[ Page 5527 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Dumping of sulphur from CN derailment. Mr. Skelly –– 5527

PCB spill in Porpoise Harbour. Hon. Mr. Nielsen replies –– 5527

Dumping of sulphur at Chilliwack. Mr. Skelly –– 5528

Vancouver public transit. Mr. Gibson –– 5528

Plans for DASH-7 aircraft. Mr. Wallace –– 5528

Use of private investigators by ICBC. Mr. Cocke –– 5529

Use of Dawson school site. Mr. Macdonald –– 5529

Child-abuse funding. Mr. Wallace –– 5530

Government aircraft for opposition members. Mr. Gibson –– 5530

Wolf-hunting season. Mrs. Dailly –– 5530

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977, No. 4 (Bill 83) Hon. Mr. Davis.

Introduction and first reading –– 5530

The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977 (Bill 68) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5530

Mr. Cocke –– 5531

Mr. Nicolson –– 5532

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5537

The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977 (Bill 68) . Committee stage.

On section 7 as amended.

Mr. Cocke –– 5539

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5539

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, 1907 (Bill 401) Second reading.

Mr. Veitch –– 5540

Mr. Macdonald –– 5540

Mr. Veitch –– 5542

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, 1907 (Bill 40 1) Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 5542

Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 403) Second reading.

Mr. Veitch –– 5542

Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 403) Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 5543

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act (Bill 405) . Second reading.

Mr. Veitch –– 5543

An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act (Bill 405) . Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 5544

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 85) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5544

Mr. Cocke –– 5545

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5546

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 85) Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mrs. Dailly ..5548

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5548

On section 5.

Mr. Wallace –– 5548

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5549

On section 8 amendments.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5549

Mrs. Dailly –– 5549

On section 8 as amended.

Mr. Wallace –– 5550

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 5550

Report and third reading –– 5550

Motions and adjourned debate on motions.

Motion 18. Hon. Mr. Gardom 5550

Evidence Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 2) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 5551

Evidence Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 2) Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 5552

Medical Centre of British Columbia Repeal Act (Bill 59) . Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 5552

Mr. Cocke –– 5552

Mr. Wallace –– 5552

Medical Centre of British Columbia Repeal Act (Bill 59) . Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Wallace –– 5553

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 5553

Report and third reading –– 5553

Appendix –– 5554

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, visiting in the Speaker's gallery today we have two visitors from the city of Revelstoke in the riding of Revelstoke-Slocan, a long-time friend and my friendly barber, Mr. Louis Sanservino, and his wife Nan.

Now I don't want you to blame him for my current haircut; I had that in Victoria. But I'd like you to welcome them to Victoria.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the i Environment): Mr. Speaker, double guests in the gallery today: first of all, from north Burnaby visiting the House, Mr. and Mrs. Ira Phillips; and from the commonwealth of Virginia, the Secretary of Commerce and Resources, Mr. Earl J. Shiflet, who is accompanied by his wife. I'd like the House to welcome these people.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): In the galleries today from Prince George is Mr. Lloyd Mear, visiting Victoria. I'd ask the House to bid him welcome.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce today Mr. Dave MacIntyre, who is the assistant secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour, who's here to observe us in session this afternoon. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce, if I may, someone in the House who's just celebrated his 47th birthday, and that is our House leader, Mr. King.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon in the gallery is Mayor. Russel Beirich and his wife, Lee, visiting this fair city from Palm Springs, California, which is Victoria's sister city in the United States. Mayor Beirich was born in Denver, Colorado, is a certified public accountant and an active member of the Rotary Club of California. I would ask the members to make him welcome to Victoria and to parliament.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery is Mrs. Muriel Overgaard, leading a delegation of workers of the Vancouver Resources Board, members of the various CUPE locals. They're over here to meet with members of the Legislature and I would like the House to join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, from the Langara campus of the Vancouver City College, I'd like to introduce Dr. Gordon Jones, who is head of the office of institutional planning and development. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

Oral questions.

DUMPING OF SULPHUR

FROM CN DERAILMENT

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I am informed that 5,000 tons of sulphur from the CN derailment and fire near Hope are being dumped illegally on farmland near the Chilliwack area. I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he plans to take action under new sections of the Pollution Control Act to deal with the situation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice, particularly the reference to "illegally." There are arrangements being made to dispose of that material which came from that derailed train some time back, but I'll get the specific information on it.

PCB SPILL IN PORPOISE HARBOUR

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet I'd like to take the opportunity to respond to a question from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) yesterday. It was a question taken as notice with reference to the PCB situation at Porpoise Harbour. The statement, in the form of a question, made by the member was not quite correct.

I'm advised that positive steps indeed are being taken to deal with the PCB contamination in Porpoise Harbour. The federal government has taken the position that the harbour is within their jurisdiction - within federal jurisdiction - and they have initiated legal action against the company. The company has made a proposal within the past couple of weeks to that federal agency covering measures to contain the PCBs where they are. The basic concept of the proposal is considered to be technically sound by the federal government. It is now being examined by geotechnical consultants and by people within the Ministry of the Environment of British Columbia. The federal agency is not pursuing the concept of removal in recognition of the problems that would result. It's intended that the federal and provincial agencies and the company will meet in the very near future to resolve any differences of opinion that may exist over the proposed action.

For the member, with respect to the current state of the area which is contaminated, tests have been carried out by the federal agency over a three-month

[ Page 5528 ]

period and their results indicate that there is relatively little movement of the contaminant. The radius of the affected area has expanded by approximately 50 feet. The material PCB is roughly one and a half times as heavy as water and has a tendency to seek the lowest level but not to expand beyond that area. That's the present situation.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A supplementary to the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. I know that it's heavier than water and it is sitting on the bottom, but we're getting to the time of year when there is going to be more wind and when tidal actions are going to be more active than in other parts of the year. There is some concern by people who do know local waters that this situation has been hanging on for weeks and weeks. People are a little afraid that there are bureaucratic fights going on between Ottawa and British Columbia that should be settled after the situation is looked after, but the situation is not being looked after because of differences of opinion between the province and Ottawa. Could the minister confirm whether there are real differences of opinion between the province and Ottawa, and whether we can look to some rectification, or some solutions to those differences if they exist?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, there are no real differences. Certainly there are no bureaucratic problems that I'm aware of. There is no fighting over whose jurisdiction or the method of disposal. The problem is that the best advice we have received is that attempting to remove it could cause more problems than exist there now. The federal Ministry of the Environment is working, as I said, toward containing the contaminant in its present area. There is no easy known way of removing this material without causing a greater problem.

DUMPING OF SULPHUR AT CHILLIWACK

MR. SKELLY: With regard to the sulphur dumping, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary to the minister: Has his ministry given permission to dump sulphur on farmland near Chilliwack? He said he wasn't aware that it was being done illegally. Also, the minister took as notice a section of my first question concerning the dumping out there. In view of the fact that acid leaching from the sulphur pile could affect watercourses in the Chilliwack area and also is a danger to the farmland in that area, will the minister undertake to report back today on what action he plans to take on this sulphur dumping?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would take the question as notice and I'll report back as soon as the information is available.

VANCOUVER PUBLIC TRANSIT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): As the minister may be aware, the Greater Vancouver Regional District on September 1, 1 think, passed a resolution expressing concern about the speed of provincial government action dealing with the GVRD transit problems, and called for a meeting with the minister, the Premier and others. I would ask if the minister has received a request for such a meeting.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Could the minister tell the House when it will be held?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a meeting such as that would be arranged as quickly as possible. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano will know that there is the Union of B.C. Municipalities conference next week which is going to occupy not only my time but the time of many members of the GVRD. I would expect that the meeting could take place before the end of September. I speak for myself only. I can't commit other members of the government with respect to their availability.

PLANS FOR DASH-7 AIRCRAFT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications following the visit by MLAs to the Patricia Bay Airport yesterday evening for a demonstration of the DASH-7 aircraft. With regard to the minister's statement today that a similar aircraft may be used in a downtown-to-downtown service from Victoria to Vancouver, can the minister tell the House what specific steps have been taken by the provincial government to bring about the introduction of such a service, and When is it likely to begin?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, my ministry has been looking at the possibility of short takeoff and landing aircraft being used in the intercity service. We've been looking for sites, particularly in the Victoria area, but there is no definite plan and certainly no definite locations selected as yet.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister: since these aircraft are Canadian-made and providing jobs and a boost to the Canadian economy, will the provincial government be taking any active steps to promote the sale of the aircraft, particularly to the third-level air transportation system which the minister announced

[ Page 5529 ]

in August would receive assistance from the provincial government?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There are no plans, Mr. Speaker, to promote a particular design. I realize that Canadian taxpayers have a large investment in this aircraft, but I think we can look after the aircraft industry to promote it.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the primary value of the DASH-7 is in its short takeoff and landing distance, and since this would be very valuable to smaller communities otherwise inaccessible by air, does the government have any specific plans to purchase one or more of the DASH-7 aircraft?

HON. MR. DAVIS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Well, you could buy one and then lease it to Toronto.

USE OF PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS BY ICBC

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Education who, incidentally, is still president of ICBC. My question would be: has ICBC a policy to use private investigators, who are misrepresenting themselves, to investigate personal injuries on citizens in B.C.?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take the question as notice and verify that.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated he'd like to look into it, and I would like to make the minister an offer.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, the question was taken as notice.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, when a minister asks for help, I'm prepared to give him some help. Are you prepared to give him some help?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm prepared to listen to questions and supplementals after we've determined whether the question is being taken on notice or not, hon. member. But when it's taken on notice, there's no further debate or questions or supplementals on that particular issue until such time as we come back to the House, please.

USE OF DAWSON SCHOOL SITE

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, in relation to the Dawson school site where

Hydro was planning an expansion and the city of Vancouver is considering a heritage site for that area, is the government giving any consideration for the plans that are in his ministry to turn the Dawson school site into a justice educational centre for the training of judges, sheriffs and court clerks - a law school in downtown Vancouver, preferably a night school, that would still leave open space and save the heritage aspects of that site for the people of Vancouver?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'm unaware of the specific plans that you are referring to, Mr. Member. I'd like to assure you and assure all members of the House, as I announced yesterday, that there will be a justice institute. It will be situated in Vancouver and the precise location is not yet determined.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the Attorney-General as a member of the government give consideration to this site so that the buildings can be saved? It's ideal and there would still be open space.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My colleague said we should declare you a heritage object, and I don't think that is a very fair comment. (Laughter.) I would ask him to withdraw that comment.

A number of sites are being considered, Mr. Member, and I can assure you the most appropriate one will be the one that will be determined. I hope to be able to make the announcement of the site within the next short while. I'm somewhat dismayed with the progress that has been made in determining the area but I think we are very close to it.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver-Centre): Supplementary to the hon. Attorney-General. I don't know whether the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) knows yet but the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) is measuring him. (Laughter.)

To the Attorney-General by way of supplementary....

AN HON. MEMBER: They could put you in the box sideways.

MR. LAUK: There's more room for the hon. minister's feet than for his head. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General says....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Every time the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) opens his mouth, he detracts from the sum total of human knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has indicated

[ Page 5530 ]

to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) that there were no plans that he was aware of for the Dawson school site. There are elaborate plans. They don't happen to be in my basement; they happen to be in your office. When are you going to get around to looking at them? There is an elaborate plan for the Dawson school site. Is the minister saying he's not aware of it?

CHILD-ABUSE FUNDING

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , is the minister aware that child abuse is a growing problem on the lower mainland and that Dr. Gossage, the chief of pediatrics at the Royal Columbian, has stated that one or two battered children are admitted to the hospital each week? Can the minister tell this House what response his ministry has given to a request for Human Resources funding of $100,000 for a three-member team to deal with the preventive aspects of the problem, rather than just treating the children after they have been abused?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): I've been advised that a request will be forthcoming.

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

FOR OPPOSITION MEMBERS

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. The minister advised the House that he charters out his government aircraft at a direct operating cost to ministers and civil servants on a time-available basis at $42 an hour. Now that the recess is coming up, I would ask if he would make his aircraft available on the same terms to opposition members to perform their duties around the province.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The hon. member has quoted some incorrect numbers, but basically the answer to his question is no. (Laughter.)

WOLF HUNTING SEASON

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I understand that recently your ministry did open up the season for hunting wolves, and I was wondering if that season is still open. What methods has your ministry approved for the killing of the wolves?

HON. MR. BAWLF: In order to give a full, detailed answer on that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977, NO. 4

Hon. Mr. Davis presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1977, No. 4.

Bill 83 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders. ,

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the House Leader is asking for leave, I assume because it's private members' day. I'd just like to say that it is our opinion that leave will be granted unless we hear a nay, but we would like some indication from the House Leader as to the course of Bill 65 so that our own member, who has a bill related to that and has the opportunity today to debate that, would have some knowledge of the government's course of action in that regard.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think, with every respect to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, the question is out of order. I would respond to it to this extent that the government does intend to proceed with the material that is on the order paper, subject to revision. That's the best....

MR. BARRETT: Subject to revision then, with that caveat, we will give leave today.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

THE NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY

OF NELSON ACT, 1977

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment to the Notre Dame University of Nelson Act is to bring amendments to that institution which will permit them to operate under their revised status.

Notre Dame University of Nelson is a private university created by a public bill of this Legislature, a university which, like many others in North America, found themselves in circumstances in which they were unable to continue. The costs were too high and the student population too low. There are many reasons why small colleges of the kind that Notre Dame University of Nelson represents have found themselves in comparable circumstances. The

[ Page 5531 ]

revisions to this particular Act will permit that institution to look after the students who were part way through their academic careers at the time that Notre Dame found itself unable to continue.

This bill will permit Notre Dame to continue awarding degrees to those who complete satisfactory courses of instruction at other institutions. Those other institutions include our three public universities, which have pledged to accept all of the credits that any Notre Dame University of Nelson student has on the way to obtaining his or her degree, so that those students would have the opportunity of protecting their academic investment at Notre Dame and fulfilling their academic objectives. They will be able to obtain a degree from Notre Dame and/or obtain a degree from one of our coastal universities or any other institution at which they would choose to complete their career.

The schedule in the Act gives effect to the contract signed between Notre Dame University and the provincial government, by which the physical assets of this institution were purchased by the province of British Columbia. It is the hope and expectation of the provincial government that we may -be able to find educational clients who will utilize these facilities, which will be donated to them, for the purpose of providing advanced academic programmes on the Nelson site.

At the present time, Selkirk College is offering first- and second-year programmes at that site. Some third- and fourth-year programmes are being provided by Simon Fraser University, but not out of the Notre Dame site, now named the David Thompson University Centre, but rather a different facility in Nelson. It is our anticipation that the Kootenay School of Art in future years will make use of that campus site, although it will require a considerable expenditure of capital funds.

One particular section of this bill as it was introduced - section 7 - with respect to the Faculty Association of Notre Dame University, will not be part of this Act. An amendment on the order paper deletes section 7, so that particular Section 1n the printed bill will be excluded when the bill comes for committee stage.

Mr. Chairman, the bill itself is perfectly straightforward. It provides for agreements that have been made between this private institution and the provincial government; it gives the board of governors of Notre Dame University the powers they require to fulfill their obligations to students who are partway through their programmes. Therefore it's important that this Legislature have consideration of the students who are in an undergraduate situation at the present time at Notre Dame University to have the benefits of this particular legislation. I move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister has told the House in effect that what he will do with Notre Dame University will be to continue Notre Dame University - not in its original form, but in some form - in order to see to it that those students enrolled prior to May 31 of this year will still be able to get their degrees in the name of that institution.

Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that this precipitous action that the minister has taken in this area - as well as every other area of education one can mention, particularly in post-secondary - fits a pattern. To permit those students who were enrolled prior to that date to look after their degrees, without any thought of organization, without any thought of perpetuating a degree-granting university in the interior ... at the present time, offering other universities in the Vancouver and lower mainland area the opportunity to move up there with a satellite programme, and offer something as a substitute. But there's no correlation really between the two programmes, other than Nelson has promised to be one of the sites if, in fact, a site is ever developed and if, in fact, an interior university is ever developed.

Mr. Speaker, the member in our caucus who is most familiar with this particular area is the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) . Certainly I'm going to let him have the largest say on this matter because he has been so intricately involved with the particular university and the feelings of the people up there. I'm sure he's going to tell us some of the broken promises, and I'll let him deal with that.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Because we felt it best this way, Mr. Attorney-General. We just like to confuse the Attorney-General, who's so easily confused.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I would like to talk about, however, is one Section 1n this bill that has not been removed - one Section 1n this bill that is not removed until we are in committee stage. That's the section regarding taking the rights of bargaining and, for that matter, making it retroactive in the case of the one university in B.C. that had decided to go the route of bargaining through a collective agreement. Now we know that no university in the province is allowed to go that route in the future when proclamation comes to Bill 9 1. This university - this little, tiny university - had the courage to want to change a pattern, and it didn't take this minister long after getting into office to make that change for them. He's not prepared to honour contracts; he's not prepared to see to it that people in the university area, in the faculty area, become organized. To some extent he's decreeing from his lofty position what will happen to people in the colleges in much the same way as we've been saying for the last week in this House.

[ Page 5532 ]

It's unfortunate that we have a minister with so little understanding of basic freedoms - of providing that people in the province have basic freedoms -that he will go to the extent that he has on three or four occasions in the past week or two. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the minister comes from academia and therefore feels that he's an expert.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Macadamia nuts.

MR. COCKE: He's a macadamian nut, Mr. Attorney-General.

Mr. Speaker, having come from this lofty university background, he feels he knows what's best for his colleagues. He tipped his hand on Bill 68 and told everyone in the province what the future held.

Today it just gives me a little bit of satisfaction that he would allude to one specific section of the bill, when he was bringing forward second reading, and say that we needn't worry about section 7 any longer. Well, naturally we need worry about it no longer because yesterday the minister put through a section of Bill 91 which does away with that freedom forever in this province - as long as that government is in power. I hope that will be a very short period and that "forever" will come in just a year or two, or less.

HON. MR. GARDOM: A wishful hope.

MR. COCKE: "A wishful hope, " the Attorney-General says, but "not so, " say the people.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister, in closing second reading, will get up in the House and tell us what he's going to do about the need for university education in the interior and what his plans are for the Nelson site. All the promises in the world don't look very good when you find that there has been no leadership given whatsoever, other than to suggest that one of the other universities set up a satellite programme and then tell them there will not be any money available - that is, insufficient money available - to really get the programme going.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Where's that?

MR. COCKE: That's in the interior - your interior programme. There should have been a flow from Notre Dame University to a new institution, but instead of that there's going to be a break - there has to be a break - and the Notre Dame University will go the way it would appear the minister wants it to go through just the lack of organization.

Maybe the minister who shakes his head will give us some answers, but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we haven't had any of them yet. We certainly have had none of them in his press releases. His press release is very lacking in information and vague in content, The only kinds of information we have are bits of information that keep seeping down from the interior - from the Okanagan area, the Kootenay area, and elsewhere - that there is no satisfaction. There is no consultation around the minister's plans for higher education - that is, the university level - in the interior.

I just wanted to raise one or two points with the minister and let my colleague from Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , who's been far more involved in this, ask the minister the questions, and also let him have his say as to his position on what the minister is doing.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I don't know how I would rank days in terms of disappointment, whether it was attending the most recent convocation of the University of Notre Dame, whether it was attending a luncheon at which the minister at least had the courage to come and speak to some of the leaders in the Nelson community, and state forthrightly what he felt to be the case about Notre Dame, or whether it is taking my place in this debate. Notre Dame arose in a community that has some of the deepest roots outside of metropolitan Vancouver and Victoria. It has one of the greatest senses of history in British Columbia. In any part of British Columbia, history is certainly something very recent, unless we go to the heritage and the history of the native people of this province.

Notre Dame University arose out of a community which had its roots in mining and exploration and which saw the passing through of waves of immigration. At the turn of the century English people came in and tried to make a fortune out of fruit farming, and all the place names grew up along the lakes. The paddlewheel steamers churned up and down Kootenay and Arrow lakes. These are the types of people who had imagination and had faith in that community at that time, and in its future.

When the first World War came along the Nasookin went up the west arm of Kootenay Lake. It stopped in at all the little places like Macdonald's Landing, Procter, Balfour, Queens Bay, Kaslo and picked up volunteers. Almost to a man, every able-bodied person volunteered and got on that paddlewheeler, and only a very few of those persons ever returned to that area. Their families were left. Those who returned were shaken by that experience, and in one instance committed suicide.

But things kept moving on. Following that, also in those early days, was another wave of immigration. The Doukhobor people came into that area. They built a new co-operative community. They worked together. Self-starters, they started again. Mr. Speaker, we had at one time a smelter in Nelson. You can still see some of the slag heap. We had at one time the Eddy match factory. When they stopped making

[ Page 5533 ]

wooden matches, people looked for another way of creating a viable entity and economy in Nelson. In 1950, over a quarter of a century ago, some of the people - not just of Nelson, but of the entire Kootenay area - decided to deliver post-secondary educational services outside of the lower mainland and Victoria, which were the only areas of the province in which it existed in those days.

They started out in a little bakery, largely with the help of some priests and some dedicated people. From those beginnings some of the first people to have the experience of education at Notre Dame began, and they accomplished almost the impossible. Indeed, in the early 1960s, after being a satellite of Gonzaga University and having given their degrees through Gonzaga down in Spokane, Washington, they were finally given university status by an Act in this Legislature.

The University of Notre Dame was the second degree-granting university in this province. That's not to say that it predates the University of Victoria in its roots, but it certainly had that distinction. Then along came the Macdonald commission, and it recommended the construction of six community colleges throughout the province of British Columbia. It also recommended a four-year, degree-granting university to be located in the Okanagan. That has not yet come about but the community colleges have. Notre Dame University continued to thrive and, indeed, after Selkirk College was established less than 25 miles away, Notre Dame went on to have its highest enrolment.

Mr. Speaker, the use of Catholic priests as teachers and the whole role of the university of a Catholic institution was called into question. It was felt by the Catholic church, the bishop and the members of the board that it would be best to build upon this tradition and this entity which had gained some real viability and had been able to produce some very good teachers.

Mr. Speaker, I was a graduate of the University of British Columbia. I went to Nelson feeling that certainly it would be impossible for some small university with enrolments of 500,600 or 700 to produce graduates of the calibre of our larger British Columbia universities. I held that prejudice, but certainly I couldn't hold it for very long. I started to get introduced to Notre Dame in many different ways. One thing I did, I went over there and helped them coach their wrestling programme. I got to know some of the people on the faculty. I started to meet some of my physics-teaching colleagues over on that faculty. Gradually I became more and more enlightened as to the very exciting educational experience that was going on at that institution.

Indeed, there were things going on there that could not go on at the University of British Columbia or the other institutions in this province. Mr. Speaker, in that community we all feel very supportive of the institution, but we would not support that institution out of blind faith. We would not go against facts if the facts could be proven that it was uneconomic. Mr. Speaker, those of us in that community who have examined the facts know that it does work and is, in fact, a more economically viable institution than the institutions in the lower mainland. That is borne out, ironically, by the very report that has been used to damn it.

Mr. Speaker, the people of that community feel so supportive that it's not a political issue. It's not Social Credit versus NDP. The Social Credit candidate certainly said that he supported Notre Dame University, and in fact he went so far as to say that in his campaign literature.

"Notre Dame University. Make NDU a four-year, degree-granting institute without further delay. Make NDU independent. Make financing available for capital expansion." He stood squarely behind it.

Mr. Speaker, today's Premier - at that time Leader of the Opposition - came to Nelson. I have two statements; one is from the financial-aid officer and director of extension of Notre Dame University, Nelson, B.C., the son of Sir Ernest Petter - one of the early residents of Victoria - Mr. Gordon Petter. He was present when the now Premier was there and said: "Bennett promised a four-year, degree-granting university at Nelson on this campus. The statement was made in the Notre Dame University cafeteria to the students present and others in attendance."

And this is from William Forsythe, associate professor of sociology and incidentally a member of the Social Credit Party - and I say that Mr. Petter is a member of the NDP. "Professor Forsythe spoke personally to Bennett after the same occasion and was told the Social Credit Party would continue this university but perhaps change its name."

Well, Mr. Speaker, this does more than just change the name to the David Thompson University. Further campaign literature on NDU: "To be an independent, four-year, degree-granting government funded university." These were the assurances given to the people of the Kootenays during that last election campaign. Mr. Speaker, I say that the people have been deceived. What we have today is more than a change of name.

There are, as the minister said, no third- and fourth-year programmes going on on campus today. In the first- and second-year programmes there were, the last time I phoned up only a few days ago, only 61 persons enrolled. That is the type of disruption that, no matter what is done in the future, was absolutely uncalled for, unnecessary and very lamentable.

Before I sit down I want to bring to the attention

[ Page 5534 ]

of this House the real quality of education that was going on, and I want to expose once and for all the falsehoods that were used to justify the curtailment and the shutting down of Notre Dame University. These falsehoods were contained in the Universities Council of British Columbia report on Notre Dame University of Nelson. While the report was not so bad, Mr. Speaker, the summary was very selective and very very misleading.

This report, Mr. Speaker, was then promulgated in the propaganda journal of the Department of Education called Education Today, published by the Department of Education, government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C., the Hon. Pat McGeer, minister. In an article under the byline of Mr. John Arnett, it says: "NDU: overstaffed, underutilized." And I'll say that Mr. Arnett is merely quoting this very spurious summary.

" 'Notre Dame University in Nelson is overstaffed and underutilized with 44 per cent of all courses enrolling five students or less, and per student costs in many programmes far in excess of costs in B.C.'s three coastal universities, ' says the report prepared for the provincial government by the Universities Council of B.C."

Well, that certainly sounds rather alarming. But I'm going to show what is going on in the universities of British Columbia before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker. And if similar criteria were applied to Simon Fraser University, which I will do before I take my seat, and if they were applied to the University of British Columbia, it would certainly make a much stronger statement than that opening paragraph.

The report said that administrative and management decisions at NDU have a history of being both expensive and questionable, and added that because the provincial government is the primary funding source for NDU, like any other university, it is therefore justifiable for the government to apply the same management criteria that apply to the three public universities for the sake of accountability. Well, I wish it would. "Provincial government's share of operating costs have risen from about 40 per cent in 1967-68, when provincial grants to the university started, to 84.3 per cent this year, from $309,000 to $1.8 million. Enrolment in the same period has dropped 200 students to 500, " continued the report. So it dropped from 700 to 500.

The report added: "The NDU's service to its own community, and the Kootenays in general, is in general doubt because it attracts only 15 per cent of the Kootenay students who go on to university. Most of the remainder attend coastal universities." I have figures on that, and I'm not going to take great issue with that. "Student cost, though, for several programmes are well beyond the ability of the province to support, " continued the report. It cited student costs of $21,000 in third and fourth year physical sciences and $15,000 per student in third and fourth year drama. That I will dispute, those figures, or at least I'll put them in a more enlightened context. "More than half of the 270 courses offered at NDU enrol 10 students or less, while 40 courses enrol only one or two students, " the report said. It added: "A minimum enrolment of 20 students per class is the usual unofficial target set by universities. However, at NDU only 24 per cent of the courses enrol more than 20 students."

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, they have a different philosophy at Notre Dame. One part of this was really incredible. The report said: "Very small classes, unless attended by exceptional students . . and in the original report, Mr. Speaker, it said: ". such as in England." And I don't know what the bias of the person who prepared the summary was but it would almost lead one to suspect that he had perhaps attended Oxford, , or some such institution.

The report said: "Very small classes, unless attended by exceptional students, defeat the learning process in two ways. First, the student learns very little from his fellows and second, the competition characteristics of the larger class is lost in the smaller ones." Well, that simply isn't proven in fact in terms of the product that Notre Dame has managed to turn out. It said: "Notre Dame is currently staffed with a faculty prepared to offer an ambitious variety of courses in arts and sciences, plus other degree programmes." All very damning stuff, Mr. Speaker, and all very much taken out of context.

If this report indicates anything, it indicates the kind of a look that we should perhaps take at other institutions. Indeed, this prompted a very good friend of mine, Mr. Peter Clauson - a member of the Social Credit Party, but a teaching colleague of mine and vice-president of the board of governors of NDU appointed by this government - to repeat these statements in defence of the minister in that community. It prompted statements because within the report there is definite reference to the cost of the physics programme and the chemistry programme, it prompted Mr. Dipseraswatti at that time of Nelson, now from Alberta, to respond. He pointed out that the physics faculty has 62 members. That's about one and a half times the size of the NDU faculty. Last year, they graduated how many students? Fifteen students with honours and 25 students with major degrees in physics. It took 62 members to graduate 40 students in physics.

SFU had a chemistry faculty of 25. Last year they graduated in their chemistry faculty four chemistry majors and two chemistry honour students. That is six persons. Twenty-five faculty members and they graduated six persons from all of Simon Fraser University.

The physics department of Simon Fraser, and this

[ Page 5535 ]

was written March 31,1976, so this would be referring to the academic year 1974-75: "The physics department also has 25 members. Last year they had two students majoring in physics and one student getting an honours degree." That's three persons in the final year.

By comparison, Notre Dame has a physics faculty of two; the number of physics majors getting their degree this year is two, the same number of physics majors produced by Simon Fraser last year with 25 faculty members. He adds that one might assume these people are perhaps inferior students. No, Mr. Speaker. These two graduates had been offered before their graduation $5,500 fellowships from several universities for doing graduate work in physics.

A UBC or SFU graduate is probably not offered any more. In other words, in the eyes of other universities, the NDU programme is as good as the one at UBC or SFU.

Mr. Speaker, that is what happened. In the Universities Council report, in the summary in particular, it says:

"The per student cost for several programmes at Notre Dame University are well beyond the ability of the province to support. Two programmes, for example, cost over $15,000 and $21,000 per student respectively. Coastal university costs for similar offerings run at approximately one-fifth to one-seventh of such figures." That is an out-and-out lie. If you were to compare apples with apples or physics programmes with physics programmes that is an out-and-out lie, and that is what this legislation is predicated upon.

"Notre Dame University service to its own community and to the Kootenays is in doubt. Of All of the first-year university students in British Columbia who have come from the Kootenays, Notre Dame University attracts only 15 per cent of the total." Mr. Speaker, are we to tell students from the interior that they're not to go to the coast universities or tell students from the coast that they are not to go to the interior universities?

Mr. Speaker, one of the facts is that the majority of students at Notre Dame did come from British Columbia. They also came from other parts of the country; they came from other parts of the world. They came from Africa, they came from China, they came from the United States, but the majority of them, certainly in the figures that I have for the academic year 1971-72, came from British Columbia in fact, about 60 per cent of them that year.

Of course there is a great deal made about Selkirk College in this rather spurious report. The summary page, upon which the press releases were prepared, was the most damning. What did the report really say? Well, it was dissected by Dr. Ernest Epp, dean of academics studies at Notre Dame University, one of many people whose academic qualifications aren't really questioned. Having been given the axe by this government, he has been able to find suitable employment in his field in the Prairies, as have many of them.

He starts out in a study on the financial viability of Notre Dame University:

"An attempt was made this year to undermine Notre Dame University's hopes of becoming a public institution. This attempt took the form of a report prepared by the staff members of the Universities Council of British Columbia. A summary of this report was used by reporters in describing the university after the report had been tabled in the provincial Legislature by the Minister of Education. The more important information in the report is given near the end of table 20 on page 18." (not in the summary.) "Comparable costs were difficult to obtain, it said, for other British Columbia universities. It was estimated, however, that the direct instructional costs for full-time equivalent student at the University of British Columbia were $2,430 in arts and education and $4,125 in science. The comparable costs at NDU were said to be $2,288.98 in arts, $3,358.28 in science and $1,029 in education."

These are the figures that were also contained in the report but very conveniently omitted in the summary.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, when you take the total programmes and you break them down on the larger classifications and you don't go looking for lies, when you go looking for truth, you can come up with a fact that the University of Notre Dame was financially more economical and more viable than Simon Fraser University, where it takes 25 people to train three graduates, or the University of British Columbia, which is almost as bad.

That's where they should be examining, Mr. Speaker. That's where the examination should take place. That's where the scandal goes on. I say that as a physics graduate of the University of British Columbia.

Our friend, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , I'm sure would be very interested in this. This would be a whole new field for him to go sounding off on. He might find this rather disagreeable, though, because, unlike most instances, he would be backed up by fact.

Mr. Speaker, there is really a different experience going on at Notre Dame University. Teaching loads are heavier, research loads are lighter, but research does go on. Indeed, many of the faculty of the University of Notre Dame had Canada Council grants. Some of them still have them but they have

[ Page 5536 ]

no facility in which to use them.

The faculty as individuals were held in very high regard, persons such as Dr. Lochan Bakshi, who was the head of the biology department and who is now heading up the biology and environmental sciences programme at Athabaska College in Alberta. He has a reputation which goes beyond his own country and beyond North America. Dr. Paul Parikh has published a very important and very worthwhile text for Addison Wessley and his text is being used even in our own British Columbia universities.

If one were to go through and examine that faculty person by person, one would not come up with a very bad comparison, particularly if you were to take an equal random sampling indeed ... if one were to take an equal random sampling from NDU or take the entire faculty of NDU and take a random sampling from one of the coast universities, you would find probably a better qualified staff at NDU.

Indeed, a student in undergraduate work is more likely to be taught by a PhD at NDU than they would be at the University of British Columbia. That isn't to deprecate the work which can be done by some excellent teachers at the University of British Columbia. In fact, two of the finest math teachers I ever had at the University of British Columbia did not have.PhDs, one of whom was Mr. Parnell, who went on to become registrar, and the other, of course, was Walter Gage.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt in the misleading nature of that summary prepared by an employee. He drew from the report little more than the selected high cost figures for the physical sciences and drama programme. Even that does not stand up under scrutiny, because in fact a great deal of that drama programme which was included ... and the numbers and figures were also part of a programme, not of Notre Dame University, but of programmes which were taking place at the Kootenay School of Fine Art. No fewer than 12 of the 58 courses having five or fewer students which were mentioned in the report were to be found among the Kootenay School of Fine Arts classes, also where one class is sometimes used for different students, for different course credits. So, Mr. Speaker, while a particular course such as history 334 might show a low enrolment, it could very well be that there was also political science 321 taking on in the same classroom and receiving the same lectures, but perhaps doing different course work for their credits.

So, Mr. Speaker, this very fine institution, which, I think, was founded on the efforts of one of the most historically interesting and enheritaged areas of this province, has been sabotaged. It has been cut down on a very despicable and transparent fabrication of half-truths at the very best. I'm very much convinced in my own mind that it was not accidental. If it was accidental, then it shows a fantastic degree of negligence, because I don't think that any right-minded person could possibly have believed such a thing.

One of the other things that was pointed out in this is that over the years, from 1968 until the present, this university had accumulated a debt of $300,000 over almost a 10-year period. Well, the annual budget was over $2 million. So that really shows that despite all the uncertainty which existed when we were government and before we were government - but certainly when we were government - there was a show of faith. There was a recognition that costs of delivering programmes were continuing to increase in all phases of education and in all phases of the economy. Our support to that university did rise up to about $1.7 million per annum, but there were plans.

Mr. Speaker, when the NDP was government, we in that community listened very patiently to the Cowan royal commission. We listened very patiently to the Winegaard commission and many proposals were made. I appeared before that commission and I made five recommendations. I urged that the Kootenay region be served by the NDU facility, with a Nelson-based faculty, in conjunction with Selkirk College; that the directives of the UCBC be recognized as having been achieved, because they asked the university to cut out certain programmes and to reduce their staff, and this was done; that the government create a successor institution in order that the assets and liabilities may be transferred from the private to a public institution. That really hasn't been done and really isn't being done by this legislation; that decisive support and development of the Nelson facility not be impeded by the development of university degree programmes in the remainder of the interior, and that students displaced by the radical course curtailment at NDU be guaranteed completion of their programmes and financial assistance. Well, that fifth point, I suppose, is going to be looked after in this particular thing.

But the people of Nelson, the people of the Kootenays, the people who supply the electricity, who supply the coal, who have supplied the miners and who have supplied the lead and zinc and the jobs that keep Victoria an employment centre and keep those offices in Vancouver going deserve more than this. Mr. Speaker, our country in the Kootenays is criss-crossed with rights-of-way serving the people on the lower mainland. We have the scars, and we just expect a fair share of the benefits.

I would also point out that why I think this minister has really been afraid of Notre Dame University is because it exposes something that should be looked into, and that is the scandal of his institution, the University of British Columbia, and

[ Page 5537 ]

the scandal of Simon Fraser University. If you look at census figures from - 1941 through to 1971, you will find that the population concentration which exists west of Hope and south of Mount Seymour in this province - and that includes Victoria and Vancouver - has remained 60 per cent. Indeed, if anything, the interior has slightly gained, not become less. We have not depopulated. The largest amount of that increase, Mr. Speaker, is in the north, particularly in the Prince George area. The Kootenays have in fact diminished. But the Kootenays have served British Columbia. It at one time had many more members in the Legislature in proportion, to the number of members. I would say, Mr. Speaker, we are not being served by this government, and the people of the Kootenays will never forget that.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, we have the bill before us. Since the government has made their decision in presenting this bill to us, I'm more concerned about hearing from the minister when he closes the debate on what I think is the issue with reference to where we go from here with Notre Dame. Just the bill itself is not giving any guidance to the people of Notre Dame as to their future. I think this is the one area I would just like to briefly discuss, Mr. Speaker, and hope we get some answers from the minister.

I think we agree that, as the bill states, they are going to continue as a centre. Notre Dame will grant university degrees. The point is, though: what is going to happen this fall? Here we are in September, 197 7. I know perhaps there are difficulties when you make a transition in having a smooth transition, but surely something is owed to the students of that area. I'm very concerned, despite the problems that I know are involved in the area, that there seems to be a gap in the minister's whole policy here. He's been very strong and definitive, finally, with this Act. But there's no point in being strong and definitive in producing the Act when we don't know where the future is going and resulting when this Act is proclaimed.

So specifically to the minister, I would like to hear your specific plans for the continuance of degree-granting programmes at this new centre of Notre Dame. At the moment, everything seems to be dead in the area. I know this causes great concern to the member who just spoke and to the citizens of the area and to the students who wish to continue there. So my main concern is not to go back again over the past on this issue but to ask the minister just what his specific plans are to ensure that the citizens of that area can be truly granted an opportunity to continue receiving degrees in that area. That is simply the main question that I would like to have answered by the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, in responding to some of the questions and comments made by the members opposite in debate on second reading of The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977, I'd like to remind the members opposite that almost the first recommendation I received from the Ministry of Education was to close Notre Dame University of Nelson. This was an item that had been sitting on the desk of the ministry at the time of the general election. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the former minister announced that Notre Dame University would be closed, but that decision became inappropriate at the time of the 1975 election. That was a political decision and not an educational one. The background to that decision made by the former Minister of Education was two reports that had been prepared for the ministry following investigation of the university by teams that minister appointed. The government had made the decision to finance Notre Dame University and when the cost began to escalate rapidly and the student interest remained modest, to say the least, then the ministry and the former minister conducted these investigations.

I didn't accept that recommendation, Mr. Speaker, because it didn't seem to me proper to take such a step. Instead, I referred the matter to the Universities Council with this criterion: our government would be quite prepared to fund a private university at the same level that it would fund the public universities. It seemed to the government that it would be difficult justifying funding a private university, where there was no accountability to the government through a board of governors or indirectly, at a richer rate than the government would be prepared to fund the public institutions for which it had direct responsibility. On the other hand, Notre Dame University of Nelson, being an established institution in the interior, serving an area that the government was most desirous to have served by institutions of higher learning, might well qualify for equivalent generosity to that accorded the public institutions.

'The Universities Council undertook the assignment and made recommendations that essentially confirmed the previous studies that had been made by the Ministry of Education prior to the time I was appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor. Mr. Speaker, having received that report, we said that we would be quite prepared to continue funding Notre Dame at the public level. It was our hope that Notre Dame would be able to function under these circumstances and continue to provide the university programmes as it had done in the past.

This Act we have before us today merely testifies to the fact that it was not possible for that private university to continue if it were to receive assistance

[ Page 5538 ]

from the government at the same level as the public institutions. Therein lies the dilemma of the government and the disappointment that we faced. It is also the dilemma of the city of Nelson, who desire to have this functioning four-year university within their city limits, and for the government that shares that same objective.

This Act ratifies the past. I can do no more than give an account, as I see it, to express my regret that this became the fate of Notre Dame and to say it would have been my wish to see that institution carry on, receiving public funds at the same rate as our public universities.

Mr. Speaker, if you'll permit me, without transgressing the limits of second reading of this particular Act, I'll say a word or two about the future. There is an interior universities co-ordinating council that has been established by the Ministry of Education to give advice on how best to deliver programmes to Nelson and the other interior sites that must have advanced post-secondary programmes. The chairman of that council is the former chancellor of Notre Dame University, which gives some indication of our priorities to see programmes put into effect at that location. I remain extremely optimistic that we will be able to produce something of high quality and enduring status in the city of Nelson. It cannot be done overnight. The transition has proved to be far more complicated than we had hoped. I don't intend to go into the details of that, but I wish to tell the members opposite and particularly the member for Nelson-Creston that this remains a priority of our government.

We are quite prepared to provide funds to the same level as we would provide any other area of British Columbia to see this task accomplished. We have an interior universities programme committee, with a bias toward the city of Nelson, actively working to provide that end result. I'm hopeful that they will provide reports that we can implement. Certainly they have been told by me that finances are not to be a problem, providing we can give viable programmes within the cost benefit structure that is typical of our post-secondary programmes. That money can go to Nelson on a priority basis. We do have personnel problems in that area, and I don't think we need to dwell on those in this House.

There is one important thing to realize, however, Mr. Chairman, and that is that while the Ministry of Education owns the physical assets and is prepared to make them available free of charge to anyone who wishes and is capable of providing an educational service, we do not ourselves operate university programmes nor do we operate universities. So we have to look to others to provide those services. We're actively seeking the interest and help of our established institutions to provide that kind of programme for the city of Nelson. They are looking carefully at the situation. They have given some indication of the criteria they consider to be essential before they will be able to perform up to their own level in that area.

We understand some of the requirements and the interior universities co-ordinating council is doing its best to meet them while there is a hiatus. That hiatus is disappointing to the member and it's disappointing to me, but we think the problems are going to be solved before too long. I remain confident, as does the ministry, that the city of Nelson, before many years have passed, will have a finer programme than anything they've known before. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 13

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journakof the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer the bill to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 68, The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

THE NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY

OF NELSON ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Kahl in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

[ Page 5539 ]

On section 7.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper which deletes section 7 and renumbers sections 8 to 13 as sections 7 to 12 respectively. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the amendment, the minister has put forward the amendment because he doesn't need it any longer. Last night he put through a horrendous amendment to the Universities Act in B.C., outlawing faculties from associating themselves with the Labour Code.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. COCKE: No order about it! This is on this particular amendment, not another amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that he was wrong then, but he tipped his hand some weeks ago when he put forward this particular bill. He showed us at that time that not only was he prepared to go retroactive on the situation but he was prepared to deny people in this province their human right - their right to satisfy themselves that they want to bargain in their own way.

Most universities in our province decide that they prefer to go in a professional society or association. That's their perfect right. On the other hand, there are a third of the university faculties in this country that seek to go the trade union way, and that should be their right.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has introduced this resolution to amend the section by deleting it because he doesn't need it anymore. He has done it to them all. To begin with, he was prepared to do it to that small number out there in Nelson, little noticed. But then, you know" he began to get the feeling of power coursing through his veins. And that feeling of power led him to the point now where he has become the real arrogant Minister of Education and the new Minister of Labour with respect to all those people involved in higher education in the province. I want to remind you that not only did he do it to this group but he also mitigated the powers of the college faculties with respect to their rights in their labour negotiations.

Mr. Chairman, I just didn't want this point to go unnoticed. We're all sorry for the minister and we're all sorry for those people who are associated with his office, and we hope that will be corrected soon by a new government that will undo some of the bad things that he's done to the higher education people in our province.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, one usually is patient in the Legislature, but it's difficult to remain silent in the face of the utter rubbish which the member for New Westminster has chosen to utter in the last few moments. As I've said on previous occasions in this House, if the college faculties choose to become trade unions or if the universities choose to become trade unions, that's their perfect right. We will accept that. They will be immediately recognized under the Labour Code in the case of college faculties. We have indicated that we will bring amendments to the Universities Act if it's the desire of any of our established universities to become trade unions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: So, Mr. Chairman, we're clearly on the record. But this group of socialists that thinks nothing but trade unionism first, last and always feels that everybody should be under some union or other. They dislike free enterprise, dislike excellence, dislike success, dislike all the things which makes British Columbia great. They wouldn't be able to see that at all.

Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster has once more spoken rubbish and that should be on the record.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I expected the minister to stand in his place and give an argument -he gave none. I have to answer nothing. The minister is arrogant and foolish, and that's all I have to say.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

Schedule A approved.

Schedule B approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 68, The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 401,

[ Page 5540 ]

Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE ACT, 1907

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in taking this bill through second reading and, I hope, through committee and third reading on behalf of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) who is out of town on the agricultural committee. I know this will be debated fiercely for several weeks so I prepared quite a lot of information here I'm sure we can use.

The major purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, 1907, to clarify and extend the authority of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and to regulate the conduct of its business and its members.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange was incorporated by a private bill in 1907 and has only been amended twice since then. The last amendment was in 1973, which provided for two governors to be elected as public governors. It is also proposed in the present bill and its amendments to increase the number of public governors from two to four. This amendment is proposed in respect to the greater public responsibility that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is being called upon to discharge today. Likewise, the authority given to the stock exchange, which may have been sufficient at the turn of the century when the exchange first came into being, requires clarification and extension if the public interest is to be protected.

The necessity for these amendments is clear from a decision of the Corporate and Financial Services Commission under the chairmanship of Leon Getz in the appeal of Robert Joseph Genetti. In that case, a securities salesman had his licence cancelled for cause by the superintendent of brokers. The salesman appealed to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission and the decision- of the superintendent of brokers was upheld. The Vancouver Stock Exchange then passed Rule 216, which read as follows: "No member shall, without prior written consent of the board of governors, employ in any capacity any person whose licence has been suspended or cancelled by the superintendent of brokers."

During the period of such suspension or cancellation Genetti continued to be employed by a member firm of the Vancouver Stock Exchange and appealed to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission against the rule of the exchange. The commission then found that the archaic language of the present statute did not authorize the making of this rule and accordingly the rule was found to be ultra vires of the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act.

It would seem reasonable that if someone's conduct is such that the superintendent of brokers of the province cancels his licence, then surely the Vancouver Stock Exchange should have the power to support that decision by preventing that person from being employed in firms whose business is trading in securities to the public.

That is the major purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker: to enable the Vancouver Stock Exchange to regulate its members and protect the public interest. There are built-in safeguards against any abuse of this power by the Vancouver Stock Exchange, including an appeal to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission as well as an appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) , I take pleasure in moving second reading of this bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on this bill. A lot of progress was made in terms of the Vancouver Stock Exchange during the NDP administration. We instituted the programme of public governors and we arranged for appeals to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission. These were good steps. But there was another step we took late in 1975 which pertains to this bill, because we are dealing here with the rules of the exchange. That has never been implemented. The section was late in the term of the NDP government and that is why is wasn't proclaimed by us, but it should be proclaimed because, after all, that was a year and a half ago now and we have been pressing for its proclamation.

It says: "No stock exchange shall enforce any bylaw, rule, instruction or regulation unless it has been filed with the superintendent and approved in writing by him." Now that sounds like a pretty innocuous and obvious regulation of the affairs of the stock exchange. The hon. member mentioned Leon Getz of the commission. Here is another thing Mr. Getz said in a ruling. He called the Vancouver Stock Exchange's rules totally inadequate and said that improvements should be implemented. That was back in August of 1976.

That improvement in the rules has not taken place. Firms get listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange which should never be listed at all. An outstanding example, I suppose, is Avalanche Industries Ltd. which was supposed to be developing a mini-compressor in England, or somewhere throughout the country, and was a bucket stop operating in this province for about 10 years and fleecing the investors of this province. Here's the way the commission saw it: "More interested in stock promotion than in development of a new line of mini-compressors." That's an understatement on the part of this company. There were five phone lines in - that was their biggest business expense - to flog

[ Page 5541 ]

the stock.

There was no industrial activity going on. There was nothing helpful to the economy going on. The shares would go up in value to about $3.50, and then when they wanted to sell them off they would bring it down to $1.25, like a yo-yo. This kind of a listing existed in the Vancouver Stock Exchange for years. They were finally suspended from trading last January 27, but there are many others like them that are still listed and fleecing the public of British Columbia.

I think we need a stock exchange in this province, but I think that the rules and bylaws of the stock exchange, which is a semi-public institution, ought to be approved as to whether or not they are in the public interest. That is the purpose of this amendment which we have asked first the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , when he then had jurisdiction over the stock exchange, and now the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) . We have asked that that section be implemented, but it hasn't been, this section which requires the bylaws of the stock exchange to be approved by the superintendent of brokers, who imports the public interest into those bylaws so that they are not solely the work of the exchange, which is, as has been said, and rightly said in the case of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, a gambling casino run by its own gamblers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's an overstatement.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, it's not an overstatement. You read the history.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I suggest to the hon. member that it is a very interesting debate but I would like him to relate, if he can for me, where this in any way applies to the bill that is before us at the moment.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll be glad to, Mr. Speaker. In section 3 (2) of the bill, it says: "The corporation may enact, amend and repeal bylaws for all or any of its purposes." My contention is that that power should not be given without the approval of the superintendent so that the public interest finally asserts itself in the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

In spite of the brave speeches of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, he's buckled under to the pressure of the stock exchange and refused to proclaim that section.

When I quote the case of Avalanche Industries Ltd. - which was fleecing the public for years as a boiler shop under Ronald Macdonald, and not a productive part of the economy at all - I quote one of the many listings that should not be allowed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It's purely a gambling operation when that kind of a listing is allowed.

In terms of the public governors, Mr. Speaker, I say it's not enough to just name them and report to them. There are two things that are essential in the case of the public governors. One is that they should not themselves be interested whatsoever, even as counsel, in applications before the Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Huberman, with respect, was exactly that. He was counsel in connection with the Cheyenne takeover bid when he was a public governor of the stock exchange.

What we need are public governors who will be watchdogs for the public interest. There should be no conflict of interest of that kind allowed to develop in the case of public governors. The public governors should be required to report back to the Legislature as to whether the public interest has been respected in the previous year.

Now if you have that kind of an ombudsman, if you want to call him that, as a public governor -that's the thing I envisaged on the board of the exchange - fine. But to just have another public governor who doesn't make any report back to this House or to the executive council or any public report, is not good enough. British Columbia will continue to have a stock exchange which has a low level of confidence in the public. That's bad for our economy and bad for our reputation as a province.

I say that I am opposed to this bill, simply because this government, under the pressure of those stock exchange interests, has refused to implement an amendment which was voted on in this Legislature. I don't think it was opposed by the Attorney-General when it was voted on late in the session of 1975.

It should be proclaimed. Okay. All right. You've made a debating point. It was passed some time before October, 1975. The election was in December. We should have proclaimed it. You win on the debating point. It should have been done earlier perhaps but usually these things take a month or two before they are proclaimed, to alert people in the field- But looking back, we certainly should have proclaimed it, and challenged this government as to whether or not they dare to repeal it. But I say they've given in to the speculative interests that dominate the exchange.

AN HON. MEMBER: Humbug!

MR. MACDONALD: In so doing, I say they're doing nothing for the public and the economy of the province of British Columbia, and the stock exchange will continue to bear. a reputation which is less than one of confidence and inspiration to the investing public of this province as long as we have the present setup.

I could quote many Avalanche Industries cases.

[ Page 5542 ]

There are members in this House who know what I'm talking about - where the whole purpose is to wash stock, to short sell, to start a campaign, to do what Ronald Macdonald did in this case. Quietly promise, "if you buy these shares, I guarantee you that within three months they'll go up by 20 cents." Is that not happening? Of course it's happening. Those rules and regulations are a matter of public concern in the stock exchange. I'm opposed to this bill because this government has chickened out of asserting the public interest in the case of the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the few times I find myself agreeing with quite a few of the statements that the hon. member made, but certainly not all of them. It was good that they brought in public governors to some extent, I think, in the Vancouver Stock Exchange. However, the exchange is an organization made up of individual firms and people and that exchange should have the capacity, like any other association, to govern itself. That is what this bill is all about. I think that has probably evaded the member or he cares not to bring it up at this time.

Without reflecting on another vote, the member mentioned that we should have new rules and that the rules were inadequate. Well, that is the reason for Bill 401. If the stock exchange is to adequately police itself, it must at least be able to make rules which govern its members. The reason, of course, that the Genetti case could not be brought to a proper conclusion was that the language of the original 1907 bill was so inadequate that it was not possible. This is a simple amending bill. It's certainly no panacea, Mr. Speaker, for all of the ends, but it's a step along the way. We can always hope for new rules, and we certainly hope that under section 3 of this bill, the exchange will make proper rules to govern itself and thus protect the investing public of British Columbia. I move second reading of Bill 401.

Motion approved.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 401 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 401, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, 1907, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER

STOCK EXCHANGE ACT, 1907

The House in committee on Bill 401; Mr. Kahl in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. VEITCH: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 401, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, 1907, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 403, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIETY OF INDUSTRIAL

ACCOUNTANTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

MR. VEITCH: The reason that this bill is solicited is that An Act to Amend the Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia Act, Chapter 364 of the Statutes of British Columbia, for the purpose of changing the name of the Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia to the Society of Management Accountants of British Columbia. The petitioner is incorporated in British Columbia as a society under the existing Act. The equivalent societies are separately organized or incorporated in each of the provinces of Canada where there is a federal organization and in each where there is a provincial society and wherever they participate within that society. Members of the society perform a number of accounting functions. When the present name of the society was adopted in 1967, it was apparently felt that "industrial accounting" were the most appropriate words to use to describe the activities of the members of the society. There has been a growing feeling among the members of that society across Canada that the name adopted in 1967 is no longer adequate and is not representative or descriptive of one of the major functions of a large majority of the members - namely management accounting. It has been resolved by the federal organization and, at this time, at least eight of the 10 provinces that the name of the provincial society be altered to replace the word "industrial" with the word "management."

Mr. Speaker, it is simply an Act to change the name to be commensurate with those other names of the same society of the same organization operating in other provinces in Canada. I take great pleasure in moving second reading of this bill.

[ Page 5543 ]

Motion approved.

MR. VEITCH: I ask leave to refer Bill 403 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 403, Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

SOCIETY OF INDUSTRIAL

ACCOUNTANTS OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 403; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved,

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 403, Society of Industrial Accountants of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 405, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

MR. VEITCH: I take great pleasure in rising to speak on second reading of this bill. I know many of the people who are involved in Trinity Western College. I know it to be a fine institution. I personally know many of the students who have graduated from it and, I have a great deal of respect for it. I cannot speak too highly for this bill.

Briefly, the college was established in 1963 on an old farm site purchased in the Langley area. Some of the farm buildings were used for the college. The site of the college is now one of the most beautiful landmarks in the Fraser Valley, with the college being used as both a cultural and recreational centre, not only for the students enrolled but for the community surrounding the Langley area, Surrey and towards Vancouver.

The present enrolment in Trinity Western College is 470 students. The college now offers the first two years of a four-year college programme. Due to the very high calibre of teaching staff and standards set by the college, the course offered has been recognized by over 100 universities and colleges throughout North America. The result is that the students are able to transfer very easily over to universities and colleges for the final four years of the programme. However, both the parents and the students themselves have found the institution and the learning mix between academic and religious studies so valuable to them that they have wanted to extend their course of studies to a four-year programme. The college has operated 15 years without one cent of government money, depending completely on private funds raised by both religious and private institutions.

Trinity does intend to expand. As it expands, it has been extending its cultural programmes into the community. It also offers unique courses such as aviation, in which 50 students are enrolled. This course is specially aided by the fact that Skyway Aviation Limited has co-operated to the fullest extent in training its students.

Another example of the unique and useful research being conducted in this establishment is a research institute which is run by Dr. Frank Eshelman, a qualified physicist and metallurgist. Progress is being made in the area of solar energy and new types of building materials.

Presently there are 23 subject areas and six divisions being offered, those divisions being: humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, physical education, religious education and business, together with the institute of aviation and the research institute.

The college also stresses the fullest in facilities and programmes with respect to physical education activities. The gymnasium is the largest and best utilized in the whole of the Fraser Valley. The library of Trinity Western College is not only one of the best in the valley but it is open for public use as both a reference and reading library.

In short, the college thrives on its high standards of excellence. It has progressed without any governmental aid of any kind, and takes pride in reaching out into the community for the benefit of the general public, who pay nothing to support it.

The purpose of this bill is twofold. Firstly, to reflect the changing nature of the college as an institution appealing to all religious denominations and not just the Evangelical Free Church. While much of the support, financial and otherwise, is still received from that institution, that body recognizes that colleges must reach out in all directions and appeal to all people and all denominations.

The changes in the Act proposed in this bill are largely housekeeping changes to allow greater

[ Page 5544 ]

flexibility in the appointment of various officers, and are in keeping with the move toward greater autonomy for the college. The change proposed in paragraph 3 of the bill would pave the way for the lengthening of the programmes offered by the college and hopefully, in the fullness of time, allow for the conferring of baccalaureate degrees by this college, though not at the present time in this bill. It is not the intention to move forthwith into a four-year programme. Rather, Mr. Speaker, the college will move in its usual cautious manner so as to protect and maintain the high degree of academic standards that are the earmarks of this particular institution.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in moving second reading of this bill.

Motion approved.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 405 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 405, An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TRINITY WESTERN COLLEGE ACT

The House in committee on Bill 405; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 405, An Act to Amend the Trinity Western College Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 85, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this Act is just housekeeping. The Public Schools Act is opened, , I think, nearly every year. I can't recall a session that I've had the privilege of sitting through where there haven't been some amendments to the Public Schools Act.

This year there are a series of really quite minor adjustments to the Act. One has to do with providing greater public accountability for the trustees. The public has always had access to the minutes of school trustees meetings, but there was no clear statement that the public could actually attend the meetings. This Act amendment will provide legislation identical to existing provisions in the Municipal Act.

Another amendment establishes the right of any forum or electors to challenge before a judge of the Supreme Court or county courts the election or the right to continue in office of a trustee. This provision too is identical to that in the Municipal Act.

Several provisions are concerned with school boards' capital spending proposals. They too provide for greater public awareness, and there is a requirement that a proposal be published in a newspaper before it becomes adopted by the board. However, once that capital spending proposal has been approved by the board and the ministry, the new provisions will speed up the handling of the proposal. The actual time during which the procedures may be challenged will be reduced from 3 0 to 10 days as far as the courts are concerned.

The present requirement for an order-in-council before an approved capital expenditure can be redirected to more urgent needs has been removed. This too will produce greater efficiency and less time in handling the capital expenses once they've been approved.

Other sections of the bill are related to changes in fire insurance provisions, the right of appeal of teachers who've been suspended, and increased services for the deaf and sight-impaired children in school districts.

It's my intention, Mr. Speaker, to produce two other minor changes to what's on the order paper. I can put them on the order paper so that we can go to committee next time, or I could pass over copies. One of these would repeal ...

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: This would be in committee but they apply. This is like the Statute Law Amendment Act.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: One of these would eliminate section 140 subsection (5) and this, Mr. Speaker, is a provision which says that no arbitrator may serve on more than two arbitrations. We wish to remove that provision because there has been trouble

[ Page 5545 ]

finding a sufficient number of arbitrators to handle the numerous school arbitrations that are taking place. We're trying to reduce the number if we possibly can, to improve the consistency, and to make the whole procedure a little more effective.

Another one is just a drafting change where it deletes section 130 (2) (b) and substitutes section 130 (2) so all of subsection (2) of section 130 will apply. This has the effect of broadening the grounds on which somebody may appeal a suspension.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those are your amendments.

HON. MR. McGEER: These are the two: 130 (2) (b) and 140 (5) . One has the effect of permitting an arbitrator to serve on more than two arbitrations, and the other is to broaden the appeal procedure.

So with that notice that there are these two further minor provisions, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in general I do agree with the minister that this bill is, as can be depicted, a housekeeping bill. There are one or two areas that I want to canvass in some detail with the minister, both at this stage and in committee stage. I might suggest right now, Mr. Speaker, that we're not going to stop committee handling of the bill. When second reading is over, we're prepared to go through committee stage at that time.

I do have some concerns, but first let me say this. During the estimates and in every other period when we've discussed education subjects, the minister has given us some new changes that have put us in a new direction. One area that he's really changed direction, in terms of PR but not in terms of fact, is in the public school system.

When he became minister, he announced that we were going to go the direction of having a complete new look at education and therefore would have a provincial learning assessment programme along with a core curriculum. This, Mr. Speaker, was loudly acclaimed by those people who did not really understand what was going on in the school system, and warily looked at by those who did and those who realized that a core curriculum, while desirable and, generally speaking, in place, certainly should have a great deal of input from the local people and from the local boards, from the local teachers' associations and all. The minister gave a very short period when they could respond, and after that announced to all and sundry that the guide was out and that the curriculum was in place.

We looked over the guide, and I'm just taking this opportunity under the Public Schools Act - because when you open up the Act, you open up the whole thing - to say to you, after looking over the core curriculum - and it's glossy and lovely and very expensive - I just wonder if we got what we paid for. What is there seems to me was there heretofore. I just want the minister to know that I know that he knows that I know, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, that was quite an exercise. I presume that when the learning assessment programme has been decided upon and whether or not the minister is going to have every teacher in the province teaching to test, back to the '50s and before, then he will let us know about that. I hope that's not going to be the case. I don't really think, Mr. Speaker, that he can make it stick because I don't think he has the budget to handle that kind of programme.

I know the minister is a very able politician, and I hope that he becomes in the not too distant future, toward the end of his career as Minister of Education, a more able Minister of Education. So far, he's a lot of PR and a lot of hard news for those people in post-secondary education - and then what we've seen in the public school system.

Let me now talk about the bill for a few minutes. In the first part of the bill I hope the thought that the minister has in section 1 is not to restrict the movement of pupils from schools of their choice. It would appear to me that the superintendents are being instructed to some extent that they have to be rather careful about where children should attend school. I just hope that there is no restriction of movement. The system was opened up in many of the school districts. A child could attend the school of the child's and the parents' choice. It gave a lot more flexibility to our school system.

One of the places where that worked best was here in Victoria. You see almost every alternative within the public school system, and that's to be admired. That's to be copied in any area where we have a school system that needs a little bit of overhauling. It's good.

I know one family, for example, Mr. Speaker, where they have two very bright children. One of them responds beautifully to the very programmatic type of structure and the other flowers in the open concept - two in the same family, both getting a fine education as a result of that kind of flexibility available. I just hope that we keep flexibility available under this minister. At the same time, I sure hope the minister isn't going to start directing traffic where children and their parents are concerned with respect to what school they go to. So this is, _I believe, a very important point.

In the second Section 1 just depart a little bit from the minister with respect to his housekeeping attitude toward this bill. I worry about the second section of this bill in these terms, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking now in terms of the principle of where the minister is taking us.

"The parent or guardian of a child attending

[ Page 5546 ]

a provincial school to the board of the school district where the child normally resides, or to both the parent, guardian and the board."

This is an amendment so it will be very hard for anyone to understand it unless they know what context it is in. The context it's in is that if a child is directed towards special education then it could be that the local school board, and/or the parents and/or guardians could have to pick up part or all of the tab at the minister's discretion.

Mr. Speaker, I see a grave threat here. It's not particularly to the parents and guardians, although there is a threat to them, but it has always been included to some extent in the Act. The threat that I see here is the minister saying to the school boards, the school districts: "Keep your kids out of Jericho Hill. Keep your kids out of that 'centralized programme' and do something about them in the district."

Mr. Speaker, the minister and I have had quite a feud about the whole Jericho Hill question. The minister continually misunderstands what I'm talking about when I talk in terms of some centralization for those students who are profoundly deaf, particularly those students who are impaired in terms of ability to communicate. I'm not suggesting that there should not be central areas, such as Prince George for the north, Kamloops for the central part of the province, and Jericho Hill for the lower mainland and its environs. I think that's an excellent idea, but where you have groups that are too small and you force these groups of communicatively impaired children into small groups, they still have problems communicating. They cannot communicate with the large group within the school - they just can't.

You've got situations now where you've got three or four children in Langley, three or four children in other areas, of various ages and sex, and they're having a real difficulty putting together programmes. As a matter of fact, we saw a sort of satellite programme outside of Jericho Hill attacked the other day because the teacher in this programme did not know how to communicate with the children. One mother told me that her child went to school and asked in sign language where the bathroom was and the teacher didn't even understand. Mr. Chairman, what terrible frustration.

Here's what I see this minister doing: carrying, oddly enough, a decentralized programme in the face of being a centralist almost everywhere else he works. We've seen this centralized attitude towards the universities, colleges, and toward the school system generally. As far as that's concerned, I'm talking in terms of centralization of authority, but here he insists on a decentralized programme. I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that what he's asking for here in this bill is that if school districts don't agree to set up their own programmes, then they're going to pay the piper. They're going to pay the piper in larger numbers if the minister has his way and passes this bill, unless I'm very definitely misinterpreting what he says here. I can't understand the change unless it's for that reason.

Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to explain himself, as best he can, and tell us what he intends to do with respect to this situation at Jericho Hill, and other centralized programmes that may be required from time to time.

There are other areas that I'm a little bit concerned about. I thought, Mr. Speaker, that insisting that the public schools have open meetings in legislation ... while I realize it rather goes along with the Municipal Act, in a way, I find it a bit insulting. I don't know if there is a school board in the province that doesn't have open public meetings. In the face of that, it would strike me as being rather strange that the minister would insist, but it's okay. I haven't heard a great reverberation. When I first read the bill I just found it slightly insulting.

A lot of the bill, as I said, is certainly housekeeping, but the one area I would like to ask a question about as well is this business of facilitating the public's greater awareness of the boards' capital spending. So they have to put ads in the paper; so they have to do that kind of thing. Well, Mr. Speaker, when school boards spend any capital money they always announce it and it always hits the press in the local areas. Now why should the public be put to the extra expense of having to put ads in the paper around this question? Does the minister feel that the public doesn't read the papers and do read the ads? I just don't quite understand that and I'd like the minister to explain why it is that he wants this circulated within the district in this way. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I want to know if his ministry is prepared to pay the total cost of that extra price tag that he has put on the school boards of the province.

Generally speaking, as I said, the bill, with one or two questions, has not much more than housekeeping as its major elements, but I do want some answers to some questions when the minister answers in second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, just to deal quickly with the points raised by the members opposite, first of all with respect to the core curriculum. I think the relief that was felt in some quarters when it actually appeared.... The ministry never pretended that the curriculum would be made up of new material. Rather, Mr. Speaker, the whole idea of the core curriculum was that we would get back to teaching the fundamentals - not something brand new, just get back to the firm fundamentals.

[ Page 5547 ]

Mr. Speaker, the value of the core curriculum isn't that it isn't there - the books on arithmetic, the readers, the spellers and so on - it's whether or not it can be in front of the school and they would ignore it. That is nothing new, nothing magical. The fact is that what we've done in the ministry is to say: "It's there; you must teach it." That's what the core curriculum is all about. Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted that it has received, such approbation.

With respect to Jericho school, what we're following basically is the general principle laid down in the Berger report - a gentleman the members opposite have come to know in a philosophical sense.

MR. WALLACE: A brilliant man.

HON. MR. McGEER: A brilliant man. What he said in his report was that services for children should be brought to the communities instead of the children being brought to the services. That's the fundamental principle upon which the Ministry of Education programme for the deaf and blind children of the province is all about: take the service to the children.

Mr. Speaker, it so happens that there is a financial incentive in the Public Schools Act to do the opposite, because so long as the ministry is financing totally that central service and the local school board has no obligation to pay the cost for board and room or the costs that they would otherwise have if that youngster were in their school system and they were paying the cost of educating that youngster, then it is to their financial advantage not to provide these local services. All this amendment does is to remove a disincentive from the Public Schools Act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the member asked: why advertise the capital expense proposal? Why add that unnecessary extra cost? Mr. Speaker, last year I approved $140 million worth of school construction in British Columbia - 40 per cent higher than any previous year in British Columbia history. That was done at a time of record interest rates. Most of the borrowings were between 10 and 11 per cent, the highest interest rates in the history of British Columbia. The local ratepayers who will bear the cost of this $140 million, with it's $14 million-plus of interest charges per year, never voted and in many cases never saw the expenditures that were being made. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that these record expenditures took place at a time of constant school population in British Columbia. Never more money spent, never higher interest rates and never slower growth.

When I inquired about these record amounts of money being spent, it was all generated. The planning had been done, the capital expense proposals had been approved, the projects had been worked out with the architects and all that was left was the calling of the contract for things that had already been agreed to long ago. Suddenly you add them up: $140 million -and nobody knew.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you: if it's $140 million in a year, can you tell me how much it is going to mean extra for an advertisement to go in the paper? One advertisement, let's say, before $4 million or $5 million of the taxpayer's money is spent. Is that advertisement going to be so expensive that it will cause the local district to go broke?

MR. COCKE: Oh, come on, Pat. Did they announce it or not?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, the point about it, Mr. Speaker, is that they're going to announce it now.

I was never one who wished to see school building hindered by overprotective devices to the local ratepayer. But I don't consider putting one advertisement in the newspaper before you spend $5 million or $10 million of the local taxpayers' money is excessive; I don't think that's an excessive measure.

I have been very happy to see money approved and to see us have a fine physical environment for the youngsters in our schools. But, Mr. Speaker, to object to letting the public know I think is to ask for just a little too much licence in this matter of spending money for public schools. We want to be generous but we don't want to be sloppy. That's why this little tiny bit of restraint is being placed upon the school boards. I don't think it will break them financially; I don't think it will cause a revolution in school board offices.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore consider it a reasonable, even a timid measure.

MR. WALLACE: You were never timid, Pat.

HON. MR. McGEER: But this measure is timid, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 85 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 85, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

[ Page 5548 ]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MRS. DAILLY: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) posed some questions on section 2 in second reading. The minister did answer ' but there's still a concern here. You say that there was this disincentive for the school boards to take the children from the provincial institutions back to their own area. Well, I'm not going to get into that whole philosophical debate now because we feel this whole thing has been somewhat mishandled and there's still concern over it.

But here is the Act in front of us. I have a specific question now to the minister. If you want the school boards to increase specialized services for the handicapped.... We have serious reservations about the extent of this, but that's not my question. My question is: what financial incentive are you going to give those school districts? You certainly said there was a disincentive before, but what financial incentive are they going to have from your ministry? We all know that the teaching of the handicapped requires a great deal of special, personalized teaching and special equipment. Have you something in mind to assist the school boards?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Chairman, as the member well knows, there's a special education division within the ministry which provides advice, counsel and professional backup to all school districts in encouraging them to develop local services. Our financial division grants special approvals for supplementary funds for projects of this kind. So in practical terms, both the professional backup and the financial consideration is given by the ministry, and it will continue to be given.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I just want to say to the minister that I find that far from satisfactory, and I'm sure the school boards must be concerned. We know there are special funds for special classes, but you are now encouraging children to go back into the school system who have had to have exceptionally specialized services which they were formerly receiving at Jericho. Are you saying that you're not going to have any special financial incentive outside of the ordinary sums of money they're allotted for special education, which simply are not going to be sufficient? It's all right following your philosophy -which we don't agree with anyway - but on top of asking us to go along with your philosophy, you're not even giving the funds to carry it through.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, no, quite to the contrary, Mr. Chairman. Funds, equipment, professional backup, special approval - all those things are given.

Our problem has never come from the local school districts resisting providing services; our problem has come from the central. area struggling to maintain a level that is not justified in terms of our ability to deliver local services, struggling to have, under their jurisdiction, children who are better off elsewhere and struggling to maintain a plan that doesn't need to be as large as it was in the past. That's the unanimous opinion - and I want to stress unanimous - of every recognized authority who has looked at this situation for us. I just think it's very sad that we have the deaf wards, but the reason for them is a painfully obvious one.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support very strongly the concept of ensuring that school board meetings are open to the public, but I notice that the key word is "regular" - namely that there should always be access by the public to regular meetings of the board, or that "regular meetings will be held in public, " is the precise wording.

I find it a little strange that the mechanism the minister has used is to quote sections from another Act, namely 162 and 163 of the Municipal Act, because we all know that one of the hottest issues that still relates to council meetings is that despite this use of the word "regular" meetings, we all know mayors and aldermen can go into in-camera meeting anytime they want, and there has been a great deal of controversy in different areas about that fact. As long as everyone recognizes that the attempt and the concept is to have open public meetings, there's a lot of scope for boards to call special meetings and presumably reconsider in private and discuss in private the issues that have previously been debated in public.

I know that it must be very difficult to define legislation that would go beyond the stage the minister is outlining here, but I still think it's an inadequate attempt to ensure that everything that should be public knowledge will be public knowledge through the vehicle of meetings thoroughly 'and completely open to members of the public.

I recognize that the two issues of land acquisition and personnel matters warrant secrecy - or may warrant secret meetings - but it's quite clear, from the way , certain councils function under the Municipal Act, Mr. Chairman, that they can still orchestrate secret meetings from which the public is excluded.

I regret that the minister didn't write a specific, appropriate amendment for the Public Schools Act and not just relate the concept of public meetings to

[ Page 5549 ]

the sections that apply in the Municipal Act, because they're inadequate and incomplete.

I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he might monitor in some way the implementation of this amendment and, if it is discovered that school boards simply designate a meeting as a special meeting or devise some device whereby they can stay within the Act and still hold private meetings dealing with issues that are not either property acquisition or personnel matters, that the minister might come back to the House at a later date with a more specific amendment that would assuredly provide the kind of public meeting that I know he wants, with the exception of the two areas I've outlined.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the member should be aware that all the minutes - whether it's open or closed - are available through the Ministry of Education. It's pretty hard to slip anything by the public or by the ministry by resolution. Our thinking in putting this in was merely to establish a little bit of interest in what goes on at some of these public school meetings, because sometimes things go by because the public is indifferent to it. If we make a point of saying that the meetings are to be public, we can hope that will stir up a little bit of interest. The best way, really, to draw attention to what you're debating is suddenly to go in camera. That's the way it becomes public quickest. But we're going to determine by minutes what goes on, and we'd be very happy to consider a better drafting.

Perhaps the member would like to suggest his own wording for us to consider at some future time. It's just a step for us. The interest tends to get so low before the fact that you can't even get people to run for school boards. Then they find out later - "Look at my school taxes! What went on?" This is an attempt really to stir up just a little bit of interest.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's to this section that I'd like to propose two amendments, as I explained to the opposition in second reading. The first of these amendments is to section 8 to delete, as we've said section 132 (b) and substitute 132. It's an appeal section, and this broadens the scope of the appeal.

On the amendment.

MRS. DAILLY: We received the amendment, and we did agree that we would accept it now for discussion. I wonder if on behalf of the official opposition - and I know on behalf of the leader of the Conservative Party - you could be a little more explicit and explain what the reason was for this change?

HON. MR. McGEER: It was an inadvertent cancellation, by the way the wording was, for a person who is dismissed or suspended to have an appeal. A boo-boo.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: I've got another amendment, and this one is less of a boo-boo than it is a genuine, deliberate change. I would move, Mr. Chairman, that section 140 (5) be repealed and section 141 (3) be repealed. It's a fairly simple principle, or I wouldn't ask the members to consider it in committee.

What we want to do is to make it possible for an arbitrator to serve on more than two arbitrations. The present Act limits it just to two, and there were some difficulties last year in getting arbitrators to serve. Therefore, at the request of those who are concerned with supplying arbitrators the amendment is proposed. I've discussed it with both the B.C. Teachers Federation and the B.C. Schools Trustees Association, who are quite prepared to accept this amendment as it will be principally affecting them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll read out the amendment if I may, Mr. Member. May I read the amendment?

MR. WALLACE: We haven't passed the previous section as amended. We're on two amendments to different sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the same section.

HON. MR. McGEER: What we're doing is we're amending section 8 of this. We're introducing a section 8 (a) and section 8 (b) . Section 8 (a) is the one dealing with the dismissal, which is section 132; and section 8 (b) deals with the ....

MR. WALLACE: Section 14 1.

HON. MR. McGEER: There are two parts. There's section 140 (5) of the main statute, and section 141 (3) . One of them says: "You may not serve on more than two arbitrations, " and the other says: "You may not appoint somebody to do more than two arbitrations." One is a serving section and one is an appointing section. But both those subsections say the same thing - namely, that an arbitrator can only do two. We want to give the opportunity to do more than two.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds very convincing.

[ Page 5550 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you'll have an opportunity to discuss both these in one section.

HON. MR. McGEER: Imagine what these meetings of legislative committee are like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second amendment is, and I'll read it out: "Section 140. By adding after section 8 the following 8 (a): Section 140 (5) is repealed, and section 141 (3) is repealed; and subsection (4) of section 141 is renumbered as subsection (3) ." Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment approved.

On section 8 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Just very briefly on the section as amended. Since the minister has produced somewhat convoluted amendments to the whole question of the appeal section, I'd like to know why he did not take into consideration the point I raised a year ago, dealing with the fact that a teacher who is transferred and may lose income does not have full access to all the review procedures to which a teacher is entitled who is suspended and who may be reinstated. As the minister may recall in the session last spring, I pointed out that the only recourse that a teacher has who has transferred is that the teacher may appeal to the minister. But the teacher who is transferred does not have the whole range of appeal mechanisms, and particularly does not have access to a review commission, which is the case if a teacher is suspended. Whether that suspension is finalized or may be rescinded is beside the point.

I raised this matter last year and it's recorded in Hansard of June 28,1976 on page 3214. At that time, the minister, in answering my question, at least the underlying principle, said:

We accept the principle that there should be an appeal procedure and we are looking for something that is mutually acceptable. Obviously, if it is not acceptable to the B.C. trustees, but is acceptable to the B.C., Teachers Federation, we should be looking for a better method. We've got several months and we intend to do that. We have considered this particular one and rejected it, simply because it hasn't received mutual agreement and was set up for a completely different purpose.

Could I just ask the minister what has taken place in the meantime, presumably in discussions with the trustees and the teachers federation, in regard to amending the bill within this whole area of appeal mechanism, which we've just amended in relation to suspension, but which, as the minister had given a commitment, would also be enhanced in regard to transfer?

HON. MR. McGEER: The matter has been discussed with the B.C. Teachers Federation and the B. C. School Trustees Association. There's a consultant, Mr. Stan Evans, who has been mutually agreed upon by the two parties, working on it at the present time. We don't have anything to offer just now. I did, however, last fall write a letter saying any who had lost income as a result of these transfers would receive sympathetic consideration from me on any appeal that was launched directly to the ministry.

Of course, the ministry also hears appeals from teachers who may be transferred back to the classroom and wish to appeal that transfer. Some of the appeals have been sustained and others have been rejected. The routine procedure is to appoint a committee to study the merits of the appeal, and the recommendations are made to me. I just accept their recommendations. So we do have a quasi-procedure that is working in the interim, and we have a consultant to'produce a better, long-range solution.

Section 8 as amended approved.

Sections 9 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. McGEER: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 85, Public Schools Amendment Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move motion 18, standing in my name on the order paper, to wit, that the committee of selection appointed by this House on January 13,1977, comprising the Hon. Grace McCarthy, the Hon. R.H. McClelland, Mrs. Jordan and Messrs. King and Gibson, be authorized to appoint a special committee of the Legislature to recommend a person to be appointed as ombudsman as provided under section 2 under the Ombudsman Act; and that the special committee so appointed be empowered to appoint, of their number, one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees

[ Page 5551 ]

any of the matters referred to the committee; and that the special committee or subcommittee be authorized to sit during any adjournment of the House and/or empowered to sit outside the precincts of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 2.

THE EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this piece of legislation emanates from deliberations of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia and also as a result of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. The bill will amend our Evidence Act to overcome a rule of evidence known as "the rule in Hollington versus Hewthorne." 'the present common law rule states that evidence that a party has previously been convicted of an offence arising out of the same facts that are an issue in a subsequent civil proceeding is not admissible in that subsequent civil proceeding.

The rule, Mr. Speaker, has led to a number of anomalies in the numbered fact situations. In one case, for example - Heinz versus Sparks - the plaintiff had been convicted of robbery. Then he brought an action for libel against the defendant who had published a statement that the plaintiff was guilty of robbery, of which he had been convicted. Proof of the conviction of the plaintiff for the robbery was not admissible in the civil proceeding, with the net result that the defendant ran into considerable difficulties with proof. Oddly enough, the plaintiff succeeded in the case, and the libel suit was a success.

There's another case - Barclay's Bank versus Cole. In that one a man had been convicted of robbing a bank and was sued by the bank for the return of part of the money. Again, proof of the conviction was not admissible in the subsequent civil proceeding, and the bank was unjustly hampered in attempting to obtain the return of the dollars.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, will reverse the situation and will make evidence of a previous conviction admissible. As with all evidence that is placed before a court, Mr. Speaker, the weight to be given to the evidence of a previous conviction will be left to the court to determine. In the case of an action for defamation in a criminal proceeding, evidence of that conviction will be conclusive proof that a defamation has occurred should a subsequent civil proceeding occur.

I'd like to say to hon. members that this particular rule has been abolished in the United Kingdom about 20 years ago, and in South Australia and Fiji. Alberta in 1976 enacted similar legislation, and it is under consideration in other provinces in Canada right now.

The weight to be given to any conviction is still a matter to be determined by the judge and jury, and is also a right built into the measure to argue in the absence of the jury as to whether or not the introduction of the conviction would, in relation to its probative value, unduly influence the jury.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 2.

MR. COCKE: We have no opposition to this bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to refer Bill 2 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 1. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the amendment to section 2 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved,

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Evidence Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment.

[ Page 5552 ]

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 2, Evidence Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 59, the Medical Centre of British Columbia Repeal Act.

MEDICAL CENTRE OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA REPEAL ACT

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): The matter of the Medical Centre of British Columbia Act has been debated in the House on a number of occasions. The matter of it being disbanded has also been debated. I don't have very much more to add except to say that at this time, at least, this is truly a housekeeping bill. The Medical Centre of British Columbia has no assets today. It has a caretaker board and no responsibilities at the present time. This matter will allow us to disband the board and to disband the organization.

I move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is correct: the matter has been debated ad nauseam in the House. Naturally, as far as I'm concerned, it's a sad day. However, the day that it was first announced by the minister, some year and a half ago or almost, that the medical centre would be no more was, I guess, as black a day as I'd ever seen with respect to the direction of medical training in our province. The direction, I believe, came from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) who felt that the leading light in this matter should be the University of B.C.

The thing that sort of warms my heart a little bit after the minister decried the medical centre in its direction was that many of the things that were started by the medical centre, such as the children's hospital, the high-risk maternity hospital and an extension of training, have been brought about when the minister has changed his course from time to time, but under different auspices. We know the medical centre concept is dead, but one thing I want to say is that it was an important facet in that it related to the whole province.

We know that it has no assets and no responsibilities and hasn't had right from the day that minister took office. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is sad, but I'm not going to redebate this particular question today. I just want to register my opposition to this piece of legislation.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, like the member for New Westminster, I don't wish to go into the whole debate again. But I do feel that it's very clear that the sophisticated nature of hospital and medical practice these days requires very much a co-ordinated and centralized overruling body to try and develop the best kinds of services in the most efficient and economical way for the patients.

I personally felt that the B.C. Medical Centre concept had a great deal to recommend it. I also have grave doubts as to whether this bill is justified, but we have debated that in the past. The only thing I would like to know, for the sake of the taxpayers, relates to questions I asked in question period but for lack of time it wasn't possible to go into the details that I think we're entitled to. I'm referring particularly to the fact that the president of the B.C. Medical Centre was drawing $70,000 a year. I stand to be corrected, Mr. Minister, if I have my figures wrong.

When the government decision to end the B.C. Medical Centre was made in December of last year, it was stated that the president had three years to go on his contract. The minister has just mentioned in introducing second reading that there was a caretaker board with very little to do, and I would like an accounting to this House of what it has cost in terms of the president's salary. The minister confirmed, in answering a question of mine, that the president's employment ceased on July 31 this year which, I think, still leaves him two years short of his completion of his contract. I would like to know what jobs or specific functions the president has carried out since the concept was terminated by this government in December of last year. The president has continued to be employed until July 31 of this year. What severance settlement, if any, has been reached with the president of the B.C. Medical Centre?

These sums of money, I suppose, are not large in the total context, but if someone has been earning at the rate of $70,000 a year and has not really been doing the job he was originally employed to do at that high salary and, if he had a three-year contract, I think the public should know what settlement was made in regard to his severance pay - if that's the correct title for a salary of this magnitude. I wonder if the minister could give the House that information.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just in quick response to the remarks that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made, I would like to recall some of the earlier debate in the British Columbia Medical Centre question in the first session, when we admitted that some of the concepts of the BCMC were good ones and certainly some of the projects that they developed were good. That member deserves credit for that.

We always said, Mr. Speaker, that we would carry

[ Page 5553 ]

on with the kinds of projects that are beneficial for all of the citizens of this province, and that's what we've done. We've had some minor disagreement about methods by which we do certain things between one administration and another; that's to be expected. I don't think it comes to anybody's surprise in this House.

With that I'll move on to the question raised by the member for Oak Bay and just advise that there was a very firm five-year contract signed with the president of the British Columbia Medical Centre. This government has no choice, because it was a firm legal contract, but to honour that contract. The president of the British Columbia Medical Centre, it's true, had no duties to perform as president once the centre itself was mostly disbanded. Therefore we sought to put his talents to different uses until we were able to achieve some kind of equitable agreement with him.

One of the projects that he conducted for the government was a full study of the methods by which we could, within financial resources available, develop a new provincial government lab to serve all of this province. That lab achieved approval some time ago. Since that time with no construction having taken place and the escalation of costs that everybody knows about, we found ourselves with a project that was desirable but one which couldn't be achieved with the resources which were available. Mr. Weaver, president of the BCMC, did a very thorough study for us, and as a result came up with some alternatives which we believe that we can sell to the treasury board of the province. So it was a matter of redirecting his energies into other jobs. Certainly they are jobs that would not have achieved the same kind of salary if he was doing them in another context, but nevertheless, I remind members that his contract was very firm and he was employed under that contract which was not to expire until September 14,1980.

The Board of Directors of the B.C. Medical Centre has now negotiated a settlement which has proved to be acceptable, and employment terminated July 31,1977. The current salary under the terms of that contract was not $70,000 a year, but $55,000 a year. There were a number of benefits, special pension provision to provide a pension at age 60 as though he had worked to age 65, with a yearly payment of just over $7,000. Other benefits of approximately $5,500 a year, an automobile at $2,400 a year, auto expenses at about $1,800 a year and Vancouver Club dues of $530. The term left to run was three years and at that total salary of $72,394 our officials calculated the total value of that contract to be somewhat over $217,000. The estimated value of the contract during negotiation by the former president's lawyer was $264,000 and that was the basis upon which we were asked to negotiate a settlement. The final settlement to completely clear the government of British Columbia of that rather expensive contract was $95,000. That's now been agreed to, and signed and settled. I believe that answers all of the questions, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 59 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 59, Medical Centre of British Columbia Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

MEDICAL CENTRE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 59; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like amplification to the minister's answer on the contract settlement of the president of B.C. Medical Centre. I believe he said the final value was $95,000. Would he care to tell me what part of that settlement relates, if any, to a pension settlement? In other words, of that $95,000, was this a cash settlement in lieu of meeting the original pension agreement, or will part of that $95,000 be paid as pension at a later date?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I can't answer the question in full detail, but that's the total settlement. Part of it will be used to defer the pension benefits which Mr. Weaver will receive as a result of the money that's already been paid into it at a lower scale than was originally contemplated under that five-year contract.

Section 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed-, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 59, Medical Centre of British Columbia Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a

[ Page 5554 ]

third time and passed.

MR. WALLACE: Bring on Bill 65 to wake up the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, I think we've accomplished a lot today, Mr. Member.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:37 p.m.

APPENDIX

2 The Hon. G. B. Gardom to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 2) intituled Evidence Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

Sections 1 and 2: By renumbering sections 1 and 2 as sections 2 and 3.

By inserting the following before section 2 as renumbered:

"R.S.B.C. 1960, c. 134, s. 18.

"I. The Evidence Act is amended in section 18

(a) by striking from subsection (1) 'A witness' and substituting 'Subject to subsection (3) , a witness', and

(b) by adding as subsection (3) the following:

" (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the questioning of a witness in a civil proceeding conducted before a jury, where the judge is of opinion that the questioning of that witness would unduly influence the jury."

Section 2 as renumbered, line 24 (dealing with proposed section 70 (2) ): By adding after "whether or not that person is a party to the action" the following: ", but, except in an action for defamation, a party has where the action is conducted before a jury, the right to argue at trial, in the jury's absence, that introduction of that evidence would, in relation to its probative value, unduly influence the jury".

68 The Hon. P. L. McGeer to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 68) intituled The Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

By deleting section 7 and renumbering sections 8 to 13 as sections 7 to 12 respectively.