[ Page 2313 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Alcohol And Drug Commission Repeal Act (Bill 8). Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2313

Mr. Howard –– 2314

Mrs. Dailly –– 2317

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2318

Division –– 2318

Institute Of Technology Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich.)

On section 2 –– 2319

Mr. Rose

On the amendments to section 2 –– 2321

Mr. Mitchell

On section 2 –– 2322

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Smith

Ms. Brown

Mr. Nicolson

Division

On section 3 –– 2326

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 2330

Employment Development Act (Bill 16). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2330

Mr. Stupich –– 2330

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2331

Mr. Lea –– 2331

Mr. Cocke –– 2332

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2333

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie.)

On section 3 –– 2333

Mr. Cocke

On section 4 –– 2334

Mr. Lea

Mr. Barrett

MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We will carry on with adjourned debate on Bill 8.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG COMMISSION REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: I have just a few remarks that I want to make about this bill. It seems that this is one of the last creatures of the New Democratic Party term of office that this government is now about to wipe out. It seems to be the style of this government that anything that was started during the NDP years is something they want to get rid of now, whether it's good or bad. I note that the Provincial Secretary is applauding on that, which would indicate that he agrees that this is the modus operandi of the government. They are on a course of wiping out anything that savours of any projects that were introduced by the good government of the 1972-75 era.

I've been looking at the act that we are about to get rid of. It is interesting to note that the act was set up to do a very specific job. It was to be administered by the Minister of Health, but it set up a commission that had the ability and power to take on various employees to deal with drug and alcohol abuse — something that was much needed and still much needed. Under section 10 of the existing legislation, it says:

"The Commission may, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, (a) operate programs, enter into agreements with, or provide financial or other assistance to any ministry of government, hospital, agency, university or person to operate programs for studying, researching, diagnosing, treating, rehabilitating, counselling, following up, caring or providing other service for alcoholics or drug users."

That's a pretty broad spectrum, and we're wiping that out with this bill. We're doing away with those types of programs as enunciated in section 12 of the act.

They were also empowered to: "…conduct, or arrange and fund, programs for dissemination of information about alcoholism and drug abuse." Why wipe out a commission that is empowered…?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, could we have some courtesy? The Member for Cowichan-Malahat is taking her place in the debate and should be given every opportunity to say what she has to say uninterrupted.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that very much. The roar was a little above the usual in this place, I must agree.

The size of the problem that we're talking about is interesting. More than a half a billion dollars worth of liquor is consumed each year in British Columbia. That's $100 or more for every man, woman and child. A half-billion dollar industry is what we're talking about. What are the results of the consumption? Does it relate just to the Ministry of Health? The minister has indicated that this is not a restraint measure, because he indicated when he introduced the bill that it would be a very minor saving but that he was going to bring it all in under the Ministry of Health. Can the Ministry of Health really deal with the problem that is as far ranging as the kinds of things that are enunciated in the Alcohol and Drug Commission Act, the kind of programs that that commission was involved in? It relates to far more than health. It relates to many ministries and their responsibilities. Certainly it relates to Human Resources. It relates to the Attorney-General. It relates very much to Transportation and to ICBC. It relates to many aspects of government. It is much too broad a spectrum to attempt to cover by one ministry.

I didn't mention education, but you know it is estimated that 70 percent of high school students in North America are into alcohol, and I would suggest that it is higher than that in B.C. Certainly B.C. is no exception, because here in B.C. our alcohol consumption is the highest per capita of any province in Canada. From a health point of view, surely there are health aspects in this. We are having more infants born with physical and mental handicaps as a result of mothers being alcoholics or consuming alcohol during pregnancy. One out of every five adults who applies for a disability pension can trace the cause of the breakdown in health to alcohol. These are startling statistics, and we're disbanding the commission that is charged with the educational and treatment aspects, the whole broad field of dealing with it. We're getting rid of it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Traffic accidents. How many accidents in B.C. can be traced to alcohol? I think you will find that in a very high percentage of serious accidents, fatal accidents, alcohol is the real cause. In the United States 26,000 deaths per year are traceable to alcohol-related car accidents, and that's more than all the U.S. losses in the whole Vietnam war. It's been estimated that there are perhaps as many as 200,000 problem drinkers in British Columbia. As I mentioned, it's the greatest alcohol consumption in Canada, and when you have that amount of consumption you're bound to have a higher degree of alcoholism.

One of the problems that really concerns me is the native Indian population. Under the commission we have had native Indian counsellors to deal with native Indian problems. In 1982-83 the statistics show that of all the cases handled by the counsellors, 63 percent were alcohol related: that compares with 40 percent in the previous year, 1981-82. That is a 50 percent increase, and better.

If there was ever a time when we should be continuing with treatment and education, keeping these counsellors in place.... In my own community of Cowichan, the government counsellors, in conjunction with many of the employers there, have been able to contribute very greatly, helping some of the people who have really been suffering from severe alcohol abuse to rehabilitate themselves. That's the purpose, isn't it? If we don't do this.... Going back to the economic reasons, the minister said it's a minor saving. It's a much greater saving if we can treat and educate our young people so they will not abuse alcohol. If we can rehabilitate people and keep them out of the hospital with alcohol-related diseases, the economic cost is so far reduced that the minor savings the minister is talking about are little or nothing compared to the kind of savings we could realize if in fact we carried out the kind of educational, counselling and self-help programs that we now have in effect under the commission. They should have been much more extensive, much more advanced.

[ Page 2314 ]

[8:15]

When this government first took office, there was a lot of curtailment of those programs, but then they were reinstated and we did have an extension of that service. It was recognized as a valuable service, so why cut it out now? Surely the government should recognize that in times of economic stress and difficulties there is a tendency for people to turn to alcohol. That's historic. If ever there was a time when we should be offering assistance to these people who are finding themselves without jobs, who are on UIC and social assistance because of the greater occurrence of unemployment.... These people may well need — do need — the kind of assistance that was offered by the counselling service under the Alcohol and Drug Commission — much more now when times are stressful. It's short-sighted economy, even if the economy were the reason, even if restraint were the reason. As I understood the minister, he indicated that it was a very minor saving, that that wasn't really the reason. Why wipe out this service? Why wipe out these counsellors?

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) talks about the detox centre and some things like that, but how can those broad community programs be put in place under one ministry's centralized control? Those are community-based programs that have a much broader base than just the Ministry of Health. I'm thinking, for example, of a high school play, written and produced by the students of the Chemainus high school: "Every Mother's Son." That was those children's presentation, very factual, very realistic, of drinking driving and its very dire effects. Those are the kinds of programs that have come into being as a result of the local counsellors under the Drug and Alcohol Commission. I'm sure those children, those high school children — grades 10, 11 and 12 — who were involved in presenting that dramatic production....

Amateur, it is true, but they made that case so clearly to all who attended, and to themselves, that I believe each one of those young people in that high school recognized full well the importance of not mixing driving and drinking. If that has saved one young life, it was a worthwhile effort. That kind of program can only take place when you have community involvement and the counsellors, when you have that broad spectrum that goes far beyond the Ministry of Health and takes in Education, Highways — the RCMP were involved in that production. That kind of broad base is really where we need to begin if we're going to meet and deal with the horrendous problem that alcohol is putting before our province and our people.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, once again the noise level is quite distracting. If members wish to discuss, perhaps they can meet somewhere other than here.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, we seem to be back to a typical evening session, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if we've been having cornflakes for dinner or what's happened, but we're very noisy tonight.

I have covered the points that I wanted to raise. I am really concerned about the withdrawal of this service at this particular time, when we are in an economic downturn and when people are trying to live on reduced or very low incomes. When stress is as great as it is — people looking and not able to find jobs — the tendency is to turn to alcohol. We need that counselling service more than ever. Every statistic will tell you that that is what happens in an economic downturn, I'm shocked that this government would decide this at this point in time. After more or less abandoning the Drug and Alcohol Commission in the initial stages, and then having decided that it was a good thing and providing greater funds and more continuation than intended when it was first set up, now suddenly to wipe it out doesn't make any sense at all. I wonder if in fact the government is more concerned about the profits it makes from liquor than about doing anything to ensure that our health and lives are not endangered by overconsumption of that beverage. I am very concerned about that, and certainly cannot support a bill that wipes out this commission.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, it affords us an opportunity to make some general comments about a subject that has been dealt with from time to time in this chamber, but not very effectively in terms of the resulting benefit that should come to people in society who for one reason or another engage in abuse of alcohol or drugs. In my view there is too much pushing, promoting and advertising of booze in this nation, and in this province. The government itself is involved in the promotional aspect of liquor.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I've read all 47 words of this bill, and I see absolutely nothing in it that advocates that we should be debating the advertising or merchandising of alcohol. In the explanatory note — and there's only one explanatory note — it says quite explicitly: "The purpose of this bill is to dissolve the Alcohol and Drug Commission." I would ask that you call that member to order and insist that his debate be in regard to this particular bill.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I was going to point out that the very moment we get onto a serious social problem in here, some Socred wants to stop the debate. Let me point out to you, Mr. Speaker....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, the only social problem is the one on its feet over there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: Why don't you get some sleep, Jack?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Omineca will withdraw that.

MR. KEMPF: I'll certainly withdraw that, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask that you insist that that member on his feet debate this bill or I'll be on my feet again.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the member for Skeena to come to order as well. The member for Omineca has, I guess, raised an operative point. However, it's early in the member for Skeena's debate and one really cannot ascertain at which point he is at, although I think all members of the assembly would concur that remarks with respect to advertising and distribution would be better canvassed under the estimates of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and not under a bill such as this proposed by the

[ Page 2315 ]

Minister of Health. I'm sure the member for Skeena can relate his remarks specifically to this bill.

MR. HOWARD: If I could deal with the point of order. First, the member for Omineca is wrong, as he is on so many occasions. This bill is not, as the explanatory note says, to dissolve the Alcohol and Drug Commission. This bill, if you look at section 1 — and there are only two sections of it — is to repeal the Alcohol and Drug Commission Act. Because it's to repeal the act we're entitled to discuss what it is seeking to repeal. In the act it talks about an alcoholic, about alcoholism and what it means, about drug abuse, what is a drug abuser, the commission being an agent of the Crown, its purpose, managers, programs and everything else. That's why I wanted to start off dealing with the subject matter in the act which we are seeking to repeal. The government is just as guilty as anybody else in pushing booze in this province and causing the misery for it.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply draw briefly to the attention of the House a couple of family magazines in Canada: Maclean's, a good magazine; Saturday Night — he doesn't care much for Saturday Night. Let's just skip through the slick advertising and see what is being pushed, see what we in society are being attracted to use. Here's Metaxa, a Greek drink. Down below it doesn't talk about the misery that's caused, it doesn't talk about the family abuse; it doesn't talk about alcoholism; it doesn't talk about family break-up, child beating, wife or husband beating — and it works both ways where alcohol is a problem in the family. It talks about the beauty of a Greek drink called Metaxa. It also says that if you want to know anything more about it...

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: …write to Schenley's for a free copy of their recipe booklet. Now that promotes....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Omineca on a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I see absolutely no reason to allow the kind of debate that's going on now in this House. I see no way that that member can suggest that he can regurgitate the entire Drug and Alcohol Commission Act in debating Bill 8. Bill 8 is very specific. All it does is repeal the Drug and Alcohol Commission.

MR. HOWARD: Act.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, to debate anything else is a gross abuse of this House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the member for Skeena has indicated that he's relating his remarks to the act that we are repealing.

MR. HOWARD: And why it shouldn't be repealed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe he in fact has quoted from that act.

MR. HOWARD: It says in here: "Alcoholism is any dependent condition produced by the action of alcohol upon the human system." I'm suggesting to you that the advertising that goes on in family magazines in this nation promotes alcoholism. That's why we shouldn't repeal this act; we should be fighting alcoholism.

Here I draw your attention to another one. This is gin. It doesn't talk about misery or what happens if you drink too much gin, or what occurs the following morning, so I'm told, if one imbibes too much gin, or anything else that has alcohol in it. But they're selling here: "Beefeater, the Spirit of England." It's not the B.C. spirit, although I can understand that as well. Here's another one: "Strike it Rich with Rum" — golden colour, beautiful pictures, soft tones, a hand with a glass in it with something in the glass.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I'm quite serious about this, Mr. Speaker. The members opposite may giggle if they like, but this is a very serious social problem we've got in this province. Even Johnny Walker Black Label, which I understand some members of this House enjoy the flavour of — and I'm one of them — says: "No matter how you give Johnny Walker Black, it's impressive." I tell you, Mr. Speaker, if you drink enough of it you'll find out how damned impressive it is the next day; or if you end up in a condition of squabbling in your family, perhaps your wife or husband will let you know what "impressive" means and try to get the message across. It goes on and on.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we are really debating a bill or trying to hear what problems the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has the next morning after drinking various brands of booze. I wonder if you could direct him to the bill under debate now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment. The member for Skeena will....

MR. HOWARD: Please don't ask him to withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! No, there's nothing to withdraw. If we can relate our remarks to the bill — and I'm sure the member for Skeena can do that.... The member is also reminded that there is a prohibition in our parliament about exhibits or displays in the House. If the member can simply refer to a printed matter, as opposed to displaying it to the parliament, we will all be well served.

[8:30]

MR. HOWARD: Here's a final one. It says: "Reward Yourself With Premium." What I'm trying to get across, Mr. Speaker, is that the liquor industry is not selling liquor; they're supposedly selling pleasure — sexual acceptance. Look at some of the pictures and references. They're selling good times. They're selling delightful, happy, contented moments. They're selling misery, and they're making a fortune out of it. By virtue of repealing the Alcohol and Drug Commission Act, we are now in the process of wiping out the Alcohol and Drug Commission when that Alcohol and Drug Commission could probably do some good to counter the injurious effects of that kind of advertising.

[ Page 2316 ]

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt).... Oh, yes, he's here. We had a question a while ago about opening beer parlours and the like on Sundays. The minister sent a questionnaire to his riding, which said: "What do you think about this idea?" I don't know what response he got. "Do you like booze on Sundays?" I'll venture a wager with the minister that the response he got said no, it was not favourably accepted; I'll bet that's the response he got, because if he'd got a favourable response he'd have been doing it. I'll just make that slight wager with the minister that he got the response that said no; maybe 60 percent said: "No, we don't want to open beer parlours on Sunday." The point is, a questionnaire was sent out about it. If the response had been any closer, maybe we would have been going in that direction and further promoting the sale of beer.

There is one group — and one group only — in society that has had any valuable, helpful effect with respect to those individuals who are alcoholics.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Salvation Army.

MR. HOWARD: No, not the Salvation Army. AA — Alcoholics Anonymous, many of whom work with and through the Salvation Army, yes. But as a distinct group, it's Alcoholics Anonymous. The reason they're successful is something we should know in our own minds, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Some psychologists worked it out, calling it the in-group theory. The reason AA is successful is because it comprises members who identify themselves as alcoholics, who admit to themselves that they can't handle booze, that it handles them. So they say: "I'm off, on a day-to-day basis; not forever, just for today." They make that admission to themselves. Because they are able to do that, they are able to go to people who are alcoholics and get the message across that here is somebody who has been through the mill.

All of us tend to take advice from those who are in a similar situation, no matter what it is. Members of school boards tend to take advice from members of other school boards, because they've worked in school boards, know how they function, and so on. If you get advice from the outside, from someone who may not have had the experience or knowledge about how a school board operates, it's a little testy. That's precisely the situation with alcoholics.

I don't know what numbers we employ in the treatment of alcoholics and drug addicts — people who are psychiatrists or psychologists. To me, that's a waste of money and time. Those professional psychiatrists and psychologists, whether operating in the field, dealing with alcoholics, drug addicts or whatever else, are game players; the game is more important than what is affecting the individual. If the government wanted to fire somebody, or lay people off, as being superfluous, it could sure start with the psychiatrists and psychologists on its payroll. I make that as a serious suggestion, insofar as their effectiveness is concerned in dealing with social problems. Human Resources street workers, social workers, are far more valuable than psychiatrists and psychologists in dealing with human problems.

If we were to maintain the Alcohol and Drug Commission as a vehicle, a separately identifiable element, as an agent of government to deal with alcohol and drug abuse, alcoholics and drug addicts, as distinct from merging in all in the Ministry of Health — where, quite frankly, I think it will get lost.... It becomes more of a game, more a matter of press release, more a matter of so-called social scientists trying to function in an area where they are not very effective.

Just the other day, apropos of that, the first news releases about alcohol and drug abuse that I've seen for some period of time arrived just a few days ago. They were both from the same person, the director of the alcohol and drug programs within the Ministry of Health. Both were dated the same day, and both dealt with alcoholism and drug abuse and, while using different words, said the same thing. I wonder why we have suddenly got to turn out two press releases that say the same thing in different words and on the same day. Was that perhaps part of the publicity program to indicate to the general public that something worthwhile is happening in the Ministry of Health and that therefore we don't need the Alcohol and Drug Commission? I don't know, but I know these press releases suddenly appeared. I'll read just briefly from the first one, which very clearly identifies what I have been saying. The first press release says — right from the opening sentence: "The Alcoholics Anonymous model of self-help groups is proving to be increasingly valuable in the recovery of special groups of alcoholics and drug users." That has been known for donkey's years. Why suddenly announce what has been evident for so long. This is the other press release — with all respect to Dr. Stroh, who issued it; maybe he didn't write it; maybe somebody else did; maybe the public relations branch or something wrote it; information services might have written it. In the second press release he said: "In fact, as both Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous groups agree, the alcoholic or drug addict stays off drugs and alcohol one day at a time" — putting in the fact that both of those groups agree. What he should be saying is: "I, Dr. Stroh, director of alcohol and drug programs, agree with what Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous have been saying for years. He should be the one who is agreeing; the minister should be the one who is agreeing, not put it on the other foot as if, suddenly, AA and NA have come to the conclusion that the Ministry of Health has discovered a new truth out there.

They were the ones to perceive this and develop it in the first instance. We're not going to deal effectively with alcohol abuse and drug abuse unless we're serious about it. We're not going to deal effectively with it unless we recognize some simple, uncomplicated truths. First, the person who is an alcoholic — heroin addicts are in a little bit different category; there are other factors involved — himself or herself, as the case might be, has to admit to himself that he has a problem; that he cannot handle alcohol; that alcohol controls him, rather than the other way around. That has to be the first admission. The best way for that admission to come is through conversation and discussion and with help from people who have been through the mill, who identify themselves as alcoholics; that's the best way it can come — the only effective way it can happen.

Almost any heroin addict who faces the truth about heroin addiction will tell you that — and they're exaggerating a bit.... I know people who have been heroin addicts but no longer use heroin, and have moved out of that stream. The general declaration from drug addicts is that there are two cures: one is an overdose; the other is what they call the Chinese cure, harkening back to the time when China was virtually forced, through the port of Hong Kong, to take part in the movement of opium out of other southeast parts of the world; at a certain point in time the Chinese government determined that opium addicts would be faced with the death

[ Page 2317 ]

penalty, and they put it into effect. It very quickly cleared up that problem, so they claim. Most heroin addicts will say that the only solution is either the Chinese cure or an overdose. By saying that, they're admitting their own inability to handle drugs, to face up to themselves about their own difficulties with some rational sense of introspection and make a determination about their weakness.

I submit that we are not going to move effectively or helpfully in that area by merging the functions of a separate agent of government, the Alcohol and Drug Commission — wiping out the act — with the Ministry of Health. It will tend to get lost in the whole milieu of Health ministry activities and will be even less effective than now, in trying to deal with and help thousands and thousands of people who, for one reason or another — whether by virtue of advertising or not — are unable to cope with alcohol and drugs in any sensible and reasonable way.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm going to wind up the debate on the Alcohol and Drug Commission Repeal Act for the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, surely it is almost impossible to talk about the repeal of the Alcohol and Drug Commission without referring to some of the tremendous problems faced by people who use alcohol and drugs to excess. Our main concern with the repeal of the Alcohol and Drug Commission is that whether or not it was functioning correctly or properly, or whether or not it was a positive force, is irrelevant now, because it's going. The question is: with what is the government replacing it? When I looked over the Health estimates for the whole area of alcohol and drugs, we find a cutback in the estimates for this year. I have to accuse the Social Credit government of not being responsible whatsoever in caring about education in the prevention of alcoholism in our province. If they were concerned, there is no way their obsession with "restraint" — their idea of restraint varies greatly from that of many others — would include cutting back in the vital area of education and prevention of the use of alcohol and drugs.

[8:45]

It's almost unbelievable that this government, which estimates that it will make more than $355 million this year in profits from the sale of alcohol, will at the same time cut back, on what is a very miserly little budget to begin with, on the prevention.... Hopefully it will include the education of the people of B.C. re the problems of alcoholism. I find it unbelievable. If they are not really concerned about the dreadful social effects of drug and alcohol abuse — I should say "drug" abuse, because alcohol is, of course, known as one of the more serious drugs as far as drugs go, yet most people seem to separate it from drugs — and if they cannot see that cutting back, not taking their full responsibility as a government in this area, is going to cost far more to the government and the taxpayers.... I simply cannot comprehend that they cannot see that. I don't think anyone in this room tonight needs a lecture on the evils of the use of alcohol and drugs, so I certainly don't intend to go into that. My other colleagues have gone through that in a responsible and I think on the whole a restrained way in spite of what I thought were rather ridiculous interferences and interjections from some of the members of the Social Credit back bench.

I would like to take the opportunity to put a couple of facts into the record to explain why the NDP opposition is so vitally concerned with the repeal of the Alcohol and Drug Commission, particularly when the minister in charge — the Minister of Health — does not appear to be able to convince us or explain to us that he is actually going to have something that will take its place and do even more, I would hope, particularly in our province. We have the distinction, as you probably know, Mr. Speaker, of having more than 200,000 problem drinkers. In fact, we lead all the provinces of Canada in consumption. We have the most deaths due to cirrhosis of the liver and we also head the list in alcohol-related deaths. A number of the moves being made by the Social Credit government are in my mind going to increase, not decrease, the problems in this area. I'm sure I don't need to go through the horror stories on the effects of alcohol and the people who become victims of the alcoholic or the drunk driver. But I certainly intend to take my place whenever we get to the Health estimates and I can relate it specifically to this area, because most of us have volumes of material on this matter. I happen to think it is one of the most serious problems that faces this government or any government today, particularly when the B.C. government seems so obsessed with increasing their profits from liquor that they have even increased the advertising — the time they rationalized allowing an increase in liquor advertising with the recommendation.... They would insist that 15 percent of all advertising by the advertising firms which are using the electronic media would go toward alcohol and drug education programs — alcohol particularly. Even though that was announced, I don't know where or even if it is being done. I hope when the minister closes the debate he will inform the House that the B.C. government is insisting.... Now that they've given the advertising firms what they wanted — advertising on TV — I wonder if they're also insisting on those firms putting a certain percentage of their enormous profits into education. We talk much about what to do with the alcoholic, but the most important thing of all is to prevent alcoholism. That is the area where I feel the Social Credit government has been remiss. When this bill goes through — as it no doubt will with the numbers in the House — we hope the government will realize that if they're going to remove the Alcohol and Drug Commission, they have a very grave responsibility to do something about this problem which is increasing every day in our province. The effects of alcohol and drug consumption are, as we all know, absolutely horrendous.

I would like to end tonight by emphasizing the fact that alcohol is the most dangerous drug that was ever let loose. It is insidious in its appeal, distressing in its hold and virtually fatal when it becomes the master. It makes millions of dollars for producers and governments alike, who can't seem to free themselves from it. I think the Social Credit government, which is taking in enormous profits from alcohol, owes it to the people of British Columbia to show that they're going to do something about the prevention of alcoholism in this province.

I am personally very much against the fact that in the new B.C. Place stadium the government has seen fit to allow the sale of beer. I can't understand how sports and alcohol can go together. People go to watch a sports game.... I've had letters from constituents who say the game is being spoiled for them because they're surrounded by drunks. Why did the government have to do this? People who are addicted to smoking are beginning to get used to going to areas where they have to sit for a couple of hours without a cigarette. Why on earth can't they go into B.C. Place stadium — and I know you understand this, Mr. Speaker — and sit there without alcohol for a couple of hours? I think the government is going

[ Page 2318 ]

to be responsible for some very serious problems. There's no need for that. As I said, I happen to be speaking personally.

I think it is about time the Social Credit government stopped being so obsessed with the profits they're making from alcohol. God knows they need money because they've mismanaged the economy, but surely it would be wiser to look at how to prevent alcoholism and drug abuse through prevention and education. That is why the official opposition completely rejects this bill, which is not showing us that the government is serious about this terrible problem that all the citizens of B.C. face. Eventually almost everyone is affected by it, either by increased taxes or personally through someone they know.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the speakers this afternoon and this evening are very relevant to the problem associated with abuse of alcohol or other drugs. I have very little disagreement with what has been said with respect to that. However, I would suggest that the repeal of the Alcohol and Drug Commission will really not have the effect they have suggested. The Alcohol and Drug Commission has, in effect, not operated for two years. The commission itself, and the duties of the commission, have been assumed by the Ministry of Health for the past couple of years, and the members of the commission have acted in an advisory capacity, which their replacements will continue to do.

The problem of addiction, be it alcohol or other drugs, is universal and epidemic. It is probably the major social problem in our society. The people who are associated with the Alcohol and Drug Commission, and those who work in the independent organizations that attempt to treat people for alcoholism or alcohol abuse, or certain drug addictions, are without end and variety. There are many people who have ideas, attitudes and theories when it comes to assisting people with their addictions, some of whom are successful, some who are not. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) mentioned Alcoholics Anonymous, which has a long history of working very hard with the alcoholic because of their own philosophy, and it has some success. It was mentioned that the Salvation Army also has some success, and indeed they have, as do other organizations, such as the one in my own constituency, the Richmond Alcohol and Drug Abuse Team. They have had some success. Many churches and other organizations have also had some success.

There doesn't seem to be one single concept or theory that serves all. The causes of alcoholism or drug addiction are so varied, and probably so misunderstood in our society, that the attempts to resolve those problems are going to continue to be varied. I would question whether any government has the capacity to be able to solve the problem. It is a problem of society, and to a very large degree it is an attitudinal one. A society that believes there is legitimacy in the use of drugs — alcohol or otherwise — is one which will, for many years, be associated with the problems they bring. The people who have been involved in the ministry in the alcohol and drug program have worked very hard and very sincerely in trying to assist our society in resolving some of the impact, whether it's the detox centres or some of the individual societies that deal with counselling, analysis, psychology and the rest. I can't dismiss the psychiatrists or the psychologists, because in some instances they do have success. In many instances the church has successes with people who have addiction problems. It is almost impossible to say that one method of rehabilitation is the only one. It works for some people but not for others.

Similar to the member for Skeena, I know many people who are reformed alcoholics and drug addicts, be it heroin or some of the others. I know a person who was addicted to heroin for 14 years and overcame his problem within a matter of minutes, and has never looked back in 25 years — a very rare occasion, but proof that it can be done. In his case he found religion and that resolved his problem with heroin. Others can't do that. There are many methods which have been attempted and tried in our society.

What we are doing by repealing the act will in no way detract from the treatment and services offered the people in British Columbia. The Ministry of Health and the alcohol and drug program in the ministry will continue to attempt to do the best possible job they can. If we have the assistance and cooperation of other segments of our society, perhaps we can do a better job.

A final comment. I find it most disconcerting that while we recognize the dangers of drugs of all kinds, we have many people in our society who actively, through their own habits, lifestyle and philosophy, promote the use of such things. I think that is abhorrent. There has been discussion about advertising, but I would suggest that not only advertising is part of the overall concept of acceptability, but much else adds to that as well. Long before advertising was permitted on the electronic media in British Columbia, we in this province had the worst rate of alcoholism in Canada. I would suggest that there are many other reasons for this in British Columbia than simply electronic advertising.

With respect to the comments made by members opposite, we know it's a big problem, but I can assure the members that the Ministry of Health will continue to work as best they possibly can in this very serious area. The repeal of the commission will have no diminishing effect on what is being done in our province. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 8.

[9:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 9

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

[ Page 2319 ]

Bill 8, Alcohol and Drug Commission Repeal Act, 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: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things that we could say on this section, and as soon as I and my 21 colleagues have completed our remarks on this section, we can get into it in greater detail.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, the opposition are concerned with the representation on the board. As everyone knows, when this particular legislation was enacted by the then Minister of Education, it was a fully appointed board. We are well aware of that and we are prepared to admit that most of those people have acted in a pretty professional capacity. This isn't really what is proposed in this act. There is nothing in here about directions to the board. Appointments to give across-the-community input will be eliminated from the board. The people who are going to be affected by the legislation will have no representation on the board. The possibility of reducing the number of people on the board from 15 to 5 is a concern to those affected. Who are the people that will be missing in future — people from the legislation originally proposed by the now Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon Mr. McGeer)? This is the concern that I would like to express here tonight when we are doing the committee stage of this clause. This clause suggests that Bill 19 is going to remove the BClT representatives from the board, so anybody who has any kind of personal concern and is involved in the college itself is now suddenly going to have no say on the board. While some may argue....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I will tell you why they should. People who were involved in an enterprise, no matter what that enterprise is, are entitled, I believe, to give that input. I think it is very helpful. As a matter of fact, as an ex-coal miner — a once and future coal miner — I'm quite sure that the member from the east Kootenays (Mr. Segarty) would believe that the board of directors of the big mining companies could probably benefit from the insight of those people who are working in the coal mines. I see him nodding. Unfortunately his nodding doesn't go into Hansard, but I see him nodding and he agrees. He's scratching his chin. He agrees that there are many sound ideas that can come to a board of management from those people who work in that particular enterprise.

A similar thing occurs here and I am sure if we went back and looked at the speeches of the now Minister of Universities, Science and Communications when he set up this kind of board.... I point out that this has not been an indirectly elected board, such as those that are common in the various community colleges, but it has been an appointed board. This board involved people who were participants as well as consumers, people who were teaching at that college, staff members of the institute and also students. This is going to be removed and this is one of the concerns that I want to express tonight. In addition to shrinking the size of the board to 15, which I would think would be a kind of a representative group, to 5, the same concerns that we have expressed earlier about the choice of those people and whether or not they would operate in an advocacy role, whether or not it would be truly independent or whether or not they would be the pets of a particular political orientation is something I think we need to concern ourselves with. We should cherish the idea that there are people on that board who may not have opinions on matters of policy direction, input forces and all the rest of it and who are absolutely congruent with those of the ministry. That is extremely important. I don't think truth necessarily lies with the sort of monopolistic opinion of one group of people or one political party. We are concerned that we have not only removed by shrinking the numbers of broad representation of people who could add to the knowledge and the intelligence of the decision-making of that board, but we have also cut the numbers from 15 down to 5. We have gotten rid of community representation of a broad basis and we have instead chosen a very select and small group. We have indicated that the input of teachers, staff members and students are no longer welcome.

[9:15]

I don't understand why the Minister of Education has received nothing from his back bench on the subject. Did the students or any kind of large representative group come to the minister and ask for this stance to be taken, ask for this change to be made? Did somebody say: "Look, these people out at BCIT are so nutty that they have put all kinds of duplicating courses in there and, Mr. Minister, we want you to come in as soon as you can and put in a kind of directive that can change the courses, the content and the offerings of that school"? If that is the case I would think the minister would be right in acting in that direction, but if there hasn't been a request from those people involved, then I think the minister is presumptuous to outline in a piece of legislation what he thinks is the way that we should go to provide better service or better training for those students attending the British Columbia Institute of Technology. I think we have a right to know as legislators whether or not this is a result of a request or whether this is just a matter of centralization: putting more power in the hands of the ministry to direct and control the direction of one of the institutions in this province. The ministry says: "This is what we're going to do; we're going to take it over; all this pretence of representation, democracy, broad-based support is the direction we intend to go as a ministry." Then I think it would be important that the minister be open and give us this information, and also tell us the other kinds of pressures that were brought to bear upon him.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On a point of order, much of what the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody is covering was raised during second reading, and it seems to me that that was

[ Page 2320 ]

the appropriate time to discuss most of what has been raised. I thought we were in committee and looking into the mechanical portion of the bill before us. I could be wrong on this, but I recall most of that debate during second reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. In committee debate must be specifically relevant to the section, and if it has been covered, the Chair must ask the member to relate his remarks specifically to the section and avoid repetition.

MR. ROSE: Well, are you saying that this has been covered, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the Chairman didn't say that; the minister made that observation. I'm just relating the guidelines of committee stage to the assembly.

MR. ROSE: I see. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that that is what the minister said, but I'm not certain that all these concerns have actually been covered. What bothers me about the whole thing is that the whole section that was once section 2 of the old act has now been revamped and removed, even to the matter of term. We had a term of appointees under the old act. It was a three-year term. There were 15 appointees, usually based on suggestions coming not only from the community and the ministry but also from the students and the staff. But now what have we got? There is no mention of term at all. What we have is a situation where presumably these people are appointed at pleasure.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, further to what the minister has just stated, the member should be directing his attention to what is in the bill. He is now discussing the matter of term, which is not in this section, and if you allow that line of debate, absolutely anything that is not included in this section is open to debate on this section. I would suggest that he confine his remarks to that which is in the section, and not those things which he speculates could result from this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose, of course, of our rules in committee stage is to avoid repetition and to make debate specifically relevant to the section, and I am sure the member can do that. It's also, I might add, a chance to allow the minister to reply. The committee would be well served if that was considered.

MR. ROSE: Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also thank the minister. Really what I was doing was prefacing my remarks to an amendment which I intend to move, and the amendment which I intend to move covers the matter of term. I wish to add to the section. Now if the Minister of Forests would be more tranquil....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, also not included in this section is why the Titanic sank when it struck an iceberg. By that member's line of reasoning, that could be equally included in the line of debate as the matter of term which is not a part of this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think we can find that as a point of order yet.

MR. COCKE: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, with respect, if the minister would read the original section that is being repealed here, then he would understand what the member from Coquitlam-Moody is talking about. All the things he is talking about are implicit in that repeal. There are some additions pursuant, but the repeal of the original section of the act.... I can get the minister a copy of the statutes of B.C. If he'd care to read it, he would understand what the debate is all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. I think the member for Coquitlam-Moody was making that point.

MR. ROSE: I was attempting to, Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted by the Minister of Forests, who related something about the Titanic. I could even relate that to the bill if I had to; I could accuse the captain of being a Social Crediter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We are straying.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to end up in the same sea as the minister.

What I was attempting to do was to say that the whole section 2, which we're amending here in this bill because it's an proposed amending statute, dealt with term. This section 2 removes term.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm not keeping you up, am I? I wouldn't want to do that.

So what I'm saying is that I feel several vital sections of this bill, which were positive things brought in by the then Minister of Education, have now been removed, and I regret them. As a matter of fact, I'm opposed to their removal. For that reason I propose an amendment to add some sections after section 2(3). I'm prepared to sign this amendment and to deliver it to the Chair, but let me read it first. This will give some direction to that shrunken board of governors, now down from 15 to 5, now removed of all input from students, community, staff or faculty. It's now completely dependent upon political input, I assume. I am sure that a number of my friends here, especially the members who represent Burnaby, will be delighted to comment upon these things that I offer here as an amendment to make this less venal, less vile, less aggressive and more representative.

A new subsection (4): "The purpose of a board is to represent the public interest and the institute community." The reason I add that is because there is some doubt as to, whose interest the new board should represent. It is not for me to say that it might represent the interest not of the consumers of this educational offering but maybe of the ministry, or maybe some other group in society. Maybe some of the trade unions perhaps, or the business interests, or some other group of society. But I think that whatever the purposes of the board, the board should be reminded that regardless of who appointed them, their loyalties are not to a particular political party or special interest group, be it business, labour, the community, the students or whatever, but to the broad interests of the public and our future and the institute community.

Section 2(1) says: "The institute, called the British Columbia Institute of Technology, is continued with a board of governors consisting of 5 or more members appointed by the

[ Page 2321 ]

Lieutenant Governor in Council." My new section 2(5): "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall, before exercising powers in subsection (1), invite the present board, the faculty, the student body and the support staff to submit names of potential governors for consideration." This is hardly a radical suggestion. This is what was followed in the previous act. It's not something that I think the minister is going to choke on, because it's relatively mild, some would even say namby-pamby. What it says is to give those people who are constituents, who have a stake in the whole thing and are interested in the success of this educational institution, an opportunity to submit to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council their preferred list of people who may share and put forward their interests, the interest of the constituency, which is the community and the institution. That seems reasonable to me.

This is exactly what was suggested in the first act, but this does not bind the minister or the cabinet or the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. It says: to invite the present board, the faculty, the student body and the support staff to submit names of potential governors for consideration, presumably by the person who makes the decisions on the appointment, and presumably that's the minister. I don't think that is a particularly radical suggestion. I think it's reasonable and I don't think anybody can take much umbrage at it. If the minister in all his wisdom — and I say that without any rancour or sarcasm — feels that the names submitted are not suitable, he is under no obligation here to accept them. I would think he would be wise to do so, but he is under no obligation.

Finally, I would like to add a subsection (6) to this particular section: "Each member appointed under subsection (1) " — that deals with the appointment of the board, the shrinking of the board from 15 to 5 — "shall serve for a three-year term, and may be reappointed for a further term of three years." This gets at what the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) was alluding to a little earlier, when he thought I wasn't on the original act or the amendment thereto, and got distressed and displayed some hypertension. At the moment it's at pleasure, and presumably it could be forever — it depends on the length of the minister's pleasure, or the Lieutenant-Governor's pleasure. So that is what I'm suggesting.

What I'm attempting to do in this amendment is to bring some of the democracy and representative government that existed in the old statute into the new statute — not by demand or decree, but merely by suggestion. To me it is a moderate approach and an eminently reasonable one. It doesn't threaten the minister or tie his hands in any way, and I hope he accepts it.

[9:30]

On the amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With reference to the amendments to section 2 by the addition of subsections (4), (5) and (6), as proposed by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody, I would advise the member that subsections (4) and (6) as proposed are in order. Subsection (5) would fail, however, as it imposes an obligation on the Crown.

MR. ROSE: I can renumber them, making (6) into (5), which seems to be sensible in view of the ruling. I would hope the minister has taken heed of what we once called subsection (5) and will take it into consideration. Rather than put it in the statute, I hope he would seek advice. I don't know if he's going to accept it, but we at least know it is in order and debatable.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you have amendments that are in order. Would the minister kindly suggest whether or not he has any opinion?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be a great service to the committee and to all members of the committee if amendments could be put on the order paper, or at least duplicate copies of the amendments provided for the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, in specific response to (4), the proposed amendment is to add: "The purpose of a board is to represent the public interest and the institute community." It's a provincial institution now, and that certainly represents the public interest. Talking about the institute community, I would make specific reference to a statement which was made by — I gave this in second reading and perhaps the member was unavoidably absent when we did have second reading — the present faculty representative on the board of BCIT. This statement was given to the press shortly after the bill was introduced to the House on July 7: "I can understand why they" — referring to the government — "are making these changes. I assume the idea is to remove members who might have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo rather than being primarily concerned about the whole institution or the education system as a whole." Mr. Chairman, all I can do is recite again what in fact the faculty representative on that board stated.

MS. BROWN: Uncle Tom lives.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I find that incredible, absolutely incredible. You know that, too, Madam Member.

MS. BROWN: Uncle Tom is not dead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will come to order. All members will come to order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot accept the proposed subsection (4). I understand the middle amendment was ruled out of order by the Chair. For the second proposed amendment I quote: "Each member appointed under subsection (1) shall serve for a three-year terrn and may be reappointed for a further term of three years." During second reading we drew a parallel between Bills 19 and 20 — 20 refers to colleges — and it was made abundantly clear at that time that the appointments were "at pleasure." The size of the board was determined, which is to be a minimum, and I find it very difficult, despite the sincerity with which the amendment is put before you, Mr. Chairman, to draw some form of differential viewpoint as between colleges and BCIT. Interestingly enough, when the College and Institute Act came in, I understand that there was considerable interest in putting BCIT under that particular bill. There was considerable resistance at the time by BCIT, and in fact it was left the way it is at the present time. There was total voluntary compliance by BCIT with the three councils which were eliminated under Bill 20.

1 find it somewhat difficult, and I can't accept the amendment — item 5 — because I am not prepared to draw a distinction between colleges and the institute. They are all serving the people of British Columbia, and they are all

[ Page 2322 ]

fulfilling a most important function. To turn around and give a specific term for an institute and "at pleasure" for colleges would be a most apparent inconsistency. I can understand one or the other questioning the decision of government. Regretfully I cannot support either.

MR. MITCHELL: I believe the minister himself absolutely supported the argument that the amendment was trying to establish. As he said, there was talk of bringing BCIT under the community colleges legislation, but government, in its wisdom, did not do that. They do recognize that there is a difference between BCIT and the community colleges. I believe there is a lot to be gained. I say this very seriously as one who has worked in various groups, listening to what the people who work in that particular industry.... BCIT is an industry, and they do have input.... People who are appointed from outside the institution, be they good Social Crediters or active community workers.... The people who are actually working within that industry — who are, you would say, on the assembly line — recognize some of the problems, because they are dealing with the students who come to the institution every day and who are dealing firsthand with the businesses who.... They are there to train technocrats for the different industries, and I think they have a closer relationship to the needs of that institution than a lot of people who may be appointed by order-in-council or by the ministry and who are not aware of what is going on in the business world.

The real need is to have that input right from the institution. I think the amendment is a valid one; it is needed if we are going to broaded the type of training we are going to have in the institution and the way it is delivered. I am sorry that the minister offhandedly put it down, trying to relate it to Bill 20, when he would not combine them under the same institutions so that they would have the same board of governors. I think he recognized then, because he didn't combine the two, that there is a different need in BCIT. I would like to support the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

On section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I only rise because of the minister's second time around on a letter from an eminent authority on how to construct boards for educational institutes. The fact of the matter is that he does not hold a majority opinion in this province, and the minister knows it. That letter is an aberration, and that's the reason it keeps coming up under this section. He read it in second reading, and now we've had it again tonight.

The fact is that if the board is sufficiently diverse — in other words, if it is maintained at 15 — then there is plenty of room for the professional advice that can come from somebody of that ilk who is actively engaged in the institute. On the other hand, in this same section the minister is obviously considering putting public servants on the board, because he says right here that he wants to be able to pay them for serving on the board, notwithstanding the Public Service Act. Why? To centralize his authority even further. If that doesn't tell us everything about this, then I want to know what does. It tells us everything, because he'll put his own employees on the board. For heaven's sake, five trustees!

1 can say no more than that I cannot support this section of this bill. I said it in second reading, and I say it again now. I think it is a devastation. I think that reducing the number and increasing the minister's absolute authority on that board is wrong. As I indicated in second reading, this particular area and section give him almost the same authority as if he were the president or principal of BCIT. He runs it right out of his office, no question about it. Every piece of evidence is here. It's all before us, even the fact that he wouldn't accept the amendment from the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), which was relatively benign.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, did we not vote on whether this section would pass?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we voted on the amendment, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: If you'd pay attention, maybe you'd understand what's going on around here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, I must observe that the hon. member for New Westminster was also reflecting on the amendment, which has been dispensed with.

[9:45]

MR. COCKE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I will not reflect any further, but I will say this: it is narrowing the board and is going to be attracting public servants. Otherwise why would those parts of the section be there in order to enable the minister to pay them for serving on the board? It is outright control by the ministry, and that's all there is to it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, some of the comments from the member for New Westminster cannot go unchallenged.

First of all, on the comment with respect to public servants, I thought I made it abundantly clear during second reading that the reason for making reference to someone in the public service is so that you place somebody in the public service on exactly the same level as you would somebody in the private sector. Why should somebody who happens to be employed by government, whether related to the provincial government or outside in a municipality or anywhere…?

MR. COCKE: What about BCIT, then?

HON. R. HEINRICH: Just a minute. I made that reference in second reading, and I made it clear to you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I made it abundantly clear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Please come to order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: What I'm saying is that if someone happens to work for a municipality and has some particular degree of expertise, why should he be precluded from getting an honorarium like anybody else, just because he happens to be a public servant? As far as I am concerned, there are a number of people in the public service who have a great deal to offer, in one form or another, and I want them to be properly rewarded, just like those who are appointed to sit

[ Page 2323 ]

on that board from the private sector and who receive a per diem or an annual amount.

The other item is with respect to the number of members sitting on that board. Yes, the bill says five, but I thought that I made reference to the fact that we're looking at something like 9 to 11, which is a good working relationship. That suggestion has been made to me. It's something that can work well. If you look under the old bill, it states in subsection 2(1)(b)(i) somebody from the health division advisory committee; (ii) somebody from the engineering division advisory committee; and (iii) somebody from the business division advisory committee.... The object of the game is to appoint people who in fact have given services in that area, and that is exactly what we have done. As a matter of fact, there are two gentlemen, one by the name of Hird and the other by the name of McPherson, both of whom served under the two latter ones, engineering and business, and both are appointed to that board as members because we wanted to capture the value of the people who are offering their services of expertise from the private sector.

The real issue here boils right down to sections (c), (d), (e) and (f) under the present Institute of Technology Act where we make reference to academic faculty, non-academic staff, student council and alumni association. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon us as a government to examine and thoroughly look at those candidates to be on the board. Perhaps there is somebody who is a member of the alumni who would like to serve and has some degree of expertise to offer. That is for us to seriously consider.

I will make one other comment here. The letter to which the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) referred is not a letter at all; it is nothing more than a statement which was given to the press and was available to everybody. All that that particular faculty representative said I can understand why, and that is all the reference is towards.

The last item is with respect to centralization. I don't think for one moment that we can turn around and say that this is being centralized as the result of the appointment of board members and not appointing somebody, for example, from the academic faculty on BCIT. The last thing even a Minister of Education of government needs is to have all of the internal matters of a college or an institute on his desk. That is for them to look after. In effect they really do operate as an autonomous body. What we are looking for is this: being a provincial institute, it is incumbent upon us to reflect the interests of the community and if in fact somebody in the community says there is a need to provide some particular service, we have got to be, on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, in a position to request the board of BCIT, and by the board through its executive administration, to seriously consider some of the concerns which the government has. That is the only reason there is a reference to the words "policy and directives," which is the identical language found in the college act, Bill 20.

MR. ROSE: We find it as unacceptable in 19 as we did in 20. That's the whole point of it. It is not in the section we are dealing with at all, section 2. The directives are in the following section, and I will have something to say about that a little later.

I think the minister protested too much when he said how much the civil servants can add to this particular board. It seems to me that I have heard more than once from that side of the House, since I have been here, how you didn't want schoolteachers serving on school boards because somehow they were privy to private knowledge and they would communicate their views to their profession and therefore, unlike real estate interests that might serve on municipal councils, it would somehow be better if they didn't appear on those boards.

I would like to remind the minister, in terms of the governance, that it was the governance suggested not only by the L'Estrange report.... I believe that about 1973 that task force made a recommendation about governance, boards, representatives of a region appointed from the community, student, instructor and support staff members. It was taken up by the then Minister of Education, now Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. MeGeer), and that's what we had in the old act. I would like to know what was wrong with it. What was wrong with the community of interest that would make the minister abandon it if it weren't for the fact that he wanted a strong central control of people by people whom he could appoint and therefore ultimately control? He said he doesn't want centralization. Have a look at section 3: it even allows him to plan courses, to cancel courses. But that is another question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is section 3.

MR. ROSE: I will get to section 3 in a moment. On the governance of the thing, the minister said yes, he will consider these things in what was formerly my amendment, no. 5 edition, which no longer exists because it was ruled out of order. I am pleased that the minister is going to accept that, but I hope he will look for people who are not just known to be complacent, pliant and willing to take direction, but will give the minister the truth, the real knowledge of what is going on there and what should go on there. People in power have lots of sycophantic friends who want to tell him what they think he wants to hear. This may not be what the minister wants to hear, but maybe it is what he should hear.

HON. MR. SMITH: 1, am going to speak briefly on section 2 because I don't think the section is going to do the things in the centralistic controlling way that the member believes they are. Indeed, what it will do is remove some problems with potential conflicts of interest in the old method of appointments which designated various persons who had direct interests in the institution. Various constituencies in the institution have the direct right to nominate people to the board, and while they were generally very good nominees, as I recall, it did place some of those people in a difficult position when it came to personnel and other matters of that kind. I cannot understand why there is the debate over the section which allows public servants to receive a remuneration for serving on the board, because exactly the same section was in the previous bill. Apparently they want to reargue the previous bill.

I would also point out that another important improvement the minister has brought in is that it allows these people to serve for more than two terms. It doesn't put a sunset clause on the term of their appointments. The sunset clauses are advantageous if you have a deadwood appointee that you can't say no to a second time, because on the third time he is eliminated by statute. Nevertheless there are people who make a contribution to these boards whose terms should last longer than the two. I can remember, when I had the position the minister now holds, having two chairmen of that board

[ Page 2324 ]

who served very well and whose time had come under the act and they had to leave the institution. I think artificial limitations of terms of appointments are not desirable under an act. They should be open and there should be a chance to have more than two terms, although people shouldn't be there forever. I hope the member appreciates those parts of the bill and also the great work of the B.C. Institute of Technology, which is the flagship of the college and institute system, and one that we're very proud of in this government and this province.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to expound at great length on what the Attorney-General had to say. He has had great experience as the Minister of Education. The point that we made in the amendment, and perhaps the Attorney-General was out of the room, was not that there weren't good people and not that they shouldn't be renewed, but the amendment, which was found in order.... We haven't reached that point yet; we've voted on 4 but not 5. Am I right, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on section 2.

MR. ROSE: Right. But we've had a vote on the amendment which I offered as point 4?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendments were defeated.

MR. ROSE: What I was going to say in responding to the Attorney-General was that we suggested that under subsection (1) each member appointed shall serve for a three-year term, and may be reappointed for a further term of three years. We weren't suggesting, for instance, that if that person was making an able contribution he should not be reappointed. We objected to the idea of "at pleasure" when it became then an act on the part of the government to end his or her term for whatever reason. That was the only point about deadwood that we were making there. If you want to go to that point, there are some very good members of this Legislature who perhaps could be elected without term as well, but our term comes to an end sooner or later, whether we are good, bad or indifferent, and we have to run for re-election. I have no objection to someone being reappointed if he is serving well as a board member. But I think to be guaranteed a job in perpetuity by this act, which is silent on the idea of term, is a mistake.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General comes romping in here, and he's got a proprietary feeling about this whole question. If he listened to the argument, I have no objection to paying an honorarium to public servants, except that if you're going to do it there, then do it right across the board. Leave your board wide and diverse enough so that you can have people from the faculty and alumni included. They accept the fact that a public servant may give some good advice, but not the fact that a person directly involved in education can give good advice under these circumstances. That's why I used that particular section. If it were sufficiently diverse, if they'd left it alone in the first place, where it was sufficiently diverse, then we would be relatively okay. I don't particularly like the power that the minister has, even within the present circumstances, but he's got it.

[10:00]

Now he argues that he's going to have about nine members on the board, yet he has the number five in the bill. Why? It's a lot easier to handle five than it is to handle nine. It is a lot easier to handle five than it is to handle 15, particularly when you have two or three of your own public servants on the board.

That's all I have to say. If the minister wants to jump up again, I'll have a good deal more to say.

MS. BROWN: I wish the Attorney-General had been as concerned about the conflict of interest evident in this government's treatment of people through the abolition of the Human Rights Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on section 2 of Bill 19.

MS. BROWN: Well, he made such a ludicrous statement that it's difficult to deal with it in all seriousness. Here we have the highest law enforcement officer in the province telling us that the reason students and faculty members and workers are removed from the board is because that constitutes a conflict of interest. What absolute nonsense! He very clearly doesn't understand the function of the board, and why his own colleague, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), constituted the board that way in the first place. It was because it was recognized that the people who use the institute and were most affected by it should have some say in terms of determining the policies, which is what the board does. If the minister wants to eliminate those people from the board, he should come up with a reason for it, but for the chief law enforcement officer in the province to come in here and give us a legal opinion....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not in order, hon. member. To the section, please.

MS. BROWN: This is the Section I'm discussing, section 2, on which the Attorney-General made a legal intervention and gave us the benefit of his lack of knowledge...

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is out of order, To the section, please.

MS. BROWN: …stating that the reason these people should not be on the board was because it would constitute a conflict of interest. I'm merely suggesting to the Minister of Education that he would do well to ignore the advice of his Attorney-General.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education this: if he is reducing the board as a restraint measure — which I'm told it is — how much money is going to be saved by cutting down the number of people to a minimum of five, or, as he says, to nine or eleven? How much money is going to be saved by doing this? I also would like to get a clear statement from him — not like the fuzzy statement made by the Attorney-General — as to why this section did not include some statement on term of office: whether a three-year or four-year term, with the right to be reappointed twice, three times, four times, or whatever. Why was it left absolutely open-ended with no limits?

[ Page 2325 ]

The third question I want to ask the minister is: what justification does he have for deciding that the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council — namely, the cabinet — knows better than the community what the makeup of the board should be? We need some justification for this business of taking unto himself the power to decide who the members of the board should be. What proof does he have that that really is in the best interests of the community which uses BCIT? In what way has the board failed in its present state, where it has the representation of students, faculty members, staff and members of the community? And don't listen to the Attorney-General. Don't take any of his advice.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General often offers good advice. Not too often, but often.

I want you to know that I was delighted that the Attorney-General dropped in this evening to offer some comments on the bill. I was glad to see him.

The first item, when we were starting to talk about the dollars: I believe they're paid an honorarium right now of $2,000 per year. I can't be sure of that, but I believe it's somewhere in that neighbourhood. I really don't think the $2,000 is a major issue.

MS. BROWN: So it's not a restraint issue?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It seems that everything that the opposition has told us is equivalent to restraint. There are a number of policy matters that don't necessarily involve restraint or an impost on the taxpayers; it's just a matter of policy. I think that's really what we were elected to bring in.

Mr. Chairman, when someone serves at pleasure, provided they work hard, give good suggestions and don't agree with the minister or ministry but have their own ideas, that's what I would consider to be a good board member. Somebody who even attends meetings on a regular basis would be a good member, too. It doesn't matter who you appoint; from time to time we encounter some difficulties. People seem to be pleased about receiving appointments to these boards, whether they're colleges or institutes or whatever we have the responsibility to make appointments to. The fact is that sometimes people don't perform the way you would like. Not that they agree or disagree; it's just to do their job. I think that if we appoint at pleasure, that's going to work out a little bit better.

When you talk about order-in-council appointments, again I make reference to the parallel with colleges. At that time we felt that we would sever, for a number of reasons, the relationship between school boards and colleges, and that debate has been heard. I gather I can't reflect on something past, but there is a parallel between 19 and 20. As I mentioned before, I can't justify our policy and draw something different for one particular organization as compared to all of the others.

With respect to the recommendations, you seem to be of the view that these are going to be political flacks. I can assure you that that is not the case at all. As a matter of fact, the last two recommendations came from somebody who said: "These people have given yeoman's service to the board and we would like to have them reappointed."

MS. BROWN: Don't be so defensive.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's not being defensive. You asked these questions, and I thought that.... How would you like me to answer the questions?

MS. BROWN: Sit down and I'll tell you.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All right, then....

Mr. Chairman, I think that the three questions asked by the member have been adequately answered.

MS. BROWN: No, they haven't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair must observe that there has been some repetition of arguments from the various members of the committee.

MS. BROWN: If I can just get my questions in before the axe falls, because I'm sure closure is about to come down on us at any minute now.

Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to thank the minister for his statement to the effect that this is not a restraint measure, that it's a policy measure on the part of the government; I appreciate his honesty in that regard. Other ministers and other members keep telling us that what the government is doing is based on their restraint program, so I want to thank the minister for that. I appreciate that quote and I'll see to it that it is spread far and wide so that everyone knows that.

I did not accuse the minister of appointing political hacks to the board. I merely asked why the minister decided not to include, in terms of appointments to the board, people who are most affected by BCIT. Why the decision to kick off the students, faculty members, people who work there and those other people who are specifically affected by that institution itself? The minister doesn't have to be defensive about it; all he has to do is explain to me why the decision was made not to include those members any more. That's all I asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question does relate to an amendment that was in fact ruled out of order, but the minister may peripherally wish to respond.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of committees at BCIT: in effect, committees involving the student population and the faculty population. The board meetings are also open. There is a great deal of dialogue. We can put anything we want in writing, in bills, but the real answer is how the parties conduct their business. You can make any kind of agreement or legal document you like, but the fact of the matter is that if the parties to that contract, the players in the network at the institution, are prepared to be reasonable and rational people, they are going to accomplish what they set out to do.

MR. NICOLSON: I have one quick question. The minister is setting minimum numbers that must be on the board; why has he not set a maximum? In other words, this change from 15 to 5 is a minimum, a floor. Why has the minister not set a ceiling? What is to preclude 45 people from being appointed to the board?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, there could have been the suggestion "not less than and not more than" if we so wished, but I don't see any particular value in

[ Page 2326 ]

it, when we know full well that the concern which is expressed — and that I have found, at least, with my contact with colleges — is to have not less than some in some areas where five or seven may be suitable and adequate; it may be that others require 9 or 11. It seems to me that we don't want to shackle our wrists when in fact they are going to vary. I don't dispute what the member is saying; I suppose it's an idea. But I also would suggest that what we're looking at is something in the area of between 7 and 11, depending on the nature of the institute. I would draw the parallel with colleges. It's an idea, but I thought that putting a minimum would suit the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, if the minister would refer to some of the repealed statutes, even for the B.C. Institute of Technology, he would see that both minimums and maximums were set in former statutes that have been repealed in this House. Whether it be here or whether it be the B.C. Hydro board of directors or other areas where sizes of boards are set, I suggest it would be an appropriate place here; or, if you are making some change in the future, to consider bringing back the practice of setting not just minimum numbers but also setting maximums. One could appoint 45 or 100 people under this statute. It is open to abuse and it is not good law.

[10:15]

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 8

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

On section 3.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I can predict, with what I think is a fair degree of accuracy, that probably section 3 will ultimately pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please.

MR. ROSE: I am speaking to the section. But whether it will pass unamended is another question. This is an amending paragraph which amends section 5 of the original act. There is a lot of striking out and adding and all the rest of it, but if you get down to the meat — which I know you are anxious for me to do, Mr. Chairman — of the amendment in section 3, it says: "Subject to the policies and directives of the minister, determine courses or programs to be offered or cancelled at the institute."

The minister was up here a little while ago pounding his desk and his chest and anything else that was handy, saying that this piece of legislation wasn't going to be a centralizing measure. "Subject to the policies and directives of the minister," the institute will add or cancel courses. It seems to me that the total power in directing the institute, which I presume is there to offer courses, not just for shelter to keep the students in Burnaby out of the rain in the winter.... It is there to offer courses — courses in the various trades and skills and technical vocations. If the minister has that kind of right then I can't see how he can dodge the issue that what he is doing is essentially centralizing the power of decision-making in terms of course offerings, not to an autonomous institution and its new board of governors consisting of five or more members, but directly under this minister.

The minister may say: "Well, I don't intend to use that power. Only if they get stupid or crazy will I use this kind of power, but I need to have that power." I don't know why he needs to have that power, because if he can appoint the directors and he whispers in their ears and they are the kind of compliant, well-meaning, tame people I suspect he will appoint, then I think this is overkill. This is legislative overkill. Why does he need this power? I know why he needs it. He needs it because he wants to make it parallel to Bill 20. Because he has done it in Bill 20, he thinks he should do it now in Bill 19. He might say: "Well, it's consistent." I think it is foolishly consistent, and it reminds me of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who had this to say one afternoon, wandering down near Walden Pond: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What's a hobgoblin? You are sitting next to one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will remind the committee that we are on section 3 of Bill 19. We are not aware of such a Bill 20. The member will relate his remarks to section 3 of Bill 19 specifically.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, you must admit that I was provoked. If you don't protect me from such provocations it is very difficult for me to speak directly to the bill. My concern is that the minister has taken upon himself the total running of the institution. He has been accused of this in terms of 19, 20 and 6, and we do not accept it. Then he talks a little bit further about various subsections, cross-sections, conflicts and all the rest of it, but the fact remains that the minister will have complete and utter power over a previously autonomous institution serving the needs of British Columbia. He may get up and argue: "Look, we are putting all the money in it anyway — it's the minister's money." Not the taxpayer's money or the people's money but the minister's money. The minister thinks it is his money and that he should have a totality of power in running the institution. It will not surprise you, Mr. Chairman, that I have an amendment to offer to this pernicious, centralizing, overpowering, dictatorial section. I don't have any other adjectives that I can think of at the moment, but they will perhaps suffice.

[ Page 2327 ]

1 would add the following amendment to section 3. This follows the (b) section. I would like to renumber them because we have a (1.1) here. The (b) section talks about various conflicts and refers back to the original bill and various agreements that were entered into after July 7, subsection etc.... Anyway, this is retroactive legislation. It goes back to July 7. I don't like it from that point; it is not a forward-looking piece of legislation; it is a retroactive, retrograde kind of legislation.

Here is (1.2), Mr. Chairman: "Where the minister issues a directive cancelling a course for which the institute has already accepted enrolments, a cause for action lies against the Crown." What I am suggesting is that here is a situation in which an overbearing minister — not this minister, not this convivial, friendly, moderate minister, but perhaps a successor — decides that he is going to use the power vested in him in this section to cancel a course. In the meantime, the institution, through its various calendars, may have offered the course. It may have attracted sufficient interest that there are a number of enrolments in that course, people had made plans, they had moved to take up residence, they have purchased certain kinds of textbooks, they may have paid their fee. If a course is cancelled under those circumstances they are going to be out of pocket. Presumably there will be a lot of disappointed people just as there are disappointed people knocking at the doors of universities now trying to get in and finding that there aren't places for them. There are, I think, a number of cases which could be made that the citizens of our province — those students — may have registered for a course that has been offered and by fiat that course could be cancelled. I recommend to the House that where a minister issues a directive cancelling a course for which the institute has already accepted enrolment a cause for action lies against the Crown. This will force the Crown to be responsible. This will prevent the Crown from being all-powerful and steamrolling its decisions or the decisions of the agents of the Crown in the ministry from taking precipitous action that may bring hardship to other citizens of British Columbia. We want them to have that action against the Crown that doesn't rely on permission to take action against the Crown.

[10:30]

That is the first half. I can see, Mr. Chairman, that you are getting edgy there. I am not trying to abuse the House or you, sir; I am just trying to explain, as is my duty, why I would move this kind of an amendment. Further, Mr. Chairman, I have added now a (1.3). I will explain it after I have read it for the edification of the House. Section (1.3) follows immediately after (1.2): "The minister shall incorporate all directives made under this section into the annual report of the ministry which is to be laid before the House once every year." That's why we call it an annual report. This has to do with the various policies and directives outlined under "j" of section A. These are courses that are offered or cancelled, and these will be communicated to the appropriate institution — in this case, BCIT — through directives. What we're attempting to do is to return to the concept of open government. None of this furtiveness or secretiveness. We want the minister to be open and upfront. If there's going to be a directive to the board or administration of that institution; if the ministry is, in fact, going to be managing that institution, we want the public to know the nature of the directives. We want to know if the minister is telling them to cancel or add courses, to seek higher admission standards in various courses, or to change the nature of the course offerings. Since he is in charge, we want the minister to be accountable and not the administration of the institution solely. We want an open, freedom-of- information government, wherein the directives issued to this particular institution are made public. We feel the same way in the case of Bills 20 and 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, first of all, we're mentioning legislation that is not before this committee. Secondly, we are now debating an amendment which has not been ruled on. Could the table please have the amendment, and then perhaps we can decide on whether or not the member should continue with his debate. Otherwise, please speak to the section.

Hon. member, the amendment as proposed by the member for Coquitlam-Moody is out of order on two grounds. Firstly, 1.2 imposes payments out of public funds, and section 1.3 is an obligation on the Crown. The amendment is out of order.

MR. ROSE: If both amendments are out of order, then certainly I'm free to complete my remarks on the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If your remarks relate to the section.

MR. ROSE: I'm not very happy about that. I don't have the appropriate citation or the experts sitting here with me, but I would like to know why making public directives or directions in an annual report — and both these words are used in various parts of these statutes — needs to be out of order? It's not spending money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Legislation may be proposed by the government which would allow for expenditures, but they cannot be proposed by a private member. That's the rule.

MR. ROSE: It has to do with expenditures?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. ROSE: Section 1.3 of my amendment does not propose expenditures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1.2, hon. member, clearly enlarges causes of action against the Crown, and potential liability.

MR. ROSE: I wasn't contradicting the Chair, or even asking for a clarification on clause 1.2. I thought that your remarks were directed to clause 1.3, which are all parts of the same amendment to the same clause, which is clause 3 in the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1.3 imposes an obligation on the Crown and is out of order.

MR. ROSE: All right, Mr. Chairman. If I can't speak to my amendments I can certainly speak to the section.

We want to make certain, and this is what the amendments attempted to do, as in the case of Bill 19 and Bill 20.... Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. The minister got up and spoke about Bill 20, and so I don't see why I should be precluded from a passing reference about it.

I think the point has been made as far and as strongly as I can make it. We want any directives to be made public. If I

[ Page 2328 ]

can't move it by amendment, I'd like to have the voluntary agreement, or at least consideration, that what directions are given to these colleges — because they will leak out anyway — will be made public in the annual report. I wish he would consider that. Then there will be no suspicion about what kind of unseen hand is operating or directing from the Ministry of Education to the institute concerned.

Further on the other one that was considered out of order, if courses are cancelled or presumed to be cancelled, I would like the minister not not to proceed with them if there have been fees paid for courses offered, provided there is enough enrolment in there to justify the course.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I accept the concern which the member has expressed involving any potential policy or directives given to the institution. The fact of the matter is, as I mentioned earlier, that the board meetings for BCIT are open meetings and you can rest assured that any suggestions which are made will be discussed at those open meetings. That will be a matter of record. The opposition, being a watchdog of government activities, I am sure, is going to raise that issue.

The other point that the member raises with respect to any obligations incurred by students who were enrolled in a class where, in fact, there may be — which is highly unlikely — a directive as to whether or not that class should proceed, would certainly be considered. But I think the important thing is that it is not the particular item to which the member is referring. What we are concerned about in the matter of policy in directives is just this. What if, for example, there is a program which is most important to the students who are attending and of considerable interest to the people of British Columbia, and there is some push made by BCIT to drop a particular program? It seems to be in the interest of government representing all of the people that we ought to have the opportunity to review any such move.

The other item, which I think is clear when it comes to a matter of policy in directives, is that there are a number of institutions in the lower mainland, and one of the concerns that I have had expressed to me by a number of college principals is the constant duplication of oodles of courses. We know that they are costing a fair amount of money and there is a push, as a matter of fact, by principals and college board chairmen to try to impose some degree of rationalization on those courses which are offered by a number of colleges. I think this is something we ought to consider because with the moneys which are available, we should be in a position to offer the best possible course with the best possible instruction and not water that down by spreading it around the lower mainland.

The member talks about them not being our funds, and I think he is being facetious. They are taxpayers' funds and it seems to me that we have an obligation to ensure that they are put to the best possible use.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister won't allow his colleagues to intimidate him when he is trying to give a straight answer to some straight questions. We really appreciate his taking the time to answer the questions that are being put to him.

However, this section is the one in which the minister takes unto himself, as my colleague stated, the power to determine courses or programs which should be offered or cancelled at the institute. He says that one of the reasons for that has to do with duplication. Surely that is not the decision of the minister. It seems to me that the colleges, the boards or the councils, as the case may be, could get together and make that decision themselves. For the minister to sit here in Victoria and make an arbitrary decision about what programs should be given by what institute is centralizing in part, and I'm not sure that this is the best way in which those decisions should be made.

However, I rose because I have a question for the minister.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hurry up.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not going to hurry up. I'm going to take my time. Whether it is your wedding anniversary or not, I'm going to take my time. Congratulations, incidentally.

The minister's responsibilities call for a very extensive curriculum vitae, and that is what I want to ask him about. I want to know what the minister's experience is. What are his academic qualifications or special skills which equip him to take on the full responsibility for deciding what courses or programs are in the best interests of the institution involved and which ones should be cancelled and which ones introduced? Tell us a little bit about the qualifications that you bring to this very onerous task.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that question might be better asked during committee or during estimates.

MS. BROWN: This is committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee of Supply during the estimates of the minister. The minister may wish to respond as it applies to this section.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To the first question which the member raised, when we start talking about rationalization of courses within the lower mainland, I honestly do not know what it is. But it seems to me that once a college is established and it's rampant, there is something about protection of turf. What they all need, recognize and, in fact, are inviting someone to do is to bite the bullet and impose some degree of rationalization, which simply means: let's avoid the constant duplication of a lot of courses which are offered in the lower mainland in all of the colleges, of which there are considerable.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am passing on to the member, in response to her question, what in fact is being told to me by those charged with the administration of these colleges. I'm telling you what they are telling me. As a matter of fact, it was the first exposure I had when assigned to this portfolio.

That leads me to answer the second question, as humbly as I can. My experience and qualifications are identical to every member who sits in this House. We were elected by the people. It's as simple as that. I just hope that I bring to the portfolio good and sound reason and the exercise of good discretion.

HON. MR. ROGERS: You're out of order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm out of order, my colleague now tells me.

[ Page 2329 ]

MS. BROWN: No, he's not. Discretion is never out of order.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, I apologize to the member, Mr. Chairman. I have been ruled out of order in attempting to answer your question.

[10:45]

MS. BROWN: I just want to assure the minister that discretion is never out of order, and that he should ignore the comments of his colleagues. But I want to be clear that the minister is saying that the colleges and institutes are incapable of making these decisions themselves. You are, in fact, saying that they really are not responsible, they cannot handle the task and that they have appealed to you. This section is in direct response to that appeal, is it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't put words in his mouth.

MS. BROWN: Why don't you go back to Yugoslavia? It was wonderful when you were away.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members will come to order, please.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, we got so much work done when that minister was in Yugoslavia, even though he was there at the taxpayers' expense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the section, please, and I'll call the minister to order.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. I appreciate that. I just want the Minister of Education to clarify, because I need this information to pass on to one of these institutes, which is, as you know, in Burnaby itself, that in fact this section is a direct response to a request made to him.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is yes.

MR. ROSE: I want to be assured, Mr. Speaker, that this business of duplication and direction really isn't a change in direction on behalf of the ministry. If the minister says that there are duplications in the lower mainland, that presumes that the students have equal travel access to each of the institutions. Presumably if they had a requirement for a particular course in one institution — let's say Langara — that was to be offered at Douglas, should it be cancelled at Douglas because it's offered at Langara? Does that mean that the students are then obligated to travel to that point? That is not always easy for everyone. There aren't the travel facilities in the lower mainland. We're dealing with the BCIT act here in 19; there aren't any other institutions, really, since it has its own act, so we don't have the duplications that we might have in 20. Is the government embarking on a specialist approach to the various colleges as we had, say, in Vancouver 40 years ago, where you had a technical high school, a commercial high school, a high school of the arts and various other kinds of institutions which specialized and therefore didn't offer the kind of duplication that the minister seems to fear? That's really the question that I want answered, because, you know, in the city of Prince George there are a lot of high schools offering the same courses because there is need for those courses to be offered because of certain attendance areas which the students can reach. The same thing happens at the post-secondary level as well. So that's one point that I'd like clarified.

The other point is that the minister seemed to be saying in answer to an earlier question that he wanted to avoid the cancellation of a course by an institution, and thereby somehow protect the students. I can't see an institution on the one hand cancelling a course and needing the protection of the minister, and then on the other hand be accused of duplication and empire-building. Certainly there are stake-holders. If you invested your whole life in law, you'd probably want to go and practice law, unless you want to be a judge or something, and often a judge is just a lawyer who went into politics.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Like Leggatt.

MR. ROSE: He has no monopoly on that disease; lot's of people suffer from it. You won't, but he did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the section, please, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: He has provoked me again, Mr. Chairman.

But I want to make the point that the minister can't have it both ways. He can't protect institutions from dropping courses and therefore be an advocate on behalf of the student on the one hand, and then turn around and express fear that there is going to be endless duplication on the other. But I will say that if people spend their whole lives developing certain kinds of expertise, and are offering their services in a particular institution, yes, they are going to be concerned about its continuance, and so they should be, unless you're prepared to transfer them from one institution to the other or else lose what they have to offer entirely. I don't think teachers are any different than any other group of people when it comes to that point.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With respect to the main thrust of the member's concern, I have an example. BCIT had one particular course in psychiatric nursing. First of all, BCIT was bulging at the seams, and their main thrust is in business and technology. We thought it would be sensible to move that particular program to Douglas College, because at Douglas College there was a lot of space. But the fact of the matter is that there was some degree of reluctance for BCIT to surrender that particular program, and of course it wasn't that convenient because of the space problems. So why not get it over to Douglas, where in fact the space is available? It seems to me that makes good sense.

One of the big concerns which is being expressed to me by people in the college system when we talk about rationalization is that the real driver in here is enrolment. There are courses which are offered where the enrolment is very small; in some cases it's almost embarrassing with respect to some programs. I can't identify them now, but I can assure you they have been related to me over the past little while. It seems to me that what we should be looking at here is not the directive with respect to what course can be offered on a policy matter, but are the classes filled? That's all we're looking at. I think

[ Page 2330 ]

the members opposite are going to have to, as I mentioned earlier, have some degree of trust.

I hope that adequately answers that. I doubt it.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 19, Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: As dealt with at some length in the budget address of July 7 this year, the government has authorized through the Employment Development Act a total of $415 million for capital works and job creation programs, of which $245 million is appropriated from the consolidated revenue fund, and $170 million is to be provided through regular capital-financing mechanisms.

Of the $245 million which is to be appropriated, $205 million is being used to accelerate capital works normally funded through ministries. This includes $189.6 million for highway construction, $11.7 million for diking and associated river works, and $3.7 million for projects related to agriculture within the province. A further $40 million will be used for special employment initiatives throughout British Columbia on a variety of programs. One of these is the new employment expansion and development program, a joint federal-provincial effort commenced last year. Other programs have been identified in the course of debate thus far and will continue to be identified, particularly, I would think, during estimates debate.

The $170 million in capital financing will be applied to accelerated health care projects which are expected to create about 5,600 worker-years of employment, and these will help sustain construction firms in the province as the economy recovers. It should be noted, also, that this initiative will further expand and improve British Columbia's already high-quality health care facilities. This indicates the government's commitment to creating jobs and building the infrastructure for sustained economic growth and social development.

As I indicated a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, the bill is essentially an umbrella. It has been dealt with in some detail thus far in this session, and no doubt will be dealt with in greater detail in the course of the weeks to come.

I therefore now move second reading of Bill 16, the Employment Development Act.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose it's hard to vote against motherhood, but it's also hard to compliment the government on bringing in this kind of bill at this time. I appreciate the figures that the minister gave — more quickly than I could write them down; it's all very well to have this explanation now in second reading and then be expected to respond intelligently to the various projects announced by the government.

One wonders at the shell game — the projects that have been cancelled by the government that were providing employment — providing $415 million in this particular bill and yet cutting out a program of some $3.9 million that was, in cooperation with the federal government, providing work. It was a proven thing, and yet the provincial government backed out of that. The federal government was so convinced that it was actually doing something about unemployment in the province that it decided to move in and pick up the provincial share of the program in order to keep it going.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's just good business.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I think you will have to admit and agree with me that the House got along much better when that particular minister was off in Switzerland or Yugoslavia or wheverever it was. I don't know why he had to come back as soon as he did, because he certainly contributed a great deal more to the economy of British Columbia by being away and keeping out of....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: We would be pleased to hear from that minister on his feet, but like so many other ministers he prefers to talk from his seat. He seems to have nothing to contribute other than interjections from his seat.

[11:00]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't run your leadership campaign here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll ask the minister to come to order, and we will proceed with orderly debate on Bill 16. The member for Nanaimo has the floor and will be afforded that courtesy.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

MR. STUPICH: Certainly we will have a much better opportunity in committee to ask the minister for some detail about the programs he has announced. One wonders, for example, why these programs were not included in the various ministerial presentations. We assume that we will get to those some day, and it would seem to me that the figures, as I jotted them down, would more properly have been presented to us by the ministers when putting their estimates through the House. The minister described many of these as being ordinary projects, ongoing work that would be going on in any case. I took down the words "regular financial...."

HON. MR. CURTIS: Some are accelerated.

MR. STUPICH: But how can we discuss in second reading whether they're accelerated, decelerated, belong here or belong somewhere else, particularly in view of the limited

[ Page 2331 ]

information in the bill itself? There was some information in the budget, but, again, not nearly enough to discuss this bill properly in second reading. I don't know.... I think about all I can say at this point is that the opposition does not intend to get into a prolonged discussion of this particular bill in second reading, but we will expect the minister to go into it in much more detail when we get to committee stage.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I just wish to speak briefly to Bill 16, because this bill, through its acceleration of the funding for diking construction in this province, has had a very marked effect on a number of communities that I have been personally involved with over the past two and a half to three years. This decision by the Minister of Finance to use this particular bill to allow some funding to go forward to accelerate the construction of diking has meant that some communities that were always subjected to the possibility of total destruction by flooding, including a number of towns throughout the province, have now had the opportunity over the last few months to complete that construction. I have taken the opportunity to see almost every one of those projects, including visits I have made since I moved between portfolios. This is the money that is probably, in my opinion, the best money spent by the government in many years in terms of cost prevention, accident prevention and the prevention of trauma and grief. If you could have seen the suffering that has gone on in the many homes, families and communities because of the devastating nature of floods that have always gone on in this.... Unless we're having a flood at the particular time, it's not something people think about. But the engineers and the municipal leaders throughout the province who rose to the occasion when this offer was made by the government have done a very good job and put people to work that would not otherwise be working, in what I think is probably the most beneficial program that I was ever involved with.

MR. LEA: I think this bill is worthy of support, but not without some passing comments. This bill takes me back to the election campaign. What is provided in this bill is somewhat the same package that was put forward by our party. The borrowing source is different and the projects that are going to be built are different than the ones we put forward, but the principle is exactly the same. The principle is that there is going to be money borrowed to create immediate employment to create projects that will create some lasting wealth in the community.

When you're going to borrow money in a downturned economy, I think you have to take a look at a number of things. You're looking to create some immediate employment. You're also looking to....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Did he have a long supper hour, Mr. Speaker, or what?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we will hopefully have order in the House. Would the hon. minister allow the hon. member for Prince Rupert to continue on Bill 16.

MR. LEA: As I was saying, when you are borrowing money to create employment in a downturned economy there are a number of things you should take into consideration.

Number one is that, hopefully, you will create some immediate jobs. The second thing that you're trying to do when you're doing that is spend the money on projects that will create lasting wealth in society. Those things that create lasting wealth include transportation systems — and this bill deals with some transportation systems. It deals with hospital construction, and, again, there is some lasting wealth for the community in the long run. But I cannot see how the government itself can be in favour of this bill and in favour of this principle when in fact they were against the very same thing during the last election. That's a little bit amazing to me. Yes, the source of funding was different, and the jobs that may have been created were different. But I'm going to point out the benefits of the program that we were putting forward during the campaign, as opposed to this piece of legislation.

One of the big benefits of the job creation program that we put forward is that local communities would decide which jobs were going to go forward and which jobs weren't. In other words, regional districts and municipal governments were going to decide whether the project should go ahead or not. They would decide what would go ahead and that way, I think, the jobs would be spread more evenly throughout the community. In other words, the job stimulus would have been more easily and better spread throughout the entire community than with this bill, which is going to, in effect, have pocket spending throughout the province. I see that as a drawback to the bill. As I said, it is worth supporting, but I think it could be improved by having the money spread more evenly throughout the community. That could have been done better, I think, with the program we put forward, whereby the money was going to be spent in a number of different communities throughout the province. I think that would have been a benefit.

There is the impression that this is all new money, and we know that isn't true.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: It's not even recycled; it is money that would have been spent anyway in the regular programs. This bill isn’t even needed. It could have been done in estimates. But this bill, of course, will highlight to the public that the government is doing this. What it is saying is: "We will spend the money anyway, but if we bring in Bill 16, hopefully some people will think that it is all new money and they won't think that it's borrowed."

One of the things that the government is fond of saying, one of their favorite expressions, is: "You cannot buy your way into prosperity," or "You can't borrow your way into prosperity." And I don't think this bill does that. Neither did the program that we put forward during the campaign. Both the program that we put forward and this bill recognize the need for immediate employment in the province. But I find it strange that the government has only come to the realization that in a downturned economy there may be the need to spend some money through government to create some employment, but that that money should he spent so that after it is gone.... In other words, there are two different projects. You could have a make-work program in which somebody went out and sifted the ocean for weeds. At the end of that you would have created some work, but there would be nothing when the program was over. This program isn't like that. It is a program that leaves some wealth after the spending. So that is good.

[ Page 2332 ]

The only thing I wanted to point out is that in principle it is exactly the same program that the government members were against during the campaign. But the specifics of the program put forward by the New Democratic Party in the campaign would have been more of an economic stimulus, in that the economic stimulus would have happened in almost every community that wanted to take advantage of the project. The difference with this bill is that the central government, the B.C. government, is going to say where the money is going to be spent. Under our program local government would have decided where the money would have been spent, and we felt that was a much better program. Pocket wealth is going to be the result of this. Some areas of the province are going to benefit by this spending, but under our program a great many more communities would have benefited. The economic stimulus, the jobs created, would have been spread more evenly throughout the province had we gone with the program that the NDP put forward during the election campaign.

We can agree with the principle; we think it could be improved, but as they say, you don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I think on this we have an agreement. If the government really does want to hold out the olive branch, if they really do want to compromise, if they really do want to cooperate, they should consider some of the aspects of the program that we put forward. For instance, why should only those areas that have a diking problem have money spent on them? Why should only those areas where the government has decided to have hospital construction have money spent on them? Wouldn't it be better if the money could be spent in every community in the province? Wouldn't that be a much better economic stimulus than just deciding on high where the money is going to be spent?

When the minister closes debate I would like to hear why he has chosen this method of spending money, as opposed to the method of allowing the communities and the regional districts themselves to decide what projects should go ahead and what projects shouldn't. It seems to me more democratic. It is better in terms of creating employment evenly throughout the province. It is better for economic stimulus throughout the province. So what I would like the minister to do when he closes second reading is just tell us the reasons he has decided to go the pocket wealth route instead of the overall wealth-creating route. I don't understand why the government would not be in favour of spending money evenly throughout the province as opposed to just spending it where they want in a pocket situation. It's hard for me to believe that they would go this way, and I'd like to have some reasoning from the minister as to why the government has decided to spend the money this way as opposed to the other way.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that Bill 16, as the member for Prince Rupert indicated, is a bill which talks in terms of consolidated revenue for $245 million and a balance of $170 million comes from the Hospital District, College and Institute, University and Society Acts, where they're permitted to borrow under these acts.

Just one or two words about the hospital aspects. They build hospitals and don't utilize them, That's one of the things we've been doing in recent years. Obviously we're talking about building schools and not utilizing them, and I presume that colleges will be treated the same way, because the cutbacks that we see in these areas indicate to me that that's what's in the offing. Our province is in a shameful state of unemployment, that I contend is there mainly because of the fact that this government took the initiative in 1978 that subscribed to the whole Milton Friedman perverse direction for the western economies. Those edicts and suggestions that were put forward by Friedman, the Fraser Institute and all of the rest of the groups have created the situation that we're in, not just here but in the rest of the western world, with the exception of two nations, and that's Japan and the Netherlands, who chose to ignore high interest rates and monetarism.

[11:15]

Of the 183,000 people who were unemployed last July — and it's now over 200,000 — 109,000 were people under 25. What a situation! What are we going to do? Add a band-aid. Sure, this is something that we can't vote against, because at least there is some kind of stimulus here. But the stimulus, in my opinion, is too little and too late. This government should have seen the writing on the wall in 1978 when they were down putting forward their suggestions to the premiers' conference. Our own brief said to the Prime Minister and the rest of the premiers of Canada: "The only way we can contain an economy, the only way we can make a healthy economy is to defeat inflation on the backs of working people." That's what happened and this entire country is in a shameful state because the rest of the country adopted that philosophy.

I know it's difficult for a country like Canada that has sold out its economy over and over again. They've let alien money into the country to the extent that it controls our wealth, our destinies and the capital investment in our country to the extent that we have very little to say about it. The day that Canada and British Columbia decide to be masters in our own house, when they adopt the maître chez nous, that will be the day that we can begin to look forward not only to a growing economy but also to a powerful nation. We will continue to be the carriers of wood and bearers of water that we've been as long as we continue along the way we've gone.

I suggest that this is a start. The wealth of our pension plans in this province, and in this nation, are sufficient wealth, and if properly directed we could begin to control the direction and to buy back our own economy.

MR. KEMPF: PetroCan, is that what you're talking about?

MR. COCKE: It's about time those who have decided to sell out began to listen to this. That member who sits with his mouth open and his ears closed could learn something.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: There is no relationship between what I'm saying and what he's talking about.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have order in the House, please.

MR. COCKE: The encouragement of a government to do exactly what I'm talking about, to put those pension dollars to work, not under government control but to encourage it across the board, would be an opportunity for us to get involved in our own economy. At the present time, where do you find the Canadian pension dollar invested?

[ Page 2333 ]

MR. KEMPF: PetroCan.

MR. COCKE: No. In GM and Exxon. That's where they're invested — in areas that are further alienating our own economy. They are not even invested to any extent in Rogers' sugar refinery.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're talking about the IWA.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Where do the IWA pension funds go?

MR. COCKE: Precisely, Mr. Speaker; IWA has at least a little bit more social conscience, but it's not an IWA pension plan; it is a forest industry pension plan. The fact that I designed it is of no significance in this House. They invested all over, just like they do with the other pension plans. But I am saying that if a little bit of social conscience comes into play with these pension plan dollars, it strikes me that we could do a lot more for the unemployment and a lot more for the development of secondary industry, which is absolutely imperative. I hear the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) talking about the new technology. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's fair enough. But I suggest to you that I am very wary if those new technologies are practised like they are in other countries, where it demands an absolute low-wage force to put it over. What we need is a good, solid, secondary industry built in this province and then we will not be in a situtation where we're running at 14 percent unemployed and the major portion of that 14 percent in the age groups under 25. What a future! Then we see the Conference Board of Canada coming out and saying that we can look forward to this for the next few years. What a heritage! I blame that heritage totally and completely on the stupid way we have managed our economies across this country — demonstrably stupid because the countries that have fared worse are the countries that have accepted that Friedman theory; the countries that have fared best have been those that rejected it out of hand, up to and including Japan. They have never gone that route. Further, they have always maintained control of their own economy.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have order, please.

MR. COCKE: I think probably that member has something to say but heaven only knows what it might be. It has always been a mystery.

We must get to a situation where somewhere around 20 percent of the young people — I'm talking about the under-25s — are not faced with unemployment. We are not making a significant move here. I don't think ploughing all the dollars in the country is going to make the significant move. It is going to be policy and encouragement to get the savings of our people to work in our own economy managing the decision-making of the direction of our economy. We are notorious for our savings, and they're not being properly channelled. They can only be properly channelled if there is encouragement and policies that assist in the channelling.

Having said that again, we have a piece of proposed legislation before us that says a little and gives the government a chance to blow up their balloon a little bit but is totally inadequate and wouldn't be needed today had there been proper policies in this country and this province over the last few years.

Sure, we support the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the three speakers on the opposite side with respect to Bill 16, the Employment Development Act. With respect to the member for Nananaimo (Mr. Stupich), of course I will be prepared in committee, to the best of my ability, to answer in more detail some of the specific projects which comprise this particular measure.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and I will disagree on the approach, and that's fair enough. We've done that before. I paraphrase, but I believe I'm essentially correct, but he wondered why the money was not placed in many more communities and why local decision-making was not involved as was advocated, I believe, by the NDP in the course of the election campaign. Our program was by category, and it showed the kind of restraint which we considered to be necessary through this period. It is easy to dismiss it and say that it is not enough, but it is what we believe is appropriate in terms of our total fiscal situation. We could have designated smaller amounts of money to a variety of communities. I don't want to take his thesis and overextend it, but I recall winter works programs of years gone by, where money made available federally and provincially was distributed on an almost per capita basis throughout the country, and that worked well in some communities and did not work well in others. This one, as my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Rogers) observed, contains one essential element — several essential elements, but one which is of particular interest to him — which is relative to diking. It would be facetious to suggest that there are not projects for river improvement that could not be undertaken in a number of communities. Nonetheless, the money allocated here for this year is at least a start on those which, I think, are best described as being urgently required.

So we have a difference in philosophy — a little bit of money to a lot of communities, or money by category, as I indicated here. I do look forward to answering in committee stage in more detail when we reach that particular stage of debate.

I now move second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Parks in the chair.

On section 3.

[ Page 2334 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we had no warning, of course, of this bill. I would just like to refer to my notes on section 3, where section 806 is amended by striking out 807 and substituting 809. What we're doing here is referring to a section that we feel should not have been removed. If we had a little bit of time, we could pull our notes and get on with it. I hope one of my colleagues is also looking for this. This is a ridiculous way to run a ship. Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again until such time as a person has a chance to have a look.

[11:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

NAYS — 27

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

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, section 4 wipes out a number of sections that were previously in the Municipal Act — sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815. Section 807, which is one section that is eliminated, reads as follows:

"(1) The regional board shall prepare regional plans applicable to the regional district, and revise them as necessary, and for this purpose a regional plan means a general scheme without detail for the projected uses of land within the regional district, including location of major highways.

" (2) A regional plan may be expressed in maps, plans, reports or by other means.

" (3) A regional plan may apply to any or all areas of the regional district.

" (4) The regional board may, in a regional plan, provide for transition from present to proposed use, and shall, in preparing the plan, have regard for interrelationships of area and uses."

This is a section which once eliminated will take away from the regional districts the power to plan within those districts. In other words, the provincial government will tell regional districts what they're going to do, how, when and how much.

I'd like to begin by asking the minister what the regional districts were or were not doing to make him feel it necessary for section 807 to be eliminated from the Municipal Act. Will the minister answer that question? No? Is the minister intending to answer questions during committee stage? Why would the minister not answer that question? It seems fundamental to me. I am asking what the circumstances were that led the government to eliminate section 807.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

MR. LEA: I sure will if the minister's going to answer.

Mr. Chairman, why will the minister not answer? The question I have seems to me a perfectly legitimate one. What is it that led the government to decide to repeal section 807 from the Municipal Act? This section strips away power at the regional board level. Surely something must have happened. Was it done at whim? Did they put a bunch of sections on the board and throw darts and say: "There's the way to do it"? Surely something must have happened, or maybe something didn't happen. Did the government become discouraged with the way section 807 was being used or not being used? Did it impede something or other? What was it that made the government decide that they were not going to leave this section of the act in place?

I guess we go to 30-minute speeches, Mr. Chairman, if that's the way they want it. If they're not going to cooperate....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture the House.

MR. LEA: This morning the Premier said: "An olive branch and compromise. We're going to try to coordinate and cooperate."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your debate now has no relevance to the section before us.

MR..LEA: Mr. Chairman, it has every relevance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe it does, hon. member.

MR. LEA: It has every relevance. If the government won't even take its place in this debate and tell us why they're doing it, then it has some real relevancy, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you're going to debate the administrative actions of a minister, that would be better done under his estimates…

MR. LEA: I am not, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: …and not under this section.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this section that we're debating eliminates a number of sections previously in place in the Municipal Act. The first one is section 807, which I read. I've asked the minister to explain to the committee why the government felt it necessary to eliminate that section. The minister didn't take his place. If we're going to have a reasonable debate, as the Premier has said he wishes the House to do, then it would seem to me that a little cooperation from the government benches when the opposition asks a question would be the place to start. But if it was only a bunch

[ Page 2335 ]

of PR because of a poll they took, or a poll the Vancouver Sun took, that says people are not exactly happy with the legislation....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are straying well beyond the specific items contained in this clause, and in committee we must be strictly relevant to the clause before us. I am sure the hon. member is aware of that. I would ask the hon. member to relay his remarks to the section we are discussing now or discontinue debate.

MR. LEA: My question to the minister then is: why will he not answer my question about the elimination of 807? Mr. Chairman, I ask again: why will the minister not answer the opposition's questions on why they are eliminating section 807 from the Municipal Act?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I think the explanatory note states quite clearly that official plans are being eliminated as a deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process and to strengthen the autonomy of municipal governments.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, that's a pretty vague explanation, to say they are going to do it to streamline. That's not really an explanation; what we are asking is, what were the circumstances? What were the regional districts doing that was so offensive to the government that they took away the planning power?

MR. REID: Wasting taxpayers' money.

MR. LEA: How were they wasting taxpayers' money? Mr. Chairman, if the government cannot give us a better reason than that, then we can only make our own assumptions. Is it that the regional districts were standing in the way of a quick buck for some of the friends of government? Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the specific clause.

MR. LEA: I am talking about the specific one. I am saying that to remove section 807 from the Municipal Act and give the provincial government all of the powers previously held by the regional district has to have either some basis in logic or some basis in politics. If the government can't explain its logic, then we can only assume we are looking at a political act by this government. If that's the way it is, then we can talk for a long time about the political friends of government. We can talk about the Spetifore land if that's the way they want it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we cannot do that in committee.

MR. LEA: We can do it in committee, Mr. Chairman.

[11:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will have to ask you to discontinue if you persist in an argument that is not specifically relevant to these sections outlined in section 4.

MR. LEA: It is specifically relevant because the elimination of this section of the Municipal Act will mean a developer's field day. If there is no logical explanation and if the minister can't give a logical explanation, there is only one explanation: that is that the regional governments were getting in the way of developers, and especially the developers who want to develop the Spetifore land. That is all this is about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, now we are clearly getting into second reading debate and not being specifically relevant to the clause in front of us. I also tend to suspect we are getting repetitious, and standing order 43 cautions us against being repetitious while in committee.

MR. LEA: If the government will not answer in a logical way why they felt it necessary to remove this section from the Municipal Act, then we can only assume there is no logical reason; that the reason is strictly political and the logic is around politics. It you want campaign funds, then what you do is make it easy for those people who want a quick buck....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. We are now straying. I might caution the hon. member for the last time that none of the sections that are listed under section 4 would have anything to do with the comments the member is making now.

MR. LEA: Isn't it strange, Mr. Chairman, that all night we dealt with bills that the opposition could agree with. Is that the kind of cooperation…? But when the bell strikes midnight and maybe the press gallery is asleep, then they bring in the one that helps Spetifore and their friends. Is that what it's all about?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: So they made a mistake. The press gallery aren't stupid.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members will come to order. The member for Prince Rupert is warned again that the remarks must be specifically relevant to the clause — strictly relevant.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I am making remarks specifically to section 4 of this bill. What I am saying is that I assume this section is being eliminated because the government wants to help developers bypass municipal councils and regional districts who want to plan their communities. They don't want the big hand of government ramming things down their throats.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will once again caution the member that he is not speaking to the....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, I'm not finished yet. During committee on a bill we must be strictly relevant. Debates that might have been acceptable during second reading are not acceptable during the committee stage of a bill,

[ Page 2336 ]

where we discuss the sections clause by clause, and we must be strictly relevant to those sections.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, under section 4 the bill calls for elimination of section 812 of the existing act. Section 812 of the existing act reads as follows: "A regional board, or the council or trustees of a member municipality, may not enact a provision or initiate works which would impair or impede the ultimate realization of all or part of the objectives of an official regional plan."

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order....

MR. BARRETT: I'm in the middle of a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. McGEER: He's not on a point of order at all. He is reading legislation, Mr. Chairman. Do you want me to stand up and read legislation on a point of order? We can't have members being disorderly in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition is currently making a point of order.

HON. MR. McGEER: He's not! He's reading legislation, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will decide that, hon. member. Perhaps when the Leader of the Opposition has finished the minister may wish to make a further point of order. But until such time as we've heard it, the Leader of the Opposition continues.

MR. BARRETT: Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the elimination of section 812 reflects directly on specific actions planned by a municipality as outlined by my colleague from Prince Rupert. There is no other section wherein the member can read the application of section 812 which is being eliminated. Clearly, when he talks about specific plans in a municipality that will be eliminated, he is in order under this section. This section is to eliminate a previous section, which clearly puts his comments in order.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are clearly listening not only to tedious and repetitious debate by the member for Prince Rupert under the section, but we are now listening to tedious and repetitious debate from the Leader of the Opposition under a point of order. I don't know how you would call a member to order under a point of order, but I can tell you I've never heard such irrelevant nonsense in the House in my life — wandering all over, asking people to answer questions as if they were being cross-examined. It has nothing to do with the section at all. I would appeal to the House and to the Chairman to try to keep the debate in some reasonably orderly fashion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's comments to the member for Prince Rupert were such that when relating his debate to section 4 he should not enter into debate which would be more appropriate to the estimates of the minister, or in fact would have been more appropriate to second reading debate, which covers the larger principle of the bill. We are on specific sections now and I am sure all hon. members can relate their debate to the specific sections before us.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, section 4 simply says this: "Sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815 are repealed." If I am going to stick strictly to section 4, then all I can say is....

What could you say? The only thing you can do under this section is ask the minister why they're being repealed. The Minister of Universities and whatever gets up and says: "Who the hell does the opposition think they are? They are asking the minister questions and telling him they want answers, like he's under cross-examination." Isn't that what committee is all about? Am I right, Mr. Chairman? Is that what committee is all about? It's the chance for opposition members to ask government members specific questions about sections. That's what it's all about.

When I asked the minister why section 807 was being eliminated from the Municipal Act, he gave me as the reason the explanatory note to the legislation, which reads: "Official plans are being eliminated as a deregulation measure to streamline the development approval process and to strengthen the autonomy of municipal governments." That explanatory note takes in the entire bill, does it not? Does that explanatory note pertain to the whole bill? In other words, no matter what section — or part of a section — we ask him about, he can refer to the explanatory note and say: "That's the reason."

What I've asked the minister seems quite reasonable to me. I've asked him what set of circumstances happened or didn't happen that led the government to come to the decision to eliminate section 807. The minister will not answer. I guess it's the minister's prerogative not to answer; but would you say it is repetitious to ask the minister over and over again for the explanation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. LEA: Yes. In other words, you're saying that if the government wants to, it can stonewall. So my next question to the minister is, why do you want to stonewall? Surely there must be some reason why section 807 is being eliminated.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The problem we have here is that unless I give that member the answer he wants, he will continue. The reason is to strengthen the autonomy at the municipal level.

MR. LEA: Now we're getting somewhere. How does it do that?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It gives municipalities the authority to make their own land use decisions.

MR. LEA: How does it do that? Would he explain that a little further? Does the minister not know the answer?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, yes.

MR. LEA: Then would the minister tell us the answer? I think we should take the minister down the logical path. He says it will streamline. He says it will actually give the municipalities more autonomy. I'm asking how it will do that.

[ Page 2337 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again I will remind the member that we may be straying into debate that might be better discussed in the minister's estimates. But the minister may wish to answer.

MR. LEA: I thought that was illegal. I thought we couldn't discuss estimates during....

The minister again gives a vague answer, but no specifies. He says it will do something. I say how. He sits there, those big wide eyes looking over here, saying: "Well, that's a silly question. I didn't think I'd have to answer anything that specific when we got to committee." How does it do it? He doesn't know. The explanatory note that the minister gives says it strengthens the autonomy of municipal government, and again he has repeated that. He said that somehow or other the elimination of this section will give the municipality or the regional district more power. How? Will the minister answer that? What's the process? What is there about this section that will give the municipality more autonomy and power? How does that work?

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the bill.

MR. LEA: "Read the bill." Okay, I'll read the bill. Section 4 eliminates sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815. How does that explain it? How does that explain how the government is going to hand more power to the municipal governments?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Here's a resolution pertaining to this section which was passed by the UBCM convention, September 15, 1983. Obviously all of the municipalities got together to decide how they feel about this section. It says here that the UBCM doesn't think that what the minister just said is true. They think it will take away autonomy from the regional district and from the municipality. I would like to ask the minister: why is the UBCM wrong? Where have they got their wires crossed? Why has this body of municipal politicians, many with years of experience, come to the wrong conclusion? Why is it that the minister can't convince the people that are affected that what he is saying…?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Yes, he has heard from them. I'd like to read the resolution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It pertains to section 4?

MR. LEA: Yes it does. It says:

"Whereas the government of B.C. introduced Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, in the Legislature on June 7, and whereas this legislation would amend the Municipal Act by removing regional planning as a function of regional districts and making official settlement plans optional, and whereas the present provisions of the Municipal Act have permitted rural and resource communities to establish effective means for planning of electoral areas and for the solution of development problems in urban fringe areas, and whereas the same provisions have enabled communities in the lower mainland and capital regions to coordinate their development in cooperation with their neighbours in a cost-effective way, with maximum local autonomy, therefore be it resolved that Bill 9, Municipal Amendment Act, 1983, is unacceptable and inappropriate to the needs of British Columbia's communities and that sections 2 to 6 of Bill 9 should be withdrawn forthwith" — section 4 is included in that — "and be it further resolved that the Minister of Municipal Affairs be requested to meet with a special committee composed of regional district directors on the UBCM executive and the table officers of the UBCM to determine acceptable and appropriate ways of improving planning legislation."

Has the meeting which is asked for here taken place?

[2:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions which relate to the section are in order, but questions beyond the scope of this section would not be in order.

MR. LEA: We're talking about section 4. The officers of the UCBM wanted to meet with the minister to talk about section 4 before it is passed. I'm asking the minister whether that meeting took place on this section.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, I did meet with the table officers of the UBCM.

MR. LEA: Has all this been straightened out? Are they in agreement now with this legislation the way it is?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We had very good, positive discussions.

MR. LEA: Were the discussions positive enough that the UBCM officers now agree that this should go through the way it is? Did the UBCM table officers indicate to the minister that they have now seen the error of their ways, and they can see now where it is going to strengthen their autonomy, and they are happy with section 4 and the elimination of these sections from the Municipal Act? Has there been an agreement with the UBCM with this legislation as it now sits? Could the minister indicate whether he now has agreement from the local governments that this legislation is what they desire?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Like I said, we had positive discussions. It was thoroughly explained, and I would say that they were very satisfied with the meeting, as was I.

MR. LEA: When the minister says "positive discussions," what does he mean?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's got nothing to do with the bill.

MR. LEA: I want to understand what the minister is saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you mean by "negative"?

[ Page 2338 ]

MR. LEA: In this case, the word "negative" wasn't used. Does "positive" mean that all the problems have been solved or none of the problems were solved? Did they agree with anything or did they agree with everything? When the minister says "positive discussions," I am led to assume that nothing happened. The UBCM table officers have still not agreed with this legislation the way it is in section 4. The minister, of course, is going ahead in the middle of the night, trying to get this midnight legislation through.

This section, section 4, is opposed in all aspects by the body that represents all municipal governments in this province. When I asked the minister why he is doing it against the wishes of the UBCM officers and all the municipalities and regional districts that they represent, he says: "We had positive discussions." My understanding from the UBCM table officers is that the "positive discussions" that the minister describes, from their point of view, were "negative." They came out of the meeting feeling they were " negative discussions." The minister comes out of them describing them as "positive."

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you met with them? What did they say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister will come to order, please, and the member will relate his remarks to this section, and not to debate what might be discussed during estimates.

MR. LEA: How can we discuss this section under estimates? It is impossible. We are not allowed to talk about legislation during estimates. That is the rule, is it not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Administrative actions are discussed during estimates.

MR. LEA: But we're not talking about administrative actions. You almost gave me the wrong instructions. You wanted me to go to estimates and discuss legislation. Naughty, naughty!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please don't lecture the Chair.

MR. LEA: That's not lecturing. That's just a bit of unsolicited advice.

So I can't do as the Chair suggested, and I understand that the Chair didn't mean it that way. You didn't mean to lead me in the wrong direction, and I thank you for your advice. But, Mr. Chairman, the only time that we can ask for answers on legislation is in the committee stage. We're in the committee stage, and I don't think we necessarily have to be confined to saying "807, 808, 812, 813 and 815." Surely we can expand more than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Strict relevancy — there are rules.

MR. LEA: Oh! Strict relevancy, I see. Okay.

Sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815 are repealed. Sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815 are repealed. That's all I'm allowed to say, is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member can relate his remarks to the section.

MR. LEA: Oh, so I can expand a little from that, according to the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With respect to the section, yes.

MR. LEA: Okay, that's what I wanted to know.

Now I'm asking the minister again: surely there must have been a set of circumstances — surely something happened or didn't happen — for the minister to bring legislation into the Legislature and eliminate sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815. Surely it's legitimate to ask, on a specific section, why the government has done it. Surely there is more to the scope of the minister than just getting up and reading the explanatory notes. What was going on out there that this government decided that they were going to take on the whole municipal field; that they were actually going to take them on and tell them they didn't care what they thought or what their feelings were, that they are going to do it regardless? If the government is so determined to fly in the face of that political flak.... We know that if there's one thing politicians like beyond all else, it's votes. We all like votes. Surely when you watch a government doing something that is going to cost them votes, there has to be a very good reason for doing it. What I'm asking is: is there a logical reason? Was there something happening that made the government decide that these sections should be eliminated? If the minister won't answer, the only thing I can think of in recent history that really annoyed government and government members was the decision by the regional government not to allow the Spetifore land to be subdivided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's out of the scope of this section.

MR. LEA: Is that the key word? Can you not say "Spetifore land"? Is that the no-no?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is persisting in some repetition now, and I would....

MR. LEA: Spetifore is the repetition, eh? Any time anybody on this side says " Spetifore," that's when the Chair says: "Not allowed."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Plus the fact that I don't see it mentioned in the section, or the sections referred to under section 4.

MR. LEA: You don't? Mr. Chairman, can we not refer in a section to the reasons the government is doing something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It might be appropriate during second reading, but not during committee stage.

MR. LEA: No, that's when we discuss the broad principle, Mr. Chairman. When we're discussing in committee stage we talk about specific sections. This section refers to the elimination of a number of sections that are already in the Municipal Act. So I would assume that under section 4 we can discuss the need to keep sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815. We can ask the minister why the government feels that there's no need to keep them. As you have so ably pointed out, the minister doesn't have to answer. But not answering, I believe, is dangerous, because that causes a lot of speculation

[ Page 2339 ]

about why these sections of the act are being eliminated. So I'm speculating, and that's allowed. My speculation is that a government or a political party will only take on something that will lose them votes if there's something even more worthwhile at the end of the rainbow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is very much beyond the scope of this section, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that it's beyond the scope of this section to talk about why the opposition feels that these sections are being repealed under section 4. We can talk about why we feel they're being repealed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you relate it to the specific section.

MR. LEA: Yes, but section 4 deals with a number of sections. Have you read it, Mr. Chairman? It deals with the elimination of a number of sections from the Municipal Act — one of them is 807 and one of them is 808. The repeal of these sections takes away regional planning functions from municipal-regional government. I'm assuming that it's being done for a reason. What I would like to know is what the reason is or the reasons are. The minister won't answer that, so I can only surmise that there must be some reason. One of the reasons I surmise that there may be some reason — now, prepare yourself, because I'm going to say that word — is the Spetifore land.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's been said many times: I'll refer you to standing order 43, which advises that a member who persists in irrelevance and repetition may be asked to discontinue his speech. That standing order is quite specific.

MR. LEA: Okay, I'm not going to say Spetifore any more. I'm going to call it....

AN HON. MEMBER: Brand X.

MR. LEA: Yes, Brand X is good. But we all understand that when I say Brand X I mean Spetifore.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That still will be repetitious debate, hon. member. I think the hon. member is testing the Chair.

MR. LEA: Well, I haven't even said it yet. It seems to me that the government's a little anxious tonight, Mr. Chairman. What I would like to do is to remind the Chair, although I know it's not needed, that the Chair is a very impartial position in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Exactly. Thank you.

MR. LEA: And, Mr. Chairman, I don't see why the word Spetifore should cause you....

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I've been trying to rest over in the corner there, and I find it extremely difficult, because the Chair is simply not drawing to the member's attention the repetitiousness of the debate. I've heard him read the section — just while I've been resting over there — again and again. We heard the arguments repeatedly during second reading and during amendments to second reading. All of this is totally outside of the committee function, which deals specifically with given sections. It's very apparent, on the face of it, that it's to eliminate certain sections in the Municipal Act, and the member is, quite frankly, hectoring the minister and the Chair, requesting information about the details of meetings, which is entirely irrelevant to the legislation, quite apart from the fact that it was thoroughly canvassed — I say inappropriately — during second reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point is well made.

[2:15]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it's difficult to discuss this section which eliminates the regional planning function of local government without making reference to the fact that a Social Credit member accused every one of the people who made the decision on Brand X land out in Delta as being commies, pinkos....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see that in the section or the sections being amended. I think the Chair is going to have to ask all hon. members to closely look at standing order 43. We've spent some time now making arguments that have become quite repetitious. If the House wishes to change standing order 43, that's up to the House, but the Chairman is obliged to ensure that our standing orders are upheld. Please, I would ask the members to remember standing order 43.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I find your rulings not appropriate to the section we're dealing with. I advise the Chair again to read the sections that are being eliminated. Clearly the member is speaking in reference to this section. Albeit brief, it eliminates significant sections of the existing act that can and must be discussed in their elimination. The member is asking rational, pointed, exampled questions around the elimination of these sections, and if the Spetifore land, or any other specific project, falls within the definition of the sections being eliminated, he is perfectly correct in raising those points and questions in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In examining the sections that are mentioned in section 4, I see no specific reference to any land; and further, I have advised the hon. member that his arguments are becoming repetitious.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it is eliminating sections 807, 808, 812, 813 and 815. Section 807 says — and I bring it to your attention, clearly — that "a regional plan may be expressed in maps, plans, reports or by other means." The member is talking about a plan and a map with the elimination of certain lands in that plan in that map. That's 807. In 808: "The regional board may by bylaw designate a regional plan…." That's 808 being eliminated. In 812, a regional board may initiate works. That's there too. Every single section being eliminated specifically applies to designated plans. In those designated plans is the land that the member is talking about, and, Mr. Chairman, it would help the debate if the member were allowed, as he is in order, to speak about those plans that are being eliminated section by section out of the existing act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be most appropriate, as a matter of fact — those regulations that are being eliminated. Please proceed on those sections as described in section 4.

[ Page 2340 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, when you're speaking in second reading, you talk about the broad principles of the bill in its entirety. When you get to a section in committee you talk about the specific principles. Then what the hell would you talk about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Strict relevancy is the term.

MR. LEA: I know. But that's just a big word. Mr. Chairman, "strict relevancy" means that you have to talk about the section. This section eliminates one, two, three, four, five sections of the Municipal Act. The elimination of these sections is going to allow the regional governments not to have a say over what happens within their boundaries in terms of land use. An example of how that....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will come to order.

MR. LEA: As an example of what could happen once these sections are eliminated, say that someone had some land they wanted to develop in some way. For instance, say the land was in Delta. It could be in Prince Rupert, but maybe in Delta. Say that someone owned the land in Delta and wanted to develop it in a way that local government didn't want. Then local government could say to the developer: "No, we in our wisdom as representatives of the local people don't want that land developed in that way." These sections being eliminated would allow the local government to stop a development that they didn't approve of. To me, Mr. Chairman, that means that they have some local autonomy — meaning that they have the power at the local level to make the decision. They can do it that way. Now when we eliminate these sections — as section 4 will — it will mean that the local, government will no longer have the autonomy to make those decisions. I find it a bit schizophrenic that the minister would tell the committee that by taking away a local decision-making process, you're actually going to give the local government more autonomy. That doesn't make sense to me.

So what I have to assume is that somewhere in this province local governments have been making decisions that this government doesn't approve of. Now when I come to that conclusion, I look back in my mind and I say: "What could those actions have been by local government that this government didn't approve of?" The one that comes to mind is one that there was a great deal of publicity about, where a local government decision was that the land use that the owner or the developer had applied for had been denied by local government. His land is commonly called the Spetifore land in Delta. I can think of no other, in recent history, where the government has been so up in arms about a decision made by local government. Little did we know that the dissatisfaction with that local decision, made on behalf of local people, would mean that the government would repeal the sections of the Municipal Act that would allow the local government to make that kind of decision. All of those are being eliminated.

Five sections are being eliminated that will allow local government to decide how their community is going to be developed, how it is going to happen, who it is going to affect and in what way.

How can the minister argue that taking away decision-making from local government actually gives them more autonomy? How he can argue that it will streamline, I can see. It will streamline because you're going to bypass local government. It will be streamlined into the office of a friendly Social Credit minister — friendly, that is, to people who want to develop the Spetifore land.

We have to oppose the bill and we have to oppose section 4. Section 4 is the instrument that carries out the task of the principle of the entire bill. Section 4 is — the government is so fond of saying, "the engine that drives the economy" — is the engine that will drive local autonomy out of this province and out of the hands of local municipal governments and local regional governments. The question is: why? Has something happened? Mr. Chairman, when you can only think of one instance where there was any public uproar, when you can only think of one time that the government was so annoyed that a person who shouldn't be speaking on public matters broke that silence, then you have to wonder exactly what's going on.

Mr. Chairman, things speak for themselves. During second reading of this bill Mr. Speaker did not take the chair. Mr. Speaker must have felt there was some relevance between his statements around the Spetifore land and this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not relevant to the bill, and Mr. Speaker cannot be drawn into debate.

MR. LEA: Okay, the member for Delta (Hon. Mr. Davidson).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Delta cannot be drawn into debate either, except by a substantive motion.

MR. LEA: Does he not exist?

Okay, let's use the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks). Why did he not take part? Why did he absent himself?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would not be relevant to the section.

MR. LEA: I think it would.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I don't think it would, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to bet under section 4 of this legislation that he doesn't come in for this either. Even though Mr. Chairman doesn't think that this has any relevance to the Spetifore land, obviously the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam does.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order under standing order 43 and ask that the Chair either ask for relevance from the member or ask the member to take his seat so that others who are relevant could enter into debate on section 4 of this bill.

[ Page 2341 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, hon. members. We cannot reflect on something that is clearly outside of the section of the bill before us. Standing order 43 as it applies to repetition is a point that is well taken now. The member for Prince Rupert has had ample opportunity to present his argument on this and I think is being a bit repetitive.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'm off shift now. But when this comes up for discussion next week or tomorrow, I'll be back and I'm going to be asking the same questions. Mr. Chairman, these are questions that the public of this province want the answer to; that's what they are. Parliamentary niceties will not eliminate the fact that the people of this province want the answer as to why this section is going through — why the government wants it through — and they're going to get the answer. They can stonewall, they can do any of those things they want, but the truth has a way of welling out. It may not even be immediately. But at some point the people of this province are going to know the answer for sure. I feel I know it already. This section eliminates five sections so that the government can have their developer friends develop at will and, most specifically, the Spetifore land in Delta.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I was really interested in that discussion. I have here something that I think is very apropos to that discussion and section 4 of this bill. Before I get into that, I would like to say that I agree, and I support section 4. In fact I'm going to enter the debate on section 6 and make it very clear to the minister that I don't think he's gone far enough when it comes to regional districts. The sooner they're done away with in this province, the better the rural members, particularly myself, are going to feel in this chamber.

Apropos to the debate that has gone on, debate on section 4, as on many other things in this House, revolves around the lower mainland. I was surprised at the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) taking up that cause, because this section very clearly is of great advantage to the rural 80 percent of this province. To speak about the Spetifore property in this section is absolutely ridiculous.

[2:30]

1 would like to read into the record — apropos to the debate that has gone on on this section and on this bill — a telegram dated September 30, not four days ago, and addressed to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, who must have forgotten about it. It talks about autonomy, which the member for Prince Rupert went on and on about for the last 30 minutes:

YOUR EFFORTS TO HAVE LEGISLATION PASSED IN THE HOUSE HAVE BEEN CLOSELY FOLLOWED BY THE MAYORS IN THE NORTHEAST SECTION OF THIS PROVINCE. WE WOULD LIKE TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS IN GETTING BILL 9 PASSED BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO STRENGTHEN THE AUTONOMY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS IN MATTERS OF PLANNING AS WELL AS OTHER AREAS. AFTER ALL, WE ARE THE ONES WHO MUST ANSWER TO OUR ELECTORS FOR WHAT TAKES PLACE WITHIN OUR MUNICIPALITIES. YOURS VERY TRULY.

It is signed by Mayor Trail of Dawson Creek, Mayor Palmer of Fort St. John, Mayor Hodgkinson of Hudson's Hope, Mayor Laloge of Pouce Coupe and Mayor Lasser of Chetwynd. That telegram certainly says a whole lot about that which the member for Prince Rupert has been saying in this House. It certainly attests to the validity of what that member has said.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I will confine my remarks to the section. I welcome the argument made by the member for Omineca. Does that apply to school boards?

MR. KEMPF: It applies to section 4 of Bill 9.

MR. BARRETT: I see. You argue one way on one bill and another way on another bill. If school boards wire you and tell you they want local autonomy, are you opposed to that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is a municipal amendment act.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, it is a municipal amendment act, Mr. Chairman, obviously planned by the government to come up late, after already having moved a motion of closure on this bill. This section has nothing to do with restraint, absolutely nothing to do with saving money, but everything to do with private benefit, once these sections are eliminated.

If this section passes, the minister will be allowed to give direct approval for subdivisions and enhance the power of the minister to make a very few people very wealthy. The section that will allow that to happen is section 807 and also section 812. Section 807, which is specifically mentioned in this section we're dealing with in committee, clearly spells out the responsibility and the democratic participation of citizens in the preparation of regional plans. That will now be eliminated if this section is passed. It means that those citizens who have, throughout the lower mainland, expressed through their elected officials dissatisfaction against pressure groups looking for special dispensation and zoning will no longer be bothered by this section.

The minister has been correctly questioned, in my opinion, by the member for Prince Rupert about the Spetifore land. Can the minister get up and inform this House what his position is on the Spetifore land related to this section, and what he will permit should this section pass on that land? Will the minister let us know that?

Mr. Chairman, I also bring to your attention the necessity for decorum in the House. There appears to be a member who is no longer in control of his physical capacities and is stretched out on three chairs. Either the member is brought to order or carried out, one or the other. We can't have both in the chamber, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the minister could be brought into the debate.

MR. BARRETT: There is a member obviously ill, Mr. Chairman — I don't know if it's physical or otherwise — but he is incapable of sitting up and is stretched on three chairs. I would ask that you recess the House to carry the member out so that we can have some semblance of order in this chamber.

MR. KEMPF: On what standing order does the Leader of the Opposition make that request?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess under the basis of an order for decorum. It has been common during the last couple of weeks

[ Page 2342 ]

for members to repose on one, two, or three chairs. I have noticed that on both sides of the House.

MR. BARRETT: It would be more appropriately done outside of the chamber, Mr. Speaker, because at 12:30 the citizens who are getting an opportunity to witness the government in action might be upset.

On this section, there was at one time a number of members in the House who described themselves as Liberals. They supported this section, the necessity of which is to keep those regional plans applicable to the regional district and revise them when necessary. The only group that is now asking questions of the minister about why this section keeping the regional plans in and revising them as necessary has been taken away from the regional district is this group here. Now I ask the minister to name in this chamber any executive member of the UBCM who supports the removal of these sections. Would the minister do that? Would the minister care to name in this chamber any professional group of planners that agrees with this decision? Would the minister care to table with this Legislature any correspondence he has received from any elected executive member of the UBCM stating that they endorse this move in this section?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, don't knock small blessings. I will lower my voice. I ask the minister to inform this House what leading executive members of the UBCM endorse this section of this bill in a non-partisan manner in terms of good municipal and regional district administration. Can you tell us what made you decide and who you consulted at the UBCM who endorses this approach? Could you tell us that? It is certainly within order to ask questions in committee. It certainly is in order for the minister not to answer, but it would certainly facilitate the passing of this legislation if the minister could get up and state why he is insisting on this section, who he has consulted with and what their arguments were that convinced him that he should go in this direction, through you, Mr. Chairman. I am asking him the names of UBCM executive members that he has consulted with who agree with him on this.

I was here and he mentioned no names. I didn't know that in speaking on this section I was afforded the wonderful opportunity of debate with the former Attorney-General. Perhaps he is willing and anxious to participate in this section other than defending the minister, whether he wishes to answer or not. I am asking the minister if he will inform this House what leading members or any members of the executive of the UBCM endorse this approach, eliminating these sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point I will remind the committee that standing order 43 cautions against tedious repetition. It is being offended, in my estimation. That includes tedious repetition either of the member's own arguments or those of other members in debate. I ask the member now taking his place in debate to go on to some new material with respect to section 4.

MR. BARRETT: It is a question I am asking. Would the minister care to answer the question?

He doesn't want to answer the question. Does the minister feel that this is of such import that he need not answer? Is the minister not aware of great public concern throughout the province about the impact of this section being passed and the sections it affects being eliminated?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The member is being repetitious and, I think, irrelevant. I have already stated why. I cannot understand, however, why they continue to zero in only on the regional plan when one part of section 4 — 815 — deals with another matter altogether. Why the repetition all the time in respect to regional planning when 815 deals with another matter altogether? Obviously you haven't studied the bill, Other than that I can't help but feel that you have tunnel vision; you're after one thing only. Read it and you'll find out that it does something more than affect regional planning.

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, if you read section 4, the only real debate that can be allowed on section 4 is whether you agree or not with the repealing of those five sections. Anything else would be irrelevant. Mr. Chairman, I ask that you bring those members into line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has attempted for some time now to remind the committee that we must be strictly relevant when we're in committee stage of a bill. I would advise the Leader of the Opposition, I guess for the second time now, that the debate that we're carrying on at this point is tedious and repetitious and is debate that has been carried on by another member, and under standing order 43 that is not allowed. I'm sure the member can advance new material.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your advice. Perhaps the minister is not aware that we're dealing with section 4, which deals not just with 815 being eliminated — and we will come to 815 as soon as we get the answers on 807, 808, 812 and 813. They are in order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, how, under section 4, which repeals those sections, can the member debate those sections? All he can debate is whether he agrees in repealing or not of those sections. How on earth can he be relevant in debating those actual sections of the bill when they're being repealed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That point of order is drawing the line just a little fine, hon. member, but once again I will remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that we are in fact now engaging in tedious and repetitious debate with respect to this bill....

MR. BARRETT: From that member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And from the Leader of the Opposition, and from other arguments that have been advanced. Standing order 43 does require that the Chairman ask the member to discontinue debate if it does become offensive to that standing order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the elimination of sections. One of the sections that I'm dealing with now, and I'll get on to the other sections, is the elimination of 807. I'm asking the minister why it is being eliminated, which is in order. I've asked a series of questions as to why. The minister has not decided to answer, but the fact that

[ Page 2343 ]

I've asked the questions doesn't mean they're out of order. Now I have some more questions around why 807 is being eliminated. The minister says that he wishes to talk about 815; I will come to that.

The minister refuses to answer my questions on 807 so far. Now I have some more questions.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member is quite incorrect when he says I refuse to answer his questions. The answer is to strengthen the economy at the municipal level, and I don't intend to answer it again.

[12:45]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask a question that would be out of order. I didn't ask in principle about the bill. That would be out of order. So the answer given by the minister is not to a question I've asked, because it's out of order. What I've asked you, which is in order, is who have you received requests from in the community to eliminate 807? Can you name any executive member of the UBCM who endorses your move — through you, Mr. Chairman — to eliminate 807?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is also becoming quite repetitious, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I only repeated it because the minister gave the illusion that he answered the question. Now if we did not have interruptions, we'd get along further. I find it somewhat distasteful, at a quarter to one in the morning, to deal with a section that may indeed in time offend standing order 89, I think it is, in the fullness of time. Is it 89 or 81 ? It's 89. It may indeed offend 89 eventually. Serious allegations and events have taken place prior to this bill coming in. I raise the question of 89 because I would hope that during this debate we have an assurance from the Attorney-General that as far as he's concerned in terms of the events leading to 89....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not relevant.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I'll say it right here in this chamber, and you'll try to ram this through at a quarter to one....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member will take his place. Hon. members, I think the committee has been quite patient with all hon. members. There has been a great deal of, I think, unnecessary latitude allowed during this committee. In fact, we are cautioned to be quite specific and strictly relevant to the clause before us. I will caution all hon. members for the last time to please relate their remarks to the section. There has been a great deal of unnecessary latitude allowed during this committee, where we are cautioned to be quite specific and strictly relevant to the clause before us. I will caution all hon. members for the last time to relate their remarks to the section to avoid tedious repetition and irrelevance. I'm sure that that way the committee will be well served. I would caution the members to remember that.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, I rise on standing order 20. In considering what you've just said and the debate that has gone on by the member who has been on his feet, I would suggest that you consider very seriously standing order 20,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair always considers standing order 20.

MR. BARRETT: I ask the minister, under section 807, if he would give some names of people who agreed. He's not prepared to do that. We've accomplished that much.

Now we come to the second part of section 807, which I have some questions about: "A regional plan may be expressed in maps, plans, reports or by other means." Can the minister tell us of any experience he has had in terms of those plans, maps and reports that he found were no longer necessary, and the reasons for the elimination of subsection (2)? Can you tell us why? Did you feel that those plans were not adequate? Were they adequate? Were they overlapping? Were they superfluous? Did they disagree with some overall plan of the government? Could you give us the reason why subsection 807(2) is being eliminated?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It all has to do with regional planning. This bill removes that regional plan and gives the decision about land use to the municipalities. Again, it strengthens the autonomy of the municipal government.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not asking an out-of-order question to get an out-of-order answer. I'm not asking in principle. I'm sticking strictly to the section itself, so that I can stay in order. I'm asking the minister: can he give us specific examples of a regional plan that's been expressed in maps, plans, reports or by any other means that he disagrees with or that have been brought to his attention that have necessitated his taking this action? Did anybody complain to you about any of the maps or plans or reports about where the regional districts are going? Have you received an official brief from the UBCM, asking that their plans be eliminated? Have you received petitions from individuals or letters from citizens who have been aggrieved under this section?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The member is continuing to be tedious, repetitious and irrelevant. I don't believe that the questions he asks are relevant to this section at all.

MR. BARRETT: It's the first time I asked the questions. The Chair will determine relevance. I am making the case through you, Mr. Chairman, based purely on the wording of what we re dealing with, and the relevance is there in terms of what we're dealing with. What you're asking the House to consider, and what we are debating here in committee, are the specifics of the elimination of section 807. Subsection 807(2) says: "A regional plan may be expressed in maps, plans, reports or by other means." I asked the question just once; it could hardly be repetitive. But this is the second time. Could the minister inform the House of any map, plan or report that was brought to his attention that occasioned his decision to eliminate this particular subsection from the existing bill?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: A regional plan is expressed in maps, plans, reports and by other means, and of course the regional plan is being eliminated. That's another way to express it.

[ Page 2344 ]

MR. BARRETT: I am asking you what occasioned the elimination? Was there a specific complaint from anybody in a municipal capacity or a citizen or a group of citizens that occasioned this change in a situation that has apparently been working quite well until the bill was brought forward? Can the minister tell us what arguments were presented to him in reference to these specifics in order in this section? Unfortunately I have to repeat: is there anybody at the UBCM who gave you specific cause to raise this?

MR. KEMPF: To clarify in my mind, it is not required in this House, to my knowledge, that a question be answered by any minister. Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that for that question to be asked over and over and over and over and over is repetitious, which of course contravenes the standing orders of this House. On that basis I would again ask that you seriously consider standing order 20 in regard to the debate now being carried on by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member did advance some new material, but it is becoming repetitious now, and the point of order made by the member for Omineca is well taken. I'm sure if we are going to continue debate on this section we can advance new and further material.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I find that perhaps the interrruptions by the member are more appropriate to standing order 20 than my comments.

I conclude my questions on subsection 807(2) by assuming that the minister has not had any presentation. I have one last question under that section to the minister: have you received any representation, either by word or in writing, related to subsection 807(2) that deals specifically with the Spetifore property?

Does the minister wish to answer that question?

I assume, Mr. Chairman, by the minister's silence, that he does not wish to answer that question. I do not intend to repeat it ad infinitum, but I would like to, before moving on, just clearly state it again: can the minister tell this House whether or not, under subsection 807(2), he has had any verbal or written representations to him concerning this section's application to the Spetifore land?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The minister does not wish to answer a question which is in order under this section.

Now we come to subsection 807(3).

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I think that is the most accurate measure we've had of that member's IQ ever, and who am I to…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Under subsection 807(3) it says: "A regional plan may apply to any or all areas of the regional district." That is correct. That's being eliminated under this section. That is correct. I ask the minister if he has received, from anywhere in the province of British Columbia, a specific complaint against a regional district that would cause him to advocate, as he is doing under this section, the removal of subsection 807(3).

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, there was a telegram sent to me here a few days ago that has already been read out. That should suffice as an answer.

MR. BARRETT: That telegram was out of order in terms of the context of this, but I didn't want to raise it to offend the member. The telegram spoke in general terms, and we can't do that in committee. We must be specific. So I'm asking the minister specifically under subsection 807(3), so that we both can stay in order: can you specifically name a regional plan that applied to all areas of a regional district that you had complaints about?

I've asked the question. It is in order. The minister chooses not to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Under subsection 807(3), which will be repealed, I ask the minister this question. "A regional plan may apply to any or all areas...." Under this section, have you received any request, verbal or written, for the removal of the Spetifore land from the agricultural land reserve?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The question — and it is not repetitive under this section, but I'll only ask it once more to ensure that the record shows that the minister clearly.... Have you received, under subsection 807(3), any request, either written or verbal, for the removal of the regional plan related to the Spetifore decision under the GVRD to take that land out of the agricultural land reserve?

The record will show that the minister did not answer.

I go on to subsection 807(4). I read subsection 807(4), which will be eliminated: "The regional board may, in a regional plan, provide for transition from present to proposed use, and shall, in preparing the plan, have regard for interrelationships of areas and uses." I ask the minister in debate and committee, on this section: has he received any report, map, plan, or complaint about such from any municipality, that specifically caused him to move toward this legislation under this section? The minister chooses not to answer, and it is certainly in order for him not to do so. But I am perfectly in order in asking the questions, and I'm perfectly in order in noting that on a major section affecting the land use of the people of this province for maybe a period of years, the minister chose not to answer those questions.

[1:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member will speak to the section.

MR. BARRETT: I am speaking to the section, Mr. Chairman, and I have many more questions.

Under subsection 807(4) I've asked the minister once whether or not he has received any complaints from any municipality on any specific regional plan, as outlined in subsection (4). I ask the minister now, under subsection (4), if he's received any complaint or argument, or whether any position has been advanced by any individual or group, in

[ Page 2345 ]

writing or verbally, related to the Spetifore land as it's applied to subsection (4) of section 807.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the questioning is tedious and repetitious. Therefore I would move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Kempf in the chair,

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:03 a.m.