[ Page 853 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Agricultural land reserve. Ms. Sanford –– 853

Trading in Sunmask shares. Mr. Howard –– 853

Financial assistance for intervenors before Utilities Commission. Mrs. Wallace –– 854

Future of academic tenure. Mr. Nicolson –– 854

Borrowing by B.C. Rail. Mr. Howard –– 854

Craig Aspinall and Associates. Mr. Hanson –– 855

Orders of the Day

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 856

Mr. Lauk –– 856

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Second reading

Mr. Lauk –– 861

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 867

Education Interim Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Second reading

Mr. Lockstead –– 867

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Second reading

Mr. Barrett –– 872

TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REYNOLDS: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is a group of people I'd like to introduce, from the village of Lions Bay: Mayor Pollock, Alderman Langford, Alderman Wade and Don Lidstone, the city solicitor. I would ask you all to make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have guests today from the gem of B.C., the royal city, hard-working community workers in New Westminster, Cathy and Wes McLeod. I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a special introduction to make to the House today. In the company of my assistant, Mrs. Nina Gray, is my wife Maud, my daughter Laurna and grandson Matthew. It is special today because I would ask the House not only to welcome these family members of mine, but also to offer their sympathies to them; they are really the ones who suffer at the hands of such people as the Leader of the Opposition, as we listened to those sleazy speeches this morning. Those in the gallery are the ones who suffer from the sleazy remarks we had to bear with all this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. On different occasions the Chair has attempted to advise members that the introduction period is one which we are beginning to stray from to some degree. Today was another example. If members wish to make speeches or addresses, there are other periods of time that must be ascertained, must be determined. It cannot be in the period earmarked in our proceedings for introductions. I commend that to all members.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, in the gallery today we have a very personal friend of mine, a member of the Vancouver Gyro club, Mr. Bert Gayle, vice-president of Canfor Corp., formerly known as Canadian Forest Products.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm pleased to welcome in the galleries today two young friends from Chemainus, the village of the festival of murals and the closed sawmill: Miss Linda Hussey, who has made some very great contributions to the cultural life of British Columbia through her acrobatic dancing, and her brother, Nigel Hussey, who is a student at Camosun College, accompanied by their mother, Mary Hussey.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'd like to introduce another distinguished American counsel who is here today in the House: Mr. Charles Hanger, with his wife Fay. He is a distinguished counsel from San Francisco, a regent of the American Trial Lawyers' Association, a former Deputy Attorney-General of California and also a famous athlete from the 1940s, having been an American record-holder in the high-jump in 1947. I ask the House to make him and his wife welcome.

Oral Questions

[2:15]

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I hope our time has not been deducted for that introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: I can assure you, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister has made comments which imply that where municipalities or regional districts support withdrawal of land from the agricultural land reserve the normal process will be circumvented. On the eve of the election the Premier went to great lengths to deny that the government was contemplating changes to the ALR process as now suggested by the minister. Is it the minister's intention to overrule the promises made by the Premier and proceed with changes to the ALR?

MR. SPEAKER: The matter may surround policy, hon. member. However, the minister may choose to answer.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The short answer is no.

MS. SANFORD: Will the minister assure the House, then, that applications from municipalities and regional districts will continue to go to the Agricultural Land Commission before they go to cabinet, if there is that appeal?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: There have been no changes, and procedures will flow as they have done in the past.

TRADING IN SUNMASK SHARES

MR. HOWARD: I would like to direct a question to the minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The question relates to the statement made yesterday following question period about a report of an investigation by the superintendent of brokers, with respect to Sunmask Petroleum trading. There was a ruling about that matter this morning, but I would like to ask the minister if he is prepared to table that report in the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I answered a question that I took as notice concerning the member's question to me some time ago. He is implying that there is a report. My response yesterday indicated that it was an internal investigation done by the superintendent of brokers, under his offices, and there is no "report." He advised me of an answer to a question I took as notice and that is all.

MR. HOWARD: Could the minister advise the House what steps, specific and detailed, the superintendent of brokers took to ascertain whether or not there was a leak of the budget or a leak of the contents of Bill 9?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The steps taken were adequate in the eyes of the superintendent of brokers to give me a response which I brought to the member yesterday in this House.

[ Page 854 ]

MR. HOWARD: It may be that the minister didn't understand the question. I asked him if he could tell the House in detail what steps were taken, not whether or not he or the superintendent considered them adequate. Could he give detailed information to the House about the steps he took?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows what the responsibilities are of the superintendent of brokers, but I'd be quite pleased to request the superintendent of brokers to give me the steps he took to carry out the investigation that was requested.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR
INTERVENORS BEFORE UTILITIES COMMISSION

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister confirm that he told a delegation yesterday it is now government policy that intervenors at hearings before the Utilities Commission will not receive financial assistance for research and legal representation?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The people that met with me yesterday kept very detailed notes. I'm sure they were able to tell you exactly what I told them. I read to them from the throne speech, which they had a copy of, which indicates what the government's policy is. However, there was one question which I said I would discuss with my colleagues on the Environment and Land Use Committee of cabinet, and get further detail. We have not yet had a meeting and therefore I have not responded to the people.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister is assuming that I met with these people and that they told me certain things, which certainly I'm unaware of, because I didn't meet with them. However, I gather he is indicating that some restrictions will be placed. Would the minister, as in the case of Alcan's application for the Kemano II project, at least insist that the giant multinational corporation, with its massive financial resources, provide financial assistance — without strings to public-interest intervenor groups, such as B.C. Hydro did in the case of the Site C intervenors?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister is aware that in the case of the Site C inquiry, the costs of the intervenors were only some 3 percent of the total cost. In view of the fact that the deferral of that Site C project was probably brought about almost entirely as a result of those interventions, would the minister not agree that the multibillion dollar saving to taxpayers by deferral of that project is well worth the small investment for the intervention?

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

FUTURE OF ACADEMIC TENURE

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. The minister has stated that it's government policy that universities should be able to grant tenure to new professors, and that existing agreements will be honoured. The Provincial Secretary has stated that it is government policy that tenure should be abolished everywhere in the public sector and that it doesn't apply to new appointments. Can the minister clarify what the policy of this government is for academics?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the member that this is not a matter of government policy. It's a matter of the legislation which speaks for itself. I would recommend that the member read the University Act, which is a very good starting place for university policy, and then read Bill 3. If he does those things, he'll make a very effective contribution to the debate in the chamber because he'll understand the legislation.

I might add that there's been a tremendous amount of confusion about this issue because people will read the press instead of reading the legislation. If one reads stories in newspapers like the Vancouver Sun, one is bound to be confused.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Since his view of the tenure of academics seems to be counter to that of the Minister of Universities, and he has expressed the position that it will certainly not apply to new appointments, has the minister been reading the press or the legislation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I read the press from time to time. They misquote my remarks from time to time as well. The only thing I can suggest to the member is that he not only read the legislation but that he also pass on the information he is able to extract from that legislation to his leader, who has been debating here for several hours, today and yesterday, misinterpreting the legislation completely. I would suggest that the little band of socialists over there take that legislation, go into caucus and study it, so as to be better informed than they are right now.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a further question for the Provincial Secretary. The Minister of Universities has said that hysterical opponents of the bill have tried to create the impression that the bill destroys academic tenure. The minister has pointed out on numerous occasions that academic tenure will not be granted, particularly now. His latest modification is in new appointments. Is the minister an hysterical opponent of the bill?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I suggest that the member for Nelson-Creston read the bill. If he has any difficulty in interpreting the bill, I think there are a couple of lawyers over there in that gang; there's one from Vancouver Centre and another from Vancouver East. If he has some difficulty with the terminology, maybe they can give him an interpretation — and maybe they can't; I don't know.

BORROWING BY B.C. RAIL

MR. HOWARD: Originally I was going to pose a question to the Provincial Secretary, but I can see that that would be useless. Instead, I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government recently borrowed on behalf of B.C. Rail — or took steps to support the borrowing by B.C. Rail of — some $450 million of deadweight debt for B.C. Rail with respect to the Tumbler Ridge branch line.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, all borrowings undertaken by the province or on behalf of a Crown corporation are a matter of public record.

MR. HOWARD: The answer appears to be yes, although the minister didn't appear to be able to say that particular word, indicating how negative and sensitive he is about B.C.

[ Page 855 ]

Rail. Given the fact that on March 31 a year ago the government gave $45 million of taxpayers' money to B.C. Rail and on the same day wrote it off as uncollectable, and that the government has taken steps to grant public funds to B.C. Rail to the extent of $70 million a year to cover the interest and other items with respect to B.C. Rail's debt, can the minister tell the House how much additional money will be given to B.C. Rail to cover the interest on this additional debt?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in answering the first question from the member for Skeena, I was simply attempting to abide by the rules of this House with respect to question period. Borrowings are a matter of public record.

Some rhetoric followed in the second question, but I assure the member that I am certainly not nervous about B.C. Rail. On the contrary, I am immensely pleased with the performance of B.C. Rail and with the importance of the extension and expansion in the northeastern part of this province, through to the port of Prince Rupert. Again, I tell the member that all borrowings which are undertaken for any purpose of a public nature in British Columbia are a matter of public record and need not be asked about in question period.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to that lecture, which is beside the truth — not anywhere near it but beside it….

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order!

MR. HOWARD: He can call "order" if he likes. The minister deliberately…. The Premier should quit shaking his hand that way. He'll give people the wrong impression of what he's doing.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance deliberately and consciously refused to answer the question I posed to him, indicating how nervous and sensitive he is. I'm the first to admit that a minister does not need to answer a question, but his absolute refusal is certainly revealing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure there was a question there. Is the member imputing that borrowings do occur which are not made public in the province of British Columbia? If so, I ask him to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: The simple fact of the matter is there's nothing to withdraw, and the minister knows that. He's just using that device as a coverup for his refusal to answer to the general public.

CRAIG ASPINALL AND ASSOCIATES

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary regarding Mr. Doug Heal's cloning of his media operation in Vancouver, in the form of Craig Aspinall and Associates. One week ago the minister took as notice a question and promised an explanation to the House about why it was necessary to have Aspinall and Associates run interference for the Social Credit Party in Vancouver to clean up their image. Why can't Mr. Heal, with his 200 employees and $18 million, do that job? When will the explanation be forthcoming in this House?

[2:30]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member asks me a question about Aspinall and Co., I believe. I want you to know, Mr. Member, that Aspinall has not been cloned. I don't know what you mean by the cloning of this or that, but I want to say that Aspinall has been engaged by the government on a contractual basis, after having gone through a competition.

MR. BARRETT: How much?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The Leader of the Opposition wants to know how much. I'll tell you, the figure is substantially less than that in the erroneous information conveyed by the first member for Victoria. When he asked me the question in the House, he suggested that the figure was $150,000. He was dramatically wrong, because in fact the figure is $48,000. It's for an eight-month period, and that amount of money will only be utilized on the basis of time spent on an hourly basis. So that is the maximum amount of money that will be expended. It's not $150,000, as you've suggested. The figure could be substantially less.

MR. HANSON: Why can't Heal do it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's quite obvious the member wants to ask questions, but is not prepared to accept the answers. I'm trying to give him the answer. I'm suggesting that the figure is liable to be substantially less than the maximum that has been contracted for.

First of all….

MR. HANSON: Will you table the contract?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Aren't you prepared to listen? The contract is not for the purpose suggested by that member over there when he asked the question originally, when he suggested that the contract was put in place for the purpose of image-building on the part of the cabinet. There's nothing further from the truth, my friend, because the contract is one in which these people provide a service to senior employees of the provincial government, as well as the cabinet, by arranging meetings on matters of importance to the people of British Columbia, primarily in the Vancouver area. They make the facilities available. Making facilities available by ensuring that the right size of hall has been rented, the right number of chairs put in place, and the right number of microphones put in place, from which people can ask questions of ministers or officials of the government does not constitute image-making. They're there to provide a service to the government of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: And it is required. We've engaged these people for a maximum of $48,000, which is substantially less than the erroneous and false figure that you suggested in your question last week.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell had terminated question period earlier. I draw that to members' attention, if they are concerned about the lengthy response taking up question period.

[ Page 856 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 31.

REGULATIONS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: In moving second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I can see that it is an epoch-making piece of legislation that will hold the attention of the members of this House, keep them in their seats in rapt interest, because it's a matter of great policy significance, of very deep philosophical commitment. On a more serious note, though, I would say that it is a matter of some import for legislative reform that in this bill we are proposing to standardize a test for what constitutes a regulation. Under the old law, in order to determine what a regulation was, you had to go through a process known as the "legislative nature" test and decide whether the regulation was in fact of a legislative nature. We had orders, directives, bylaws, all kinds of things, floating around in documents which may or may not be decided by a legislative test to be regulations and therefore effective.

In place of that test — which was, I might say, a cottage industry for the legal profession to unravel — we are moving to a key-word approach. If you see a document which looks like an order or a directive and it contains the words "prescribes" or "prescribed" in conferring the legislative power, then that document will in law be a regulation. The key-word test will replace all other tests. Therefore it's been necessary in dealing with the schedule of the bill to modify the language in a number of existing bills to make it conform to this test and also to make it clear that a number of bills that have regulations or directions under them now are not in fact regulations or may in fact be regulations. When you sort through the long schedules in this bill, which I know that all members have done with great interest, you will have noticed the key-word test is being employed.

The recommendations that led to the introduction of this bill came from the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, and we're following the test that is used in the federal House of Commons and also in a number of the provinces. This approach was supported by the former Attorney-General — my colleague, the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — by legislative counsel and by a host of others who have advocated a more streamlined approach.

I think one of the other important changes of great policy significance in this bill — and I know that you'll agree with this, Mr. Speaker — is the removal of that enacting step known as the "proclamation," which allowed the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to delay the operation of a statute in regulatory form by bringing into force the statute or bringing the regulations into force later by proclamation. The proclamation was a magnificent document which emitted from the Sovereign and signed by the Lieutenant-Governor. It was a marvellous historic way in which legislation was delayed and brought into force later, either in a primary or secondary way. It is with great regret that I must say that that document is being eliminated. That tradition is gone. I bring that reform before the House with trepidation. I do not like the removal of the document, but I must applaud the speed with which these will now be able to be done by regulation as opposed to proclamation.

One of the other features of this bill is that before it is deposited — and it becomes effective on deposit — it has to be submitted for examination to a designated person. That will provide a procedural and legal safeguard to ensure that we have regulations that are intra vires, that don't constitute some unusual or unexpected use of authority, that will not trespass unduly on some existing right or freedom or also will not be likely to be in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will also ensure that an adequate form of draftsmanship has been employed before the document is accepted for deposit. There will be that additional safeguard which statutory regulations have had in the federal scene under the Statutory Instruments Act of Canada for some time. That should ensure better standardization and form of regulations before they become law and become effective on deposit.

There are a number of other streamlinings in this bill which are, I think, of importance. They mainly make it easier and more efficacious to understand what a regulation is that's effective and where it is going to be contained and deposited. It will be published, as always, in the Gazette, and it will put beyond doubt considerations which may arise later that something is or is not an effective regulation. It will create greater certainty and should enable people who work in the regulatory field to better understand what is subordinate legislation and what is merely a directive of government and not a rule of law. It should generally produce better regulatory and administrative government.

A substantial number of consequential amendments have had to be made in the bill as well. All of those have been carefully discussed with the ministries involved. To facilitate the drafting of other bills this session, consideration has been given to introducing the Regulations Act early so that the language in those other bills referring to the bill coming into force by regulation will be appropriate with the language of the Regulation Act. Apart from the removal of the ancient step of proclamation, I know the members opposite will be favourably disposed towards this epoch-making piece of legislative reform. Therefore with great pride I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LAUK: Well, I wish it were that simple. First, let me say that the opposition is opposed not on the grounds mentioned by the Attorney-General, but because of the interpretation which can be placed on some of the sections involving important questions of legal and political principle that have come down to us over generations.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'm surprised that the two learned members of the Treasury bench are chuckling. I'm wondering how much attention they've paid to some of the sections in question.

It is one thing to correct an anomalous situation over many years….

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm arguing ex cathedra. Ultra ex cathedra, if you wish.

[ Page 857 ]

Mr. Speaker, I think they've failed to note that to rectify an old anomalous situation — that is to say, flipping a coin as to whether something is properly publishable as a regulation, or is an order or directive that would not require such a promulgation — is one thing, but I would suggest that other parts of these amendments are not rectifying that anomalous situation but indeed are creating a very serious and dangerous situation with respect to the promulgation of regulations. I refer to the two aspects of most concern, one of which you should have a close look at. One is the retroactivity of non-taxation regulations. It has been well accepted by the committees looking into these propositions — the one during the war and the most recent one — that retroactivity in regulations may be an important aspect, but it has to be stated within the taxation statute.

[2:45]

There's one member in the press gallery. I was a little worried. The dean of the press gallery is present. I want to speak to the dean. Mr. Dean, I hope other people are listening, or will read the Blues. This thing is being passed off as a housekeeping measure, when in fact the amendment allowing for retroactivity of all regulations is a serious amendment, and one we cannot support. If you allow for retroactivity by the cabinet in passing their own legislation…. And that's what a regulation is. It's the same as a statute: a proper delegation of authority from the chamber to the cabinet. But the chamber has never granted retroactivity unless expressly stated in the actual statute under what terms and for what limited period of time, and it has never been granted for anything other than a royalty or taxation statute.

I know these are complex legal issues, but they go to the heart of the matter of the responsibility of government to this chamber. A regulation is legislation, and to make it retroactive is a serious departure from traditions developed as long ago as the statutes of Queen Anne, and even earlier, which established the concept, delegatus non potest delegari. That means the chamber cannot delegate its ultimate authority to another body. We were elected as representatives of the people to pass on legislation, and we cannot delegate that authority to any other group, including the cabinet of the day. That is a rule of the British parliamentary system that has never been transgressed.

So we watch, with a great deal of care, what kind of power the government takes unto itself from this chamber. I say that the retroactivity section offends the maxim, delegatus non potest delegari. The challenge in the courts would be relatively straightforward, if that retroactivity were used by the cabinet — which seems to be allowed under these amendments — for anything other than under a specific statute, and for other than that specific purpose having to do with retroactivity.

To give you an example, to clarify it in your mind, I want to remind you of this proposition that you knew well, of delegatus non potest delegari, and you have ruled on it on many occasions. The question before us is this. If a taxation statute — let's talk about the infamous tobacco tax act — were to come into place partly through regulation, subsequent to the third reading and royal assent of the actual taxation amendment bill, that regulation can be allowed if…. A retroactivity measure, if it is specifically stated in the amendment bill affecting the taxation measure…. As I read these amendments, we are passing into law a delegation of authority that will allow the cabinet, on any regulation at any time, to make the regulation retroactive without that specific power being mentioned in individual statutes.

I know it sounds complicated, but what I am telling you about is a very important departure from British parliamentary tradition, and it is something to be avoided. Only one other province has tried this — and the courts have struck it down, if I recall correctly — and that is the current government of Quebec.

I would say it is loathsome and offensive to the British parliamentary system and to us elected under that system to allow the government this kind of sweeping regulative power. I think we should oppose it on that basis alone, but there is a second — and even as powerful — criticism of these amendments, and that has to do with the publication of regulations. If you will notice, the key sections that involve the question of principle involved are the publication sections — sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 — of the proposed amendments.

On the one hand we see that these amendments call for certain publication of the regulations. Publication is important, because in the old days, a few hundred years ago, the queen-in-council or the monarch-in-council could pass orders and regulations that affect whether or not a subject of the realm is obeying the law. It was found that the authorities would arrest somebody in some cases, charge somebody with an offence, and he would say: "What offence?" "Well, there is this regulation." The citizen would say: "Well, I didn't see that regulation. Was it published?" They say: "There is no requirement for a regulation to be published. Obviously this regulation has been signed by the cabinet, and therefore you are charged and you are convicted." The courts would convict, until it was established under the parliamentary system that no regulation or statute or law could be enforced against a subject of the realm unless it was published — not just a technical publication, not going out at midnight with the town crier and saying, "It's against the law now to walk your dog," but a publication that was real and effective, that was likely to reach or ought to have reached people who had a reasonable interest in such matters in the community.

Now what do the sections exempting publication under these new amendments mean? These exemptions mean that there can be, in the judgment of the so-called registrar of regulations, a bureaucrat — not elected by the people of British Columbia; a person not appointed to judge such matters by the government of the day, in terms of the courts, with the proper appeal system and open public hearings, but a registrar of regulations who will make a private judgment, it says here, in consultation with a lawyer appointed by the Attorney-General to review such matters. We assume that will happen. Also without that reference to any expert, the registrar can decide that certain regulations need not be published.

Not only does this affect offence statutes, where someone could be fined or imprisoned, but it could also affect regulations where a person involved in daily business activity, without knowledge, because the registrar has decided not to publish these regulations…. He is not required to publish them, if he makes a judgment that he does not need to. In other words, he could say, "If this group of people who may be affected…" and makes the judgment first of all about who "may" be affected; that is a judicial judgment. He makes the second judicial and legislative judgment that those people who may be affected probably had heard or had had it

[ Page 858 ]

published to them, or would have, if they were reasonably diligent, found out about them.

He then decides on that basis — that's a judicial finding on his behalf; it's a delegation of authority — not to publish. There could be — and indeed will be — people working in that area of the law who are not aware of the regulations. That is why we have traditionally demanded that a law not be a law unless it's promulgated, and "promulgated" the courts have said — includes publication. So far that only includes publication in the Gazette. In reality it could mean publication elsewhere. But publication there must be.

It is very important that we not just accept these amendments holus-bolus as a housekeeping measure. They make serious changes to our law and to our parliamentary traditions, which all hon. members, I know, were not aware of I invite them to become aware of these important changes. The proclamation being changed to a regulation, I suppose, is not important, except that every day we are losing some of the traditions of our system that, of course, do not have a democratic impact on us. But they are traditions which have been cherished by many people. The late hon. member from Prince Albert — and I mean no disrespect to him when I refer to his years of energy and commitment to defence of the Crown and symbols of the Crown…. I can imagine what, if he were in this House today, he might say about this government's dreadful attempt to embarrass Her Majesty and Canada in right of the Crown, etc, etc. Well, comic as we thought it at times, it's a bit sad that the royal proclamation is now being abolished for most purposes in British Columbia — in British Columbia. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can you, who represent us to Her Majesty, sit there and allow proclamations to fall by the wayside? I suppose that is housekeeping. But we should all be on the record as asking the Attorney-General why that is necessary. Why not the proclamation? A regulation has to go to the Lieutenant-Governor anyway for his initials. Why not the form of the proclamation? It's part of our tradition that can be seen. I make no argument that it affects a democratic or legal right — of course it doesn't — to change a proclamation to a regulation.

Back to the two most offensive sections of this amendment statute. Again, I say that the retroactivity must be closely examined — I want to examine that in some detail in a moment — and the lack of publication at the judicial discretion of an appointed official. As I understand it, the regulations come into force on the day of deposit rather than the day after filing; that's not particularly offensive. It allows for retroactive filing if the minister deems it to be in the public interest; I'm rather concerned about that. It says here: "…before actual date of deposit." Far broader powers are given to the minister than recommended by the Uniform Law Conference report, in terms of my reading of that report. The committee had recommended that retroactivity be allowed in the specific cases that I mentioned: "rentals, royalties or other payments which cannot be calculated until after the registration of a regulation. However, there should be a limitation. In no case should a filed regulation come into force before the day of filing, unless expressly authorized in the relevant statute" — which allows for the rental, the royalty and so on — "and a registered regulation come into force before the day of regulation." This was not asked for by the committee. It makes me very suspicious that total retroactivity of regulations is now in the amendment. It is a very fearful prospect.

Interjection.

[3:00]

MR. LAUK: That's an interesting question, Mr. Speaker. An hon. member has gratuitously offered me a challenge. This is very interesting. I will perhaps deliver this same example to my next law class, assuming that they're not all in jail retroactively — or assuming that I'm not. As an example, as an analogy, you can pass regulations under the proposed Public Sector Restraint Act. There's a section i there allowing for the regulations. If we allow this much delegation of authority to the cabinet, the cabinet can pass regulations concerning compensation in some cases, they can discriminate in others, and they can do it retroactively — all by regulation. We need not even have announcements or publication of these regulations, according to this new amendment. It compounds the injustice of Bill 3.

Take any other statute. Take, for example, the agricultural land reserve. What if a regulation were passed affecting whether or not the criteria for allowing land under the agricultural land reserve was being changed by the cabinet? For example, let's pick some land at random — some land in Delta. It could be in any other place, but let's pick Delta. Let's call it, for want of any other name, Spetifore. Let's say there is land called Spetifore in Delta. Under ordinary criteria, by statute and regulation, the land in Delta called Spetifore is, up to this time, considered land that is properly within the agricultural land reserve. The cabinet, in its wisdom, and the Agricultural Land Commission and the Greater Vancouver Regional District and everybody else, except perhaps a handful of people, are of the opinion that it should remain. The cabinet, in its wisdom, however, changes the regulations and says that only triple A — a new category — land will remain absolutely within the ALR and that land called number I or number 2 land, such as Spetifore, can be removed. It's just as an example, unlikely as it may seem.

Those involved — let's say it's an investment company — wish to invest in the land not as an agricultural piece of land but as a developmental piece of land for housing or industry, because we know of the exigencies of the corporate veil…. Let's call such an investment company the Mask Company. Because Delta's very sunny, let's call it the Sunmask Company. Well, Sunmask may be investing. It's important for all of those people interested in the market, who are investing in Sunmask; it's important for those people who may be investing in land in and around the agricultural land reserve Spetifore land; it may be important for those who already own the agricultural land reserve Spetifore land or who have talked about possibly owning or developing on that land — it's important for all of these people, including the public, to know whether the regulation concerning the criteria of agricultural land has been changed or not.

MR. MOWAT: I'm listening.

MR. LAUK: Well, the hon. second member for Little Mountain is listening, and I'm grateful. The member for darkest Surrey (Mr. Reid) is listening too. I'm grateful too. It's not those two hon. members I was trying to reach; but nevertheless, it's better to light one little candle, as they say, than to curse the darkness. I'll attempt to explain it further. If a regulation changing the criteria for removal from the agricultural land reserve were made by the Lieutenant-Governorin-Council, and there was a judgment made by the registrar of

[ Page 859 ]

regulations that it shouldn't be published in a timely and seasonable way, but a friend of a cabinet minister hears about this regulation and makes the appropriate business decisions — let's just leave it that way: "appropriate business decisions" — without in fairness every other concerned party including the public — God forbid that the public should hear about this — hearing in a timely and seasonable way, one can see manifestly the dangers in this kind of legislation. How unfair it would be. What an unfair advantage — in this case, obviously, a financial and business advantage can be taken at the expense of the democratic system and the way we have promulgated law for centuries under the British parliamentary system.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: No, but it's close. Is it insider information? Yes, if it involved this hypothetical "Masksun Company," as I've called it.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Is the member for Little Mountain my adjudicator this afternoon? Is he the designated adjudicator? Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the designated listener.

MR. LAUK: So the registrar of regulations, working in cooperation with — or even separately from — the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, both and even separately comprise a Star Chamber. The Star Chamber, as you know in our history, was where laws were passed in secret, and judgments made upon subjects of the realm in secret without public hearing. That's what the notorious Star Chamber was. How do I apply that here? The reason that publication of law became an essential part of its promulgation…. Promulgation means it is not law until these steps have taken place: it's passed the legislature, received royal assent and been published. Those are the steps of how a law becomes a law. Don't mistake that once it receives royal assent it's necessarily law. Don't mistake that even after proclamation it's necessarily law. It's law when it's published. In other words, the requirement of publication is a standard and ancient requirement for the law becoming law. It is just as important, integral and necessary a step as it is to receive second and third reading in this chamber. And when that is done away with, we've done away with a parliamentary right and a right of all citizens.

So you can see why the Attorney-General's rather soft and gentle and somewhat offhandish and cavalier introduction of the bill is not greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm by members of the opposition benches: the retroactivity, the lack of publication and the Star Chamber nature of the judgments made by the registrar of regulations.

Let me give you another example; I know that it's not quite clear. Let's take section 22. It allows for repeal of sections in various acts, schedule 3. I'm using it to relate to the principle; I'm not dealing with the section as such. For example, in the Health Act, section 12(2), the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by "order" do certain things. This expression is replaced by "regulation." Section 22 allows for repealing of sections in various acts. For example, in the Health Act, section 13 is repealed, which allows for the publishing in the Gazette and at least one newspaper the regulations re management of health units, inspections, treatment of disease, inspections of mining and lumber camps, epidemics, prevention and suppression of disease. The Health Act calls for prompt publication of these regulations in the Gazette and one other publication. This bill repeals that section. Can you imagine what this is? I heard this morning that someone in New Mexico died of the bubonic plague. Let's not get into fearmongering, but I want to bring to you the important aspect of this publication. Why does the Health Act have an even more stringent requirement for publication than other statutes?

The next question is, why is it being repealed? It is not being repealed to tidy up our reference to whether it's a regulation, order or directive. Why is it being repealed? I think it's inadvertent negligence. Is there inadvertent negligence? I guess there is. It's negligence on the part of the government to allow that to be repealed. You've got all kinds of medical information in every day and age which by law should be published. We shouldn't allow it to be the judgment of the individual bureaucrat, or by ill-design, which is doubtful, but more likely by negligence, not to publish in a timely and seasonable way important health information for the public of British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Can you see the importance of what I'm getting at? It's not just a housekeeping measure. What about information such as this: the inspection of mining and lumber camps? I was legal counsel — it's now over, and I am able to use the example in the House — at an inquest involving a young fellow who was on an exploration team for a company in the field. Now these teams are helicoptered into remote areas, they do line-cutting, and the geologists go in and make judgments about where to do prospecting and exploration. There's a whole crew of 12, 15 or 20 people sometimes. They're well equipped, and so on. The reason mining sites and exploration sites are not under the Workers' Compensation Board regulations is the remoteness and specialness of these industrial centres and sites. One of the reasons this side of the House has been arguing recently very strenuously to have it under the Workers' Compensation Board regulations is that they're under-inspected. In this case, the inquest jury found so. Through lawful and admissible evidence taken on oath, they discovered that they were not properly regulated or inspected for the purposes in question, and that that may have contributed to the death of the young man who was injured during an accident on exploration. It's a condemnation, of course, of the department that is involved in such an inspection.

Rather than to decrease the publication and general knowledge of those who should be concerned about safety at the minesite, mining exploration camps and lumber camps, it should be increased. Rather than eliminating the requirement that such regulations about inspections, health and other things, should be published in a timely way, this bill is eliminating it. What on earth does that have to do with the committee's report on the uniform regulation? I've read it several times, and unless I'm missing something…. The proposed Uniform Regulations Act — what has it got to do with it? Nothing in the report says anything about eliminating special publication needs.

[ Page 860 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It is absolutely essential that the health and safety of our young people at mining and lumber camps be protected. One of the reasons why this young boy was killed was that he did not have adequate information of the dangers of the site. The inquest jury found as a fact that adequate steps were not taken to inform young employees of these dangers. It was a glacier accident.

Here we have a statute coming along eliminating the requirement of publishing that information in a timely and seasonable way, as we find out new information, hazards, training requirements and health and safety standards. That's the point that I'm trying to make. We cannot pass this kind of statute, because under the guise of a Uniform Regulations Act to solve a few problems…. They weren't serious; we all could make a judgment about the difference between what was actually legislative in nature — a law — and an order or directive that was more in the administrative capacity of the cabinet. But to solve a little problem they've created a huge one. In other words, they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

[3:15]

This is the kind of sloppy…. If it's not sloppy draftsmanship, Mr. Speaker, then what is it? It couldn't be malicious. Do these people really want to lower the standards at mining camps? Do they want to prevent information about health standards getting out to the public? I can't believe the government would want to do that. What political or other advantages would there be? It's just got to be sloppy draftsmanship. Did anyone in the Social Credit caucus read it? What about the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) ? He's got mining exploration sites and lumber camps. I'm sure he just skipped over this section without considering it, because he, above a lot of people I know, is very concerned about safety at the worksite. But why should it be the responsibility of the Social Credit caucus? With 26 or 31 bills they haven't got time to read it section by section, and consider its legal ramifications. But the cabinet have the solemn and sworn duty to catch these problems in draftsmanship.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, but section 8 says "after publication of the notice," and that's just the publication of the notice. It "does not apply to the regulation…exempted from publication." It's difficult to understand this legislation unless you read the three sections together.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's still difficult. I'm sure they're trying to hide something.

MR. LAUK: What could it be? This is what bothers me. I can't understand. They can't be wanting to hide information from the public on important health issues and other issues.

The Health Act had a requirement that within so many days safety and health standards be published in the Gazette, so all those actually working in the field, in the industry and in the trade unions, could take them and publish them for their members and interested groups; but also published in a newspaper so that the public — parents — could read about it and tell their young people who might be in the workplace.

In another recent case a 17-year-old, working on the minimum wage, painting in the Burnaby area, used one of those now metal ladders in a dangerous circumstance. It may be before the courts soon, so I cannot say whether it's a breach of the WCB regulations or not, but it sure seems funny to me that a total novice — a green, untrained worker — was left on his own to move a metal ladder around high-tension wires to do some painting. It may be that that contractor was not aware of the regulations; if so, I'm sure that it's his fault. You have to be made aware of them. But that's an example of what can happen in the future. That contractor can come into court and say: "How was I to know? It wasn't published. I didn't know that untrained workers couldn't be left unattended carrying metal ladders around high-tension wires. I didn't know that was in the regulations." It seems to us to be common sense, doesn't it? But he could still argue that in court. And do you know what the courts can do with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what lawyers are for.

MR. LAUK: Yes, but I'll tell you something else lawyers are for. They're to stop this kind of nonsense from getting into legislation; that's what they're for.

MR. REID: If we stopped all legislation, lawyers wouldn't have a job. You'd be out of work.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Member, I'm just not amused, and I don't think if you were listening to me you'd be amused either. Because the important aspect of these regulations is that they be known. Now what kind of idiocy is the government perpetrating?

AN HON. MEMBER: They think it's a joke.

MR. LAUK: It's no joke. These health and safety standards have to be known. Let's not give any negligent employer or owner or anybody else the opportunity of escaping legal responsibility by saying: "I didn't know."

Section 7 does not impress me at all. That's the offence section: you can't be convicted of an offence if you didn't know or didn't see it. That doesn't save the issue. That protects people from being prosecuted personally for something they may have neglected to do. But should they be?

The important thing to be realized here is that we would agree to a uniform Regulations Act if it would solve the problem of trying to determine what was a regulation — in other words, a law — and what was just an order or directive, as you'd make in the ordinary administrative responsibility of your office. The cabinet can do that. Those judgments being made by bureaucrats were…. Some were in this pile, some were in that pile, and you could flip a coin.

To solve that problem, a committee met for…. This is only the second committee in 60 years on the subject of regulations in Canada. The first one was in 1943. So you'd think that, after due deliberation, their report would be taken seriously by the government. They said: "Don't make anything retroactive that isn't expressly stated in the statute." Usually that only applies to taxation. Now they're making everything retroactive. They said publication can be exempted only under special circumstances, and there may be, by statute, a special need for publication. It certainly seems, and you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that special need for publication is in the area of health and safety, because if the courts are, as they call it in Latin, in loco parentis, certainly the Legislature and the government are in loco

[ Page 861 ]

parentis. They have a responsibility for those of our citizens who may not be experienced enough to deal with health and safety matters. That's why we have these regulations and standards passed into law by regulation and published.

Now I suppose the attorney will stand in summary on this debate and say: "Well, don't worry about it. The registrar of regulations will make the right judgment. After all, the minister has to review it through his lawyer under this amendment, and the lawyer will point it out to me." Well, how are we going to trust that kind of situation? Why do you think that the governments of the past put publication in the Health Act in the first place? Because they wanted it there and did not want to trust human nature, which might err.

So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to this bill on its total face because it doesn't address the principle stated. It addresses a much more fundamental principle, and that is an offence against the parliamentary system, which endangers the future of delegating authority of this chamber. I therefore, in order to give the Attorney-General an opportunity to consider my remarks in relation to these amendments and to get outside legal advice before this statute is passed through second reading, move the adjournment of the debate on this bill until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have heard the question. All those in favour say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed, if any.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ayes have it. The motion is approved.

The hon. House leader.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I call adjourned debate on Bill 3.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we'll have a division.

[3:30]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion to adjourn debate on second reading of Bill 31 approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 9.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I want to rise to extend my appreciation to all of those members on the other side of the House who contributed to the debate of Bill 9 in second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before allowing the minister to close debate, it is incumbent upon the Chair to advise members that the minister would close debate. In so doing, hon. members, the Chair notices members of the opposition standing, and the Chair recognizes the member for Skeena on Bill 9.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair is trying to ascertain whether the member for Skeena has already spoken on this debate, and from the records that I have available it would appear to the Chair that the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has already spoken.

MR. HOWARD: Would you check that to make sure, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Skeena has already spoken. The debate was adjourned by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). For the information of members, very few members have not yet spoken. The member for Skeena cannot be recognized.

MR. HOWARD: All right, that being the case, Mr. Speaker.…. This is the difficulty we get into when the government hasn't a clue what it is doing and jumps from side to side on things.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Hon. members, the Chair recognizes…. Unfortunately the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has also spoken in debate. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has already spoken in debate. The second member….

Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture and Food seeks the floor on a point of order.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is customary in this chamber for only one member at a time to stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we have an opportunity to recognize a person who has not spoken before. The second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Have I been recognized? Nobody noticed I was standing all the time. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that side of the House will be sorry they didn't let the member for Skeena speak again. If they are not sorry now, I am going to make them sorry.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I am just waiting for the dull roar to….

MR. SPEAKER: I believe other members are waiting for the member to begin his remarks.

MR. LAUK: Has it been pointed out that the Greater Vancouver Regional District board is opposed to this legislation? Has that been pointed out before? In case it hasn't….

Interjection.

[ Page 862 ]

MR. LAUK: It has? Well, I'll remind you of what they said. They said it will remove all regional planning functions. They emphasized to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that land use designation is but one small aspect of regional planning, in which 95 percent of applications for amendment have received board support, and that this should be a subject of ongoing discussion and negotiation, and further, that the mainstream of planning activities concerning municipalities is for necessary regional development services, a major service which should not be eliminated as in the proposed bill. The planning committee endorsed the proposal that the four lower mainland regional district chairmen seek a meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and explain the ramifications of the proposed Bill 9 for the area covered by their respective jurisdictions. By the way, has the minister met with these four chairmen?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You can tell me now.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Don’t tell them? You've never been that juvenile before, Alex.

I wonder if the minister could indicate by a shake or nod of his head whether he has met with the four lower mainland regional district chairmen to discuss this bill.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Name them.

MR. LAUK: Name them? Larry, Moe and Curly; I don't know.

You didn't meet with them, eh?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I don't know who you're talking about.

MR. LAUK: The four lower mainland regional districts.

I see the hon. House Leader is back.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, can you address the Chair and continue debate.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if it has also been mentioned that when Bill N. Vander Zalm, no less, was Minister of Municipal Affairs, he had this to say about the planning act….

HON. A. FRASER: He's picking flowers.

MR. LAUK: Oh, how soon they forget!

MR. BARNES: Who said that about his former colleague?

MR. LAUK: There's no love lost over there, is there? Boy, that's some brotherhood and sisterhood over there, isn't it? "He's picking flowers."

In a 1980 discussion paper, Bill Vander Zalm said:

"I'm pleased, as Minister of Municipal Affairs, to present to you a discussion paper on the planning act for British Columbia. I believe it is a positive legislative proposal. If adopted, it will provide a single legislative framework for the planning and regulation of land in the province. The act's aim is to create a more efficient, fair and easily understood system of planning. It will reduce the proliferation of provincial and local government land use authorities with overlapping procedures. The act has been prepared by my staff in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and has received enthusiastic support."

You'll note that the necessity of planning was endorsed by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs. It's been endorsed by Ministers of Municipal Affairs since the 1960s.

A note in the August 4 edition of the Vancouver Sun said: "Greater Vancouver Regional District Chairman Don Ross says Premier Bill Bennett supports regional districts because they are a necessary extension of local government." He talks about a little bit of conflict between the two. It seems to me that you can't have it both ways. We have everybody endorsing the idea of regional districts and that kind of regional planning, yet this bill savages and guts the power of the regional district to conduct such planning.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

For a long time the Social Credit Party has argued very loudly, especially during election time, about how much they believe in the democratic system. But as soon as the election writ was returned and the election was over, they forgot all about what they said during the campaign about their commitment to the democratic system. Before May 5 we heard no hint whatsoever that there would be a legislative attack on the power of the regional districts to plan on a regional basis. The member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) didn't say a word about it in the election; neither did his colleague the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). I didn't hear about any report from any of the members elected or from those Social Credit candidates who were not elected, and in particular from the member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). I didn't hear a breath; not a whisper, not a hint. What kind of electoral process is it, if you get elected on a mandate of being in favour of regional planning…? Silence in this context means consent, because it was raised from time to time as an issue during the election campaign. What do you call that kind of a democratic system? What do you call that kind of a commitment on the part of the Social Credit Party to democracy? It's machiavellian at its worst, and they've taken the instruction from Machiavelli very well. It is a cynical attitude towards the electorate of British Columbia.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) seems amused. Does being the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations mean that you are also in charge of the relations between municipal governments and regional districts? Obviously not, because you as a democrat would want to protect the democratic interest. It's a cynical way of looking at it. You tell the people one thing during the election, and another thing afterwards. This is another example of it.

I want to tell you the benefits over the years of the regional district in which my constituency is situated. We were not always enthusiastic about regional districts, but in 1971 the regional district embarked upon a lengthy investigation of the liveability of an urban area. Rapid growth was

[ Page 863 ]

taking place, high-density housing, and the profiles in research were started in 1971. The first reports were not introduced until 1972.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: How would you remember? You know, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) likes pulling my leg; I suppose it's because my leg can withstand an infinite amount of pulling.

[3:45]

HON. A. FRASER: I'm helping you with your speech.

MR. LAUK: He's saying that it didn't occur until 1972. Everyone who knows the hon. minister knows that he can't remember anything before May 5. May 5 was the watershed for him; nothing else counts. Same for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. "Never mind what I said before May 5; never mind what I promised before May 5. It's" — how did Richard Nixon put it? — "inoperative. All of my promises, all of my commitments are inoperative. Now that we've got the levers of power, the rest of you can go whistle." We'll talk about Whistler in a moment.

HON. A. FRASER: What are you going to do about that waterfall in Stanley Park?

MR. LAUK: Build a bridge over it. This is the kind of attitude about liveability.

This is a good point the minister has raised. We have B.C. Place, with the opportunity there to build and design and urban development such as the world has not seen before. The government comes along and purchases it for a fairly reasonable price, but they want to maximize their profit on the B.C. Place site. The Greater Vancouver Regional District….

MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 9.

MR. LAUK: Are you all right? Would you bring the lady member's medication, please.

MR. REID: She said: "Bill 9."

MR. LAUK: Oh, Bill 9. I thought she said: "I'm not fine," or something like that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Thank you for caring.

MR. LAUK: Bill 9 has to do with regional planning. The point I'm trying to make is that the liveability region plan of the GVRD, which has been the focal point and guideline for private and public interests planning in the Greater Vancouver Regional District is being abandoned by B.C. Place. Why? Because they've restated the principles upon which public development is to be based.

HON. A. FRASER: What's your position on B.C. Place?

MR. LAUK: I can't afford a position on B.C. Place; it's all luxury positions on B.C. Place. I'll be surprised if they let me walk along the waterfront there without a note from the minister.

MR. KEMPF: It's okay, Gary. They'll have you on a leash.

MR. LAUK: Now that was unkind. Would you bring him to order, Mr. Speaker?

The livable region plan was a good plan. It wasn't written in stone. It simply stated that those of you who choose, or by necessity live in an urban area, from the urban core the suburbs of the great metropolis of Vancouver, are entitled to an environment that is affordable and reasonable under all the circumstances. You're entitled to be protected from the mistakes that were made in other major urban areas of North America, mistakes that in the city of Vancouver and the greater Vancouver district can still be avoided. You know what they were: the mass freeway systems that divided and cut up other cities; the high-density housing systems that quickly turned into the urban core that deteriorated neighbourhoods. We've managed to keep the West End fairly livable — apart from a few very obvious problems, as you know — but we still have the opportunity to avoid some of the urban core problems. As chairman of the Parks board, the second member for Little Mountain knows what I'm talking about. He knows the struggles we have to convince our own people who live in those regions, and to convince developers, of the necessity of using these guidelines — to their own benefit, eventually.

So what happened with the B.C. Place Corporation? First of all, this Legislature, the government, gave them too much power, because they can override. They have more powerful expropriation powers than B.C. Hydro, and you know the fight we've had for years on B.C. Hydro. B.C. Place is now designing commercial and housing development on that valuable core land to maximize a profit, as if it was a private corporation. A private corporation has to obey the local zoning laws of a municipality, and B.C. Place doesn't have to.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, they haven't agreed to do it. They've agreed to do it only if the city council will approve their plan.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. When the government feels that planning is good for other people, they'll support regional planning. When the government feels that regional planning will interfere with their own plans, they don't support regional planning. That's the issue behind Bill 9. When it's B.C. Place, when it's the ALRT system, when it's Spetifore land in Delta, when it's the ALR, when it's housing in places where it shouldn't be or industry in places where it shouldn't be, they don't want any interference from the regional boards, which are all made up of elected members. It's not as if…. I've heard some members say they weren't elected. They were all elected by municipal councils and, working together in a cooperative fashion, they were trying to introduce and make a reality some of the things mentioned in the livable region plan in the greater Vancouver district.

Cooperation is the key. With this savage legislation, and with other bills that are coming down, British Columbians all over this province are asking themselves: "When is this bashing of extremes going to stop? Why has the government moved so far to the right?" In this province we need the politics of conciliation, the politics of compromise, which

[ Page 864 ]

means the politics of cooperation. What could be more cooperative than elected municipal officials sitting together at a regional board, planning their whole region as a whole, so there won't be duplication, there wouldn't be overlapping, or unnecessary competition for industry or other lucrative taxbase developments. There would be cooperation and understanding between these municipalities, on behalf of the citizens in those municipalities. And when a few greedy developers who gain access to the corridors of power in Victoria want to override the local planning, they'll come here with a statute and eliminate years of planning and the hopes and dreams of responsible elected officials, and of the people they represent over decades in the regional district.

It's a shame that this kind of crass greed, this kind of selfishness, affects public policy in British Columbia even today. Even in the worst jurisdictions of the United States and Europe, where local planning has been corrupted in some fashion or another, you can't find a similar example of somebody who selfishly and petulantly wants to make their millions off land or development, rushing to the government and their friends to push it through, overriding local planning.

British Columbia Place could be the attraction of the whole world. Here we have the city of Vancouver on a peninsula, surrounded by beautiful suburbs and housing developments. Within the core of the city we have the opportunity to build mixed housing, low density and some high, and some commercial and office rental, but within the livable region program designed by the GVRD.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Not to maximize profit? It's a publicly owned site. If you used as a guideline to maximize profit, is it economical to leave Stanley Park with trees on it? Let's put high-density commercial highrises on Stanley Park. Let's put highrise parking lots.

MR. MOWAT: We don't own Stanley Park.

MR. LAUK: Can you believe the chairman of the parks board saying we don't own Stanley Park?

MR. MOWAT: I didn't say that.

MR. LAUK: You said that if we owned Stanley Park we'd do it. That's the implication of what you were saying.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain rises on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: If he's rising under standing order 42, he must wait to do so until after my speech, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct, hon. member, but we haven't heard his point of order yet.

MR. MOWAT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the parks board is now addressing it with the board. We have not said that about the parks board.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order, hon. member. The second member for Vancouver Centre anticipated that, I'm sure, The hon. second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain will be given every opportunity to participate in this debate.

MR. LAUK: I would ask the hon. member to stop bullying me during my speech.

This is the kind of thing they would do to Stanley Park, using the same economic criteria. It's publicly owned; put up highrises. What kind of a city would we have if we used those criteria? But those are the criteria B.C. Place is using now. I say it's a mistake. It's not good for the cultural, economic or political life of the city of Vancouver. It's not good for our health and safety. It's not good for anyone — except to maximize a profit for the B.C. Place corporation so that Paul Manning, or whoever it is, can grow another inch in girth, smoke another Havana and say: "Look what I did." It's a sad and cheap day for the poor people of the city of Vancouver. We had hopes and dreams to develop a city that could avoid some of the more horrendous mistakes of other urban areas, and part of the way in which to do that is cooperative planning with the GVRD.

Another example of regional planning, Mr. Speaker, is transit. I would like to catalogue for you the scandalous and seedy way in which the government of the day usurped the function of transit planning from the regional district. They brought in a bill saying: "All of the transit will be planned by the regional district because we think that's a cooperative way to do it." Bill Vander Zalm said so. We said: "That's not a bad idea. However in the same bill you're saying that most of the costs will be paid out of the local regions, through local Hydro rates, taxation, levies and other ways of gathering funds." Then a few months later Vander Zalm came traipsing into the House and said: "I'm sick and tired of the delays of the GVRD in planning mass transit." I rushed out of the House and phoned up the committee I knew was working on transit for the regional district and I said: 'Are you guys dragging your feet?" "No, we just presented the minister with the report." That's why he rushed into the House: he wanted his own little system of transit. He was presented with the report at the very time he brought in legislation to take back the planning function. But guess what he left with the regional district. "You raise the taxes." He left the taxes to the regional district.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is now reflecting on a previous vote, which is unparliamentary. We are on Bill 9.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you are quite right observing that the member is reflecting on a previous vote, but it was not of this parliament; it was of another parliament and is perfectly in order. The member can refer to a vote in a previous parliament, or any other legislative parliament. I want to tell that member that he has a perfect right to refer to that vote — through you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. A. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that that member is completely out of order. Not only did he refer to a previous vote, but also he referred to a previous member of this House who is no long here, and that's not correct.

[ Page 865 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we can be relevant to Bill 9 and avoid other, ancillary discussion, I'm sure we can avoid the problems we've been having.

MR. LAUK: Can I refer to a very ancient and previous member of this House, Alex Fraser? Is that permissible?

MR. BARRETT: No, he's still here.

MR. LAUK: Is that him? I didn't even know he was sick. He's upset these days. He hasn't had much attention.

Mr. Speaker, the important point I want to draw out of Bill 9 is that in example after example this government wants regional planning when it suits their purpose but not when it doesn't suit their purpose. In other words, on the one hand, when regional planning is good for private companies — except when they're the friends of the government, such as Spetifore…. On the other hand, regional planning is good for the private enterprise world, but it's not good for the B.C. Place corporation. This is the point that I'm trying to draw out of it.

[4:00]

The example of transit is highly apropos this legislation. On the one hand, the government gives the planning authority and the taxation power to the regional district. Under the guise of giving them planning they make them tax the folks in the local region. But a few months later, and rather precipitously, because the minister saw that the regional district was bringing in a timely, conventional transit system that would have cost much less than the current system that's now in place….

MR. REID: That's a laugh. Their system was going to cost a lot more.

MR. LAUK: That's not true. Captain Chaos over there is disagreeing with me. You remember Captain Chaos. He said that during a demonstration in Vancouver there would be chaos in the streets and blood flowing in the gutters. We didn't hear a word from him when he was chairman of transit until the time he became MLA in the House. Now all of a sudden Captain Chaos appears. We're going to get him a little cape.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we could return to the bill. I'll ask the hon. second member for Surrey not to interrupt.

MR. LAUK: If Captain Chaos had read the reports that I have read, he would not say the things he's saying about the costs of transit. Even before they started the ALRT system it was clear that a conventional system would cost about $200 million to $300 million less if you were going to extend the line out to New Westminster. That is the information the regional district has, and if you disagree with it you disagree with them.

MR. REID: I disagree with the regional district.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I appreciate the hon. member for Surrey's assistance in my speech. I think that he hasn't spoken in this House since he was sworn in.

MR. REID: That's not true.

MR. LAUK: Have you spoken? How many times?

MR. REID: Four or five times.

MR. LAUK: Come on now! Where — out in the corridor?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps we can proceed with the debate.

MR. LAUK: Would you inform the hon. member that the speeches in the legislative dining room do not count in the House? The only speech I heard was that there would be chaos in the streets.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member for Surrey please come to order. The second member for Vancouver Centre will speak to the bill.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Speak to the bill.

MR. LAUK: The first member for Surrey is rushing to the protection of her little chickadee over here.

Let's get to the bill. The bill, in my view, is a savage way to deal with regional planning, which has developed over many decades — with some problems, yes, but mostly with the cooperation and good will of elected municipal politicians, who by and large and over the long haul, have represented the interests of their community. They've had to give and they've had to take. That's what the people of British Columbia are now demanding of us.

That's why this legislation is so divisive and poisonous in the community at large. It's driving neighbour against neighbour. It's driving British Columbians against British Columbians in a way so deep and so savage that we've not seen that in our political life in the whole history of British Columbia. I think they have to be held fully responsible for that kind of devastation of the cooperative social fabric that we have been able to enjoy, by and large, over many years. One of the examples of that cooperation at the political level was the local planning mechanism offered by municipalities through the GVRD and through other regional districts. That cooperation is what is required today. The GVRD and other regional districts provided the politics of conciliation, compromise and cooperation.

Because the government which says it's the senior government in the province…. You know, wiser men than I have said that the judgment of a man with power is how often he does not use it, not how often he does. In other words, that person's wisdom is measured by how often he does not use his power, not by how often he does. These 31 statutes, savage statutes, wrenching power from the people, destroying rights, destroying opportunities and destroying the hopes and dreams of many citizens of this province, are the kind of legislation that is unforgivable. If they withdrew it tomorrow, that taste, that darkness in the history of this province, would never be forgotten.

It is back-of-the-hand treatment of people, British Columbians, honest, law-abiding people dedicated to their communities, who have stood for municipal office for years. The

[ Page 866 ]

hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) stood for municipal office for years in the Cariboo, and he used his years of political service at the local level to gain entrance to this House, and they trusted him. He's joined with this bunch of people who have savaged the rights and powers of regional and local governments. I know his memory is going, but has he forgotten the years of municipal service?

You yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have served years in local government. You know how humiliating and frustrating it is for local politicians to get the back-of-the-hand treatment from senior government, from people in the distant capital, either in Victoria or thousands of miles away in Ottawa who don't understand what's going on in your community. You know how frustrating it is when you can't get a message to them about what you're trying to represent in your own community. One way you're able to get across some of the message is through the regional districts. Because of the petulance and greed of a few, the people on the government side sweep away the whole works. It's a dictatorial thing to do — a usurpation of traditional power.

Democracy didn't grow out of some sort of universal law; in the British parliamentary system it grew over 800 or 900 years of struggle. In Britain many locally elected people and parliamentarians lost their lives; the monarch and the aristocracy would cut their heads off at a moment's notice. Hundreds of years ago in Westminster there was a time when you'd have to have courage just to go and sit in the House to which you were elected. The Speaker used to have to sneak in and out of Westminster, for fear that His Majesty's soldiers would capture him and lock him up in the Tower. Those historical facts should be burned into the memory of all the citizens of British Columbia. I'm not saying that we're going to lose all our democratic rights tomorrow, but after looking at these 31 bills I'm not about to give any guarantees to my constituents about what's going to happen next.

B.C. Place is a great opportunity. If you look at the south side of False Creek you can see what a tasteful, sensitive, progressive development is: housing for people of all walks of life, parks, open areas, schools and playgrounds. The south side of False Creek is a celebration of the family. Have you ever been there? Have you seen it? Granville Island serves that area, with its beautiful marketplace, theatres, shops, hotels and service areas. Contrast that with the proposal for B.C. Place: concrete walls, sterile cement; it closes down at 5 o'clock; empty streets; you can't hear children laughing; you can't hear people living; just smoke and exhaust; glass and concrete walls blocking off the view from the south side of False Creek. It's just a monument to greed; that's all it is. You can get any number of economics professors — if you pay them enough they'll tell you anything you like about what should be economic for the site. If you do the hiring, you call the tune; you set the criteria for the premises.

The need for regional planning is clear to everyone who has any common sense at all.

MR. REID: Not to elected officials.

MR. LAUK: Well, we're elected officials. The people on the regional district….

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: One of the problems of having a party that tells one thing to the people before the election and another afterwards is that we're left in the opposition and you're in the government. If you'd told the people the truth, we'd be the government and you'd be in the opposition. You didn't tell the people the truth, or you wouldn't have been elected.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Was that remark any reflection on the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid)?

MR. LAUK: I was referring to the Social Credit Party. If they'd told the people the truth….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue on Bill 9. I'll ask the hon. second member for Surrey not to interrupt.

MR. LAUK: If they'd told the people the truth prior to May 5, the NDP would have formed the government; there's no question about that. A recent poll indicated that that's what would have happened.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. LAUK: You know, it's a little bit of bravado for the second member for Surrey to say now: "Ho, ho, we've got the power. Put it to a vote."

I've always noticed in opposition that we win every debate, but we lose every vote. But I'll tell you something: before the next election the NDP will continue to tell the people the truth. We don't want to be elected under false pretences. If we form a government in this province, the people will know our policies and our platforms. We won't fool them before May 5.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To the bill. The hon. member has three minutes.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, Bill 9 is another example of a savage attack on local government. By being a savage attack on local government, it's a savage attack on local electors. We must assume — because if we're committed to the democratic system, that's a key assumption — that the local electors have seriously considered who they want to represent them at the municipal and regional levels….

MR. REID: Municipal level, yes.

MR. LAUK: And the regional level.

MR. REID: They don't elect regional level.

MR. LAUK: Yes, they do. That shows you how much that second member for Surrey knows. The ignorance is just incredible.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here to restate our commitment to local government. I would like to propose that the motion on second reading of this bill be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence." The reason that I propose this motion is…

MRS. JOHNSTON: To stall.

[ Page 867 ]

MR. LAUK: It is not to stall. I'm asking in all sincerity that this government reconsider Bill 9 and restate this Legislature's confidence and faith in regional planning and in locally elected governments.

[4:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 19

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 6.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have asked people to go to my office and bring my notes. I have made extensive notes and done extensive research regarding Bill 6. However, the way the government conducts business in this House is abysmal. No wonder this province is in the shape it is today, the way the government conducts its business in this Legislature of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I got my notes and my extensive research. Thank you very much. That should keep me going.

Centralizing authority is what it's all about. I have not finished talking about the way this government conducts business in this province, Mr. Speaker; I really want to discuss that for a minute. This is the third bill that has been called before this Legislature without notification to the Whips or to the party.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important. How can we be expected to conduct business in this province properly, the way the government conducts its business over there.

Back to the bill. I want to talk about my own school districts. First of all, a comment over the….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you very much. I am getting a lot of help. More help is on the way.

I want to make a few overall comments regarding this bill before I discuss the situation as it pertains to my local school districts: School Districts 46, 47 and 49, and parts of two others in my riding. This bill is a bill that effectively takes autonomy away from all school districts in the province of British Columbia. Basically….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Minister of Transportation (Hon. A. Fraser) asks me what section. I suggest to him that he look at sections 1, 2 and 3 and the title, and that will, I'm sure…. In fact, just for your benefit, Mr. Minister, the explanatory notes on this bill say that section 1 gives the minister powers to supervise budgets and expenditures by school districts.

The member for Vancouver Centre said just a few minutes ago, "He who controls the purse-strings calls the tune," and that's exactly what happens here. This bill effectively takes away the autonomy from all locally elected school board members. I might tell you at this point that we met with BCSTA members approximately two weeks ago here in Victoria. Many of them were here to meet with government members regarding this proposed legislation. They expressed their concerns over this bill and Bill 3 and the effect those two bills would have on the education system of the province. What we're talking about here is the quality of education for our young people throughout British Columbia. This bill will effectively take away the autonomy of local school districts.

When we met with them here some two to three weeks ago, some of these school board members expressed their concern over this legislation — naturally on a section-by-section basis. I'm sure that every member of this House has received correspondence from their respective school boards and the areas they represent objecting to this legislation.

You may not believe this, Mr. Speaker, but I've actually had members of my own school district inform me that they may not be seeking office again as school board members. they are respected members of the community attempting to do their jobs for the education of our people here in British Columbia, and they may not run again because this bill will effectively take away the rights and autonomy of school board members. It affects teachers, but most important of all it affects the quality of education in this province.

This bill expands the power of the Minister of Education to issue directives to school boards establishing the amount they may spend on any section of their budgets. Up to now the minister has only been able to issue directives relating to the special education portion of that budget. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister will set the final budget for every school district in the province. School boards, as I

[ Page 868 ]

understand it, may still submit budgets to the ministry, but those budgets don't necessarily have to be accepted by the Ministry of Education. In an area where funds for school purposes are raised locally…. I might tell you that in School District 47, 99.9 percent of the funds raised for education purposes are raised locally, believe it or not. This is in spite of the government's contention that they provide, I think, somewhere in the neighbourhood — I'm going from memory here — of 34 percent of total budgets over the province.

In this bill, Mr. Speaker, the minister is also given new powers to order a school board not to overspend a portion of its budget upon pain of having its provincial grant reduced. In other words, if the school board decides that the budget that has been allowed to it by the Ministry of Education is not enough to meet the special needs of some students, and decide, "To heck with the provincial government; quality and children in our school district come ahead of what the deputy minister or the Minister of Education may say," and decide to spend a portion of their budget for a special needs program, and the minister finds out about it, which he must because statements must be forwarded from time to time to the Ministry of Education, they can penalize that school district and that school board by reducing the provincial portion of their budget. Do you think an individual school board member or a teacher is going to feel good about that? No. Once again, it's the children who will feel the final effect of this kind of legislation — in other words, the quality of education.

[4:30]

In my view, over the past year there has been contentious legislation proposed with regulations and restrictions placed on school boards. Isn't it strange that prior to the last provincial election the government changed its approach and attitude in terms of school boards and school districts and teachers? They said: "We've found an extra X million dollars." I don't have the figures in front of me; I believe it was an extra $46 million they magically found prior to calling the last provincial election. They said: "Don't worry about a thing, school board members and teachers. We've found this extra $46 million to distribute to every school district in the province, and don't worry about a thing." So what happens? I think the taxpayers, teachers and school board members, all of whom I found to be reasonably responsible throughout all of this…. Probably a lot of them voted for the Social Credit Party, based on the extra funds that the government over there said they were going to distribute to the school boards.

Did they talk about bringing in Bill 6 during the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, and taking away the authority of elected representatives at the local level? They did not. We had no idea until the day the budget was brought down that this bill would be brought in as well, nor did any school board member in the province, as far as I know. Furthermore, we are not aware of a single school board member in this province that asked for this legislation. I'm not aware of that. I shouldn't say "we." There may be people who asked for this type of legislation sitting on school boards — I honestly don't know. Certainly I am not aware of a single school board member whom I have met with in my riding who asked for or expected this type of repressive legislation. In my view the government could have been honest with the people of this province before going into this election; they should have told the people of this province exactly what they intended to do, but they didn't.

Another thing this bill does…. It says here: "The directives issued by the minister remain secret. He is not obliged to make them public. We have no idea how these powers have been used since assent on April 30, 1982. Bill 6 affords an opportunity to demand an accounting from the minister before allowing passage of another centralization measure." I don't know….

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Have you got the wrong one?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, this is very pertinent. You should know. You're an ex-school teacher and a principal, I believe, Mr. Minister. Now you've been promoted to higher things, but as a former principal and school teacher, and as a person who dealt with school superintendents, school boards, teachers and presumably students from time to time…. You probably strapped a few before the strap was illegal. Did you go around this province as a minister of the Crown and when running for re-election on May 5, 1983, telling the people of this province and the school boards and the school teachers that you were going to bring in this legislation? You didn't. Own up that you didn't tell people you were going to bring in this bill. 'You have no mandate to bring in this kind of repressive legislation over the heads of locally elected government. Had you run an honest election campaign, you wouldn't be sitting over there today.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have a mandate for restraint.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Why don't you show a bit over there, Mr. Member, whoever you are and wherever you are.

It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that the new members really don't understand what is happening in British Columbia at the present time. With this kind of legislation we have before us…. Did that party run on a ticket of taking away local autonomy from regional boards, municipalities and school districts? Did they honestly come out and say they would do that? They did not in their election campaign, nor in the multimillion-dollar ads that they had on television which were paid for by taxpayers' money. Did you see one ad on television, Mr. Speaker, saying that they were going to bring in Bill 6, this repressive legislation that essentially takes away autonomy from locally elected representatives and teachers and local taxpayers? Effectively, what this bill does….

We have a number of bills like this before the House at the present time which were introduced in this House in the name of restraint.

I believe a lot of people in British Columbia voted for restraint. They voted for that party because they said there would be restraint which would be carried out by attrition. There would be certain cutbacks. Fair enough. That's fair ball, and there's nothing wrong with that. We had a program which 55 percent of the people of the province didn't accept; 45 percent of the people did accept our program. That's the democratic system. But one of the things we don't have in a democratic system…. You were telling a lot of things to the electorate that weren't necessarily true, or you were misrepresenting items to the public, leading up to and during the election campaign. Then you come into this House and tell us that you have a mandate to bring in bills like Bill 6, bills that totally centralize in Victoria and allow the deputy minister to do whatever he wishes to do; in fact, it gives the Deputy Minister of Education the power of government.

[ Page 869 ]

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I was elected by my constituents over the last 11 years and over the last four elections to come into this House and vote for bills like this. If there is one function that I'm going to carry out and work hard for, the hardest I've ever worked in this House and this province, it's to stop repressive measures like Bill 6, and the other repressive measures that we have before us. I am deadly serious; what I am saying is not political rhetoric. One purpose and one cause that I feel I was elected for, and that I ran for office for, is to stop this kind of repressive legislation, of which Bill 6 is a perfect example.

I hear some chirping from the back benches over there, but those new members are so buoyed up by their victories in the last election that they haven't even read these bills. I am sure they don't read these reports from the BCSTA and the BCTF I'm sure they don't talk to their local school board members and have no idea about the process of local autonomy and locally elected members. Talking about locally elected members, Mr. Speaker, I feel that people at the local level have the knowledge and the skills. First of all, they run for public office. Many people who have the ability and should be seeking public office do not, for a variety of reasons. In fact, this bill's a good reason why they don't. Whether they be a regional board, municipality or a school board, I believe that once these….

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you going to support this bill?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Are you kidding? No way! I have never supported repressive legislation in my life, Mr. Speaker, certainly not in my 11 years in this House, and I don't intend to support Bill 6 or Bill 9.

Just to give you one example…. I have a number of examples here and I'll get to them presently. I have a copy of a telegram sent to Premier W.R. Bennett, August 9, 1983, 9:30 a.m., from Marion L. Williams, chairman, School District 47, just a few days ago. Copies of this, by the way, went to myself, the B.C. School Trustees' Association and Hon. J. Heinrich, Minister of Education, who is sitting right over there sleeping. The telegram says: "The Board of School Trustees, District 47, Powell River, urges you to table Bill 6, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983, until further study can determine its effect on local autonomy. See letter of August 2, 1983, to Minister of Education from this board regarding Bill 6."

I happen to have a copy of that letter dated August 2, 1983, and I wonder if the minister remembers it. I may read a bit of it to him to jog his memory, and then I'm going to ask him if he has bothered to reply to that correspondence. This letter, from the Board of School Trustees, School District 47, dated August 2, 1983, was written and sent after school board members and their representatives had met with the minister here in Victoria a couple of weeks ago to express their opposition to this legislation, and of course to Bill 3. You might be interested to know…. Well, I'll get into that later. I'll read this letter to this minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. I want to jog his memory, and I'd like to know from the minister if he bothered to respond to this two-page letter. I doubt it. Probably some EA sent a letter saying: "We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence of August 2."

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Do you remember that piece of correspondence? Just nod your head if you remember.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please, hon. member. There have been a couple of unparliamentary personal references to the minister.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Which one? I'm sorry. If I made an unparliamentary remark I withdraw. It was certainly unintentional.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: They were personal references. There was one made earlier that the Chair overlooked. Could we just speak to the bill.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am speaking to the bill, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to get the minister to nod his head. I'm just asking the minister, through you, if he responded to this correspondence, and if he remembers it; that's all.

He's awake now. I'll read it into the record, just on the off chance that he may remember.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The suspense is killing me. Get on with it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm quoting now from this letter of August 2, 1983, from the Board of School Trustees, School District 47, Powell River:

"Dear Mr. Heinrich:

"My prime objective and duty as a school trustee is to provide, within our means, the best possible education for all young people in our community. I must respond to local people's expressed opinions of what kind of schooling they want and of how much they are willing or able to pay for that schooling."

That's a reasonable statement for any school board member to make. They have a responsibility not only for the quality of education but to the taxpayers and to the province. This letter is from the chairman of the school board.

"In ten years as a trustee I think I have maintained this fine balance to the satisfaction of this community. At the outset, let me assure you that I understand the downturn in the economy and other priorities make it difficult for the provincial government to provide its proper share of revenue to education."

That's interesting in itself, because I think at one point the province paid as much from general revenues as 47 or 48 percent of the total cost of education in this province. I'm going from memory, and that may be wrong. In any event, I know that as of the last fiscal year the provincial share of the total cost of education in this province was down to 34.3 percent.

"I agree that the present funding formula and the method of assessing property taxes need revamping."

We've discussed revamping the formula on property taxes for education purposes for many years in this House. We're all familiar with that argument, but I suspect we're going to go through it again many times during this debate.

" I know many of the provisions of the School Act are outdated."

That's true as well — we all agree with that.

"Trustees, individually and through their association, have long requested changes in legislation that

[ Page 870 ]

will enable boards to finance and govern the public school system more efficiently. Changes are needed, but I would be remiss in my duty to local electors if I did not express my grave concern that the new funding system — the financial management systems — and Bill 6 are going to bring undesirable changes to how our public school system will operate, to who controls every aspect of the system. I see no thought given to improving the quality of education, no mention of meeting the challenge of the rapid changes occurring in our society. I do see a danger of disfranchising local electors and an end to local decision-making."

That's true; that's exactly what we're talking about here in Bill 6: disfranchising local electors and the decision-making process being centralized down here in Victoria under one government and one minister or his deputy. What's the point of having a school board anyway? What's the point of holding elections for school board members this November? Decisions are going to be made here in Victoria — it's as simple as that.

I'll continue reading from this correspondence, of which I'm sure the minister is very much aware, and I'm sure he has answered the board member of School District 47 in great detail.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That member over there says: 'Answer the question." We've had question period in this House every day since you guys came to government. Why don't you answer some questions over there for once? Answer some questions during question period. We have question period but no answer period, with you guys over there.

To continue, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 6, I quote from this correspondence:

"It is a puzzling course of action for an elected official at the provincial level to belittle the same voters judgment at the local level."

That's a good point. Maybe it will answer the question of the member over there. The government is taking a great deal of power unto itself, and yet it belittles the judgment of the voters and the trustees at the local level. That's precisely what is happening under Bill 6 and Bill 3.

The chairman of the school board goes on to say:

"I think the restraint you desire can be managed in the short run with no lasting detrimental effect, but only by giving local boards greater, not less, flexibility to manage."

Well, that's pretty obvious. It's exactly what we're talking about — greater, not less, flexibility to manage.

"In the long run, adequate funding at the provincial level for public schools, colleges and universities must be forthcoming, or the young people of B.C. will become educationally disadvantaged.…."

We're talking about someone who has been a school board chairman and a member of the school board for many years, who has for many years been deeply and keenly interested in education. "Second-class citizens in their own country." Under this bill, that is what is eventually going to become of our young people who are today in the education system. She goes on on page 2 of this correspondence:

"Ministry officials have assured us that some of the glaring deficiencies of the funding formula will be adjusted and that there is no intention of restricting spending to functions within the formula, except function 4. If that is your intention" — Mr. Minister — it "is indeed welcome news, and I am sure boards would appreciate confirmation of that."

That's a good point. I see the minister is busy at the moment, but sometime I would like an answer from the minister on this point. I would like to know if the minister has in fact expressed his intention about what he says he's going to allow certain school boards to do under this legislation. Frankly, I doubt that he will. But I would like to hear from the minister when he closes debate on this bill at some future time, if he is going to keep his word on that particular item.

I'm quoting again from the correspondence: "However, if Bill 6 becomes law, the threat that some future minister or government will use the power therein to emasculate local control is ever present."

This school board chairman has accepted the minister's word, but we don't know what will happen down the tube. Maybe some people can accept the minister and take him at his word. He's usually a pretty nice guy. He generally keeps his word, I presume. In spite of the fact that this bill takes away local autonomy from school boards and jeopardizes the quality of education, the minister says not to worry: "Trust me. Take me at my word." I could trust that minister, but I don't trust that whole government, if what goes on in cabinet…. Who knows? I don't think we should take that chance. I think that minister should spell out precisely what he intends to do with this bill. Based on the past record of that government, I think we know very well what the minister will do.

Mrs. Williams, chairman of School District 47, goes on to say: "Traditionally, in North America control of the education of children has rested ultimately with parents through elected trustees." That's right; that's why we have school boards today. Many years ago — 200, 300, 400 years ago — when communities were being built in North America, local farming groups, whatever, decided that they wanted an education for their children. How were they going to bring that about? They had no real local tax system or tax-gathering agencies. In fact, 300 or 400 years ago you didn't even have taxes of that kind. So they banded together and said that every family would put X number of dollars or pesos or whatever into a central fund. "Let's get together on a weekend. We'll put up a school. We'll work during the week. We'll build a school" — usually by volunteer labour — "and we'll hire a teacher, someone to teach the children how to at least read and write and add a little bit." So that's how school boards and school districts got started. They have expanded greatly and their responsibilities have increased. The scope of education has broadened. We now have people carrying on to high school, to university and beyond.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sure, the taxpayers accept responsibility for the quality of education in this province. But what we're talking about here is that this bill is far more than a restraint bill. If that member for North Surrey or South Surrey or somewhere would only read the bill and the School Act and talk to local school board members, he might understand a little bit. This bill goes far beyond a restraint measure. What this bill does is take away the autonomy of local school boards, of locally elected representatives, and the trust placed in these people by the electorate of a local school

[ Page 871 ]

district and a local community. That's why I'm going to be voting against this bill at some point.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay. Well, that member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is back in the House. You can hear his yacking across the floor, I'm sure. He chirps and chirps away. He hasn't done anything constructive for this province since he was elected to government some years ago too many years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, name one constructive thing he's done for this province. Just give me one thing that that minister has done that's constructive and in the best interests of this province. Just give me one instance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. Reflection on another member's or a minister's character….

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am discussing his ability as a minister. It has nothing to do with his character.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am discussing his ability as a minister, Mr. Speaker. And his ability is absolutely zilch, zero, in this province. All he has accomplished is to continue to borrow money to plunge this province into debt. I have a right to defend myself from that bully of a minister sitting over there. That bully!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Reflecting on another member's character is unparliamentary, and I'll ask the minister and all other members not to interject. Would the member for Mackenzie please withdraw the word "bully." I find it offensive in this context.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You do? Well I'll be go to heck! I'll withdraw it if you find it offensive, but it's true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, he….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Let's not have any debate. We'll just carry on on Bill 6, thank you.

[5:00]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Sure. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it very much if you could protect me from that….

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is founded on standing order 20 which says: "Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall order members whose conduct is grossly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of the day, I want to point out to Your Honour that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development is persistently interrupting and engaging in disorderly conduct. Not only this afternoon but day after day the Chair has found occasion to admonish the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. He pays no attention whatever to the Chair's requirement that the minister pay attention to the rules. I think, Mr. Speaker, if it occurs again and there is another interruption across the floor from the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, I'd suggest your only alternative is to take action under standing order 20.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Some members will be quite aware that the Chair is well aware of standing order 20, particularly this Chair. The hon. member for Mackenzie continues. The point of order is well taken.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate you protecting me from that member for South Peace River who yells and screams across the floor. He will not take part in debate and will not address himself to Bill 6, as I am doing under this debate.

I'm going to finish. I think I have two more paragraphs in this correspondence, which I think really reflect the thinking of most school trustees around the province of British Columbia — certainly the school trustees that I have discussed the matter with.

The second to the last paragraph states:

"Contrary to opinion, I know it is much more difficult to reconsider or withdraw an edict than it is to bull ahead, to 'not bow to pressure.' Most trustees, district superintendents, secretary-treasurers and teachers of all political stripes are knowledgeable about the school system and are dedicated to the quality of education" — Mr. Minister. "I implore you to put this legislation on hold until you consult more fully with all those groups. For the sake of all young people in this province, I ask you to rethink this legislation.

"Marion L. Williams,
Chairman, School District 47."

So, Mr. Speaker, I think, as I said before….

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, no problem. I'm going to talk later about the firing clause and the 3,000 teacher layoffs, but I'll wait until you get back, Mr. Minister — which is fine; we all have to go out once in a while.

You know, Mr. Speaker, one thing that is contained in this bill will allow the minister to distribute funds on a political basis, in my view. Let me put this scenario before you.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I don't know. Why don't you ask him? Why don't you talk to him and ask him?

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to you that this bill will allow the minister and the government….

Is that the green light already? I have hardly begun. I'll speak at another time, but I was going to make a very important point here.

This will leave school districts open to receive funding from the provincial government on a political basis, in my view. I'll make this very quick. I see the green light is on. I was going to put a scenario before you, but I'm not sure I've got time. But let's put it this way. If a school district is in a

[ Page 872 ]

riding that the government wishes to win in some future election, and a representative of that school board is saying "yes" to everything, they could conceivably put this money into Social Credit ridings.

I see the red light is on. My time has terminated, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to make one final short point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: All right. In that case, since you won't give me the time to say my piece, I move adjournment of this debate on this legislation until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, All those in favour say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed, if any.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Division!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'd say the ayes have it, and it's carried.

The House Leader.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I called a division, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question is this: when a member has control of the floor and is speaking, and his time has elapsed, does he then have the prerogative of adjourning debate until the next sitting?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point of order as stated by the Minister of Agriculture and Food is extremely well taken. However, the Chair in times past has allowed members out of courtesy to continue the last part of their phrase when the red light has gone on and has allowed them to make motions at that point. However, I think clearly we must be aware of the rules before us. There is a time limit. It is 40 minutes when that red light is on, and their time limit has expired. The Chair would therefore, in future cases, not be prepared to accept motions to adjourn or to amend at that time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and for your information, I did request a division prior to sitting down and taking my place, and prior to your recognizing the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). The debate has been adjourned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time had expired, but the motion was accepted, as I just indicated in this case, and the ayes have it. We have an adjournment motion before us, and the Chair recognizes the hon. House Leader.

HON MR. SCHROEDER: Someone called for a division, didn't they?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A division was called for.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A division was called for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognized….

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I called a division before you recognized him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It takes a certain amount of members, hon. member.

Thank you, A division has been called for.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 3.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT
(continued)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by expressing to the House my deep quandary over why there was a delay in calling this bill this afternoon, when the government was all mixed up and didn't know where to go. I was ready to talk hours ago, and they only give me just this little bit of time. It comes as a shock to me that they would call this bill when we could have spent the afternoon on it and made some progress.

[5:15]

I'd like to pick up where I was so rudely interrupted. Earlier this morning I was making the point that a number of religious communities were indeed upset by what this legislation was proposing to do. Of course, I made a reference to the front page of the Times-Colonist. It is important to remind this chamber exactly what we're debating now so that we may remain in order. What we are debating now, Mr. Speaker, as you know, is a proposal to hoist this bill for six months to enable greater public scrutiny to take place. What is a hoist? A hoist is a motion by the House itself that would ask that this bill, which is extremist and right-wing radicalism, in a form unknown and alien to all the British Commonwealth, be taken now, removed from this chamber and sent out to the population of British Columbia to let them have their say on whether or not they indeed support this legislation.

Thank you for your rapt attention. Now that the House is calmer and the excitement and the fear of the government benches has receded, I can pursue the argument that I was making.

This morning…. I think there's a sick member down there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm not sure that the microphone of the Leader of the Opposition is working. I don't hear it….

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition continues.

[ Page 873 ]

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm aware of the fact that there is fear and trepidation on the government benches over the reaction to this legislation, not so much from the opposition, which at this moment frankly does not frighten them, I'll admit, but they are beginning to get through their heads the fact that a number of people in the leadership of the religious communities of this province are concerned about the nature of this legislation.

This morning I quoted from the comments made by the Roman Catholic bishop of Victoria. To be fair and to ensure that the criticism becomes ecumenical and is broadly based, rather than just selecting one leader of one religious community, it is necessary to point out that a letter on this legislation was sent to the Premier of this province from other Christian denominations, and that letter, as I understand it, has not yet been replied to by the Premier. I refer to a letter sent in late July, a copy of which was reprinted in the Victoria Times-Colonist on July 27, 1983. If I may be permitted to expand what appears to be an ecumenical agreement, not just confined to the Roman Catholic church, but a broad spectrum of the religious community's criticism of this legislation, I particularly want the attention of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), because it is not often that a number of religious community leaders contemplate serious public criticism of Caesar's rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hail Caesar!

MR. BARRETT: That's what your attitude is to your boss, I know. Those days are dead, Mr. Member. There are other responsibilities, and even though that may get you into the cabinet, for which it is evident your repetitive display of ignorance qualifies you….

MRS. JOHNSTON: Shame!

MR. BARRETT: It is a shame that that is the level of competence that is part of the cabinet selection process. Nonetheless, I will not be deterred from reading this ecumenical message of criticism of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Quid pro quo.

MR. BARRETT: There it is Mr. Speaker; unparliamentary language, obviously. Normally, outside the chamber they would charge for that kind of comment. You never know with these lawyers. They come up with this Latin gobbledegook, and then if they get you in the corridor they charge you for it.

MR. PARKS: Does it make you feel good to be pejorative?

MR. BARRETT: That is another reason why the human rights act shouldn't be taken away — so we don't attack the pejoratives in this community. Be that as it may, that is one pejorative who would be protected by the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Speaker, we enjoy a brief exchange based on levity, but I want to read the particular quote that I am referring to.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It's the first time, Mr. Member, that I have had to wear glasses, and now that I am able to see the government I am even more horrified at the results of the election. It was bad enough, but when I got these it made it terribly difficult to accept.

In the Times-Colonist of July 27, 1983, is the text of a letter sent to Premier Bennett on Tuesday by five Canadian church leaders, here for the World Council of Churches assembly, representing 400 million Christians, give or take a few — depending on what day of the week this is defined.

"Dear Mr. Bennett:

"We, the undersigned leaders of Canada's churches, after careful consideration, wish to advise you of the concern we feel about certain aspects of legislation now proposed by your government.

"We recognize that you, like many Canadians, are concerned about the adverse financial situation which a variety of circumstances have created in our country. We agree that the situation must be addressed in all seriousness, with the determination to correct it.

"However, this does not alleviate our concern about the harshness of the proposed legislation. In addition to our anxiety about the content of the legislation, we deplore the fact that (so far as we are aware) the proposals now being made public were not placed before the people of British Columbia as part of your government's election platform."

I must interrupt this letter. These are really trusting people, and as religious community leaders they have had sheltered lives when it comes to politics. They have been led to assume that political persons are persons of their word, and they have had difficulty in understanding the nuances of a political promise. For example, some of these well-meaning gentlemen, whom I will continue to go on and quote, may have actually seen the Premier and the Minister of Health (Mr. Nielsen) being questioned on television during the election campaign as to whether or not there would be an increase in health user fees. Now just put yourself in the position of a clergyman watching a television show during the middle of an election campaign — not on Sunday — and seeing the Premier of the Province and the Minister of Health interviewed and the question put forward to the two hon. gentlemen: "Will you increase hospital user fees?" The Premier, Bill Bennett, and the Minister of Health, Mr. Nielsen, both state categorically on television, in full view of these honourable ministers: "Oh, no, sir, there will be absolutely no, no increase in user fees. That is an election pledge."

Having seen that, some of these religious community leaders may not have been aware of Social Credit promises meaning nothing, or that hon. gentlemen representing that party have indeed not told the truth in an election campaign; and being honourable Christian leaders, they would assume, because the Premier gave his word that there would be no increase, and the Minister of Health gave his word, that they meant their word.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You would have believed them too, and you're not even a man of the cloth.

MR. NICOLSON: They are called the honourable Premier.

[ Page 874 ]

MR. BARRETT: Yes, the honourable Premier and the honourable minister.

Nonetheless, if we carry this through to what happened, we discover that along with the population of British Columbia, along with all of the politicians, the taxpayers of British Columbia weren't told the truth. This came as a shock to those people who voted Social Credit; they thought they were voting for something that represented the truth. Now they're unhappy. But these fine gentlemen have taken to print to express their disappointment that they were lied to during the election campaign. That is why I must read the next paragraph from Christian ministers, not from heathen politicians. No sirree bob. This is from a community leader.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Agnostics probably know better than to trust this government.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It depends if they're practising agnostics. That's a contradiction; you figure it out.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, if I may carry on, this is what these good gentlemen wrote: "Proposals now being made public were not placed before the people of British Columbia as part of your government's election platform." That is a polite euphemism for saying the people were lied to. Listen to this line, Mr. Speaker: "This leaves your government open to the charge of dishonesty in not revealing its intentions, with the result that an air of cynicism has been created in the public mind." Religious leaders in Canada are saying those things about some of the cabinet ministers whom I consider to be my friends, even though they'll deny it in public. I have an unlimited capacity to love, and I have an unlimited hope that somehow truth, like a lightning bolt, will strike some of those members. Nonetheless, here are the leaders of the Christian community saying: "This leaves your government open to the charge of dishonesty in not revealing its intentions with the result that an air of cynicism has been created in the public mind."

HON. MR. FRASER: File that paper in the House. I don't think you can see with those glasses.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've been reading right through the thumbprints and it comes out exactly the same. It means you've been lying to the folks and you've been caught by the Christian ministers — not you, your party; you can't lie, but your party has been.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: And you're not in your right seat, Mr. Member. I would hate to draw that to your attention, because you obey the rules or else you'll get the strap. Or else I'll call up the principal's file to the minister.

[5:30]

This government has been charged with dishonesty by the leading members of the religious communities, and that charge of dishonesty has not been denied by the government. It was confirmed again by the Roman Catholic bishop of the city of Victoria today.

I go on to read what these ministers say. On occasion some ministers have even run for office.

"We are further concerned about the serious social consequences that your proposed legislation, if enacted, would produce. We urge you and your colleagues to take seriously the objections to the proposals both from within and without the province. We are also anxious about the infringement of the rights of individuals which seem to be brought about by the proposed legislation. We have become aware of strong representations made to you by a variety of groups about this matter and we are convinced there is validity in their expressions of uneasiness. We await your assurances that you and your colleagues are willing to reconsider your proposed course of action."

This was signed by five Protestant religious community leaders who sent the letter two weeks ago from the Canadian Council of Churches.

To my knowledge, the minister has not responded to their letter. Is it correct that the minister and the Premier have not responded to the letter from these religious community leaders? Do you mean you would keep a minister waiting? I can understand why this letter hasn't been answered. What are they going to say? Are they going to say no, their party didn't lie during the election campaign; that the legislation before this House was all discussed in the election campaign? They can't say that. How are they going to answer this letter from these religious community leaders? Are they going to say: "Well, we really had it in our mind to do these things but we decided not to tell the people because they might not vote for us"? What are they going to say in answer?

So we know that this letter has not been answered at all, and I don't think it will be answered by the minister or by the Premier. Perhaps they might get an acknowledgement from Mr. Heal and one of his minions. Perhaps it can go to Mr. Aspinall, who's going to get an additional $48,000 to help this government explain why it didn't tell the truth during an election campaign, and why people should accept what they're doing now. Maybe Mr. Aspinall on his hourly fee can meet with these religious community leaders and explain to them how this set of circumstances came about, because the government did not reveal these plans, to the disappointment of the religious community leaders during an election campaign. Could the minister make a note of the question that I'm posing to him? Will Mr. Aspinall….

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down, and I'll give you the answer right now.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, there's a few more yet. I appreciate your anxiety.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You can get up after.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, certainly.

Is Mr. Aspinall going to meet with these community religious leaders and explain why you never said, during the election campaign….

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's just a chair-arranger.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 875 ]

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he's just a chair-arranger? Mr. Speaker, did you hear that? He gets $48,000 to lay out chairs. I know a lot of unemployed people who would bring their own chairs to the meeting if they got 48 grand. That's $48,000 of the taxpayers' money for a fellow to lay out the chairs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you there's been a remarkable improvement in your appearance in the last short while. The job suits you, Mr. Speaker. It is an incredible secondary metamorphosis that we've just witnessed.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, to press on, to that minister. The serious question, Mr. Minister, is: what are you going to do when you've got the leaders of the religious community, including the Roman Catholic bishop, the United Church, Lutherans — all of them — saying that you lied? Not you; you didn't lie. I'm sorry. But the party you represent lied in the election campaign. What are you going to do?

Now, confession of sins is good for the soul, but repeal of this legislation that was falsely brought in would be good for the people of British Columbia. I'm not here to make any non-earth judgment on that minister. We all know that in the afterlife politicians must be judged by a different measuring tape than others. You know we're all going to meet again somewhere south of here. But while we're here on the face of this earth, there is a good name for us politicians to protect. One of the ways of protecting the good name is for the government to fess up and say: "Ministers who wrote this letter…. We didn't tell the truth, and we're going to make amends by voting for this motion to hoist the bill for six months so that the community can participate."

AN HON. MEMBER: Repent.

MR. BARRETT: Repent? I'm not even asking for that. Just a little repeal. But if it were just the opposition — made up of a number of skills of people from all walks of life who are opposed to this government — that was against the government, then of course it could be dismissed as politics. We'd certainly dismiss your arguments as politics. We dismiss the voice of your colleague as politics. So what we have here is an extension in the community outside of politics, where religious community leaders are asking the government to go and take another look at their legislation. The Roman Catholic bishop of the city of Victoria says in this morning's paper — and I don't even need my glasses to read this headline — "Restraint Program Evil."

Now, I'm not going to judge any of you. Neither does he. He says you're not evil. I want to say that that's an extension of charity that reveals the nature of the man. But I'm not going to quarrel with his opinion. He doesn't consider any of them over there evil, but he considers their collective will evil. Now that's a paradox. The collective will of that group has produced evil legislation while they themselves, as individuals, are not evil. I suggest that the collective will of that group withdraw the bill and reconsider what you're doing when you've upset the whole community in the manner that you've done.

Mr. Speaker, I'll relieve the tension in the chamber, from the sense of guilt over the attack on the government by the religious community, and go to something more substantial that some of them really understand; that is, the criticism from the police. When you talk about the religious community, that's a threat in spirit, but when you talk about the cops that's a different scene, particularly with Social Credit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lots of practice.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

This morning I was making the case — brilliantly, lucidly, in an outstanding fashion, in a short time — and capsulized in words…. Within the brief span of three and a half hours I was able to condense the arguments on section 6 of this bill: they're trying to interfere with the cops. You know, Mr. Speaker, I was unable to convince some of those members.

Today I picked up the Victoria Times-Colonist and read a news report from a spokesperson who represents 19,000 police officers in 128 Ontario police forces. I'd like to read this to the House, so that those members who have been critical of me will begin to appreciate, beyond the ads that the police have put in the newspapers, from which I quoted, exactly what policemen are saying about this legislation. I quote: "B.C. 'Scares' Police Official."

MR. PARKS: It should say "opposition scares." Fearmongers, remember?

MR. BARRETT: That member will wash his mouth out with soap when he hears….

MR. PARKS: No, he speaks the truth.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member, your party never spoke the truth in the election campaign. Had they spoken the truth, we wouldn't have this kind of legislation here in this chamber.

MR. PARKS: Haven't you got glasses? Read the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, would you please call that vicious member to order, It's troubling me.

MR. PARKS: Vicious? First it was ignorant; now it's vicious.

MR. BARRETT: Well, ignorance and viciousness are a strange combination. Nonetheless, they're there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where's Levi?

MR. BARRETT: Counting votes. [Laughter.] Well, you asked; you wanted to know.

In an article on August 16, 1983, in the Times-Colonist, from Chatham, Ontario: "B.C. 'Scares' Police Officials. The arbitrary nature of the Public Sector Restraint Act proposed by the British Columbia government may threaten police investigations of public agencies, says an Ontario police official."

MR. PARKS: He hasn't read the bill either.

MR. BARRETT: Are going to call him a liar? Wait until you hear the rest of this. You shouldn't open up your mouth too soon; you'll get into trouble.

MR. PARKS: He hasn't read the bill either.

MR. BARRETT: Now you're going to have to apologize for saying that, because you haven't waited to hear the rest.

[ Page 876 ]

You should know better, as a lawyer: open your mouth and get trapped…. You know better when you're a lawyer. You wait until all the evidence is there, and then you play it cool and calm — don't get nervous. Only a client who feels guilty gets nervous before all the evidence is laid on the table. But I'm not making that judgment on you.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The minister from South Peace River, with his brilliant interjection….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, who's sitting next to you?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, is the debate over between the back bench and that one cabinet minister? If it is we can resume.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: "Lame-duck leader," and I have to keep on coming back with the same thing. Hey, you, I'd rather be a lame duck than a lame-brain. Have you figured that one out? Now that we've had the fifteenth exchange of that brilliant repartee, shall we go back to the point that I'm making?

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[5:45]

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"Jim Kingston, executive manager of the Ontario provincial police association, said Monday: The restraint act is 'probably the most offensive piece of legislation ever brought forward in Canada.' Kingston, who spoke to about 450 delegates at a meeting of the Police Association of Ontario, said in an interview that the act is 'offensive to policemen who are charged with keeping law and order.' He said the act would affect all public sector employees, overruling labour codes and giving the B.C. government power to fire employees without cause.

"Police departments are 'from time to time called in to investigate politicians and bureaucrats….'"

And that is evident many times in the history of British Columbia.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: And policemen.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, sometimes policemen are tempted by sin as well. If the minister, in saying that, is making a reference to the police not having been called up by the Attorney-General for some charge, I'd like to to know about it. Nonetheless, that is: a statement that has to rest with that minister.

"Police departments are 'from time to time called in to investigate politicians and bureaucrats,' Kingston said."

Who should know better than the Social Credit Party? The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) asked me to repeat my statements outside, and I did. I repeated them outside.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, my friends, you come outside and I'll repeat it again. There were allegations against that minister. There was a police investigation. The report was given to the Attorney-General, with the recommendation for prosecution, and that MLA stood up and said: "Thank God for the Attorney-General of this province." The prosecution did not proceed. I stated it again in the hallway. I'm waiting for a suit. Sue me if I'm wrong.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It's not worth it.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not worth it, eh? Thank you, Mr. Member. If you thought for one second you could sue me in a court of law and prove me wrong, you'd do it. You did it over cornflakes; I don't know why you wouldn't do it over the integrity of a cabinet minister. Well, we've got them here, and there they are.

I want to continue quoting from this article. "Kingston said investigations could be jeopardized if a government had widespread powers to fire a policeman."

MR. PARKS: A frightened cop.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we've got through to you. You've figured it out! A policeman who's afraid of losing his job by the unrestricted power of a politician is the kind of policeman who would put an ad in the newspaper as we saw in an unprecedented fashion here in the province of British Columbia. He would also say, as I quote here from the paper, when a government has wide powers to fire policemen: "I've studied the legislation and it scares the hell out of me."

I go on: "The Policemen's Association represents 128 Ontario police forces and 19,000 officers." So there it is, right across this nation: in the religious community leaders….

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Ontario is only halfway across.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: The burden of your office has aged you again, Mr. Speaker. Nonetheless the point is well taken that indeed there are grave concerns right across this nation over this bill.

MR. PARKS: Not valid ones, perhaps.

MR. BARRETT: Are you saying that the religious community leaders don't know what they are talking about? Are you saying that the police of Ontario don't know what they are talking about? Are you saying that the police in the province of British Columbia who took out that ad in the papers are wrong? Are you saying that those people who wrote the Premier and have yet, as I understand it, to have an

[ Page 877 ]

answer, are wrong in their interpretation? Well, that is a very interesting proposition being put forward by the group.

MR. REID: Call the vote. Let's get it over with.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Fess up. Tell us about Sy Kovachich.

MR. BARRETT: I love these mindless interjections reflecting the arguments of the cabinet ministers themselves. Where there is a vacuum noise rushes in to fill it, and that minister is an expert at that. I go on to make the point by reading this section again. Without limiting the generality of this,

"…the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations to require public sector employers to supply to a minister information, and records respecting the duties, compensation, terms and conditions of employment of senior managers employed by them, notwithstanding any enactment respecting confidentiality, or any contract."

MR. PARKS: Why don't you read the entire section?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I will. I'll read the next section too:

"…authorize a minister to give such directions respecting the compensation of senior managers as the minister considers necessary or advisable to implement the regulations and to achieve the purposes of this section, and a public sector employer to which a minister gives a direction referred to in this section shall comply with the direction."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, cabinet ministers can order the municipal administrations to do anything they want.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I know I'm a brilliant orator, but I don't think I've captured the attention of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. BARRETT: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the government would entertain a motion to adjourn, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.