read them anyway. So apart from the principle involved, it's a waste of time and money and everything else.

I just don't like this implication in subsection (3) . 1 wonder if the minister would care to have an amendment, which I would be happy to move, to delete the phrase: "forward a copy of the minutes."

HON. MR. McGEER: I would be quite happy to accept that if it would please the member, Mr. Chairman. The intent of the bylaws, as we said, was for legal and conformity reasons. Usually, the colleges want the ministry to have the minutes. We've had no complaints and the minutes are regularly sent as a matter of courtesy and information, and I might add, as a method of ensuring those things which might need to be made public would be made public.

I think the member would be the first to agree that business of the boards should be conducted in the light of day. This is one of the mechanisms for seeing that this is done. I agree that resolutions and bylaws are quite adequate. We would be most prepared to accept an amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, while the member is completing his motion for amendment, I would like to ask the minister a question regarding the meetings in the light of day. To be consistent, Mr. Chairman, the minister has ordered that school boards hold their meetings publicly. Is the minister also going to hold that the boards hold their meetings publicly?

HON. MR. McGEER: It is their decision at the moment but it might be a matter that should be considered. Generally speaking, boards, as you know, don't necessarily hold their meetings in public. I think we ought to perhaps consult with them before making a final determination on this. Perhaps we could rest it this way: we could consider it at the spring session. It is going to take a while, as the member realizes, to give effect to this bill. We need to got our councils established and then declare the corporations one by one. But it will give us a chance to consider the ramifications of this.

I'm inclined to be with you, but I would just like to doublecheck, because there might be some problems we haven't anticipated and we could rush into something now that would cause us trouble.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would move an amendment to subsection (3) in line 1, to delete the words, "a copy of the minutes including." The sentence would then read: "The board shall, at the conclusion of a meeting, forward the resolutions and bylaws dealt with at the meeting. . . ."

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the government would be prepared to accept that amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 through 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

MRS. DAILLY: Under 27, of course, we are pleased to note ... as we will come to later or we have, I'm not sure ... that the principal is no longer going to have all the powers that were given to him before. I understand the minister has changed it so that it could be the chairman of the board who will sit on the management committee. Is that correct, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes. There was a complaint, and a very good one, raised about that principle, if I can use the word.

MRS. DAILLY: I was just wondering if we have the principle then, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the minister can answer this, as he's now made a change - and it's a little hard with an Act this size and amendments coming in at us right and left - are there any other changes basically in the principal's role under this new Act?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, it would be exactly the same.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

[ Page 5444 ]

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very quick on this one and then I guess we can adjourn.

It states under subsection (4) that a person suspended by the principal has the right of appeal to the board, but there's just no mechanism spelled out whatever within what period of time or what the procedure is. Just to say there's a right of appeal to the board in something as serious and important to the individual as being suspended, either as a member of the staff or a student, seems to leave it pretty weak, in my view.

I wonder if the minister would care to comment on his interpretation of "just cause, " which again is a pretty vague and general way in which to allow the principal to suspend someone.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, just cause is not something which properly can be defined by any member of the Legislature or by a minister, because our definitions are inoperative in the context of how the Act will be applied.

I should point out to the member that a number of collective agreements exist which makes it somewhat difficult to be specific in a section of this kind. But if it isn't covered by a collective agreement, then it would be covered by a bylaw.

MR. WALLACE: What about the appeal?

HON. MR. McGEER: That would be a matter for bylaw or collective agreement.

Sections 28 to 30 inclusive approved,

On section 31.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, a couple of questions on this section. I move the committee rise and report progress.

HON. MR. McGEER: Why don't we do 31 and then we can do Part V after?

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you, if we open up on 31, we'll be here a fair while because this relates to the Labour Code also,

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Leave granted for a division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill intituled Save the Vancouver Resources Board Act. It actually is a message, Mr.

Speaker, from the citizens of Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: Unfortunately, hon. member, it is n o t a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. First of all, the timing is incorrect with respect to the introduction of a bill other than a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, which could come in at any time during the proceedings of the House. The other thing is that the introduction of a bill without notice....

MS. BROWN: Oh, it's on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it on the order paper, hon. member?

MS. BROWN: Yes, it's been on for three days.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): It's been on a long time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it would have to be introduced by leave at this particular stage of these proceedings.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! There is a time of the day when it can be introduced but, without leave, this is not it, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to explain that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it was not possible for me to introduce it at 2 p.m. this afternoon because I was discharging my responsibilities by attending the Speaker's luncheon. That's the reason why I'm asking leave to introduce it now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, there will be an opportunity to introduce the bill, but not at this time without leave.

MS. BROWN: I am asking leave, Mr. Speaker, and explaining why I'm asking leave to that intransigent government over there.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MS. BROWN: You are petty. My God, you're a petty bunch! You are so petty, all of you.

[ Page 5445 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's highly improper for members of this House, on all sides of the House, to engage in banter across the floor when a vote is being put on the floor of the House. Please refrain in the future.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

APPENDIX

82 The Hon. P. L. McGeer to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 82) intituled Colleges and Provincial Institutes Act, to amend as follows:

Section 7 (3) , line 2: By substituting "positions is at least 5" for "positions is 5".

Section 7 (4) , line 2: By deleting "may" and substituting "shall", and line 3, by adding "or more at the discretion of the minister" after "college".

Section 10 (1) , line 1: By deleting "of 9 members" and substituting "of at least 9 members".