[ Page 1359 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Competence of employees of Ministry of Human Resources. Mr. Barnes –– 1359

Mr. Lauk

Unemployment Action Centres grant. Mr. Parks –– 1360

Mrs. Dailly

McKim Advertising. Mr. Cocke –– 1360

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On section 6 –– 1361

Ms. Brown

On the amendment –– 1362

Ms. Brown

Division

On the second amendment –– 1363

Ms. Brown

On section 25 –– 1364

Ms. Brown

Mr. Howard

Third reading –– 1366

Division

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1366

Mr. Rose –– 1368

Mrs. Dailly –– 1373

Mr. Nicolson –– 1376

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 1377

Division –– 1378

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 18). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1379

Mr. Cocke –– 1379

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 1382

Tabling Documents.

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, third report.

Mr. Pelton –– 1383

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1983

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the House to bid a very warm and cordial welcome to Mr. Maurice Copithorne, who is the commissioner designate to Hong Kong. Mr. Copithorne is a distinguished Canadian and British Columbia citizen.

MR. PASSARELL: In the gallery today, visiting us all the way from Cassiar, British Columbia, the capital of the great white north, are Mr. and Mrs. Bill Deline and their friends, Mr. and Mrs. Ken Frenette. I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a law school classmate of mine during the sixties, who practised law in Prince George and is now practising in North Vancouver, and who is politically active and a former alderman for the district. I'd like the House to welcome Jim Poynter.

MR. HANSON: In the gallery today are three visitors from Victoria: Jack Scott, business manager of the painters' union, Ben Fleming of the bricklayers' union and Chris Jones of the B.C. and Yukon building trades council. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is a very hard-working young lady from the constituency of Kamloops. She is vice-president of the Social Credit executive committee, a First Citizens' Fund committee member, and is very active in the B.C. Native Women's Society. I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Roberta MacDonald.

Oral Questions

COMPETENCE OF EMPLOYEES OF
MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES

MR. BARNES: It's with regret that I must pose a question to the Minister of Human Resources. I must say that I'm disappointed at having to do so. It has been widely reported that she has described individuals in her ministry as "bonkers" and questioned whether they are emotionally stable. My question to the minister is: does she have specific examples to back up her charges that certain members of her staff are emotionally unstable and unable to cope with the stresses of the job?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I thank the member for the question, Mr. Speaker, and he does not have to do so with regret. I'm always pleased to have a question from that member.

I want to respond to the question attributable to me. The quotation is correct, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps a little expansive in terms of the actual meaning of the word "bonkers." It was a slang expression; it was a very broad statement about a very tiny group of people. I'm very proud of the people in my Ministry of Human Resources and I have said so on many an occasion. They've had a very difficult two years to go through, two years where the international recession has hit the province and their particular communities and offices very, very hard. In the past year and a half in this House we have even been told that there would be huge line-ups outside of the Ministry of Human Resources. This has not come to pass. They've handled their jobs in an exemplary manner. But what really has disturbed me over the past few weeks and I would like the member to understand this....

The statements attributable to MHR employees, only a few of them attributable to those that have been made by them, have not been fair to the many good people who work in the Ministry of Human Resources, because it blankets all of them with being unable to address their responsibilities on behalf of the taxpayer who pays the bill for those employees. There are a handful of employees, unlike in most of the other ministries which have laid off staff, who have been very vocal in their statements against their employer and the taxpayers of the province. They are casting an image of being out of control of their own destiny. Considering that these are people who have to serve the people of the province who are in grave trouble — those who have been out of work, lost their jobs and their businesses — I suggest that that puts a very bad point of view on all of the ministry which is unfair and unwarranted for a ministry that has handled the recession in an exceptional way.

MR. LAUK: The words that the minister used to describe her employees in the ministry — and I take it, seeing her last answer, in response to those employees, some of whom have protested the firings and the cutbacks in services to children and people.... The words that the minister used are "emotionally unstable" and "bonkers." Those are slanderous terms. Is the minister prepared to name people or identify people who are so emotionally unstable they cannot work in the ministry properly?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to the question is no. I would not take legal advice from the member who has just posed the question.

MR. LAUK: Any right-thinking and reasonable person would describe that vicious attack on those employees as a slander and everyone in this House knows it. I ask the minister one more time: is she prepared to name people or retract those outrageous allegations against those employees?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to retract her allegations that her employees are emotionally unstable?

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I never made the statement that my employees are unstable, nor did I attribute my remarks to all of my ministry staff. I will not apologize to that member for any statements I have made. I am very proud of the ministry staff, and I have said that on many an occasion. I have seen, in this past few months, where we have had to cancel some programs, where we have given an opportunity for deployment within the ministry.

[ Page 1360 ]

Those ministry staff people who have understood the programs and have understood the reason for layoffs have acted in a reasonable manner, like those members of the IWA and those employees of department stores who have been given their cancellation notices with two weeks' notice. The members of our ministry have been given four and a half months' notice, Mr. Speaker, which is about four months longer than most. In that four and a half months' notice, they are given the opportunity for deployment to other vacancies in my ministry.

I suggest that the ministry's dealing with those people who have had to have notices of termination has been very well done. I reiterate that the very few who have made it difficult for the many have frankly been very much out of order, I feel. There have been public statements that have been made, and in the same vein that they have been made in generalities, I will make the same general statement.

MR. LAUK: The minister now chooses to answer the political criticism of the legislation politically. That's fine. The minister has been reported — and has as yet not denied this — as describing these people as emotionally unstable. In other words, anyone with a political criticism in the civil service is described as emotionally unstable. That's Soviet-style politics, if I've ever heard anything of the kind. Any hon. minister would retract those statements in this House today. It's a dishonourable thing to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

UNEMPLOYMENT ACTION CENTRES GRANT

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Labour. Whereas it would appear that one can reach the inescapable conclusion that $600,000 of federal government money initially targeted for the B.C. Federation of Labour for the most honourable unemployment counselling service has seen fit to be tunnelled to Operation Solidarity, and whereas it has also become blatantly clear that some of those funds have found their way into political purposes, it would appear to me that such action is tantamount to an unfair labour practice. I wonder if the Minister of Labour has seen fit to refer that matter to the Labour Relations Board for an adjudication.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that's an interesting thought. It is one which I hadn't given any consideration to up to this point, but I certainly will, having been asked by that member. I'd be very happy, Mr. Speaker, to write to the chairman of the Labour Relations Board and ask him whether or not, in his opinion, this matter comes within his jurisdiction. In addition, having just thought about this matter for a moment, I would also undertake to that member to, in my position as the minister responsible for employment as well, write to the federal minister responsible for employment and ask him to give us assurances that none of that money will be going for political purposes, but rather for helping the unemployed, or that it will be withdrawn. Otherwise it remains nothing but a cruel hoax for those people who have no jobs.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary to the Minister of Labour. Were some of the unemployment centres set up prior to the May 5 election?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would suggest that the member address that to the federal minister responsible.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary. In view of the fact that the minister has stated that these have been set up on a political basis, because we have not realized — or those connected with them — that we lost the election, it is quite obvious that he was aware that they were set up before. Is that correct?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm aware that they were set up before. I have not said that they were set up on a political basis. What I said is that the $600,000 which is now being funded is for political purposes. Having watched on television people preparing material for Solidarity in the offices which are being funded with the $600,000, I can only conclude that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a pretty good chance that it's a duck.

McKIM ADVERTISING

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to follow the expert on that subject.

I want to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary. Whereas Mr. James Anderson, president of McKim Advertising, announced yesterday, we find in the Globe and Mail, that McKim has been appointed as agency of record for the provincial government despite continuing investigation, will the minister advise us why this announcement came from the company and not from the minister, who has been asked for this information for over a month?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can't be responsible for McKim Advertising's press announcements.

MR. COCKE: You hired them. Mr. Speaker, he hired them over a month ago — and he can't be responsible for them.

Will the minister explain why an agency involved in laundering accounts and maintaining secret slush funds with taxpayers' dollars has been offered this plum contract worth $17 million?

MR. SPEAKER: The question as stated is out of order, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the president of McKim Advertising said yesterday: "We are accountable to our client in everything we do. Everything we have done has been authorized by the client." I'm pointing at the client.

Has the minister determined which of his colleagues in government authorized the laundering of accounts and unauthorized spending of public funds?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's a fairly serious accusation that the member for New Westminster is making. It's one which I think he shouldn't be making as lightly as he is. It's one that hasn't been substantiated. I'm ashamed, for this House, of that member making such outrageous and irresponsible statements in this House.

MR. COCKE: In that case I will direct the question to the Attorney-General, who probably understands this a little bit

[ Page 1361 ]

better. In view of the shocking revelation by the president of McKim Advertising that everything was authorized....

Don't forget that whether this is illegal, immoral or unethical is not the question; the question is that it was very much a deviation from the normal course of government. Has the Attorney-General decided to extend the police investigation into the executive council of government?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't direct police investigations and tell them where they should go or where they should look. Neither would I expect that the member opposite, when a police investigation is going on, would assume for himself the role of prosecutor, judge and jury until that investigation is complete.

MR. HOWARD: I rise pursuant to provisions of standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance: namely, the revelation that B.C. Timber has been buying carload lots of lumber in the cash or spot market that is produced by other than B.C. Timber employees. It has also been buying carload lots of lumber in the futures market, thus committing itself to purchase in the future lumber produced by other than B.C. Timber employees.

Further, by not fully utilizing the licences given it under the Forest Act of B.C., B.C. Timber is thereby refusing to employ B.C. workers to log and manufacture forest products, while at the same time keeping control, with the acquiescence of the Minister of Forests, of our forest land in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, as has been done in the past, I will take the matter under advisement and report back to the House with a response, without prejudice, to the member's submission.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 31.

REGULATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 31; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in second reading on this bill I pointed out to the Attorney-General that section 6, I thought, ought to be amended, and in that regard have prepared an amendment which I'm going to submit to the House. But first of all, maybe I should repeat some of the comments I made at that time. It has to do with exemptions, because what this section does is give the registrar extraordinary powers in terms of deciding what should be exempted from publication in the Gazette.

The minister, in introducing this legislation, told us that the legislation was simply implementing recommendations brought in by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. But this is not one of the recommendations. It actually goes further than the recommendation, because the recommendation said that any decisions of this nature should be the responsibility of the elected member the legislator, and not of the registrar. However, we see in section 6 — and I gather that the Attorney-General is looking for his copy of the bill.... Part of section 6, where the registrar is given the powers which the Uniform Law Conference of Canada recommended should rest with the minister responsible, with the legislator.... Could you explain why the decision was made to pass that power on to the registrar, counter to the recommendation?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I really think I dealt with this yesterday in closing second reading. You raised the identical point there. It just doesn't, to my mind, make sensible administrative or legislative sense to have a minister or an elected official charged with the decision as to whether every piece of impedimenta that might accompany something that meets the keyword test of a regulation should be filed with this official or not. There are a whole host of documents that might be part of a regulation which might well be available at some other public place. It might consist of some kind of a city map or some kind of a city directory. But if you're going to have to file all these with a registrar, surely the person to make that kind of decision is a person who inspects the proposed regulation and who also has the authority to keep that regulation, and who can then decide whether, in the interests of accommodating the public, reasonable storage and so on, this included piece of impedimenta should in fact be filed as part of the document with the registrar or be permitted to be incorporated and referred to as being somewhere else. You and I don't agree on this and, I guess, the uniformity committee thought that the decision should be left in the hands of the responsible minister. But the registrar seemed to us to be a person better able to make that kind of decision.

[2:30]

MS. BROWN: Well. It's not simply a matter of the Attorney-General disagreeing with my position, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General is also disagreeing with the position of the committee which was struck by the Uniform Law Conference, a committee which had three representatives from British Columbia sitting on it, as I mentioned yesterday: Allan Roger, Herb Thornton and George Macauley. It's not just a matter of simple impedimenta — or whatever the word is that the Attorney-General used. There are some pretty serious kinds of issues involved in this exemption section, such as making a decision as to whether or not something should be published because it is unduly expensive. That is not the responsibility of the registrar. That should be the responsibility of the minister responsible. Now the committee met, in its infinite wisdom, and surely the Attorney-General is not saying that his one head is better than their six or seven or eight or nine heads, as the case may be. Their recommendation was very clear. They took into account all of the statements mentioned by the Attorney-General and they disagreed. I wouldn't like the impression to be left with the

[ Page 1362 ]

House that this is simply a disagreement between the Attorney-General and me. They were very clear in their recommendation that decisions on the filing of regulations were decisions that should be left with the regulator, not the registrar. They deliberately used those words: "not the registrar." The Attorney-General has not given us a clear reason as to why he is going counter to the recommendations of the committee of the Uniform Law Conference.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'm introducing an amendment, which says, for section 6(l): "....by deleting the word, 'registrar' and substituting the word 'minister.'" What that amendment is going to do is place the responsibility for making these decisions with the person the Law Conference, after deliberations — and, I must say. the deliberations started in 1980 and went right through until 1981, so it was not an overnight decision.... They had some time to think about it. The decision of the Attorney-General to slough off this responsibility onto the registrar is just not good enough.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. SMITH: I would have thought that if the member had put such an amendment on the order paper some time ago while this bill languished, and if she had addressed the amendment earlier.... One of the difficulties in doing it ad hoc now is that not only do you not give very much notice of it but it's not even in an acceptable form because you're going to have to make your amendment to subsections (1) and (3) to be consistent. I'm not trying to be pedantic; I'm just helping out. It would give you time to give you maybe the kind of response that you want.

I've had to deal with it from the basis of my own experience with this documentation and also with my own experience in the kinds of things that come across the desks of ministers. I appreciate that a uniformity committee looked at this and that we had representatives on there. I don't know how they broke down on the issue. With due respect, I'm not convinced at this stage, hon. member — I guess I could be convinced, but I'm not convinced right now — that this is an appropriate power that should be or has to be exercised by a minister.

The statutes of this province are full of things that are delegated to ministers and to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that maybe should be in other hands. You create enormous logjams on the desks of ministers, when you have someone in the field who is readily familiar with these documents and can protect the public interest and make these decisions, which are really decisions on the basis of convenience, where a document, a plan or a photo is going to be located. They're not decisions to exclude them from part of the regulation. They're excluding them from publication in a formal way but not from publication as to where they're available for perusal.

So your amendment doesn't convince me. I just invite you next time, if you have an amendment like that, which seems to be well-intentioned and serious, just to put it on the order paper a little earlier or bring it to my attention a little earlier.

MS. BROWN: Surely the Attorney-General is not serious. The Attorney-General is blaming me as the critic for the fact that he has introduced a piece of legislation which is flawed. Surely he is not serious.

Let me bring to the Attorney-General's attention page 177 of the report of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. In case you can't remember, Mr. Chairman, in introducing this bill the Attorney-General went to great lengths to tell us that the bill was simply to implement recommendations brought down by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. This document was introduced in August 1981; we are now in September 1983. So the Attorney-General had ample time to look at those recommendations.

To quote from page 177 dealing with registrations and exemption from registration:

"The committee also recommends a discussion by the conference of that power" — talking about exemptions — "having regard to possible abuses of the power. It may be preferable only to permit the exercise of the exempting power in specific cases such as those involving the adoption of codes without more, or the designations of areas etc. on complicated or unwieldly maps that constitute or form part of a regulation. However, the decision not to require registration of a regulation should not be a decision to be made in any case by the registrar."

The committee was absolutely clear and firm on that point.

What the Attorney-General has done is to go further. The recommendation about exemption from registration concentrated on unwieldly maps. The registrar has gone further and included "unduly expensive." That's an additional power not in the recommendation which the minister has taken on and deliberately countermanded the recommendation of the committee, which is very clear: that the decision should not be made by the registrar.

Surely the Attorney-General is not saying that he would have been willing to consider this if I had made the suggestion to him earlier. He's had the report of this conference since August 1981; this is September 1983. He has had two years, and now he is telling the Legislature that he hasn't considered it because I did not put this amendment on the order paper a couple of days ago. Surely the Attorney-General jests. He could not be serious that he is giving this unwarranted power to the registrar despite the recommendations of the conference, which said it is open to abuse. Even when the minister has it, it is open to abuse, but he is giving this power to the registrar, expanding the power to include decisions about a matter being unduly expensive, simply because I did not put an amendment on the order paper two days ago. Now that's giving me more power than I even dreamt I had.

If the minister is willing to accept my recommendation, why doesn't he just hoist this section and take some time to read the report which he has had on his desk since August 1981? Speak to the three B.C. representatives on that committee. This is definitely opening to abuse, Mr. Chairman, all manner of issues, to allow the registrar to decide that something should not be published in the Gazette because it is too expensive. Too expensive for whom?

Mr. Speaker, I have amended my amendment to include both section 1 and section 3, and I would like to table the second one now.

MR. SPEAKER: We can only deal with one amendment at a time, hon. member. Shall the first amendment to section 6(l) pass?

[ Page 1363 ]

[2:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 24

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 6.

MS. BROWN: I think, Mr. Chairman, I've already filed my second amendment with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: It's for section 6(3), which, in effect, does exactly the same thing that section 6(l) does. I just think I should bring to the attention of the Attorney-General that under the present Regulation Act the amendment which I introduced is really already in effect — chapter 361, section 3(3): "....in the opinion of the minister...." These powers to exempt exist. I am really not clear as to why the minister is delegating this power to the registrar — a non-elected person — not just the powers he had but the additional power of making a decision about costs. In the old Regulation Act not even the minister had the power to make a decision about cost. Now he's adding that to the responsibilities and delegating it to a non-elected person. This is open to abuse. There is absolutely no way that this House can question that person as to the decisions she makes as registrar. That's the reason I am moving this amendment. I have a more neatly typed section here which I can file with the House.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll just speak briefly to the neatly typed second amendment. The safeguards are really there. I think the member envisages abuses under the carpet. The registrar, in making that exemption under subsection (3), has, of course, to publish in the Gazette the place where the exempted part of the regulation can be inspected. So if it is a plan or a photo or a display or a model or something else, there has to be a place where it can be inspected, and there has to be inspection. I don't see where the abuses that this member envisages can possibly creep in. If a registrar decides that it is going to be a huge expense to include that in the place where the document is filed as an exhibit, surely that's a decision that should be made based on the space limitations that this official has and what is reasonable, and it should not always be coming in an individual case to the desk of a minister. Subsection (3) does provide a safeguard for that. I think we've truly improved the act over what was recommended by the commission.

MS. BROWN: I just want to clarify, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General keeps saying that I'm being paranoid, to paraphrase his words. This is the recommendation of the committee. It's not my idea. It's not an original thought on my part. I'm simply saying that there was a national committee which was given the responsibility to study this question, and their recommendation was that it was a responsibility which should rest with the minister — probably based on the assumption that the minister could be questioned by members of this House as to why a decision was made not to file a regulation, whereas with a non-elected person there is no opening, there is no opportunity for that person to be questioned. I just want to clarify that that's not my idea. The committee was totally opposed to this power being vested in the registrar, so much so that they did not omit to mention it but made deliberate mention of it here on page 177 of their report, where they said that the decision should not be made in any case by the registrar. That was the report of the committee; it's not my original idea.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm not going to continue this response back and forth. I don't think I can add any more to the member, except that while we take into account the recommendations of committee, we don't always follow them slavishly and totally. The major thrust of the uniformity commission was that we would have a new approach to regulations, based on a key word instead of a legislative intent test, and that was carried out. But I certainly concede that we didn't do every precise thing that that committee recommended to us, nor would we always.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker. I don't want to carry on this discussion either. I'm just asking for an explanation: why has the minister decided to delegate this authority to a non-elected person who cannot be questioned on the floor of this House by the elected members as to whether or not a decision made not to publish a regulation was in the best interest of the general public? Why was that decision made?

HON. MR. SMITH: That official, the registrar, is someone whom I designate, who reports to me and who is responsible to me, and I'm responsible to this Legislature and to the public. If there's going to be a question, what on earth is the question going to be? "Tell me, Mr. Registrar, why you didn't file the Bronx telephone directory as part of the exhibit to this regulation." Why do you want to ask that question? The point is: can you go and find that directory? Can you go and readily inspect it?

MS. BROWN: Well, of course that is not the question. The question is: why was a decision made not to file a regulation — because it was considered to be too expensive, or for what other reason? If that's a responsibility that the minister can handle, why has the minister decided to delegate it?

Amendment negatived.

[ Page 1364 ]

Sections 6 to 24 inclusive approved.

On section 25.

MS. BROWN: This is one section where the decision has been made to eliminate proclamation, which is the final opportunity that the Lieutenant-Governor has to act on behalf of the people, and instead to allow the final decision to be made by the cabinet.

I spoke at great length yesterday about the dangers inherent in such a practice. In responding, the Attorney-General decided that the best way to deal with that was to use ridicule. He proceeded to ridicule the Lieutenant-Governor and the role of the Lieutenant-Governor in our parliamentary process. I certainly did not indicate for one minute that each person in British Columbia should go, cap in hand, to the gates of Government House and appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor. However, if things became bad enough that that were necessary, then there is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't, but I certainly hope that I would not live long enough to see that day come to pass. As I mentioned yesterday, it's a part of our tradition going back to 1867. Although it has not been exercised since 1907....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, '71.

MS. BROWN: Nineteen seventy-one? Maybe Saywell is incorrect; he's the person whose year I'm quoting. Even he made a mistake. Certainly I know that during the time of this government in office, there have been occasions when we in the opposition have had to appeal to the Lieutenant-Governor and ask that he intervene on behalf of the best interests of the people of British Columbia. However, I suggested that maybe this section should just be deleted, and I notice that the Attorney-General has not made any effort to do that. There is very little more that I can do or say about this, except to say that I think it's a dangerous precedent, that it cuts off the final avenue of appeal for the people of British Columbia and that it brings us one step nearer to being a republic.

[3:00]

HON. MR. SMITH: I am comforted to learn that the member does not propose to go and visit those Rockland gates on proclamations and orders-in-council. It was to try and preserve and maintain the dignity of that office that I made those remarks. The dignity, powers and prerogatives of that office don't go to refusing to sign proclamations and orders-in-council, and the authorities that the member is concerned about and refers to in Saywell have to do with the assenting or reservation of bills. All the precedents that are contained therein relate to that, where there still is a residual prerogative. I think if she reads that book carefully she'll find that it has nothing to do with the ministerial act of signing pieces of parchment. The poor old honourable proclamation and its disappearance will save space in the Gazette, time and money, and will be a blow, I'm sure, to the pulp and paper industry. It will be much lamented from the standpoint of tradition, but it is not going to impinge upon the real constitutional authority of His Honour.

MR. HOWARD: There is a chance here to save a lot of taxpayers' money. All you've got to do is maintain the office and get rid of the person in it. I don't know how much money we spend in keeping the old boy up in Government House there, and now he's not going to be doing anything except putting on dances, parties, garden parties and that sort of thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, all those remarks are quite unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because one does not make any reference to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor that is in fact an improper reference, which the Chair feels the hon. member is making.

MR. HOWARD: Well, if the Chair feels that those are improper references, then I wouldn't say that the Chair is in error, but I'm saying that I did not phrase it so the Chair would fully understand. I was saying that what the minister is advocating here is that if the office is the important thing, then we don't need the person in the office, and we could save the taxpayers an awful lot of money by getting rid of the person.

HON. MR. SMITH: I think we should be very clear on this. I am going to raise a point of order under standing order 40(l). "No member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty...nor of the Lieutenant-Governor...." I would ask the member to withdraw those parts of his remarks that referred to the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order under standing order 40(l) is well taken. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, it said: "No member shall speak disrespectfully of her Majesty...." I did not do that. The second part says: "...nor of any of the royal family...." I did not do that. "...nor of the Governor-General or person administrating the government of Canada...." I did not do that. "...nor of the Lieutenant-Governor or person administrating the government of this province.." I did not do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise the hon. member for Skeena and the hon. members of this Legislative Assembly that another member has brought it to the Chair's attention, and the Chair does agree that in fact there was an imputation that was unparliamentary and not in keeping with standing order 40(l) as written. I will ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw the remarks.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, if the Chair had paid attention to my earlier remarks in detail, he would have found out that I did exactly that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. HOWARD: I did exactly that. It was only upon the raising of the question by the Attorney-General — improperly, I submit — attributing to me something that I did not say, that I felt occasion to rise the second time and deny that I'd made any disrespectful remarks about any those four categories of people.

[ Page 1365 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. On section 25, the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. HOWARD: The Attorney-General is trying to make a fool....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena is stretching it some. I think the matter has been satisfied. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has been recognized.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam.

MR. PARKS: Perhaps it was because of the far end of the room, but I did not hear the hon. member withdraw those remarks.

MS. BROWN: So you're deaf!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Chair....

MR. PARKS: Actually I suggested that I was at the far end of the room and that I may not have heard those remarks if they were withdrawn. I have just asked the Chairman whether or not he heard the hon. member withdraw those remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Skeena, in speaking to the request from the Chair, indicated that he meant no disrespect. The Chair heard that clearly, and that satisfies the matter and satisfies standing order 40(l).

The Chair now recognizes the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds on the subject of section 25.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this is what happens when this House is victimized by the droll humour of the Attorney-General. It's never funny either.

However, he says that that proclamation is simply a matter of putting a signature on parchment and means absolutely nothing. The Lieutenant-Governor always has the right to refuse to sign a document, and I was not mistaking assent for proclamation. I know the difference between proclamation and assent. The Lieutenant-Governor can refuse to sign a proclamation document, so it's not just a document that means absolutely nothing and will mean great savings for the pulp and paper industry, etc., etc., as the Attorney-General said, trying to be funny. It's more serious than that. A step is being removed. The final step is being removed, and all the humorous attempts on the part of the Attorney-General will not alter that simple fact. He's not going to use humour to slough it off, or to try to build a smokescreen in front of what he is doing. This is one more step in terms of concentrating power in the hands of the cabinet, and one more step in the direction of republicanism. That's what's happening here, and none of the funny comments and unhumorous remarks of the Attorney-General can alter that fact.

HON. MR. SMITH: Such a fundamental constitutional misconception flows from the words of that member that you cannot just let it go. She does not understand that His Honour, when deciding whether to sign a proclamation or an order-in-council, acts on advice. He is not an independent monarch; he does not have all the powers of Sir Francis Bond and others that are laid out in Saywell and other authorities. She's misread those authorities. For her to suggest that he is an independent monarch when it comes to signing and carrying out a ministerial act, which he does on advice, to suggest that he does that without advice, and can do that without advice, is to relegate us again to the status of pre-Confederation 1871. She doesn't understand that, and I'm sorry that she doesn't, because it's so fundamental to the present growth of responsible monarchic government. She has to go back, I'm sorry to say, and re-read Saywell and try to understand it, and not believe or encourage the notion to be abroad in the land that the Lieutenant-Governor has that kind of discretion in those cases to act not on advice but alone.

Also, her basic argument has to fall, because if the Lieutenant-Governor did have a discretion not to sign a proclamation, and if a proclamation was somehow a safeguard, by her argument he has exactly the same discretion as to whether or not to sign the order-in-council that brings the regulation into place. It's one less document but the same safeguard.

MS. BROWN: I think the Attorney-General is of the opinion that I'm one of the students in his law class.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be.

MS. BROWN: No, not "should be" at all. He can be as patronizing as he wants about this. I am quite capable of reading, and I know that the Lieutenant-Governor works in consultation with cabinet; but I also know that the Lieutenant-Governor can refuse to sign if that is the Lieutenant-Governor's wish. If he wants to go from humour to being patronizing, that's fine with me, but it's not going to change the fact that a tradition is being eroded and taken away. That is what's happening here.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

Schedules 1 to 6 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[3:15]

Bill 31, Regulations Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 1366 ]

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 17

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 20.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 20, together with really Bill 19, will have the same comments. It's nice to see that the hon. member from Vancouver Centre has returned and is ready and in good form for heckling today. The member.... Not too hard to start with....

Interjections.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister has been recognized, I presume?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I was just waiting for things to settle down, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation which has been introduced was done so for the express purpose of dissolving the three post-secondary councils, which were created in 1978. As all members know, one of the functions of the councils was to allocate provincial government funds to both colleges and institutes in British Columbia.

As well as allocating funds, the councils — and the three, of course, are the Occupational Training Council, the Academic Council and the Management Advisory Council — did have some concerns with curriculum, course content and the coordination of those courses, particularly in areas of British Columbia where there are a number of colleges.

I think members would recall the thrust of the throne speech, where two particular goals were set out. One of these was the elimination of boards, agencies and commissions where practical, and in this case we're referring to the three councils, which, in fact, represented three boards. Probably one of the most important items was the elimination of duplication of government activities, of which there seems to be a great deal. It's estimated that with the elimination of the goals the savings over a period of three years will be something in the order of $2 million. The budgets for this year were something in the order of between $600,000 and $700,000, and over three years $2 million is probably a realistic estimate.

Probably, Mr. Speaker, there will be even a greater saving, although indirect, in that it will result in the elimination of duplication of work and the considerable amount of emphasis which colleges, their boards and administrations placed upon presentations to the councils. I will make some comments later on about the endless number of presentations which were made and the frustration which really was occasioned to each of the boards and their administration.

The councils were set up at a time when colleges in British Columbia were in their formative years, and I think there was a great deal of validity at the time. The obvious reason for setting them up was to ensure that post-secondary education paths were clearly charted, and for the most part they were.

It is the view of the government that at this time the work of the councils has been essentially completed. I think we also have another duty: that is, the utilization of those funds which are available and to ensure that they are directed into the college and, more particularly, into the classrooms. I note that the comment, at least in the press, on Bills 19 and 20 — Bill 20 being the one before the House at this time — has been negligible. Yes, there has been some comment, but I would think really a lack of commentary by principals, boards, even members of the councils, and to some degree — although I will put a caveat on this comment — school boards. There seems to be considerable support for the bill. I think it would be appropriate, proper and in order, Mr. Speaker, that we should go on record, and justifiably so, acknowledging the significant work that was done by those people who were appointed to the councils, and their administrators. They have served those councils, the boards, the colleges and the institutes well. Their work has gone over a period of five years and has provided a great deal of guidance to post-secondary education that will help equip graduates from time to time.

During the formative years of colleges, and when you take into consideration their geographical location within the province, you will find that school districts were very helpful. Often the facilities which were used by colleges during this period were owned and operated by school districts. In addition to providing facilities, school districts also assisted in raising capital requirements and were used as an agency for capital requirements which now no longer exist. So some years ago we not only found facilities owned by school districts being used, but we also found a vehicle of the school district, its administration, used for the purposes of generating funds. It was used also as a taxing agency for a portion only of the operating accounts required. In addition, they received administrative assistance from school districts. I think all of that must be acknowledged.

In 1983 we find that 100 percent of all college funding is provided by the provincial government. All members are aware of that, I think. I think we can also look at the fact that most college campuses now, are reasonably well supplied with their own permanent buildings. Our own experience in our own ridings would bring that point home. I am not saying they have totally adequate facilities, and of course we know that it is a function of dollars. But they do, as I said earlier, receive their operating funds directly from the province. So

[ Page 1367 ]

we've seen a change in the relationship between colleges and school boards. Colleges have become entities in their own right, and I think they should have the opportunity to function as such. One of the thrusts of the government is to ensure a considerable degree of autonomy for colleges. There are considerable administrative burdens to be borne by them, and I think freedom and flexibility in their operations should be encouraged.

The issue of school board appointees on college boards, I will tell the members of the House, is the only item which has been raised with me, and I have in fact received some correspondence from certain districts on this issue. I have also had correspondence from some trustees. I would also raise this matter in full disclosure with members of the House: that it was an issue raised with me by the B.C. School Trustees' Association. I can tell you it was also raised directly with me as the MLA for Prince George North, covering School District 57.

Interestingly enough, in my last meeting with the school board in my riding, one of the members, a school board trustee who had spent many years on the board of the College of New Caledonia, made a point. He said, you know, when we had some problems with one of the communities which the College of New Caledonia serves, instead of looking for a school board appointee, what we did was strike up a liaison committee. It resolved the problem.

It is our view that most of the rationale for having a school board trustee or an appointee by the school district on the board of the college is not really there any longer. I raise these points again. College funding is now made totally by provincial government. Facilities are pretty well all confined to the campus of each of the colleges, and schools or school districts are no longer used as a vehicle for raising either capital or operating expenses. In many cases, elected trustees have been appointed, as I've mentioned, and also school boards have made the appointee where someone did not wish to serve. If I may just digress for a moment, it seems to me that the task of trustees of school districts right now is significant. There's a very onerous responsibility placed upon them. It was interesting to note the letter published in the Vancouver Sun — I believe it was last week — by a Vancouver school trustee, Graeme Waymark. It was very clear that that trustee understood the task at hand.

[3:30]

One of the concerns with respect to the position and the policy of the government as set forth in the bill is that there are trustees or school board appointees serving on college boards who do have a wealth of experience. As a result of this bill some members in some areas of British Columbia do feel that they will be pre-empted from having the benefit of that knowledge and experience being available to the college board. One of the functions of a college — and I suppose this comes to surface and has significant importance in the interior and the northern part of British Columbia and probably the northern two-thirds of Vancouver Island — is that these people who in fact have spent this time should really have the benefit of still continuing to serve. I think with the liaison between colleges — and remember it is the function of the boards of those colleges to liaise with all of the communities surrounding the college location — that that line of communication is still open and the falling back that you have to be an elected trustee or school board appointee I don't really think is persuasive.

When government makes appointments to the boards, we must take into consideration the service which has been rendered by those who were appointees.

We will take into consideration their experience and the work that they have done.

MR. LAUK: Filibuster.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't think so. This is not that at all.

I might point out to you that if you look at the Pacific Vocational Institute in Vancouver and Burnaby, they've established six agreements with, obviously, six school boards in the province, and a seventh agreement with the city of Vancouver is now in progress. I understand it's going to be executed very soon. The agreements that Pacific Vocational Institute has are on the following districts: Langley, Surrey, Delta, Burnaby, Maple Ridge and Nanaimo. It's interesting to note that the agreements contain two key provisions: firstly, provide credit for high-school graduates applying for advanced programs offered by PVI; secondly, to provide preferential placement for high-school graduates of the school districts that have signed the agreement with the institute. Students from each of the school districts receive credit for training which has been covered in high-school programs by starting at advanced levels. Those students will also be given preferential placement in PVI programs to curtail any waiting period between high-school graduation and entry.

Another item is that there are two other jurisdictions in Canada which have college systems roughly equivalent to ours in British Columbia; they are Alberta and Ontario. The reason that I raise this, Mr. Speaker, is that their college boards do not have school board appointees sitting on them. In fairness, I must point out that neither Alberta nor Ontario have any history of the direct involvement by school boards which was present in British Columbia during the formative stages of college and institute development. In the United States a number of jurisdictions have systems comparable to ours, and the governing boards are entirely appointed by the state.

I have mentioned that our objective is to place on the board of each college appointees who are resident in the community and who will be very much aware of the demands placed upon the college by the citizens residing in the geographical area served. When I make reference to the citizens in the geographical area service, I mean the needs of those people. We know the divergence of demands made on different parts of British Columbia.

MR. MACDONALD: Do all your speeches affect your colleagues that way?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm really not too concerned about that, Mr. Member. After listening to the other side for two and a half months. I want you to know that that is the most I've seen on the opposition benches for some time. I want you to know that my colleagues are well aware of what is in the paper, and they don't need to worry about that. But I'm glad that you people are here and you are understanding what's there. I thought that you wanted to be informed, and you were coming in. I'm delighted to have your presence.

Interjection.

[ Page 1368 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, we can rattle a few sabres if you wish, Mr. Member for Vancouver East. I thought perhaps you were interested in some of the reasons that we are providing for you, instead of the filibustering that I've been listening to. This is what happens when you raise a few legitimate points. Now you're not happy with that either. What do you want to play?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, you've got a great sense of humour, and I'm glad you've honoured us with his presence today. I know he seems somewhat lonesome without his seatmate for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I'll never forget the last time I was standing. The two of them were together and it was very difficult. It was a lot of fun, mind you, and I hope you had fun too.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I have a number of briefs, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of councils, including three submissions on legislation and four comments, which I received in some detailed correspondence, on the five-year sunset clause, which would encourage the direction in which the government is moving. The College-Institute Educators' brief is dated May 4, 1982, and I'll quote it. I think it's kind of neat. It says: "Eliminating the councils is the option which has by far the most appeal. It would significantly reduce the level of duplicate and triplicate reporting. It would, we feel, be a major move to restoring clarity to a system that is almost uniformly discerned as burdensome and confusing."

MR. LAUK: Do you want to take it as read?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Pretty close.

Then, of course, if you want, the Council of Principals have made a statement. The B.C. Association of Colleges have made a statement. The Management Advisory Council even recommended its own demise. The last item involves the conflict, which I'm not sure is too great an item, but I don't think it should go unnoticed.

MR. LAUK: Try it on.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll try it on.

A number of school trustees are college employees. It could conceivably happen that that college employee who is elected as a trustee could then find his way back on the board. He can't find his way back on the board, because he is precluded from doing so. But it seems to me that if you are a college employee and the board has some influence through its appointee or trustee on the board.... I just wonder. I think we should remove any possibility of that happening.

MR. NICOLSON: It could happen now under section 4.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's not going to happen.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the five-year sunset clause asks for review. We conducted the review and listened to all those involved. The legislation contains an answer to their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lighten things up.

MR. ROSE: No, I don't intend to lighten things up. I thought for a minute, though, the way the minister was going on, that he intended to talk out his own bill this afternoon. It sounded like he was designated speaker.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It was twelve and a half minutes.

MR. PASSARELL: That proves Einstein's theory of relativity — it seemed like three hours.

MR. ROSE: It seemed a lot longer to some of the listeners. I liked the part where the provocation came in the banter from across the floor. I think that was fairly interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on this bill to take "community" out of the community colleges act, because that's exactly what this does. It seems to me that the whole tradition of the community college movement in British Columbia, going back to the time when it was really a concept articulated and pushed by a former colleague of mine, Dr. Leonard Marsh.... The whole idea behind this was to provide an institution between post-secondary level....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You haven't heard of Leonard Marsh?

AN HON. MEMBER: Wasn't he the sociology professor at UBC?

MR. ROSE: He was once, and he did all the early work on community colleges. He was also a founding member of the League for Social Reconstruction in the thirties and was interested in the Spanish war as well. If you'd like a little bit more history, he was excellent on the cello, but I'm quite sure that you wouldn't want to go....

MR. LAUK: He gave Jack a D in sociology.

MR. ROSE: Well, no, I don't think that the minister had anything to do with Leonard Marsh, because he was an entirely different man in terms of philosophy. He really believed in shared decision-making, in spreading out and having an institute grow that would perhaps be part academic and part vocational in the local area, to serve the local community in its diverse interests and needs and to be managed and run, in terms of its policy, by members of the community. That's why it was not called a junior college in British Columbia, but a community college.

I think that what we've done is abandoned that. It's not just me or some sort of pinko leftie that feels this way; I refer you to a monograph by one Frank Beinder, who has had a distinguished record in this province. In his monograph published in February 1982, he has this to say about.... Oh, he has lots of things to say, but I would like to quote from the conclusion of his monograph: "What we need for our times are institutions providing access to widely diverse opportunities. Great though undefined displacements resulting

[ Page 1369 ]

from economic and technological change are seen to be inevitable. Our future will demand great flexibility of response if we are to develop the necessary ability to recognize human potential in a variety of appropriate ways."

Let me expand on that just briefly. What we hear from this government is toying with the language of high-tech. We hear the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) shouting from rooftops and beating his breast about the possibilities of B.C. being the centre of some high-tech future, without ever examining the social implications of high-tech: whether or not it's necessarily appropriate for British Columbia; whether high-tech is going to bring us a future of affluence and less arduous labour or whether it's going to create a society which is dichotomized — a society that will have a few highly skilled and highly paid workers at the top and a lot of displaced drones working in cottage industries somewhere at the bottom, with the ultimate complete elimination of the middle class.

It seems that if you're going to face a future of uncertainty — and certainly the kind of future I suggested in the dichotomy of a future society is not inevitable — you are going to have to have people who are flexible enough to adapt to whatever future may come along. You can't do that unless people have an opportunity to have the most modern, contemporary education possible. That isn't always possible unless people are guaranteed access. So Mr. Beinder says what we need for our time are institutions providing access to widely diverse opportunities. He goes on to say:

"Twenty years ago British Columbians developed a new educational concept. It was humane and yet pragmatic. It was oriented to the future. It was good. Twenty years later it needs, perhaps, to be updated but not destroyed."

This part of the quote is particularly gripping:

"It is ironic to observe that it is not the institutions but senior government which seems to be losing touch with staggering social implications of change."

Faced with the staggering social implications of change, the response of this government has been to shout restraint, to put more people out of work and onto welfare, and at the same time centralize power more and more into its own hands.

[3:45]

That's our basic objection to the changes that have been proposed in this legislation. When it comes right down to it, we object that community access to representatives by community groups such as school boards is going to be denied. Even if it is an indirect kind of democracy — people are elected to school boards and then accepted on the junior or community college boards — at least they're not outright appointees who can be reliable in terms of their political outlook. That's what we're concerned about. What we're concerned about as far as the college boards and the changes.... Not the change from nine members to five; that change doesn't trouble us greatly. Neither does it trouble us greatly that the various councils and their duplicative efforts have been changed and abolished. That doesn't bother us, because I think that the minister is right on there. You can have and have had a lot of difficulty in trying to sort out who is really in charge and from which council colleges should take direction. I don't think we have a substantial argument about that one.

But we have a substantial argument, Mr. Speaker, and an argument that we feel very strongly about when it comes to the complete removal of locally elected members from the boards of community colleges. The minister says he hasn't had much static, although he admitted to some on that score. Well, I've been getting letters. I've got a letter from Alberni here that I could quote on that subject — if I could find it — in which the correspondents objected strongly to the fact that they would no longer have their own members represented on that board. The minister receiving the letter, of course, wasn't the appropriate minister. The appropriate minister is the Minister of Education. But it is addressed to "Dr. Pat McGeer, Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C." and it's signed by J.C. Wright, secretary-treasurer for the school trustees of district 70, Alberni. Mr. Wright says on behalf of his board:

"The board of school trustees wishes to go on record supporting the resolution of the North Island College council as follows:

"Whereas the terms of reference that created North Island College demanded a close working relationship with school boards; and whereas the school districts within the geographical boundaries of North Island College continue to share facilities...."

Here is a point that the minister made. Once upon a time he said that the schools assisted the colleges greatly, but now it isn't the case anymore where it is a matter for shared facilities. Obviously that doesn't apply to North Island College, according to their letter. So that argument of the minister is certainly not valid; it's a lot of hot air.

"...whereas the school districts within the geographical boundaries of North Island College continue to share facilities; be it resolved that we protest the removal of school board representation on the North Island College board."

I think that that kind of letter could be duplicated many times. I don't have copies of all the correspondence that came to the minister, but I do have copies of some of it.

Let me deal now with the three councils for a moment or two. The idea of three councils is one which has come under a lot of criticism over the years. I have a paper here written by Prof. Dennison of the University of British Columbia, who is well-known for his interest in.... As a matter of fact, he could be described as Leonard Marsh's successor as professor of higher education or post-secondary education in the faculty of education at the University of British Columbia. He says:

"The existence and role of the provincial interbody — that is, the council system — must be carefully evaluated. If the advantages of the interbody idea, of freedom of institutions from direct political control, of long-term coordinated planning independent of changing government priorities, are considered to outweigh the disadvantages — e.g., another level of bureaucracy, removal of institutions from direct sources of funding, etc. — then a less diverse council structure, with real independence through adequate staff powers, needs to be created. One council or two with clearly defined functions should be established."

The minister appears to be heading in that direction.

On some of the other concerns expressed by Prof. Dennison, however, he is not so reassuring. "Freedom of institutions from direct political controls," says Prof. Dennison. How can we be assured that this isn't happening? The minister will appoint all the college board members. I'm sure he will do it from those people who are considered reliable and

[ Page 1370 ]

friends of his own political party. Certainly the idea of elected representatives seems to be out the window. The minister will have a captive administration as a result. The minister has even taken unto himself in this bill the power to determine what courses will be offered by what colleges. He says, benignly, that it's because he is concerned about overlapping and overspending. I'm not so certain about that. I don't know that the minister needs all that control. I think it should be up to the local community, even the community of Prince George. Maybe, for instance, the members of that community are interested in more academic courses. Sure, they're offered elsewhere. Maybe the minister could point to studies, such as I have here before me, that would indicate that, after all, a lot of those people in Prince George who avail themselves of those after-work courses do not transfer on to universities, and because they don't transfer, the courses of an academic nature are useless. Therefore, since they're offered somewhere else that year, we may not need to offer them. Again, who is to check on the minister? I'm not kidding. Does the minister not agree that he has now taken unto himself, in this bill, the power to determine the course offerings of community colleges? He doesn't shake his head or do anything. He sits there and stares at the ceiling. Could the minister nod or give some sort of approval?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Be nice!

MR. ROSE: Whether I'm nice or not, I would like to see whether the minister agrees with the point that I'm trying to make that the minister....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I welcome the member back from the wilds of the Transit Authority, or wherever he's been.

Mr. Speaker, I've made the assertion, and the minister said nothing to deny it. He didn't nod his head; he just stared at the ceiling and blinked his eye once like an iguana, but he actually didn't say anything. The point that I tried to make, and he said was nonsense, was the fact that he, under this bill, can go in and determine the nature of the course offerings of junior colleges — known in British Columbia as community colleges. He cannot deny that. He has total power over that and over the appointment of the boards, so he has centralized all the power into his own hands. Now if he decides to restrict the courses and up the fees.... What he's done is mount a massive onslaught on the access by students — and they're pounding on the doors at these places — to these community colleges. To me that seems important enough to debate seriously, and not to sit back and say nonsense.

I think all of us tend to clothe our motives in the most noble terms possible, and I don't think the minister is any different from anyone else on that score. But he can't get away from the fact that that's what this bill does, and that's why we object to this bill. We don't object to the fact that he takes three advisory councils and makes one out of them, but what we are concerned about is that if he is pulling the strings and those councils are merely puppets of the minister, then they might as well not be there at all. They're merely a body to distribute and administer funds, not to give advice on programs at all, but to act at the behest of the minister and to be his puppets. That's where we get off that one.

There are a number of things that we can say about community colleges, because obviously they're filling a great need. There are some fifteen of them and they seem to be extremely popular because people don't have the mobility or the economic advantage which allows them to attend a post-secondary institution, and, in many cases, many of them don't want to. They don't want to go to a post-secondary institution in any case — that is, one that's purely academic. They want to go to something that will give them practical, immediate and local opportunities. That's what we're concerned about when we see that the minister has put himself through this piece of legislation in a position to alter what has been our traditional approach to these institutions without asking anyone, because he is the complete and total czar of education for the province.

I'd like for a moment to review some of my main concerns about the legislation in general. I suppose that our greatest concern is access. I think there's not much point in having huge edifices, no matter how conveniently located, if you can't get into them. One of the things that has made our country and that of our neighbours to the south strong is the fact that we have universal public education as part of our tradition. It's part of our policy, and certainly it's been part of the policy of this Social Credit government over the years, to improve and increase access for all people to public institutions and education. We haven't had a tradition of the private or elite school or one in which we teach only those sons and daughters of the affluent. We've felt that the greatest assistance to upward social mobility, the ability of our society to compete in a complex culture, is due to the fact that we have universal education. It didn't come easily.

[4:00]

About 150 years ago there was a great fight about whether or not we should establish public education in Canada. It was said by the critics: "It will teach people to be lazy. It will let parents be irresponsible. They won't put aside any money for fees to send their children to school. If people learn to read they might learn to read not just the Bible, but all sorts of salacious material," delicious salacious material, according to some. And it was actually considered at one time to be a threat to godliness. I would like to say that we've overcome that. But it's the same argument that is used against any public innovation, such as medicare. The same arguments will be used against any other kind of advanced social legislation too, by those people who have that kind of mindset.

But what concerns us, in terms of access, is that over the years there has been a continuous underfunding of post-secondary education. I received material the other day which indicates that our province's per capita contributions to its universities were second to last. Only Prince Edward Island, practically the poorest province in Canada, contributes less to post-secondary education than we do in British Columbia. So while we have some magnificent institutions, we certainly haven't put the effort — in terms of our GNP, or even in terms of a proportion of our funds related to our population — as strongly, compared to some other provinces. I think we're going to live to suffer from that.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We've seen just this year that there are severe cutbacks to student assistance. Not only has the cut been about 40 percent; we've dropped the budget of student assistance from something like $22 million down to $14.6 million, or something. In addition to that, we've had a much more severe kind of screening device for people to even be eligible for student

[ Page 1371 ]

assistance, We've found, for instance, that part-time students are no longer really eligible for student assistance, only the federal portion. The provincial portion requires them to take an 80 percent course load. What single parent is going to be able to do that? They're not eligible. So here are single parents who really need an education — or some retraining — to get back in the workforce, and they can't, because they haven't time. Because of their household and family commitments they can't take an 80 percent course load. "If you can't take an 80 percent course load," says the minister of higher education, "phut — no student loan for you." There are all kinds of phony things, such as living at home and: "Did you get $600 from your parents or did you work last summer?" These are all designed not to increase access, Mr. Speaker, but actually to diminish the opportunities for young people to go to school. All in the name of restraint, or budget-cutting.

Now, at the very time when fewer and fewer young people have an opportunity to find employment — last month some 24 percent of those under 24 were unemployed in British Columbia — where are they going to go? They're going to say: "Look, I can't find any work, so I'm going to use whatever opportunities I can in the time I have to upgrade my education." Because even though they haven't had a lot of education, those young people know that while the average for those under 24 is 24 percent unemployed, for those with post-secondary education it is only 8 percent. So you have three times the chance of being employed if you have post-secondary or university education. So they're going to do that. The very time that more and more young people, because they're unemployed, are knocking on the doors of post-secondary institutions, we see this government attempting to limit access, raise fees, make things more difficult for those students when they need government assistance most.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to this business of access, the needs of a college or institution are not going to be any longer defined locally. That's what concerns us a great deal. The needs are going to be defined by the minister. Now I don't know how the minister, assisted no matter how ably by his bureaucrats, can define the needs of a local board. This new act removes all elected officials from the membership of the board. Some of the other acts even remove students and faculty, so you don't even get that kind of input. Nobody's suggesting, for instance, Mr. Speaker, that students and faculty should have the majority on the board, that the tail of the employee should wag the dog of the board. No one's suggesting that at all. But we are suggesting that the board will lack important input if it doesn't have as its representatives elected officials, members of the student body, and perhaps some members of the staff and faculty.

Now I know that that's considered a no-no, because that form of industrial democracy is not acceptable by the administration before us. But it seems to me that what will happen here is a complete isolation from the realities and problems by moves such as these. Hundreds of students were turned away from colleges last year at registration because there was no room for them. They fiddled around.... Last summer Fraser Valley College didn't even have chairs for the students to sit on, two weeks before they were to come in. I raised that in the House one day when we were asked for examples, and the next thing that happened is that the principal was on the phone asking how I got that kind of information. Somebody was obviously interested in hammering him for letting that information out, which he didn't do anyway, I hesitate to add, in order to protect his hide.

AN HON. MEMBER: It probably wasn't correct.

MR. ROSE: No, it was right in the minutes. If you are suggesting that the minutes weren't correct, I am just saying that the principal wasn't the culprit; that's all. I don't even know the man.

Anyway, there were certainly hundreds of students turned away from colleges and institutes at registration. Waiting lists of up to three years are becoming extremely common. Reductions in university and academic offerings are going to be a serious matter, again because of access and mobility. It is much simpler for a student in West Point Grey to take his academic training at UBC, or a Burnaby student at UVIC, than it is for some poor little kid from Prince George to come down to UBC and pay board, especially to some of those unscrupulous landlords. They can't be protected now that the rentalsman is gone. That is merely an aside but I think the point is valid. It doesn't matter who he is; I think if he is unscrupulous, a person needs protection from him. I don't think that point needs to be emphasized anymore, because it is an obvious one. Anyway, it is gone. You are cutting down on the number of academic offerings at junior colleges and community colleges, and that limits access for those people who want an academic education. That's happening and you can't deny it. You are not going to get any inspiration staring at that ceiling.

Access is extremely important because we have reached the period in our history where we are going to involve ourselves in continuous education. Education is no longer something that you just start and stop, and then you are finished with it. It is not like going to school at age six and I am out at age 18, and that's the end of it, or I may go to university. We need an educational system — and we have developed one — which permits people to opt out for a while, do some work, then opt in again, and that's good. Anything that distorts or disturbs that does a disservice to society. We need that kind of procedure and that kind of system.

Bill 19, section 5, and Bill 20, section 6, and various amendments, suggest that students are going to have a much more difficult time getting programs that they want, and little chance of going away unless they have the money. There are certain elitist overtones that bother us, because we know that universities discriminate in favour of the sons and daughters of the affluent. They don't mean to, but they do it anyway. I don't say they deliberately set out to do it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's hogwash.

MR. ROSE: Look at some stats. Find out the occupations of the fathers of those students registered at UBC. The thing is well known.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Give me the statistics on those wanting to serve apprenticeships, whether they are the sons of union members or the sons of contractors. Do you want to play with that one too?

MR. ROSE: That has nothing to do with it. I am arguing that we should have access to universities based on meritocracy and not money. The minister says there is some kind of favouritism among union parents regarding apprenticeships. I could also tell the minister that our apprentices start around 21 and 22, whereas in Europe they start around 14 and 15, and they are through their apprenticeships by the time

[ Page 1372 ]

they are 21 and 22. I think there should be fairness. I know a helluva lot more doctors' sons get to medical school than sons of other people. It may even be the case that a lot more lawyers' sons get into law school, but since you are the first generation that it has happened to, you wouldn't know about that; we will have to see what happens with your own children.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I have dealt, if not brilliantly at least extensively, with the question of access. That is a concern of ours because we think recent actions by this government on the basis of student loans, cutting courses, determining what courses will be allowed and what will be considered duplications, threaten access. For instance, my friend from Atlin asked me to say that he is concerned about access and the opportunities for young native kids in his riding because of cutting back on certain courses, and the fact that you need them locally because you haven't got the money for transportation or the ability to pay board in the major urban centres. I don't think, as Frank Beinder said, that we should be blind to what's happening. We had a humane and pragmatic new educational concept. Perhaps it needs to be updated, but not destroyed. "It is ironic to observe that it is not institutions but senior government which seems to be losing touch with the staggering implications of change." I recommend the reading of Mr. Beinder to the minister.

The other thing we're concerned about besides access is the business of centralism. We've seen it in a great number of bills — tax and municipal bills. We've seen it in Bill 6, which we haven't debated too extensively up to now, but which we'll be getting into later, and we see it here. Power, as I suggested earlier, is finding its way largely into the hands of the minister and his officials — his deputy minister has as much power to act as the minister. Therefore it's gone from its traditional parliamentary place in democracy with elected officials into the hands of those people who are not elected.

You know, all the colleges and institutes were directed to create five-year capital budgets, five-year plans — mandatory planning. "Otherwise," said the ministry last year — that predates this minister — "there will be more demand than the system can accommodate. Each institution can increase its productivity and efficiency." Oh, I know the minister's had trouble with efficiency and productivity before. You've been asked to define it before. I asked him the other day in the House, and he got up and shouted about six incomprehensible sentences. I don't know if he knows what productivity is. Does it mean that teachers teach more students? Is that productivity? Or is productivity the measure of how much is learned by those students? When the minister starts bandying around words such as "efficiency" and "productivity," I think it would be an excellent idea for him to define exactly what he means by those things. So far we're not reassured by his mutterings on the matter. So far he's been somewhat less than lucid, I would suggest to you. He's been loud but not lucid.

Mr. Speaker, let me go on about this. Other people have talked about the need for long-term planning. As early as July we heard that the funding formula was going to be introduced and implemented in 1984. Its formula is going to be embodied in response to government directives. Of course, if any board or anybody in that institution doesn't pay attention to those government directives, you know what Bill 3 says to them: $2,000 fine. That is a sobering thought.

[4:15]

MR. REID: Let's hope their fiscal responsibility....

MR. ROSE: Listen, if you go and look at the graphs of educational spending over the last two years, you'll find that it has levelled out without the hammer of the $2,000 fine or Mr. Peck.

MR. REID: That's not true and you know it.

MR. ROSE: Just a minute now. Mr. Speaker, I don't like to be deflected by hecklers on my left. When they're so obviously inaccurate and don't know what they're talking about, I at least like to show them a picture. So I'll show them a picture out of the school board's budget: "A Taxation Report to Business" by the School Trustees' Association....

Somebody groaned. They groaned about the School Trustees' Association — I thought the school trustees were the Socreds' friends years ago. Anyway, here's a graph on page 8 which graphs the spending of school board budgets: 1982 to 1983 — dropped. The total budget dropped. However, business and residential property taxes rose staggeringly.

MR. REID: Hear, hear!

MR. ROSE: In other words, you believe there should be lots of taxes, but don't spend it on the schools.

MR. REID: We're spending more on schools this year than last year.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the budget is projected for 1984. It's not projected for this....

Anyway, I refuse to be drawn in further than that on this particular issue, because I have a committee meeting to go to and I don't have all that much time. I don't feel that I've lost the argument. I've got the documentation right here. If you care to look at it, then come and look. In the meantime, I've got a lot to say here, and I would appreciate it if you didn't deflect me too much more, unless I find that I run out of words.

As I said earlier, Bills 19, 20 and 6 are all part of a package; it was an idea to centralize. "As a party we want all the blocks, the impediments, to centralized power removed. We don't mind the business of the three councils sharing powers with the minister." I don't think anybody is going to scream too loudly if they have been eliminated or shrunk to one, provided, of course, they are not merely puppets but act as a responsible autonomous board. I think that's important.

We think that their function has been unwieldy and perhaps expensive. We don't think the minister is all bad; we just want to make him better. We want to make sure that he doesn't rush headlong into the blunders that he's likely to if he doesn't get some sound advice, not from this side of the House but from those people affected by the kind of legislation he's attempting to put forward.

To summarize, we don't like the idea that the power that used to belong to councils has been returned to the minister — or has disappeared. Councils acting autonomously and freely are an important part of our social fabric; they give us local input. We feel that when you strip away the powers from councils, whether they are running colleges or school boards, something is lost. I don't think the member of a council should only sit at the pleasure of the cabinet, and if he doesn't behave himself or herself can be removed forthwith. The local board's right to decide its course in its jurisdiction, its plans for the future, is, I think, a right that should never be

[ Page 1373 ]

taken away from a community college or else you rip the community right out of the centre of it. Bill 19 does that; Bill 20 does the same thing.

The courses should be in response to local needs. They should be planned by the faculty in response to the community and the students and the consumers of those courses and the need for them. They certainly shouldn't be left entirely under the power of the minister.

I mentioned the business about job security and compensation. They now rest entirely with the government. Any kind of association, any kind of workers' rights have been removed at the stroke of a pen. We don't like that very much. We think that is a very dangerous precedent. Even among private companies, such as the unholy CPR or Mac-Blo, there are union agreements which allow for seniority and some kind of job security in grievance. You've taken this away in these bills. You put it forward as some sort of little Milquetoasty money-saving thing that you've done. You haven't done that at all; you've become Jack the Ripper. We're not going to sit silently for that, and neither should we.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time under standing orders has expired.

MR. ROSE: I thank the members for their attention.

I close by saying that we're not going to support this bill, because we don't like it very much, for the reasons I've said. I think that to suggest that this thing is some sort of innocuous little piece of legislation to tidy up something or to make something a little bit more representative is an outright evasion of the truth, and it's a misreading of the bill.

MRS. DAILLY: I think our critic for education has certainly outlined very clearly our opposition to this bill. So I just intend to attempt to put in some of my own concerns about the bill and perhaps to persuade the minister that there are areas.... Outside of the fact that he's eliminating the councils, which we agree with, we wish that the other aspects of the bill would be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, the history of community colleges in British Columbia is a proud one, and it did start with the Social Credit government way back when Donald Brothers was Minister of Education. I recall that at the time we were all pleased. The Social Credit government of that day had sent Mr. Brothers to California, where he studied the junior college system. He came back here and, fortunately, he didn't just develop a system exactly the same as the American system; we developed our own community college system here, which suited the needs of the people of British Columbia. I've always paid credit to the Social Credit government for doing it those many years ago.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

When the New Democratic Party became government, we were very pleased to inherit a college system, but we realized that there were deficiencies. For one thing, the whole province was not being served by community colleges. Under the NDP government we were very pleased to continue to expand the community college system. When we left office the whole province was served. We created four new colleges.

One other thing we were concerned about as government was that the college board should be governed by the true community representatives. Under the Minister of Education, who first took over in 1975 — the now Minister of Science — I regret to say that the whole community college system took a very big step backwards from its original purpose. I had hoped that the government, in changing ministers, would remove the detrimental aspects of college legislation which the present Minister of Science unfortunately brought before this House and, with their massive majority, passed — over the objections of many people in this province who were not at all pleased with the trend which the Minister of Science wished to turn our community colleges towards.

What was really wrong with it? The main problem was that that minister — and I'm not referring to the present one; I'll come to him in a few minutes — the past minister, the Minister of Science, when he was Minister of Education, really did not show too much interest in the community college system. It was obvious that he was more oriented to the universities, and it showed in what happened to the colleges during that period. Unfortunately, with his development of extra councils, which he more or less pushed through this Legislature over the objections of the NDP — and we are on record as voting against it — I think he did a grave disservice to community college development in this province.

If it was to help financially — and we were moving into a period of recession then — it most certainly did not. As a matter of fact, the tragedy of the legacy left by that minister for community colleges is that his convoluted system of councils, which he forced upon the community college structure in British Columbia, created more problems economically and from an organizational point of view. It simply did not work. And so I pay credit to the new Minister of Education, who has seen fit to remove that cumbersome structure which he inherited from the Minister of Science.

I could go back and read to the House some of the great, eloquent statements made by that Minister of Science, who we know is able through his great experience in this Legislature to make a very fine speech. He referred to the bill he was bringing in as "the bill of the century," and to how it was going to improve the colleges tremendously throughout this whole province. Actually, what happened was that the act he pushed through this House has effectively created provincially rather than regionally oriented colleges. And the real involvement in policy-making by the local boards was superseded by all his convoluted councils and, also, more departmental committees.

This minister, I thought, in removing these councils which, by the way, also added more financial burdens.... I had hopes that he would restore to the people of British Columbia their true community college system,

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We will.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister protests and says that he will restore.... He has to make it a protestation — if there is such a word — because his legislation does not give the opportunity any more for regional and local control and input into our community colleges. So how on earth can that minister, who removed the buffers and unnecessary councils, now say that he is providing local autonomy once more in the colleges when the legislation that he has produced before us gives him more power over community colleges than we have ever seen before, even under that very strong-willed — and

[ Page 1374 ]

many times intolerant — Minister of Science when he controlled the colleges? I'm afraid that even he did not go so far to remove local control as our new minister has. I don't know who has talked to him; I don't know who has convinced him that he should have this heavy hand over the colleges. But I think we have to consider that it is strictly a political move. I ask that minister if he's really thinking of the effect it will have on delivering services well in the community colleges. He claims in his speeches — and I listen to him carefully — that his structure, whereby he will now have major centralized control over our college programs, will actually serve the students better. I say to the minister that it cannot.

[4:30]

The minister says that exercising greater control over colleges and universities will actually provide better and more qualified trained workers for the megaprojects. We now question whether there will be any more work there, unfortunately. Yet the programs that should be given some emphasis are also today basically the programs which are being chopped off because of lack of funding. Surely we need to diversify the training in our community colleges today to try to help all those people who are unemployed. Yet this minister, through his heavy hand with this legislation, is simply going to run the community colleges from his office now, Mr. Speaker. How on earth is he going to know what is really needed in the various communities of the province of British Columbia as one man sitting with a couple of deputies perhaps assisting him in his office? It is not going to work, and what I am really concerned about is that it is doing a grave disservice to the original design and purpose of our community college system.

The other concern I have is with the minister's heavy-handed removal of the right of the school trustees to sit on the college councils — and I'm going back to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) because he was the one who turned the direction of the community college system to a very negative direction. That's why I keep referring to him. Unfortunately this minister is following in his footsteps in most areas. That minister, upon becoming minister in 1975, immediately embarked on a program of changing appointments on the college councils. You recall, Mr. Speaker, that a minister, up till now, besides having the school trustees on the board, had the right to appoint from the minister's office. I recall that when I was minister I had that opportunity too. I recall also that I did not start on a vendetta or purge to remove appointments that had been made by the former Social Credit government. I felt that those people had been appointed at that time by the former government and should serve out their term, and as a matter of fact some of them were even reappointed, believe it or not. Whether they had been appointed by the Social Credit government or not, I looked at whether or not they were doing a good job for the community. I wish I could say the same thing for the Minister of Universities, but when he came in one of his first steps was to ensure that three of my appointments were not reappointed, with no apparent reason. I'm just making this point — and I'm not just going over old history for the sake of it — to say to you that this minister will also now have completely in his hands the opportunity to place straight political appointments on all the college boards in British Columbia no more school trustees will be allowed on. That minister may say: "No, I'm going to try to pick the right people."

You know, Mr. Speaker, I look back at the Minister of Universities in his appointments. The NDP always believed that the appointments to college boards should represent the community, and I think if you go back and look at the appointments made under our administration, that's what we attempted to do. We attempted to ensure that there were people not just from business.... We certainly agreed that a college board should have business experience on it. So I think you will find that we did place a number of people on the board with business experience, which was certainly needed. But we also appointed women. Some of the women had business experience, but the point I'm making is that we made sure that capable women were placed on the board. We made sure that there were appointments from labour. In fact, the whole idea was to say: "Look, this community college represents the community. It represents all aspects of our society. Therefore the college board should be represented by people from all sectors of society."

What happened when the Social Credit became government again in 1975? Not only did they pretty well ensure that no NDP appointments were left on.... That just seemed to be the natural thing for them, without checking to see whether any of those NDP appointments were doing a good job or not; they were never reappointed. Putting that one aside, which is bad enough, I followed carefully the appointments made by the Social Credit government under the Minister of Universities and the minister who is no longer here, the Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm, and what I found was really tragic. I'm saying this in the hope that when the minister who is now in charge makes these appointments he will prove to us that he will not follow in their footsteps. Do you know what they did, Mr. Speaker? If you go through it you will find hardly any women at all have been appointed to the college boards. Maybe one or two, but if you go through the appointments, it was disgraceful. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications obviously did not think that there were many women in the province of B.C. capable of serving on a college board, and I say shame on that government for allowing him to get away with it. You can just go through all the appointments made, which I've done, Mr. Speaker, and I will not bore the House by reading them to you now.

Also, not only did the government not feel that women were capable of serving on the college boards, but they felt there was only one sector of society that had any ability to sit on that board, and that meant that you had to have business experience. If you didn't have business experience....

You go through the list, Mr. Speaker, and you show me that what I'm saying is incorrect. I think you will find that most of the appointments were all from one sector of society. Now, you see, what we have here today, in asking us to support this bill.... Instead of specifying in the bill that there should be people elected from certain areas — and if that won't be done, at least restoring it to the community in some way.... Once again we could find ourselves with no women on the college boards, with nobody from labour, with no ordinary people who are very capable of sitting on boards. Why you just have to have business experience to be appointed by the Social Credit government is beyond me.

I am very concerned that this act will now give that Minister of Education the opportunity to make, as I said earlier, straight political appointments that will not serve the needs of the people of British Columbia. I am saying to that minister that there is no way that the NDP could possibly

[ Page 1375 ]

support this legislation when you are not giving any assurance to the public of B.C. that these appointments to the college boards will really reflect the society that exists in that community. In the past, particularly under the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, they have shown a completely elitist approach to appointments for college boards. The whole idea of the community college is to make everyone feel that that college is theirs. How can they feel that when the people who are put in control only have one perspective, developed from their own basic experience?

The other point that concerns us is if all these appointments are to be made just by the minister out of his office.... With no more school trustees, they could be hand-picked to ensure that if something isn't right at that college board, if the government is holding up funds or not keeping up their responsibility in funding — which we now know it isn't.... How are we going to hear about it? We will certainly here about it from the staff and the students, but will we hear about these problems from college-appointed boards, hand-picked by the political minister?

There's another serious problem: it's not going to give us much confidence that we're going to have college boards who are there to work for the people and not just, to put it very bluntly, Mr. Speaker, to be mouthpieces for the Social Credit government. These are the areas that concern all of us with this college bill.

The councils, as I said, have gone. But you know, we listened to the minister and read the speeches he made to the colleges. I know as a new minister — and I went through it myself — that you cannot get the grasp of a large ministry overnight, but before that minister makes some major changes, as he's done here in this bill, I think we all would feel much better if he had taken time to tell us what his goals are for community colleges, so that we know that whatever framework comes out in this bill is based on his goals. I wonder if the minister has taken the time to read some of the papers that have come across his desk from knowledgeable people who have been studying the community colleges for years and have been trying to give input to government.

Mr. Speaker, if you'll bear with me, I just want to make a few points from one of the briefs that have been sent, I am sure, to the minister in the past for discussion. This is "The Structure of Post-Secondary Education in British Columbia: A Position Paper." Dr. John D. Dennison made some points here. I am not saying that he has all the answers, but all I'm saying to the minister is that here is someone who has worked for years in the system at UBC, but made a major study of community colleges, and I know he has really studied them. I believe he was even sent to Australia at one time to assist them in their community colleges, These are not my ideas, but I must say that I think I could hopefully endorse most of them, and I would ask the minister to consider just a few points. Dr. Dennison says: "Any proposed structure for post-secondary or higher education at the provincial level should be based upon the following principles: the preservation of maximum autonomy for member institutions with respect to their own priorities and internal governance...." This act, Mr. Speaker, if it passes, will not allow for that. Second, "The recognition of the need for diversity within the system." If I can elaborate on that point, where on earth, with a centralized, rigid bill like this, are we going to be assured that there can be diversity?

Another point is made in this brief: the need to ensure coordination among institutions, increase communication and provide mutual awareness of the directions which each institution is taking." Again, we look at this and we say, everything's going to be run out of the minister's office. There's going to be very little local autonomy. The minister can make decisions on all the programs. So you say to yourself, what difference would it make if there is coordination anyway, if the minister's going to make the decision? That, I consider, is tragic.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair. ]

Another point he makes is: "...maximum responsiveness of member institutions to the needs of society and government." I don't think any of us disagree with that. He also says: "...the coordination of financial requirements of member institutions to ensure optimal application of the higher-education budget." Then he says: "Every opportunity should be ensured for the prime consumer of higher education, the student, to undertake further education and enjoy maximum access and change of goals without unnecessary institutional barriers." It is not easy to follow those kinds of goals, but at least they are setting for a government....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Sure it is. Just do them.

[4:45]

MRS. DAILLY: I wish you could, but I don't think it's going to be that easy. But at least, if that minister would just tell us that his structure that he's now proposing in this act, where he is taking over a very central position in the handling of community colleges, where he alone is going to be in charge of the appointments to the boards.... Where on earth could those goals be met through that act? I just cannot see it being done. That, again, is another reason why the NDP is really concerned with this act.

As our previous speaker said, our education critic, this bill is also a sign of what we've seen and will be discussing further in Bill 6 and in Bill 19, another sign of centralization by this government. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, with this centralization we are very concerned that there won't even be the necessary financing. We found that out in the past. Now, of course, there are going to be very few complaints coming from the college boards, because they're going to be appointed by the minister himself. So it's up to the opposition, to the students and the staff to try to keep the public aware that under this government — which has now decided to return the colleges to a centralized system — it's up to all of us to say we want to preserve the best possible system we can. I'm still concerned that we will not be able to do that.

This college act also concerns me in the area of the BCIT. We'll get onto it, I think, in the next bill, so I'd better not discuss it. I wanted to say a few words about that, but I know that that is the other bill, Bill 19 I believe. So I won’t get on to the BCIT one at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to re-emphasize as much as I can to this Legislature that the passage of a bill such as the minister is placing before us is simply not going to do what we want it to do: that is, to keep a truly community system. There will not be the input....

"Inputt." We kind of miss him — years and years of being here with one of our other colleagues.

[ Page 1376 ]

Mr. Speaker, it will not be there, and no matter how the minister may try to wind up his conclusion to this bill, we are saying to him that we cannot support a bill which centralizes control of community colleges, which takes away trustee representation, which doesn't give an opportunity for women, labour or other groups besides business to serve on those boards, and which doesn't give enough financing — because there's nothing here talking about financing — to assure us that there will be a vehicle where proper financing can come. How on earth could we possibly support it?

The minister is very proud to tell us that they financed 100 percent — no longer local taxation. That was a good move at the time, and we said it was good. The NDP removed sharing for capital financing as our first step, so that it was 100 percent on the government providing for capital. The Social Credit followed up with 100 percent for operating. But the point is, Mr. Speaker, with that 100 percent for operating there seems to be a suggestion that this gives the minister the right to completely take over control. The point I find very ironic about that is that the school boards of British Columbia — for example, my own school board of Burnaby, which is now paying over 80 percent of school taxation.... Can you imagine that today over 80 percent is borne by the people of Burnaby? Why does it not follow, if we follow your minister's theory, that local control should not be commensurate with the amount of financing? Because the minister has said 100 percent financing for community colleges, he can use that as a smokescreen for saying he has a right to control. If we follow that, what about my district? My district should certainly have almost complete control instead of this centralized control that is imposed on them by the Social Credit government.

The point I am making is that the NDP believe in following the McMath report, which was 75-25. No matter how financing is done, whether the government pays the majority or not, we believe that local control and local input are absolutely necessary. Under this government you don't get it either way. You have school boards starved for money and in most cases having to put up the majority of the financing for the local taxpayer, and you still don't have control. The community colleges are getting maybe 100 percent financing and still there is no control. I think that minister has to do a lot of serious thinking about the true role of the community colleges, making sure the students today are properly financed so they can attend, and he is going to have to also discuss our concerns about local control in the public school districts as it applies in Bill 6.

Speaking of financing, we often hear figures thrown out from the Social Credit members on how well they treat education in British Columbia on all bases, from public school up. The interesting thing is that when you have students today who are concerned about being unable to get into their community colleges due to lack of funds, that government is shortchanging the future of our people. I think the minister has not only a responsibility to ensure local control but also a grave responsibility to ensure that he fights in the Treasury Board for adequate money for education. I know we are in tough times because of the situation that the Social Credit government has placed the people of British Columbia in. We can't just blame the world situation. The policies of the Social Credit government have created a situation in this province where more and more people are unemployed, where more of our youth are unemployed, no matter how you cut it. There is no excuse for the Social Credit to continually blame the world scene.

Recent figures from the B.C. Central Credit Union show that the unemployment rate among young people in British Columbia is one of the highest in Canada. If that government cannot create jobs for those young people, through their policies, they had better ensure that those young people can attend our educational institutions so that they can be trained, learn and develop a broad educational background to equip them for the day when hopefully we will have a democratic socialist government in power who can provide the jobs for these young people. That minister has under his charge one of the most important areas of government, and that is the education of our young people. I am very concerned, because of the legislation that he is bringing in on behalf of his government, that full education access for our students and good program development in our community colleges will not be achieved if that minister does not sit down very carefully and revamp this legislation and say to his colleagues that they have a responsibility to make education top priority, recession or not. When you shortchange the young people today, later on all society will suffer in British Columbia. There is no way that the official opposition can support this bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say just a few words. I represent an area where there are two community colleges: East Kootenay College, which serves the Creston area, and Selkirk College, which was one of the first community colleges founded outside the lower mainland. It was truly a community college, and that is the concern being expressed in our main opposition to this bill. It obviously isn't the repeal of councils, the establishment of which we opposed in the first place, that we're objecting to. We are objecting to the manner in which the appointment of members to the college boards will be made by the minister through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

The original establishment of community colleges is, I guess, surrounded by a lot of mythology. I've heard different stories. I guess we've heard a couple of stories today on how they originated. One story I heard was that W.A.C. Bennett, on his annual vacation to Phoenix, Arizona, became familiar with the college system in the state of Arizona.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: He was down in Arizona, right? I said this is some of the mythology. Now the mythology I've heard is that W.A.C. Bennett made trips to Arizona, and that it was during that time he became interested in and impressed by the junior college and community college system, with more emphasis on the community college system in Arizona vis-a-vis the junior college system in other parts of the United States.

The community college system did come about. The decision was made not to create four-year institutions but two-year institutions. Also, at the time of their origin, they were founded upon a referendum. In the case of Selkirk College there was a referendum which had to succeed by some 60 percent before the college could be established. That was the basis upon which it was established in the local area. So it was established with the support of the local community.

The regulations came in. For a long time the governors of the colleges were a combination of people who had been

[ Page 1377 ]

elected locally to serve on school boards, who were then appointed by the school boards to the college boards, and a number of government appointees. There was then a time when the number of locally elected people appointed to the boards by the local school boards outnumbered the direct government appointees. Then three or four years ago we took one backward step in this House. We changed the balance so that the number of government appointees outnumbered the number of elected members by, I believe, one. This was a retrograde step. Today we see a very backward step, whereby the board of the college will consist of five or more members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So it does mean that it could be as few as five, although I expect it will be somewhat more, especially when it is necessary to give some representation to several different communities. That is going to create a tremendous amount of flexibility, and certainly some very poor aims can be served.

[5:00]

As my colleagues have said already, by this act we have taken the word "community" out of the bill. We should probably now refer to our community colleges as provincial government post-secondary learning institutes, then give them numbers. Maybe we could start calling Vancouver Community College Provincial Government Institute No. 1. And others could be No. 2, etc. We have altered the meaning of "community college."

I have seen some excellent government appointees on some of the college boards, and I have seen other government appointees whose attendance has been deplorable and whose performance has been lacking. Some government appointees have been very good; some have been very bad. I think that the responsibility for the performance of the board should not lie with the government in making the appointments. The only way in which we can have responsible governance is to have them all locally elected. Mr. Speaker, it is for this reason that we are very strongly against the principle of this act. It is gutting something.

I have had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Selkirk College board as shortly as a couple of months ago. I would say that things are being run quite well right now with the two boards that are being operated, but this is a very retrograde step. I think the minister could take into account the reaction of the opposition. This would be a splendid opportunity to show that there is some responsiveness. There is basically one section in this bill to which we are very much opposed. This would be a very good opportunity to start to change the tenor of the House and to show a little bit of cooperative spirit by reconsidering this particular section. Certainly it would be acclaimed by the opposition and probably by the public at large.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, the House is advised that the minister is closing debate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that sometimes it's difficult for the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) to accept legitimate debate. I thought that the opening comments I made were all relevant and were delivered reasonably slowly in my usual manner. Obviously that doesn't seem to appeal to the members opposite. That's unfortunate.

There has been some mention made of appointments. I think that's fair comment by members of the opposition. The member for Nelson-Creston probably made the best point of all. There have been some excellent appointments made, and there have been some others who enjoyed the perk but didn't particularly like the attendances which were required. I think it's incumbent upon us when we make those appointments that those people who do sit on college boards give that commitment. In addition to that, they should be knowledgeable of the community where they reside and the function of the college within that community.

My experience with respect to appointments made to college boards has been that those appointments made by government were government appointees, but I can tell you that once appointed to that board they jealously protected the preserve known as "the college." They did the job in the interest of the college. I can assure the members that under no circumstances were they political puppets, which seems to be implicit in the remarks of some of the members.

One comment made by the member for Burnaby with respect to school boards and financing was that 80 percent of the funds raised in Burnaby were for school purposes. It would look after their budget and if they were going to raise 100 percent, why shouldn't they have total autonomy? I just want to mention to the member — and I wish she were here — that it's one way in which the largesse from the lower mainland and those old established school districts, with declining enrolments, can maybe help out those newer districts in the interior and the northern part of British Columbia — like Skeena and Prince George, which need some help.

MR. HOWARD: It sure does.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I don't know. I think the voters made that decision on May 5, and they did it very well.

MR. HOWARD: You don't like the fact that I got elected, either,

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I never said any comment to that at all. Never.

MR. HOWARD: You sure as hell have.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: When?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we're digressing from the principle of the bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Help me out. I'm supportive of the members on the government side, and that might come as a surprise.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, a quid pro quo. The goals of the college.... I thought that we had made it reasonably clear in the opening statement on Bill 20 that our objective is to encourage maximum autonomy. I don't want the bureaucracy in the Ministry of Education getting larger. As a matter of fact, it is being reduced in size. Surely with a government that is paying 100 percent of the financing — pushing out in excess of $300 million on an annual basis, and it seems to be going up — that there has to be some direction,

[ Page 1378 ]

somehow. You just don't throw out $300 million off the back of the truck. That's all we're doing.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm delighted that the members agree to eliminate the councils — the academic and the occupational management. I'm glad there is consensus and agreement on that point.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: My point is I'm delighted there is some agreement on that. As far as the point with respect to the appointment of women to college boards, I've been here for three months, and I'm not familiar with all of the appointees on the boards throughout the 22 institutes and colleges in British Columbia, but I think the point is well taken. I think the members can rest assured that I will have a look at that.

I'd like to make reference to one item on here, the statement of principles made October 8, 1981 with respect to the councils:

"A primary objective of legislative change should be to ensure that there is coherence to the planning, budgeting and allocation process. Each funding source in the present system seems to view our institutions as mere deliverers of discrete programs and services. As long as allocation decisions remain unrelated to longer-term planning and budgets, the result of these allocations will be incoherent."

One of the reasons we are eliminating the councils is to ensure that the colleges in fact can put on the programs they wish, and have the autonomy to do it. It seems to me that what we're doing is removing the impediment which apparently has precluded them from doing it.

Some comments involving job security were made by the critic of this portfolio. I don't know what this particular bill has to do with job security. As far as the courses, the content and the curriculum, I would be very surprised if anyone other than faculty and administration and the boards were involved. The only thing we are really committed on, with respect to whether it is an alleged infringement on the autonomy of a college, is to ensure that the courses which are offered, if in fact they are for university transfer to a post-secondary institution in the lower mainland.... I would like to make sure that the children taking those courses get full credit for them.

As far as my commitment to colleges is concerned, I can tell you it is paramount. Being from the interior, I recognize....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Why didn't you speak on this if you are so interested?

I'd like him to go to his seat, Mr. Speaker, if he's going to chitter and chatter and whatever else he does. We should be delighted that he attended today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken. It's most unparliamentary to heckle, but to heckle from somewhere other than your own place is even more unparliamentary.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We from the interior recognize how important colleges are. Those people in the Vancouver and Victoria area seem to think that universities are for them and I think people would like to know there are living, breathing people out in the interior. Often you people seem to think everything is to be done in this area. I want you to know there are district municipalities and cities. You know, there are even lots of people in them. You know, they go to school and they're interested in that. So, I'll tell you that they don't need to worry about my commitment to colleges. All you have to do is look at the enrolment and the interest and just about everything in every community college in British Columbia. Then you find out the service which they're providing.

As a matter of fact, $300 million.... You look at the total access hours of students to instruction and the number of students, and you'll find that it exceeds the universities combined. I think that's something worth preserving. I think they're doing a reasonably good job. What we're going to do is make sure they're funded. We'll make sure that people who are appointed to those boards are people who are committed to the community and who are prepared to put in the time. I don't think we can really do much more than that.

I move second reading.

[5:15]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS 17

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

Bill 20, College and Institute Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1379 ]

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CHABOT: This bill proposes three important changes in ways in which the costs of pension benefits and administrative expenses are recognized under the public service pension plan. It also contains a small number of minor corrections to existing provisions which are of a housekeeping nature.

The three financial amendments contained in this bill are as follows. First, the bill proposes that the financing of the public service pension plan be put on the same level contribution funding basis on which the statutory pension plans for municipal employees and teachers in British Columbia have been successfully financed since 1980. Second, it would require Crown corporations, boards and agencies whose employees are covered by the plan to pay the full amount of the employee contributions required under the level contribution funding basis. Currently a portion of the employer's costs are contributed by the government. Finally, the bill proposes that the expenses incurred in the administration of the public service pension plan be borne by the pension fund.

As in the case with administrative expenses under the pension plans provided for municipal and college employees and teachers, I believe that adoption of level contribution funding under the public service pension plan will result in a much more controlled approach to financing pension benefits. Now the pension plan is terminally funded. Under this approach, employers participating in the plan match their employees' contributions; but the government is required, each time a new pension is granted, to immediately contribute an extra amount needed to make up an actuarial shortfall in the pension fund. Have you understood that so far, Mr. Speaker?

Because of the requirement under the current legislation to top up the fund at retirement, the government's pension costs can vary from year to year, depending on how many public servants retire on pension. As a result, budgetary requirements for pensions can be difficult to forecast. This bill eliminates the extra contribution at retirement, and at the same time it provides for the employer's regular monthly contribution to be increased by 2.5 percent over the current matching level. This change in the funding method will provide for much greater stability in pension contributions, as the employer's contribution rate will be set at a level that can remain constant over the long term. This will certainly help in financial planning and is a very important consideration during these difficult times.

Taking into account the higher number of retirements at this time, this proposal will also produce savings of $14.8 million in government pension costs in the fiscal year 1983-84.

I am pleased to be able to say that the independent plan actuary has supported the adoption of the level contribution-funding method under the public service pension plan. With this change in financing, the plan will continue to be one of the most strongly funded public sector plans in Canada. The increase in the employer's regular contributions will provide for even fuller recognition than now on an ongoing basis of the long-term costs of public servants' pensions. Thus this bill will help to ensure that pension promises that are made now will be kept in the future.

Before leaving this subject I would like to emphasize that changes in financing do not affect the level of pension benefits provided under the plan, nor do they affect the contribution the employees are required to pay. I would also like to stress that contrary to some reports from the media this bill does not provide for the employers' contribution to be withdrawn from the fund when an employee requests a refund of his or her contribution. That practice was stopped in 1980. The employers' contribution will continue to remain in the fund to finance pension benefits, as has been the policy since 1980.

As I noted earlier, this bill contains a proposal to require a number of public sector employers to pay the full level contribution rate in respect of their employee. This provision will increase the pension contributions payable by Crown corporations, boards and agencies. I believe these contribution increases are an important application of the user-pay principle, ensuring that the costs of pension benefits are properly allocated to these organizations.

Turning finally to the recovery of administration costs from the pension fund, may I just note that the amendment proposed in this bill will bring the public service pension plan in line with the other major B.C. public sector pension plans in this regard. This amendment will stop the practice of charging these expenses — roughly $1.7 million in 1983-84 — to the consolidated revenue account and, ultimately, to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Thus, these expenses will be attributed as part of the overall costs of the pension plan to the plan members and employers on whose behalf they are incurred.

I know that the opposition is very anxious to have this proposed amendment passed, so with these few words it is my pleasure to move second reading.

MR. COCKE: It is an interesting day today. We had the Provincial Secretary up discussing a pension bill and talking about eliminating terminal funding the day after it was discovered that there was a very interesting piece of terminal funding done just recently, and that terminal funding was done for one Jim Matkin. What a sweetheart deal that was, and what a sweetheart deal all the senior bureaucrats — servants of that minister and this government — are getting as a result of being able to allocate time when that time was not spent with the government, or any government agency for which there are reciprocal privileges. Here we have an entirely new concept of terminal funding, because the minute Jim Matkin puts up his $21,000 he has bought himself a pension for the rest of his life, probably adding something in the order of $7,500 to $10,000 a year.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: For life?

MR. COCKE: For life! Indexed, as long as he lives.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's an exaggeration.

MR. COCKE: An exaggeration, the minister says. As a matter of fact it was done some time ago. I noticed that one of the senior bureaucrats was given reciprocal time for time served with Sun Life.

MR. MACDONALD: Practising law?

[ Page 1380 ]

MR. COCKE: No, that wasn't that. Practising law was Jim Matkin.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Was that your old company?

MR. COCKE: No, my old company was Dominion. Maybe I'm going to go to see the minister in the dark of night and say: "How about giving me reciprocal time for the 18 years that I spent at Dominion?" No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't do that. And I wouldn't expect it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You've got a pretty good pension plan here.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I have, but it's nothing like the sweetheart deals that are being made under the careful auspices, obviously, of one Mr. Spector. He's deciding everything, it would seem to me, with respect to the top civil servants in our province.

When we're talking about terminal funding, we're talking about a lump sum of money that must go in at the time the pension is vested.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There is $14 million worth.

MR. COCKE: That's right, and I can discuss that. Listen, there are aspects of this that I agree with. As a matter of fact, I'm going to have difficulty voting against it; I think I'll vote for it for a change. You know, once in a while you do make some decent decisions.

I'm just saying that it's interesting that they bring in a bill now that talks in terms of eliminating terminal funding. Let me tell you what terminal funding is. Terminal funding means that the B.C. government, on behalf of their Crown corporations or on behalf of other pension plans that are in this allocated group, have to put in the remainder of the money that isn't there in order to bring the pension up to an actuarially sound basis for that individual. Sure you're going to save $15,000. Sure you're going to do this, and sure you're going to do that. Mind you, you're going to have to spend a little more of government funds to go into your own, but that's fine. Fair enough. I don't disagree with all of that. I rather respect the idea of eliminating terminal funding, provided we're not going to have a situation in the future where people are paying immensely increased costs. According to this legislation, at the present time that is not the case, but a successive piece of legislation could very easily come along and say that the percentage paid by the employee will have to be increased significantly, etc. The minister says no. That's good. But I do say that under the circumstances, it's neat timing. This bill doesn't affect the particular situation that I talked about, nor does it affect the particular situation that I talked about which occurred last year, where a person was able to buy up an increased pension. Let me tell you how that works.

[5:30]

The years of service are a very significant part of the formula. For instance, the formula may say as this formula happens to — there are different formulas — 2 percent per year times years of service, averaged, however, on the highest income years over a five-year average situation. When a person qualifies for ten years' pension, and they are able to buy up another five, think of the significance of going from ten-year qualification, using the multiplier of ten, up to 15. A very, very lovely gift.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right, a very large gift.

I believe it is wrong. I don't believe it's right for....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Can you believe it? There were five years bought on top of ten, and that is a very significant sum.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ten percent.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense.

MR. CHABOT: It's a 2-percent formula. You ought to know that.

MR. COCKE: I know it's a 2-percent formula. Of course it's a 2-percent formula. But using that 2-percent formula and using your kind of figuring, then the total pension is only worth 30 percent, so what are you talking...?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's nonsense.

MR. COCKE: That's right. You don't understand pensions. I understood that when the minister stood up.

AN HON. MEMBER: I said five years is worth 10 percent.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense.

MS. BROWN: How could five years be worth 10 percent?

MR. COCKE: It's worth 10 percent if you use his method of calculating, but his method of calculating begs the question that he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

Yes, it's 10 percent if you're talking about adding the five twos — 10 percent, right? But if you take that same amount and use that 2 percent, times the ten years that he qualified for, that's only 20 percent; so your total pension is only 30. I'm talking in terms of 30 being 100 percent of the pension. Right? And if you add 10 to 20 then you're adding 50 percent. Ye gods!

MR. HOWARD: He knows all that. Look at the way he dealt with McKim.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I just hope he has working in his ministry some bureaucrats who have a better understanding of what I'm talking about than he does.

I want to say this: if in fact that is to be the rule, if in fact that is to be the way the government goes in terms of rewarding good and faithful service for whatever, then my suggestion is that you do it for everybody and anybody. Presently there is a rule that uses, as reciprocal time, time spent in war service. Fair enough. But you know what? They make it tough to get because you better have gotten out of the service and into government service within a very short period or you don't qualify for that either, if you're an ordinary person on

[ Page 1381 ]

the firing line. But if you happen to be one of the bigshots....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Nonsense. The minister can get up and give us a few examples; I can give him some examples of people in this building right now who were turned down for that very thing. I can give you examples of people in this building that worked for Hydro and were turned down for that very thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: After being shot at in the war.

MR. COCKE: Shot at by arcs of electricity when they were with Hydro.

Aside from all of that, this is a very rich situation.

MS. BROWN: For a few people.

MR. COCKE: For a very few people who have done the bidding of this government. People in senior positions suddenly are in the spectacular position where they are able to walk away from here with many blessings. First, we find out that senior bureaucrats can walk away with a $100,000 severance. If a new government is elected and decides that maybe one or two of them have a little bit of hostility toward the new government, they are asked to find their place in private business. These people are talking all the time about what a marvellous opportunity it is for them.

But I want to relate severance to pensions. Let me do this. Let's say that there's a senior bureaucrat who leaves government service and is entitled to severance of $100,000. He takes $20,000 of that and buys this peachy-keen little piece of paper that tells him that he qualifies for 50 percent more time in the formula, which the minister knows as well as I do is as rich as rich can be.

AN HON. MEMBER: A 10 percent increase.

MR. COCKE: I'm going to give that minister a lesson in mathematics one day. When the total is 30 and there's a 10 percent, that's got to be 50 percent of the 30, doesn't it? I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when the minister gets up to close debate he will be able, from his ample intellect, to afford us some kind of rationale for the statement he's making right now from his seat — 10 percent. Every actuary in this province is laughing themselves right out of their chairs when they hear that kind of remark from a minister who's responsible for every doggoned pension in this province, as it pertains to public servants, municipal workers, teachers, Crown corporation workers, etc. That's his job, but he doesn't know a thing about the subject we're discussing. I think he really does, you know. I think he knows quite a bit about the subject. Maybe he has decided to throw a few curves, but I'm not catching those curves.

I was pleased to hear the minister announce that when an employee leaves government service, under ten years, and does not qualify for a pension, the employer's portion will not be removed from that fund but will be left there to enrich the fund. Somebody's impression was that that money would be removed, and I think that would be a shame. Having had a good deal of experience in this area, some of the finest pensions, unfortunately, to some extent are built on the backs of the people with short tenure. I don't know how you would get around that. I hope that some day we're going to have pension laws that really provide portability, that make sure that a person who gets started early in life on a pension plan is able to continue on that pension plan wherever they go, from one place to another.

As it is now, the unfortunate aspect of pensions is this: when a person is in their twenties or thirties and even their early forties, they say: "Oh, well, everything will be okay in the future. Somehow or other I'll manage." So they quit a job where they've been for five years. The first thing they do is go and get back their own contribution, plus 3, 4 or 5 percent, which is a piece of nothing, for crying out loud. They spend it in three weeks or in a month or two or whatever and start all over again from scratch. Before the recession the average person in our society changed jobs at least eight times in their lifetime. So you can imagine that the average person is going to get to retirement age and be a potential ward of the state or partially dependent upon the state. That's why we're in such a heck of a pickle in terms of pensions. People haven't been thinking about it.

Leaving it in is fair. But I'll tell you this. Beyond that, this government — which is one of the few jurisdictions in the country that has little or no pension legislation; it relies almost entirely on federal legislation to govern our pension plans — should, I think, sitting down and thinking very seriously about that whole question. I believe that the provincial government should have a much better handle on it. Ontario has a much better handle on it — a bit better portability, a bit better everything — as a result of the fact that they do have pension legislation in Ontario that is superior.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's not as well funded.

MR. COCKE: Oh, you're talking about their own plan. I agree. I'm talking about two different situations.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yeah, well, that's the phase that practically every jurisdiction in the country is at. I admitted that; I stood up here and said that. I did make mention, of course, of some aberrations that I see and that we all hear about, and so on and so forth. But those aberrations notwithstanding, we have here an improvement that I will suggest to my colleagues we support. What more can one ask?

But having asked them to support this, I would also ask them to suggest to the government that they take a far closer look at the whole pension scene in this province — an across the-board look at the pensions....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister says that they had a meeting yesterday, and he says that the federal MPs came to see him. I'm not sure what that means at all. I guess maybe they're asking for something like Matkin has. Maybe they could....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Whip sits there making smart remarks about Solidarity and $600,000. The fact of the matter is, this province is in tough shape, mainly because of

[ Page 1382 ]

an irresponsible government that has provided for many people to be unemployed, and there are food banks all over our province. Would it be an aberration if I were to walk into a food bank and find an unemployed person who would support Solidarity? I don't think that would be an aberration at all. I think that's just natural.

MR. MACDONALD: It's called civil liberties.

MR. COCKE: That's right. Anyway, we're not apologists for where that money goes. What we're talking about here is Bill 18.

HON. MR. BENNETT: As long as you can.

MR. COCKE: "As long as you can," the Premier says. I get outraged sometimes when I listen to that Premier and his little minion talking about getting the money. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, he knows and we know. I just picked up an article from the mining association, telling about all the money they spent in New Westminster trying to defeat me: Apple computers, five-ton trucks and all the rest of it. Come on, don't give us the business about where you get the money. For crying out loud, the Socreds are the biggest sponge in this province — sponge on big business. They always have been, but particularly in the last eight years.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster continues with Bill 18.

[5:45]

MR. COCKE: If you will protect me from that savage Premier, I might be able to get on with Bill 18. Mr. Speaker, it is a cost-cutting measure for the government, and one that I think is responsible. I do think that Crown corporations should be picking up their end of their pension plans. Good Lord knows that this government has established more Crown corporations than I'd care to try to note in one speech.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Which one do you want to get rid of?

MR. COCKE: Look, BCBC. Put it back in public works where it belongs. It was a way to create another ability to borrow money. Come on, B.C. Buildings Corporation is a laugh. It has cost us....

HON. MR. GARDOM: What other one?

MR. COCKE: B.C. Systems Corporation, another aberration. Now you're trying to sell it off. For crying out loud! Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm here and I know....

AN HON. MEMBER: Leadership candidate!

MR. COCKE: They are trying to get me off Bill 18. It is a shame that a member can't get up in the House and give a speech — logical, persuasive, discussing every aspect of this — without having to listen to this kind of discourse across the floor. It is not fair, and I have such a tender heart.

To summarize.... It takes me a lot longer than 15 minutes to summarize. I would like to suggest that this particular bill, as long as it fulfils all of the statements that the minister has made.... I am particularly interested that the employees' share of the contributions doesn't go hurtling up in the future. He says no, but don't forget that this legislation is changed from year to year, so it can very easily happen, if in fact they find that it is underfunded. Don't forget that when you eliminate terminal funding — and that is what they are talking about here, total elimination of terminal funding — the funds must be there at all times to meet the obligations of that pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting time, because we have just seen some very extensive terminal funding done on behalf of one or two of our senior bureaucrats, thank you very much. I can say no more than that we will support this piece of legislation and hope that the minister can answer one or two of my questions when we get to the period when we discuss each clause one after another, ad seriatim, and so on and so forth.... The minister is sure in a big rush to get to his....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind you, hon. members, that under standing order 42 the minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: First of all, maybe I should reflect and re-examine the legislation after the endorsement from the member from New Westminster. There must be something wrong with the legislation. That old member from New Westminster brings up the question of pension benefits for deputy ministers and the option of them purchasing up to five years.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right — or equivalent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's equivalent. That's right.

Deputy ministers have the option of purchasing up to five years, depending on the length of service they have in the public service. They have to have been there for a stipulated number of years in order to avail themselves of that particular option.

The included public servants of British Columbia also have the option of purchasing time — time that they have served in the public service in years gone by. The option is there....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Listen to my words. I said they have the option of purchasing time as well. They avail themselves of that opportunity almost every week in British Columbia. In the case of reorganization, public servants have the opportunity of electing for early retirement when they've reached the age of 55 and have accumulated ten years of service in the public service. They have the option of getting benefits conveyed to them at the taxpayers' and not their own expense. Mr. Matkin is facing such an expense today, having to pay $21,000 for picking up an additional five years of

[ Page 1383 ]

retirement benefits. That isn't the situation with public servants who are involved in reorganizations where they're offered a lesser position and they decline, where they're offered an opportunity to move on to some other community in the same position or category and they refuse to do so. Depending on the length of service of those particular individuals, they too have the right to buy up to five years of service for pension purposes. They have those options at the expense of the taxpayers and not their own.

This legislation gives fair treatment to the public servants of British Columbia. It's a good pension plan, and there is also flexibility to recognize previous service for public servants, as well as the right to recognize early retirement if they've put in ten years' service for the public service. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to see that the NDP recognize the goodness of the plan. Without further adieu, I move second reading at this time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 18, Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this afternoon the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) sought to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the timber purchasing and production practices of B.C. Timber. The member's statement on the matter indicates that it is of an ongoing nature and would not have the degree of urgency necessary to set aside the regular business of the House. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the matter does not fall within the scope of standing order 35.

Mr. Pelton, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's third report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"That the preamble of Bill PR401, intituled An Act Respecting Okanagan Bible College, has been approved and the bill ordered to be reported.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. FC. Austin Pelton, Chairman."

[6:00]

MR. HOWARD: Earlier there had been a division in the House. A request was made by the government House Leader that it be entered in the Journals. At that time only two members on the government side rose to support that, and I think it cannot therefore be entered.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) was also on his feet.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.