[ Page 6255 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Log exports. Mr. Howard –– 6255

Hazardous wastes. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 6256

Mrs. Wallace

Canadian lumber exports. Mr. Williams –– 6257

Medical Service Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 41). Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 6257

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 6258

Division –– 6262

Medical Service Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 41). Committee stage 6262

Third reading

British Columbia Transit Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1985 (Bill 38). Committee stage 6262

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Reid

Third reading

School Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 35). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6265

Mr. Rose –– 6266

Mr. Veitch –– 6270

Mr. Gabelmann –– 6271

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6273

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 6275

Mr. Howard

Mr. Williams

Mr. MacWilliam

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the members'gallery today His Excellency Ola Ullsten, Swedish ambassador, a former Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden; Mr. Ulf Walden, Swedish consul in Vancouver; Mr. Lars Malmstrom, press attache from Ottawa; and Mr. Hugo von Sydow, forestry attache from Washington. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them here today.

MR. MACDONALD: A word of welcome to our friends from Sweden, particularly my friend Ulf, who plays a very good game of tennis.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, it's not often that I have the opportunity of introducing constituents from Columbia River. However, today I am very pleased to introduce to the members Mr. Dee Ruparell of Invermere. Unfortunately, I don't have his business partner's name here; his business partner is from Africa. I'd like the members to join me in welcoming them here today.

MR. MacWILLIAM: It gives me a lot of pleasure to introduce a former resident of the city of Victoria and now a lawyer practising in the jewel of the Okanagan, Vernon, British Columbia, Mr. Rick Buchan. I'd like the House to welcome him today.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I have some guests in the Legislature too, from the coal capital of British Columbia. Under the direction of Lynne Fowler is the Elkford Secondary School band. I would like the House to give a warm welcome, and to extend an invitation to all hon. members to watch the band perform at Beacon Hill Park tomorrow evening.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are two visitors from Detroit, Michigan. I would ask the House to please welcome James and Beulah Johnston.

Oral Questions

LOG EXPORTS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Forests about the news that a couple of small logging companies have been forced to close as a result of the process of block bidding, as it's understood to be, by companies such as Doman Industries or Doman Forest Products and CIPA lumber of Vancouver, blocking the process of exporting logs, basically buying logs below the export price and exporting their own logs, thus driving these two small companies out of business. Will the minister advise the House what steps he is taking to deal with these inequalities?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to advise the member for Skeena.

First of all, I must state that it is not the policy of this government, nor of any previous government of British Columbia, to encourage the export of logs. The criteria by which logs are approved for export require that they be offered for sale on the Vancouver log market, that it be advertised in the media, and if reasonable offers are made to purchase these logs, then approval is not given for the export. From time to time bids are made which are not really realistic. When that happens, an assessment is made by my staff and me as to whether or not the bids are realistic. If they are determined to be unreasonably low bids, and quite often even though an offer is made, we will approve certain logs for export.

The one the member is referring to probably is the Coulson Prescott application for export, and I did talk to Cliff Coulson about that and I did a review of that particular request for log exports.

What happened is that there was a mixed bag of logs, of various species and grades. Offers were made on these logs, and some of the offers were reasonable and above the cost of logging and would have provided some profit for the logger. These logs were turned down for export approval. Another portion of the logs, the lower grade of the quality spectrum, received bids that in our opinion were considerably below the logging cost even if you were to average the value of the logs in the boom and try to come out with an average cost. So what we did in this particular case was disapprove those sales and allow a certain portion of those logs for export.

It's a difficult problem. Some people call it block bidding, but the person who is trying to get an export permit will probably always call it block bidding. Quite frankly, in most cases it is simply a legitimate desire and need of someone to use those logs in manufacturing.

MR. HOWARD: Inasmuch as the whole process results in a couple of companies going under and shutting down work for about 60 employees, and inasmuch as this is not an isolated instance but a practice that's prevalent, particularly because you use the Vancouver log market as the base for it, will the minister agree to bring into the House a motion to refer the subject matter, say, to our Standing Committee on Environment and Resources so that an inquiry can be conducted into the whole practice of the export log market and the deleterious effect that it has on small loggers?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I won't agree to such a request. I think the member must be aware of the changes in log export policy that were announced I believe on November 16 last, and I'm sure this new policy will resolve most of the problems and perceived inequities that exist with the current policy. Before finalizing such a policy I made a point of checking it out with various people in the industry — with the major licensees, with the market loggers and with the IWA — and each of these groups agreed that the new policy would overcome most of the problems that have been experienced in the past in terms of approvals of logs for export.

But I must say again that there must be a very good reason before we allow logs for export, and under the new criteria that reason will be that it will make additional logs available at prices that can be afforded by the manufacturing industry in British Columbia. At the same time it will, if there must be exports, provide that the people seeking exports and acquiring export permits will be able to deal effectively in the export log market for those volumes of logs that could be approved.

MR. HOWARD: Another supplementary. With respect to this new policy, which, as I recall, is to come into effect at the end of this year.... Inasmuch as it will permit the export of

[ Page 6256 ]

the whole forest now without even having to fall and buck it and put it into water and go through this process of the game on the Vancouver log market, does the minister think that that's progress — to permit companies to export the whole forest and not even go through the process of falling and bucking it?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Skeena should sit down with me so I can explain to him the policy, because in no way will it allow the export of the whole forest. The new policy that will be coming into effect will be fully implemented by the end of the year, by which time the old policy will cease to exist. The new policy will begin within a few weeks so that we can have a smooth transition from the old system to the new system.

But I'll be very happy to sit down with the member, if he so wishes, and explain to him in detail how the system will work, and the fact that it will not allow for the export of the whole forest. It will only allow the export of a percentage of the logs, so as to make other logs more readily available to the manufacturing industry in coastal British Columbia at a price that they can afford to pay and still maintain economic viability.

[2:15]

MR. HOWARD: Another supplementary. If, under the new policy, the process is for a company to be able to indicate that it's uneconomic for it to fall and buck timber, and to get an export licence for standing timber...? If that isn't permitting the export of the forests, what is?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if we were to simply blindly accept those figures presented without assuring ourselves that they are realistic cost figures and realistic price figures in terms of what can be received for the logs, I guess people could perhaps make such a request. Making such a request would not lead to an export permit. We have a very well-rounded committee in place which will adjudicate such requests. They include people such as Don Hammond, who has been many years in the sawmilling business; Tommy Thompson, who is probably as expert as anyone in British Columbia in terms of logging costs and systems. That includes Garth Langford, who is a chartered accountant and very knowledgeable about financial matters. It includes a gentleman who is an economist employed by the IWA, who has a good overall understanding of the economics of forestry matters. So I think we have a well enough rounded and objective enough committee so that the type of thing that was suggested by the member for Skeena will not take place.

HAZARDOUS WASTES

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday my parliamentary secretary took on notice a question for me that was addressed by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, who seems to be involved in.... Maybe if you want to listen, I'll try to answer the question you put yesterday. You referred to a document; apparently in April 1984 the Minister of Energy was informed that Hydro was being advised to delay their PCB waste disposal because of the cost involved. I have been unable to find that particular document, but I would like at this time to allay the fears of the member and perhaps elaborate just slightly on the question.

B.C. Hydro was approached by a company in the United Kingdom who offered the services of disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls. Under the B.C. Hydro act we are required to put things to tender, and since until that time there had not been a company offering those services, a tender was drawn so that any company wishing to bid on the disposal of PCBs would do so. However, the company that made the offer did not actually bid on the work, and in fact the companies that did bid on the work were not satisfactory in the eyes of Hydro in terms of their ability to handle the PCBs.

One of the difficulties that we are presented with is that in the waste disposal business there are many people who come along and advertise themselves as experts. Some people find that satisfactory — just to turn over your waste products to them — but unless you're absolutely sure the companies are bona fide and have a legitimate method by which to dispose of their goods, then you are only passing your problem on to somebody else who may be somewhat less reputable and, in fact, who may not be able to handle the product at all.

So while we have investigated the possibility of having PCBs destroyed, and we have asked for those bids, we are not convinced at the present time that there exists in Canada or in fact overseas a satisfactorily located and operated operation that will destroy these. We continue to hear rumours of companies that have the ability to destroy PCBs, but I have no concrete evidence of their existence.

However, in the meantime the board of B.C. Hydro has authorized the expenditure of half a million dollars to build a temporary but secure storage facility in which the PCBs can be contained until such time as adequate and safe and acceptable disposal methods are available.

MRS. WALLACE: Obviously he does have the correspondence that I have; at least it would appear to be. A paragraph in a letter from Chem-Security to the purchasing agent of B.C. Hydro, of which the minister received a copy, reads:

"I therefore urge B.C. Hydro to reconsider any preemptive and, therefore, costly move to solve their PCB waste disposal problem and delay their decision until they can be offered the services of the Alberta facility, and in the interim, seek the endorsement of the Ministry of Environment for such an environmentally and fiscally responsible course of action."

I would ask him whether he recalls that, and whether or not he agrees that that was an environmentally responsible course of action in view of the leaks that occurred because those capacitors were left stored in open air, buried under 20 feet of snow, and we now have that situation in Mackenzie.

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I don't recall that letter. In fact, I'm not referring to a letter. I have not got the correspondence. Obviously I know the company you refer to, and now that you've told me the name of the company, I will dig up the letter and find out if that's the case. That is not the reason, as far as I know — and it was certainly never by any intervention by myself or other ministers on the board that the thing did not proceed. The reason it did not proceed, I am advised by Hydro, is that no satisfactory bidder . no one exists who has a satisfactory answer.

At one and the same time, Hydro has been working with other reputable people. All utilities have this problem, and they all would like to be able to solve it. The PCB problem is largely a problem for electrical utilities. I think Hydro could

[ Page 6257 ]

have been more diligent in covering these capacitors at an earlier time, and so, as a matter of fact, did the board. That's the reason they approved this expenditure so that the construction could take place this summer. We were anticipating the removal last year of these things to a satisfactory disposal system. It didn't materialize. They were covered last winter, obviously not adequately. We will ensure, at least for this winter — and for whatever time it takes until we have a secure disposal system available to us — that they are as securely stored as can possibly be done in this province.

MRS. WALLACE: Some time ago in the magazine Intercom, which Hydro puts out, there was a little article about two engineers at Hydro who had almost perfected a process of destruction of PCBs. Will the minister explain why those people have now been terminated'?

HON. MR. ROGERS: They're not terminated, and you haven't got it quite correct. What they have developed is a method of separating PCBs from oil, but not for the destruction of the PCBs. So it's a concentrator that they have done at a pilot stage. In Ontario this same project has now got to the actual mobile operating stage, and we have authorized the expenditure of the necessary funds to create such a device in British Columbia. It does not destroy the PCBs. It merely separates them from the oil so the oil can be disposed of in a normal way or flared off or whatever it is; we've concentrated the product. But no, the research people who have developed that in conjunction with Ontario Hydro are still in the service of the company.

CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of International Trade and Investment: as the minister is no doubt aware, a growing number of U.S. congressmen and senators are moving to take action in terms of blocking the export of Canadian lumber. That would have a profoundly serious effect on British Columbia. Can the minister, now that we have a new ministry responsible for trade, advise us what steps he has personally taken on this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I must again caution that open-ended questions of that magnitude are not permitted in question period, but the member makes the statement in that knowledge.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, my department had been working with officials in Ottawa who have been working with officials in Washington, and I think everything that can be done at the present time.... I have talked to my counterpart, James Kelleher, the Minister of International Trade, who has talked to Block, and it's a different situation this time than it was the last time. It's certainly more emotional and more political this time, and it has to be handled very diplomatically and very cautiously. I would seek the cooperation of the members opposite in ensuring that no mistakes are made in handling this deal with Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a special introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker and members of the Legislature, today is a very special day in the history of the province of British Columbia and Iwate prefecture of Japan, and between our capital city of Victoria and Morioka, in Iwate prefecture, in that this morning the twinning of the two cities took place here in Victoria. This is another show of relationships between our two great countries of Canada and Japan, strengthening not only our industrial and economic relationships but indeed our cultural ties. With a delegation of 47 people visiting from Morioka, in the Legislature with us today is His Worship Mayor Ohta, mayor of Morioka, and Mrs. Ohta; Mr. and Mrs. Chiba — Mr. Chiba is chairman of the city council; and Mr. Kawamura, president of the chamber of commerce and industry for Morioka city. Would the House please make all our guests welcome to our great province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a point of order referring to question period. I was originally going to ask that you consider extending the time of question period this afternoon, on the grounds that when ministers are not in the House and their aides have taken questions as notice for those ministers, the opposition has always given leave to the minister to answer those questions taken as notice after question period. This afternoon we consumed approximately seven and a half minutes of question period time on a question taken as notice when the minister was not in the House. He would have been allowed to answer that question by leave of the opposition. I therefore would ask that in future — I'm not doing this for today — when that situation arises again, and government members eat up the clock with lengthy written answers, you extend question period time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the rules are very clear and have been for some considerable period of time. A minister may make a statement in response in question period or at the conclusion of question period. It is not for the Chair to determine what time.... The difference is, of course, that when the response is made during question period, it does allow the opposition an opportunity to follow up with supplementary questions.

Mrs. Wallace tabled documents referred to in question period.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 41.

MEDICAL SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1985
(continued)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker. I spoke on Bill 41 this morning. I just want to refer for a moment or two to the judgment that probably created in the minister's mind the necessity for this bill. I contend it's not necessary. In that judgment the supreme court judge ruled that because of certain sections of the charter.... He referred to section 6 (1): "Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right (a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and (b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any

[ Page 6258 ]

province." The minister gets around that by bringing in an intolerable bill aimed at new, young doctors, whom we need desperately if we're going to rejuvenate and continue to rejuvenate our health care system. He moves to circumvent this judgment. That's not a very good idea, and it's not a very hospitable situation in our province — and one that will cost us in the long run. It will cost us the best brains in medicine, the new, young brains of medicine.

[2:30]

Mr. Speaker, there are ways to do some of the things that that minister is talking about. Those ways, as far as I'm concerned, are clear. I outlined a number of them this morning. I outlined the fact that he has in his agreement a capping procedure which in and of itself tells exactly how much money the minister has to put into medicare. He has a capping procedure. He has to get across to the rest of the health ministers and the rest of the university ministers in this country.... If there is such a large output from medical schools, get other jurisdictions as well as our own to cut back on the production of graduate students in medicine. We've seen this kind of situation before. We've seen ups and downs: there's a demand and then there's a slowing of demand. But I contend that if we are to do the job in this province that we want to do, if we're to get the medical profession out into the regions, the remoter, underpopulated areas, then first and foremost we should set up a rural medical corps. It was suggested long ago. There is no unlimited demand for health care that people talk about. What there is is a demand for health care when it's required. We have ways and means of providing that health care.

If the minister would take this bill and put it where he put Bill 50, and get into some real determined negotiations, not only with the doctors but with his fellow ministers across the country, then I suggest that we would all be far better served. We are depriving ourselves of the best brains, the new young brains that are coming out of medical school. Because we're alone in this particular situation at the moment, we're saying we are going to provide a sinecure for those older doctors who could probably be well retired from the practice of medicine.

We should have got together with them some time ago, because I know there's a real strong urge within that association to provide a pension plan. It should have happened a long time ago. It should still happen. Under those circumstances, with a pension plan, there would be an incentive to get out when one is the age when one should be getting out. I'm not suggesting by that that there aren't doctors over normal retirement age who are providing excellent care. But I am saying that there should be the option, and that option is available, has been available and should be available for the future.

I totally oppose this bill. I oppose anything that puts government in a position where they can mandate where I live, how I act and what I'm going to be doing. I believe that that is an essential loss of freedom, and a loss of freedom that I don't countenance, for ordinary people, for doctors or for anybody.

We have created the kind of system where the governments, collectively, and those people paying premiums are paying for our medicare system. If it's becoming increasingly expensive, there are other ways of going about reducing the costs. One of the ways the minister has already done in his negotiations, by capping his contribution — that is, the collective contribution — into the payment of medical fees.

Mr. Speaker, with that I suggest very strongly that the minister should withdraw this bill; do the same as he did with Bill 50, start all over again, and maybe get some sense into this whole question.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: My thanks to all the members who have taken part in second reading on Bill 41. Some of what has been said has been most interesting. Much of what's been said is really in no way related to the purpose of Bill 41.

The members have concentrated much of their discussion with respect to the distribution of manpower, as the BCMA refers to it. There are two major problems with respect to the distribution of doctors in our province. One is the lack of physicians in certain areas of B.C., the other is the over-concentration of doctors in certain areas. Vancouver, Victoria, parts of the Okanagan and others simply have too many doctors. The cost is out of order. Far too much money is being spent on certain areas of the province because of the heavy concentration of doctors, to the detriment of the overall system across the province. The answer is not to simply continue to offer billing numbers for more and more doctors as they wish to come to B.C.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A discussion took place with respect to the increase in numbers of students in the UBC medical faculty. It was suggested, although not directly, by some members that perhaps it should be cut back or modified in some way, but certainly not increased. It has been increased over the past number of years, and those are the young doctors the member for New Westminster spoke about, those who are coming out of graduate school. But we have been giving billing numbers to approximately 350 doctors a year. Obviously well over two-thirds are not coming out of school. They are coming from other areas of Canada, other areas of the world. They are not necessarily the young graduates. Many of them have been in the business for many years.

In Bill 41 we intend to introduce as method a system which we had in place from September 1, 1983 without complaint from anyone — working reasonably well. It was the result of what many members have asked for: consultation with the health professionals, including the BCMA. In fact, in part it was the BCMA that asked us if they could be represented on any such committee. They made recommendations that representatives from PARI, the BCHA, the college and others be on the committee, and the committee was functioning. The local manpower committees were functioning. The provincial manpower committee which acted as an appeal body was functioning. It was going along reasonably well. We reduced the number of billing numbers in that year by about one-third. We were not receiving complaints that there were not enough doctors in those overpopulated areas. We still had problems in the remote areas of the province.

The Canadian Medical Association, I am told, issued instructions to the BCMA that they were not to take part in such a committee, so they withdrew, as did PARI. Fine. Asked them again if they would take part in a committee to try to work out the problem of manpower. The legislation provides the structure of an advisory committee to review the question. I can't stand by and have any such committee spend another five years, another ten years, reviewing the same thing.

[ Page 6259 ]

BCMA officials were here a couple of weeks ago with my officials. We asked them specifically to write down their alternatives that they've been discussing for so long. "Write them down. Tell us what they are." They said: "No, we won't put it in writing; no, we will not make use of your secretarial service to put it down; but there are alternatives." What are the alternatives? They assured us there were alternatives. "Can you write them down so that we can look at them?" "No. There are alternatives." The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and others speak about the overall problem across Canada. Of course; that's a very important part of the manpower problem. It is estimated that by the year 2000 we will have a surplus of about 6,000 doctors in Canada. Same problem right across the country.

We will be releasing a report presented to the ministers' conference in Winnipeg last week which deals with manpower and makes some very specific recommendations. Whether it's been released yet, I don't know. That's up to the federal minister and others. It indicates about a half dozen ways of trying to address the manpower question, and we support.... In fact, the chairman of that committee works for our Ministry of Health, and that information should be made public as soon as the ministers feel it should be. I've been releasing the information for the last eight months. I didn't realize they hadn't already done it.

So that is being addressed, Mr. Speaker, and if implemented I believe it will assist us overall. Right now we have a real problem in our province, and other provinces have similar problems. The minister in Saskatchewan has a problem with too many doctors in Saskatoon and Regina. The minister in Manitoba has a problem with too many doctors in Winnipeg. The NDP minister in Manitoba, Larry Desjardins, said Manitoba should have some way of regulating where physicians practise to ensure that everyone has access to medicare. He said he was disappointed the court ruled B.C.'s policy of regulating where doctors practise by controlling their billing numbers.... I was assured by four ministers last week in Winnipeg that if Bill 41 makes it through the courts, they intend to put something similar in place.

It's fine to talk with the BCMA, PARI and the rest. Everyone seems to have an idea or a feeling of how the problem can be resolved, but they will not come up with a concrete proposal, one you can review. We want to run their proposals past our legal people, and perhaps even have a court review the proposition to see if it would fly in law. But they won't do it. Wheel spinning; ten years of wheel spinning.

Mr. Speaker, incentives were mentioned by many members. I am not faulting any members who may not be intimately familiar with the incentive program in British Columbia. I've released the information several times. I've written letters to the editors of the major newspapers explaining the incentive program. Let me just offer a few notes.

One of our incentive programs involves subsidizing incomes for fee-for-service physicians who locate in underserviced areas. A subsidy of up to $42,000 a year is paid to physicians locating in approved communities. Some of the details: for each $2 in excess of $42,000 the subsidy is reduced by $1, so that over time as the physician's practice develops there is less of a subsidy. Currently there are five communities approved for this incentive.

We have a northern and isolation allowance which is available in about 50 communities. Depending upon the circumstances in the community, a physician can bill up to 15 percent extra on fees claimed from the Medical Services Plan. About 260 doctors receive this allowance. It's been in effect since 1978. If 15 percent is not enough, I would certainly consider 25 percent, 30 percent or 40 percent — if someone wishes to put that proposal forward — if it would appear that it would help resolve the problem. But the highest-billing GPs in B.C. are in relatively remote areas now. So the incentives are there. As members would know, one GP in Chase billed the plan for in excess of half a million dollars. So obviously it is not the lack of financial incentive that keeps these people away from some of these communities.

[2:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Relatively. The only doctor in the area.

Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to consider any custom tailored method of providing medical services in any community in the province, as we have done. We have a travel allowance system which reimburses physicians for travel and living expenses while providing scheduled services to certain remote areas. In Dease Lake, as the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) would know, working with the College of Family Physicians.... The remote location and small location would make it impossible for a financially-viable private practice, so instead of trying to find the physician who would settle there permanently, the program recruits physicians who are willing to practice in Dease Lake for short periods. We provide funding which enables the college to recruit physicians, pay their salaries and travel and living expenses — the clinic and the house used by the doctors — and provides a special four-wheel-drive vehicle to help them make the rounds in that area. We also make payments to doctors on either a sessional or salaried basis to fill special needs — and, as mentioned today, the psychiatrists in Prince George.

It isn't just trying to provide services in remote areas, it is trying to overcome this incredible cost of overpopulation — of GPs particularly — in the Vancouver and Victoria areas and certain other areas. That's what Bill 41 is attempting to address.

Some of the notes from some of the members. There is a very strange standard with respect to doctors. I don't know whether members are afraid that one day they will need the services of a doctor, and were he to hear that they had said something negative, they fear they wouldn't get the right service. More than one member has said — in fact just a few moments ago — "ordinary people and doctors." I suppose that it's a common attitude that doctors are not ordinary people. They're well trained, of course. They're well educated. That's what we expect. That's what's necessary. But why are doctors so different from any other person, professional or not? Doctors are licensed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons upon an examination to determine if they have the ability to practise medicine. They are licensed. They now have the authority to practise medicine in British Columbia. We in the Medical Services Commission provide them with a billing number which gives them access to the public purse. It provides them with their income- Other people, as the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), in speaking of engineers who are not on the public payroll although nonetheless qualified.... But there isn't this common pool of money they can dip into simply because they have a certificate. But teachers, as an example — and it's

[ Page 6260 ]

been mentioned previously — obtain a provincial certificate. They are now qualified to practise teaching in the province. But they can't go to a school board in Vancouver and say: "Here's my certificate, I want to be on your payroll." Vancouver School Board would say: "I'm sorry; you're qualified, but we do not need you here."

MR. COCKE: What school board?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Vancouver, Coquitlam, Richmond — wherever it may be. "We do not need you. We don't need your services. Sorry." Doctors, however, according to the critics should be able to go with their piece of paper in hand and say: "I want onto the payroll. Here. Whether you need my services or not, I demand to be on the payroll in Vancouver or Victoria or wherever I choose" — even though you don't need their services.

MR. COCKE: Are they salaried?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Some are salaried, yes. They demand access to the public purse in the location of their choice — the only group of people who have that right in our province. No one else can make such a demand. The doctors take part in medical manpower committees at the hospital level. They take part in determining whether a medical practitioner shall practise in that hospital, based on the need of the hospital for that individual's skills, expertise or specialty. But doctors take part in the committee. Why they will refuse hospital privileges is because the service of that practitioner is not needed in that hospital. I have no doubt that in time a doctor will challenge the right of the hospital to refuse them privileges, based on the argument that if they cannot receive privileges at a hospital, access to beds, they cannot fulfil their profession. If they're a surgeon, they must have access to the operating rooms and the beds, so why should not any doctor then be able to demand access to Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria or Vancouver General Hospital in Vancouver, simply because they want to practise where they want to practise, when they want to practise? We would have chaos in the system. But I would think it shall be challenged, and possibly the court may order open access — all doctors to all hospitals.

I might say that BCMA, when I suggested that to them, felt that it was probably the worst thing that could happen. I can't understand how they can take part in restricting a person's ability to practise their profession at the hospital level, but seem not able to even consider a similar method of control at the provincial level.

Just to make it clear to those who made reference to the Dr. Mia case, the case was based on a refusal by the commission to provide a billing number for Dr. Mia. It was that refusal the chief justice referred to when he made his decision, and his decision, very briefly, was that we had no authority under the Medical Services Act to deny a person a billing number. It was a 60-page judgment which covered a lot of material, a lot of opinions.

It has been suggested that we look at Quebec's model, where they pay new, young physicians 70 percent of the fee schedule in certain areas — overpopulated areas from a doctor's point of view — and some incentives elsewhere for the first three years. Well, in many instances if a doctor wishes to practise in a metropolitan area and he's starting off, 70 percent of the fee schedule is not too tough to take for three years, and then he's home free. But you can also modify that 70 percent, simply by increasing your utilization. So there need not necessarily be a financial disincentive. And the Quebec model apparently has as many problems as other provinces.

The Alberta model was mentioned. In part, the Alberta system demands that doctors entering the system provide a couple of years, before they get their licence, either in a revolving internship or residency or family practice, and then perhaps they receive their licence for.... We're one year, they're two years. It doesn't really resolve the problem; it delays it for one additional year. That's been considered as well — one of the recommendations by one of the health professional organizations.

The member for New Westminster and others mentioned a pension plan for doctors. I think it's a good idea. I've discussed that with BCMA. I've been told by BCMA: "No, thank you. Pension plans would mean we're civil servants." That's the executive I'm speaking to. Individual doctors, sure. BCMA — we've discussed pension plans. I think it's a good idea. I think we should set up a pension plan. I'd like to see it across Canada, though, so that we would not attract to B.C. doctors who are about to retire. I'd like to see a Canada pension plan for doctors if we could work it out. But I've been told that it would make them more of a civil servant. Many of them are philosophically opposed to it, until they try to cash in their MURBs and their HURBs and whatever else.

MR. COCKE: That's a minority.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, it may be. But that's the voice that speaks for the BCMA. Like all trade unions, you frequently only hear from a minority. The former president of the BCMA sent a letter to every doctor in B.C. and said: "Please petition your MLA about Bill 50. We want it withdrawn, we want this, and here's a copy of an editorial from the Vancouver Sun." Of the 5,000 doctors who received the letter, I believe we received approximately 100 letters, which represents a minority. In Whitehorse last Saturday, there were a couple of hundred doctors from B.C., and speaking with most of them I only found two who had a complaint. A great many more said we were doing the right thing — not officially, but certainly they said we're doing the right thing. A couple were complaining. That's fine.

With respect to incentives, some members talked about bursaries assisting young doctors to get through medical school, and in return they would practise in a remote area. One of the problems is that you can't enforce such a contract. The practice of medicine in B.C. is so lucrative that if a physician qualifies, gets his licence, finishes his internship and hangs up his shingle in Vancouver.... If he had some type of a contractual obligation with whomever, he could buy that contract out. He could pay the money that was forwarded to him quite easily from his first year's income if he got into an established practice of some kind. There is no serious obligation on his part to follow through on that contract.

I don't know who would sue him. He'd buy his way out of the contract. It was mentioned that the military had incentives. Sure. When you're in the military or the RCMP, you go where you're told to go. That's all there is to it. You don't say: "I only want to be on a ship if the ship's in Vancouver." You go where you are told to go. You can't do that with doctors. You can't tell a doctor he has to practise in Terrace because

[ Page 6261 ]

you assisted him in his education. He can buy you out and pay his debt.

There have to be other incentives, I agree. We've asked for suggestions for incentives. In Bill 41 we are asking all of these organizations to take part in an advisory committee, to come forward with their ideas — not philosophical blips that occur once in a while, but solid ideas. We wish to examine the ideas, run them past the legal fraternity and perhaps even have the court of appeal review them to see if they do not offend either the charter or some other law before they're implemented.

Bill 41, as I said earlier, is not going to solve everything, but it's a step, one step. Since I introduced Bill 41 I've heard from both major organizations indirectly: "Let's talk." Okay, I'm prepared to talk. We've been talking about it for four or five years. I'm prepared to talk. Our officials are prepared to talk, now that we have their attention. If they can come up with a better scheme, a better method, we'll be very pleased to consider it and implement it as the regulations for the issuing of billing numbers. But they haven't come up with that. In fact, April 23, I believe, was the last time I had a meeting with the officials of the BCMA executive to discuss legislation. I don't believe I've heard from anyone since. There've been news conferences and there's been indirect conversation, but I don't believe I've heard from any of them since. So I look forward to their taking part in an advisory committee.

[3:00]

One of the problems, Mr. President.... Mr. Speaker. I was thinking of the Quebec Assembly, that's why.

Mr. Speaker, one very important point, I am advised by our lawyers, is to avoid certain conflicts. It's not good enough to sit down with the BCMA or others and work out an agreement to implement some type of control over doctor distribution or the gross number of doctors without having legislative authority to back it up. We had an agreement with the BCMA and PARI and the others to work on such a committee. Somebody went to court, and the court said: "You can't do it. You have to have legislative authority to back you up or to back up a committee or whoever may be in that position." So it's not a bargaining issue so much as it is a legal question.

The member for New Westminster referred to the capping arrangement we concluded with the BCMA. It's a partial cap. I think it's a good contract. It allows for a 4 percent absorption by the BCMA members, should the budget go over what's been allotted. I think it's a pretty good safety valve. We're going to give it a year's try, anyway, and see what happens. We don't know. That represents about $36 million. But since the Dr. Mia case, the number of doctors who have received billing numbers could equate to maybe $50 million or $75 million extra. So we could go over the 4 percent. Doctors have had no increase in their fees in the last couple of years. They're still about 30 percent higher than the national average. But the recession really has not been felt by the doctors very much — not in their practice, not in the moneys they have earned from their medical services. Many others have felt the effects of the recession in their real estate holdings and in other business activities, but not from the services they provide as a doctor.

We are very concerned about the service to doctors in remote areas. We're willing to accept any suggestion that may be workable. We would like to use common sense, which is almost prohibited by the Charter of Rights in many instances. To me, it would make sense in British Columbia to be able to say to a young graduate: "If you are prepared to service a community for a period of time, that would put you in a preferred position at some time in the future to practise in a metropolitan area — a preferred position. You've earned your points. You've paid your dues." You can't do that. You can't give them preferential treatment, because you're discriminating against somebody who comes in from Edmonton and says: "I want to work in Vancouver too. I'm qualified." You can't give them that, unless they're under personal contract, which is not a bad idea.

We would like to build in certain incentives to encourage these doctors, young or otherwise. In fact, it was the BCMA, years back, who tried to implement such a scheme themselves, where new doctors coming into B.C. might be required to service a remote area first. The courts said: "You can't do that — discrimination." We'll solve the problem. It will be solved. It'll take action at the provincial level, and it will take action at the national level. As I said, a report will be released soon with respect to national manpower.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of medical schools in our country, one of which is at UBC. You should see the reaction around the table when it is suggested that some medical schools be closed or reduced in size. It's like putting in a group home: "Anywhere but our place, anywhere but our neighbourhood." Nobody's volunteering. Ontario, a couple of years ago, suggested: "That's no problem. Close UBC, and we'll produce as many doctors as you need." It's pretty tough to get anyone to say, "Sure, we'll reduce our medical school, " or, "We'll close our medical school." One suggested that they would reduce it by ten seats, but they don't want any reduction in funding. That may yet occur.

There's discussion about offshore doctors coming into the country. The federal government should review how many they permit into the country — refugee doctors and others.

We are producing too many graduate medical students across the country. B.C. is not producing too many on a per capita basis. We certainly are across Canada. Even if the entire production of our medical school were absorbed each year in the province, it would still represent about one-third of the number of billing numbers we issue each year. So it isn't the graduates who are creating the problem.

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, we are trying to do something to control costs. We are trying to do something to come up with a better scheme. My experience with the medical profession has been that they have a tremendous capacity to talk. They have a tremendous capacity to review, to establish committees, to discuss matters. I don't think they have the same capacity to resolve matters; perhaps it's not their nature. I will be asking them to join the advisory committee. If they can come up with a better scheme to assist in resolving the manpower issue, we are quite prepared to consider most seriously implementing such a scheme. If it is found to be legally correct, as the regulations....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That's a commitment I've made to them several times. What I'm saying is that until that time we expect to have the control Bill 41 will provide. Should they come up with a better method, we'll certainly give it every consideration and implement it. We have to do something, Mr. Speaker, and this is what we plan on doing.

[ Page 6262 ]

Once again I want to thank the members for their keen interest in this even though we were all over the block. Mr. Speaker, I move the bill now be read a second time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 17

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, with leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 41, Medical Service Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make a short introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like members to welcome to the House today 48 grade 7 students from Silver Star Elementary School in Vernon, within the constituency of North Okanagan. Along with the students are two former colleagues of mine, Mr. Al Hooper and Mr. Jim Inglis. I'd like you to welcome them to the House today.

MEDICAL SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections I to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[3:15]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 41, Medical Service Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 38.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSIT
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

On section 6.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would like to clarify her comments of the other day that all of these amendments were proposed to the people at the bargaining table and should not have come as a surprise to them. I wonder if she would like to tell us in what form those indications were made and give us a little bit of detail about her side of that story.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I can say that it's not just my side; it was obviously also understood by the union itself, according to public statements made at the time the agreement in our labour negotiations was completed. Mr. Colin Kelly, who is president of ICTU drivers' Local 1, did make these comments — at least, these comments were attributed to him in the press at that time:

"Kelly said he believes another reason for the change is the pending legislation to merge MTOC with B.C. Transit. MTOC has been responsible for operation of the transit in the lower mainland, while B.C. Transit is responsible for planning and financing.

"He added he expects the government will put a, management rights' clause in the merger legislation that will allow transit management to implement new routes and schedules to mesh with the new advanced light rapid transit system, which goes into service in 1986."

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I should share with the member who has asked the question that, as I mentioned in discussion on the bill in principle, during the contract negotiations — on February 28 of this year — the union bargaining team was specifically informed of the government's intention to include a management rights clause, and the union was so advised. The bargaining team was asked by the management bargaining team if, with that knowledge, they wished to continue the negotiations or take time to consider their position. They agreed to continue, and on the following morning, March 1, 1985, at 9 a.m., both sides signed a memorandum of agreement. That memorandum followed the agreed negotiations with the contents of this bill — well

[ Page 6263 ]

advised to ICTU at that time. It think that answers the question asked.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the minister's comments and as I understand what transpired in the bargaining, there appears to be an agreement that what did take place was a discussion in respect of management rights as applied to the establishment of ALRT and the necessary changes that would come from that. That's not to take any position one way or another on the correctness of this management rights clause. But I think it's important that we sort out what was said at the table and what we now have, because what was said at the table, as I understand it — and I think the minister has confirmed it by reading, and by implication agreeing with, the comments made by the president of one of the locals — is that the management rights clause was in fact to deal with the changes that would come about as a result of ALRT.

These changes in section 6 of the bill go far beyond that agreement. That was the point that some of us were attempting to make in debate on second reading. An agreement was reached at the table. There was an understanding about some legislation that would come in. There was an understanding in the first instance that there would be a merger of the operations. There was an understanding that there would be a management rights clause in respect of ALRT. We got that and much more. And that's the concern that was being expressed on this side of the House the other day. That's the concern that was being expressed in yesterday's Vancouver Sun in the lead editorial; that's the concern that was expressed in today's Vancouver Province in their major editorial — that, in fact, the government has gone beyond what it said at the bargaining table, and has stripped from that agreement certain provisions that were agreed to at the time.

Mr. Chairman, it's not up to us to predict results of certain actions, particularly in these kinds of areas. But the government, in doing this to a group of employees, is really inviting much more than I think it wants to invite. We've made the point in second reading, and I'm not going to belabour all of the issues here now, other than to say that, hopefully, nothing untoward will result from these kinds of actions of the government, but should it ever happen, the responsibility is clearly and firmly and solely resting on cabinet's shoulders.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, we can't let those kinds of comments go unchallenged, because what the member is trying to do is cloud the issue in two ways. I too read the editorials to which he refers, and although I won't comment specifically on those editorials, I can say that my remarks will hopefully try to clarify what has become a murky situation at best in terms of the interpretation of this act. That has been helped along by the comments that were made the other day by the members of the opposition.

The section that has concerned the member for North Island has two items within it, and I have responded to what I felt his question was: what did ICTU understand in the bargaining process was management's concerns and what did they concern themselves with in that deliberation? It was clearly understood by both sides what the legislation would be. That's point number one. On the basis of that understanding, there was an agreement made that morning and signed by both parties which resulted in the pact between the two parties, management and union, taking place, at which we were all pleased.

That section has another part. The management rights put aside and implied in the negotiations — in fact, well known in the negotiations — are a matter of record. I know that the president of that union would agree to that; in fact not only has he agreed to it, he even said so on March 4, 1985, two or three days after the agreement was signed. He said that he looks to the legislation to provide those rights. Talking about management rights, I referred the other day to Mr. Joe Morris's commission that was appointed to look into this labour altercation last year, where he very clearly spells out that management not only already had those rights and should continue to have those rights, but that neither side should have the ability to void management rights. That was clear.

It's interesting to think that we're even debating management rights, because it's implied in every kind of social and economic pact that there should be. There should be no question of management rights. Management has to manage. That's implied in management's role and responsibility.

The other part of this section which the member now confuses with that.... Let me just clarify. The other part of it is the contract with the drivers and employees of MTOC. We are transferring them to the new organization, but it is clear, and I have made it clear, that no employee will suffer a reduction in salary, seniority, group insurance or medical benefits by reason only of the transfer. Also we have clearly stated that everything they had in the contract is going to be intact and preserved, and clearly stated in this section that we're debating is that they will have their rights under that contract well preserved and absolutely no problem at all in that regard. So these two issues implied in this section are well protected. On the one hand, it was known to ICTU and to everybody who was negotiating that management rights were to be brought in by this legislation. They were looking forward to this legislation bringing them in. There was nothing done that was untoward or through the back door.

Secondly, on the terms of the employees' protection of their contractual agreement, we stand behind that contract. We always will, and there has been absolutely no change whatsoever in that contract between the union and management.

MR. GABELMANN: I won't belabour it, but the last comments just indicate again why we get so frustrated on this side of the House with the nonsense from the minister. I doubt that she's ever heard of successor rights. You don't need to make a speech about the rights of the employees when they're being transferred from one employer to another. Those rights are protected in law. You don't need this particular bill to protect those rights; they're protected in the Labour Code. So you don't need to make a speech about how this section is all designed just to protect their rights. They've got those rights under the Labour Code.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Then why did you question it?

[3:30]

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not talking about that; I'm talking about the management rights. I'm not talking about successor status. I'm not talking about the fact that the collective agreement that they have is transferred from one employer to another. In fact, when you read it properly, it's being transferred from one employer to several million potential employers, under 6.3. Those rights are there. You don't need

[ Page 6264 ]

to make a speech about how nice you are to the employees. They've got those rights under other laws in this province, until you take those away too.

Mr. Chairman, for the minister also to bring Joe Morris into this debate.... I mean, all she has to do is read Joe Morris's report to understand what a flop that was. All she has to recognize is what result there was as a result of his report last year. Did it resolve the dispute? No way. I've made fairly severely critical comments about my old friend Joe in respect to that piece of work, and I stand by those comments. To support this particular section based on Joe Morris's report is appalling.

Talking about gall, Mr. Chairman, let me talk about Don Jordan. Will the minister tell me: did Don Jordan, when he was asked what the management rights clause would be, say that he was unable to provide any details, but that he understood it was in respect of ALRT?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm given to understand that the words which appear in the bill were the same words that were used in discussions with the union. Those discussions were done by Mr. Jordan.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm going to let it go, because it's going to get into a case of he said, we said, she said, they said, and nobody can win that kind of debate. But I just want it on record that I believe — and I wasn't at the table, so I can't know — that this legislation goes far beyond what was understood to be under discussion at the table, as was reflected by Don Jordan. I find that really unfortunate and, as I said before, I think it will lead to difficulties that we shouldn't have to put up with in this province.

MR. REID: I'd like to comment on section 6 in respect to the previous speaker and the requirement of Metro Transit Operating Company and now B.C. Transit to have in this act the question of management rights, because the problem that we had with the three-month unstrike last year with the transit system was a result of the company not having the right to manage the system on behalf of the taxpayers.

The system, on an average day, loses $300,000 currently. That's with the limited ability the company currently has to manage. When the company acquires the right to manage, the system will be more effectively operated, the efficiencies will be there, a saving will be offered, and we'll have a more effective service in the province as a result of the right to manage the system, as management should have.

When a system has 260,000 hours of overtime in the lower mainland in one year which doesn't provide one minute of service, but extra pay for overtime because the company doesn't have the power to manage that, there's something wrong. If you took those hours and divided them in new employees, you'd have 135 more employees being paid the same amount of money. But the company doesn't have the right to manage that, because the schedules and services that are out there within the system are offered and managed by the operators — the drivers — not by the company itself.

There's something wrong with that, because if you want to provide the efficiencies to the service and if we want to better rationalize the money that's going into the minister's treasury for transit in the province, look at the additions in service you can provide in those communities that presently don't have it because of wastage — and I call it wastage. Any company that has a 10 percent absentee rate out of 2,700 employees on average....

MR. GABELMANN: It shows bad management.

MR. REID: Because the company doesn't have the right to manage; that's the problem. An absentee rate of 10 percent of the mechanics in an operating company — that's absolutely ludicrous. No business in this province that's run by a taxpayer, by private enterprise, can operate with a 10 percent absentee rate. You know why? Because he's got to raise the funds from the people that come in his doors to get the service done. But when it's taxpayers paying the bill, and these people on the other side say: "Well, you know, don't give the operators the right to manage the system on behalf of the drivers and the mechanics...." I'll tell you why they signed the agreement: because it's always blackmail, that's why. It's always blackmail on behalf of the unions that forces people to sign agreements they don't want to sign.

MR. GABELMANN: No wonder they fired you.

MR. REID: They didn't fire me; I resigned. But I'll tell you the facts, Mr. Man: for the four years that I was in charge of that board we saved money each year and improved the service — millions of dollars.

MR. GABELMANN: You had 10 percent absenteeism, eh?

MR. REID: Yes, and if we could have controlled that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Direct all comments to the Chair. All members will have their chance to participate on section 6.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, under section 6 we're talking about management's right to determine the employment level, the complement of employees, the organization of employees and the opportunity to manage those particular functions. This bill is going to create that opportunity for the company, which it has needed since 1978. The waste of taxpayers' money as a result of the present system, which has a section G-400 in the collective agreement which does not allow the company to manage the services, to change the schedules and services as demanded by the elected officials in each regional commission, who have to raise their portion of the revenue to pay the costs.... But if you can save $260,000 of taxpayers' money in unproductive hours, Madam Minister, I commend you for that — and put that saving back into jobs, to provide part-time operators and further operators with the same amount of money. If these operators in Metro Transit Operating Company are sincere in wanting to provide an efficient, effective service, I ask them to come forward and refuse to work overtime, because the minute they refuse to work overtime the absentee rate would drop to the normal 3 or 4 percent of any other business.

MR. VEITCH: How's that, Bill?

MR. REID: How would that happen? You see, the overtime is presently covering the backs of the absenteeism. Absenteeism creates the overtime. The overtime doesn't

[ Page 6265 ]

provide any bus service; not one minute of service is provided by overtime. That's the right to manage.

If those members on the other side want to take advantage of management rights and taxpayers' dollars, which they're always so concerned about, then I think they should ask why management rights haven't been brought forward even sooner than now. As a previous chairman of Metro Transit Operating Company, I can tell you that every year $4 million to $7 million could have been left in the system to provide better, more efficient service, and more bus rides for people who currently don't have them because the company doesn't have the right to schedule buses according to the need. The present system requires that the drivers agree to a schedule, and if they don't agree to it, they veto the total change, so the service which has been there forever continues to be there until the drivers agree. Until it becomes a cushy run, they won't agree. That's what's wrong.

So, Madam Minister, I commend you for section 6 — right to manage.

Sections 6 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 38, British Columbia Transit Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Second reading of Bill 35.

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Bill 35 comes about as a result of a problem involving Bill 3 from a previous session. Bill 3 never had any regulations brought in to support it. Interestingly enough, everybody in the public sector was capable of entering into an exemption agreement which had been approved by the compensation stabilization commissioner. However, recently there were a large number of school districts — I believe the number is 21 — where in fact no agreement could be entered into, and without an agreement the school districts were placed in an untenable position in which they could not terminate or lay off any teachers for any reason whatsoever. You see, there was no fallback position, because with the advent of Bill 3, the old section 153 of the current School Act was deleted. In all other public sector agreements there were fallback positions, and most of those had been negotiated. In the case of public schools, I repeat, there wasn't any. What happened was that the local teacher associations in each of those districts were refusing to enter into an exemption agreement. By refusing to do so they were, in fact, putting before the school boards unacceptable positions, and positions to which the school districts just could not agree. So we had no alternative other than to bring in the type of bill we have before us today.

It's interesting to note that a number of the school districts that have entered into agreements — and roughly one-third have entered into those agreements — considered primarily seniority only. Approximately another one-third entered into agreements where seniority, qualifications and ability were considered.

This particular bill also contains something else. I was insistent that we go to some lengths to ensure that there would be due process, so that if any particular teacher felt aggrieved, there was an avenue to handle that grievance which is most fair. Something which I think many people have forgotten is that under the old School Act all that was required to give teachers, if their services were no longer required, was 30 days' notice. I find that to be rather difficult and somewhat unfair, to be very candid. It seems to me that someone who has given service to a district for a period of time is certainly entitled to more than 30 days' notice. This bill provides for the notice, but not only that, it provides for the appropriate severance, and it is built in.

[3:45]

One of the issues which will be of some concern, but I think it's evident and is required, is the expression "current demonstrated ability." A number of school districts are interested in that particular expression, and have incorporated within their agreements language which may not specifically state "current demonstrated ability, " but there isn't much question about the direction in which they're moving. I have before me an example from the Greater Victoria School District where they, together with their local teachers, have hammered out an agreement. I make specific reference to articles 9, 10, and 11 in that agreement. In particular, article No. 11 makes reference to definition of qualifications.

Other school districts, interestingly enough, have started in this direction. As you know, the existing practice is to refer to reports as either being satisfactory or less than satisfactory. I don't believe that is really an acceptable practice, and it's not my idea; it's obviously coming out of the school districts themselves. I notice that in some school districts they have a number of categories. In one particular example there are five: excellent, good, satisfactory, fair and poor. This is already built into the agreement. It seems to me that it's not a bad idea.

One of the concerns which we have had.... I recognize that this is a start in that direction, in giving it legislative support and a thrust. These changes, of course, will occur within school districts over a period of time; it's not expected that anything will happen immediately. It's interesting to note that a superintendent has the authority to make decisions on a reporting basis, and can use a number of categories. A principal cannot. A principal can use only the expressions "satisfactory" or "less than satisfactory." I would hope that as time goes on principals will be in the position to give an appropriate report, and in some detail.

One of the concerns which I have had — and I think it's probably a concern of all school districts, and it should be the concern of all members of the House — is the number of reports which have been submitted on teachers over a period of time. I've got before me what we believe to be a reasonably accurate summary of the number of reports submitted, and by the districts. As you know, we're responsible in the ministry for the certification branch.

[ Page 6266 ]

When you look over the list, you find for 1983-84 that one particular school district had 70 reports done on teachers, all in their interests, and then it can go into another particular school district where there will be one. This was new to me. I would have thought that they would have been updated, and it would be a fairly current practice, but the evidence before me would indicate that it hasn't been, in the matter of reporting, and that reviewing the performance of teachers has not been carried on to the degree to which I would have thought that it would have been.

I advised my critic that I would take about ten minutes only on second reading on it. I would just like to capsule very quickly the reason. There were no agreements on the number of school districts. That impasse had to be brought to an end. Legislation was required. There was no fallback position because there were no regulations under Bill 3. The old section 153 of the School Act had been deleted. We have added into the bill something which I think has real value when referring not only to seniority and qualifications but also to current demonstrated ability.

The last item to which I would like to refer is that it does contain due process, so that everyone is treated most fairly.

You will also note that the bill does contain a provision that if school districts are unable to enter into an agreement, the particular bill has a schedule attached to it, and that schedule will become an operative document. What I am hoping will occur is that a number of school districts will provide leadership in this area. I can say that now many have, and I think that a number of others should be following suit and taking it into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure; is now the time that I move that the bill be read a second time?

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister is not unlike most of us. We all try to clothe our actions in the noblest motives possible.

This is to prevent some problems he claims are caused by certain teachers, by the information I have, refusing to come to agreements in some 20 or 21 districts. He never says that one of the reasons we're faced with this — just one of the reasons — is that there were no regulations articulated in terms of seniority under Bill 3. Whose responsibility is that? It certainly wasn't those teachers out there. As a matter of fact, it was touch and go, and even North Van was discouraged from signing an early exemption, merely because this might set the trend and ruin the strength of the so-called restraint in those days.

So it doesn't matter what this minister does. We have to endure cutbacks because of decline in enrolment. He doesn't say that the cutbacks amounted to 20 percent, or over $250 million, when the decline in enrolment was about 10 percent. He doesn't say that when he's cutting back in terms of the PTR, he's firing one teacher for every drop in enrolment of 6.5 pupils, not 17, which is roughly the PTR in some of the grades. So the cutbacks have been far more intense than any decline in enrolment, and so have the cutbacks in terms of not only staffing, but also funding.

The framework provides equity, says he. In other words, we have to take one-third of the districts that are providing quality education, service and staffing and take $250 million away from them and give it to two-thirds of the districts — something like 50 or more which are not providing the same level of service. To him, equity is lowering everybody to meet his standards. The lowest common denominator. We didn't reach the highest common denominator in public education, we reached the lowest common denominator.

Curtis' directive, which puts into place — solidifies almost; freezes — a certain number of jobs at a certain rate, was put in there to save jobs. In other words, it was there to save the teachers from themselves. He'd already fired about 2,500 — and my own daughter just got her notice the other day, so this is not entirely impersonal with me — not because of unsatisfactory performance, but because we had to cut down. Why? Because of lack of enrolment? Not completely. Because of a restraint budget? Not because the local district didn't want the program. No, nothing. It's a punitive approach, a retaliatory approach, but he clothes it in noble motives. "We had to have this because there were no regulations under Bill 3."

Then he says: "We need official trustees to replace obstinate boards." And what do they do as soon as they go in there? They add $7 million to the budget, which wasn't allowed to the trustees who were there originally. I know he's going to argue that.... He doesn't write the trustees, he writes the Vancouver Sun.

I think, Mr. Speaker, this is just another battle in the government's continuing war against education. He's been bullying and browbeating boards now for two years. He got them onside. When he first came into office he was a loquacious, smiling Vander Zalm. Now he's still smiling, but some of the boards that made agreements with him under the sunset provisions of Bill 6, and also the ability and the promise to shift the funds around within the functions, have found out that all was not quite the same when they tried to do it, If you don't believe that, ask Coquitlam. Just ask Coquitlam, because they tried to save a few jobs; that's what they tried to do. But he wanted to downsize the staffing, and this is more. This is more management rights, so boards, if they have that frame of mind, can proceed without any real check on their powers at all. Talk about management rights: you've given it to them now. Only in one area though. But I'm getting away from my notes.

Browbeating the trustees, scapegoating the teachers and chiseling the kids: he'll go down in history for that. That's what his main aim in life has been. We had a problem, so we need this Bill 35, but the government's brought it all on itself in its attack on education. Education has been singled out for cuts while other departments have escaped. The budget for this year is up 14 percent, and education has been cut. Why? Why can't that minister fight for education the way some of the other members fight for their particular departments?

Now the arbitrations were allowed to continue. He dithered. All during this year the arbitrations were allowed to continue at a cost of $1.5 million. When the arbitrations continued, as the School Act describes, directed bargaining.... Then they had to go to the compensation commissioner to be ruled upon, and then the interim finance act forbade budget increases and then when things got really.... We got to the pressure cooker, because Mr. Peck was about to award some 1 and 2 percent, but the minister said: "Oh, no, you can't do that, because I've frozen the global budget." So all that means is that we're going to hate the same global budget — that is, if you aren't allowed to sell property in Richmond or Vancouver or some other place.... So much again for equity, you know. Here we've got a framework that's supposed to provide equity, right? It's so equitable that you must leave it rigidly imposed all over the province, until you get into trouble. Then you say: "Well,

[ Page 6267 ]

really what we need to do is spend a little bit more money in Vancouver to make our official trustee look good." If you want to buy off Burnaby and Coquitlam, you add a few little nuggets in there, but his own board hasn't that opportunity. They never heard of this before.

Anyway, here is the thing: we've got a School Act which directs bargaining, a compensation stabilization commissioner who has to rule on these things, an interim finance act which forbids budget increases.... Therefore if there's any increase it's divided up among fewer teachers, and the day after the convention of schoolteachers is all over, in comes Curtis on his white horse, freezes salaries — whop, you're frozen; zap, you're frozen — into an unfair situation. And it's terrible.

You take Kimberley, for instance. Enrolment since '83-84 has declined 1.3 percent, and they lost 8.7 percent of their teachers — equitable? Here's Fernie: according to Curtis they're entitled to 223 teachers. Do you know how many teachers they have? They have 205. So how can they get up to the Curtis formula? Well, they have to get some more money. And why can't they get any more money? Because "zap, you're frozen" has frozen the budgets. Kamloops is 55 below what Curtis said they could have. So this whole thing is, I think, you know....

When the boards discovered that because of Bill 3 and its removal of section 153 — and it's a bit technical, Mr. Speaker, so I won't bore you too long with it — they couldn't get rid of anybody.... There was no power granted to terminate. Here comes the Minister of Education, again on white horse, and says: "Well, we've got to have Bill 35, because the teachers were recalcitrant. They were uncooperative. They wouldn't bargain."

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, this is a mess, one of a continued symphony of dithering ad hockery. We've just gone from one screwup to another. I've puzzled about this, because I think that the members of his government are very capable, especially of winning elections. So I've always wondered whether they were smart or dumb, and I thought, well, there must be a master plan. But I'm beginning to wonder whether there really is a master plan there at all. I really am, Mr. Speaker.

Any board who didn't knuckle under.... And you understand why we're having these layoffs: we're having these layoffs because the minister says that the boards no longer have the right, as elected officials, to raise any money; they haven't had for three years, and probably won't for another year. Anyway, the boards who didn't knuckle under to the budget directives were either threatened.... Thirty-four of them provided maintenance budgets. They were cajoled, and two were fired. Why were they fired? I think it would be a good idea to examine why they were fired. I think it would be necessary, again, to go into the technicalities of the School Act. A little problem for boards that were elected: they have to file a declaration. The declaration in section 76 says in part: "I will faithfully perform the duties of my office and abide by the School Act."

Mr. Speaker, I see you're fascinated by this. What does the School Act say that the duties of the board members are? This will cause you a lot of sleepless afternoons, Mr. Speaker. It says that, according to the duties of the school board, each board in each school district shall — and I quote from section 155 — "except as otherwise provided in this act, provide sufficient school accommodation and tuition, free of charge, to ... all children" etc. That's really the operative part.

What do they have to provide? They have to provide accommodation and tuition.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If, in their conscience, they couldn't provide the proper kind of tuition or, for that matter, accommodation with the moneys they were allotted, what could they do? The minister comes along in the interim financing act and says: "It's not just good enough that I can impose my budget; you've got to vote for it. I'm telling you guys, you freely elected people, how to vote." What gall! What outrage! And he's surprised when a few of them say: "No, we can't do that, because we have given an oath and signed a declaration that we would provide for what we — not the minister — regard as adequate tuition and accommodation." If they couldn't provide that, what could they do? Vote against it; and if you vote against it you get fired or you resign. This is behind-the-Iron-Curtain democracy; that's what it is. You vote according to how the minister tells you to vote. I don't like the idea that the minister can issue directives to an autonomous board. I don't mind, though, so much the fact that he can do that, as long as he doesn't order them to vote.

So what does he do? He comes along and he fires them. He fires them under section 79, the order-in-council section of the School Act: "On the appointment of an official trustee to conduct the affairs of a school district, its trustees...." But what does it say in section 78? It says: "Where a new school district is created wholly or in part by the union of two or more existing school districts or as the result of a division of a large school district into two or more small districts, then on trustees being elected or appointed" — blah, blah, blah, blah. When we get new school trustees, then the minister may appoint a trustee and terminate the offices of the old trustee. That's what it says.

Those two should be read together, and they aren't. I think they're the subject of a court case, but, not being a lawyer, I wouldn't know for certain. The minister, I hope, has looked into that. I think that on that very basis they were probably fired illegally. We'll see, though.

They should be reinstated. Do they have to be fired forever? Why don't you reinstate them? You go to elaborate procedures of how you can reallocate or how a teacher can be rehired after he's been fired or terminated. Why can't you do the same thing with trustees? "You didn't vote the way we wanted you to or you were told to, so we fired you; then we passed the budget. But you were elected to serve, so why don't you come back?" There we are. I don't see why a board member, a decent human being, should be put into conflict with his own conscience. At least here, if we don't like the way something is, we're not told by the federal government how to vote; that's precisely the parallel.

Shareable funds at the last minute: a death-bed conversion; not available before that. What a sorry.... I think it's a sorry tale of betrayals and obfuscation; it really is. "Oh, well, they knew all along that they could do it." Like fun they could do it. Where is the equity in all that?

How come, if the framework supplies enough for adequate education, the official trustee was permitted to dig in and sell property to the tune of another $7 million?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment, please. We are on Bill 35, which deals with school boards, teachers' associations and layoff agreements. I wonder if we

[ Page 6268 ]

could stick to the principle of that bill, particularly layoff agreements dealing with school boards and teachers' associations.

MR. ROSE: I really appreciate your guidance on that matter. I might have strayed somewhat. I got a bit discursive, but I was really coming back to the main point. The main point is that if the minister hadn't put a global budget ceiling or cap on Vancouver and other school board budgets, then no layoff agreement under Bill 35 would be necessary. That was the point I was trying to make, and how inequitably this has been applied, including, Mr. Speaker, in your own district, where they didn't have the non-shareable opportunity to proceed. I know you must be extremely sensitive to this one. Anyway, I think it's a sorry tale.

All right, this party believes in the boards' right to manage; it's only the government that doesn't. We believe in the boards' right to manage. We believe that the minister doesn't believe in the boards' right to manage. What powers have they got left? First the minister deleted budget control from the boards. Gone. There's your right to manage. If you can't control your own budget, how can you manage? There's the former chairman of Metro Transit. If you didn't have control of your own budget, Mr. Member, I don't see how you could manage Metro Transit.

Taxing powers, the right to levy taxes and fix a mill rate, gone. Who's got it? The minister. He's got those powers now. Curriculum choices: limited if not gone. And what are we left with now? Under Bill 35 we've given them the power to hire and fire. We've shifted that right over to them to such an extent that they have powers they've never had before. They enjoy powers to fire greater than they've ever had before, far greater than anything contemplated under section 153. I think it's gone too far in the direction of management. There's lots of prescription when it comes to curriculum and spending. The minister is able to provide them with all kinds of details of frameworks of what they can do, but he's not very prescriptive when it comes to what it means by seniority, competency or current performance. What does it mean, for instance, by qualifications? What are you talking about there? Do you want those people with the most qualifications, and therefore the highest salaries to be maintained, or do you want those with the least? It doesn't say under Schedule 3 at all.

Now the NDP also, and I want to make this perfectly clear — in the words of Robert Stanfield, I want to make this crystal clear....

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Nixon, wasn't it?

MR. ROSE: Yes, I know, but Stanfield copied it from Nixon. They're both right-wingers, but Nixon was far worse. Stanfield was a rather decent fellow, but he used the same terms.

I want to make it perfectly clear that this party doesn't believe either that the incompetent or lazy teachers should be protected. I think this bill gives a board carte blanche, if they want it, on how to fire teachers. How do you do it? First of all, you don't come to any negotiations with teachers. Like West Van, you refuse to negotiate with teachers. Therefore, after a time determined by the minister.... That could be inequitable too, because the minister could allow Board X .... they could make Vancouver, for instance, do it right away, and allow Coquitlam and Burnaby, Qualicum and Cowichan some extra time. Anyway, if they can't come to an agreement, Schedule 3 kicks in, and a lot of very interesting things happen under that agreement.

What's the incentive for a board to come to an agreement if they are basically anti-teacher? There isn't any. They're better to wait it out. Then the minister can come with a bail-out bill or Schedule 3, like he did for West Van in this bill. Precisely what's happened.

I said incompetent teachers shouldn't be protected. There are ways — awkward, admittedly — under the act currently of dealing with this matter. If they're not good enough, why don't you negotiate with the profession or allow the boards to negotiate with their own staff to get better agreements? I don't think anybody should be interested in protecting the incompetent teachers — or governments, for that matter. I'd like to fire the incompetent government. That would be nice.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: That's what I said: that we should have the right to fire an incompetent government. And the minister agrees with me.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We got rid of one in 1972 as well.

Mr. Speaker, you're going to have to protect me from these people. They keep yelling at me.

Could you be determined incompetent, Mr. Speaker, if you had the wrong political leanings? Or maybe if you were really active in your teachers' association'? Or maybe if your religious or social commitments, sexual orientation or something, was not approved of by the local board or the local committee? Is that the kind of thing that would affect your competence to teach the young and be a role model? That's what we're afraid of. There's no definition of competence in here. The minister says some woolly things. He doesn't like "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory," but he likes "excellent," "good," "poor" and "rotten." In other words, five or six different categories. If you've ever had anything to do with rating and grading teachers.... Everybody knows what a good teacher is and what a bad one is, but if you've ever had anything to do with grading teachers and student teachers — and I've had 10 or 11 years of it — it's a damned difficult thing. You can rate their behaviour, how they perform in front of the class, but you don't measure learning that way. Anybody who has ever tried to learn anything about teacher assessment knows it's more than just eyeballing. I'm very concerned.

As a matter of fact, some of the left-wing boards would be in a position to fire all those active Socred teachers. Did you ever think of that? What about all those left-wing elected boards, elected on a no-cut platform, going on a witch-hunt after Socred teachers? Boy, that's pretty serious when you think of that — the wrong political....

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Boy, you've sure got a lot of confidence in school boards.

MR. ROSE: I'm not the one who took away their powers, Mr. Minister. You did. You're the one who marched right in, centralized and took all their powers away, not me.

The minister talks about seniority. He talks about the Victoria agreement. They spell out what seniority means and

[ Page 6269 ]

how it's to be.... What does the minister do in schedule 3? He stands seniority on its head. He mouths on about such inanities as order in terms of.... In his press release it's a little different, but in section 5, "Determination of layoff, " it talks about "current demonstrated ability." Who makes that assessment? The superintendent? The principal? According to whose wisdom? "Qualifications." The cheapest teacher? Or the best qualified? And then down below that there's seniority. Victoria, which he quoted from, has got termination and recall based on seniority and qualifications, and they define length of service — not this kind of stuff that the minister has done, with all kinds of interrupted service and the like.

[4:15]

The minister doesn't understand why we become upset with a bill like this. Well, it's the same kind of shoddy drafting and stuff like that that we've heard from him with everything he touches. He's almost an alchemist in reverse — a pleasant one, but nevertheless he is.

I'd like to read him some of the Victoria agreement. It's just the opposite of what he contemplates under schedule 3 here. There is no incentive for boards to bargain with their teachers. There are considerable incentives for boards not to bargain, because the schedule gives the boards carte blanche. The schedule directs the boards to take the following into account in this order: current ability, qualifications, and only then seniority. That's the very opposite of what Victoria and many others have done. I think there are something like 55 agreements. But if a board doesn't wish to agree, we're going to get schedule 3. That's a poem: if you don't agree, schedule 3. So there's no reason for them to bargain if they don't wish to. Right?

I think that the bill is unnecessary and unfair, and it's a potential time-bomb. I think it's going to hurt labour relations in B.C. They're already stressful because of all the buffeting they've taken. It's another band-aid approach. And I think it's going to set a time-bomb ticking that's going to damage labour relations for a long time.

What did we need if we didn't need this? We probably could have used, because of the goof-up with no regulations in Bill 3, a one-line bill that said something like this: "To give the school board and teachers' associations authority to negotiate terminations, layoffs and recall...." That's all you really needed. You didn't have to go into all this other sort of stuff which qualifies that. I don't think there's anything wrong with having some kind of clause in there which would give management the right to manage. I'm not opposed to that. But, of course, we must remember that we wouldn't need this at all if we hadn't had the $200 million to $300 million attack on the schools in the first place.

It's unnecessary because there's no district that at some point hasn't come pretty close to layoff arrangements with its own teachers. All agreements have been pretty standard — I mentioned the Victoria one. But they have what the bill lacks: comprehensive definitions of what they mean by seniority and qualifications. I don't think any of the agreements, like the Victoria one, look anything like Bill 35. It's only West Van that has refused to negotiate a Bill 3 exemption — not to conclude one, but to negotiate one. For their insistence they are rewarded with this special law by the minister — a gift to West Van. I think it's unfair. Most senior teachers and qualified teachers will not necessarily be retained. Active teacher representatives are vulnerable and the bill is an assault on academic freedom. It's a time-bomb, and I think it gives the boards too much power.

Let me summarize, Mr. Speaker. We're concerned about the bill because, first, it's unnecessary. A one-line bill entitling or, if you like, demanding that boards and teachers negotiate termination, layoff and recall agreements would have been all that was necessary. I think it's going to lead to strife, unless a fair agreement is worked out. There is no definition of seniority. What is seniority? Is it district-wide? Does it mean continuous? Interrupted? What does a leave of absence do to seniority? And the pension provisions? There are all kinds of questions we can go into during committee stage.

It contemplates the need for mid-year layoffs — more disruptions in the school system. It's open to abuse by boards, easy pickings for certain people. If you want to get rid of a particular person, what do you do? You just reorganize his program. That's all you have to do. Has the individual teacher any rights? Well, the minister says that under arbitration he has, but if the original agreement negotiated by the teachers' association and the board doesn't protect an individual, then what rights has he got of appealing that? I don't know if he has any. I think the arbitrations will only occur in those districts arising from Schedule 3 or disputes where they can't come about, and if a board doesn't want to come to an agreement it doesn't have to.

I think I've covered most of my concerns about it. I can't think of a layoff agreement that doesn't have a statement about qualifications and seniority, but the bill doesn't.

Let me end by saying one other thing. I think the minister is pretty cocky about how his efforts have been greeted by the general public. He is probably closer to certain numbers than I am in terms of polling. I think it's pretty safe to attack teachers. I think that probably looks good. A couple of months ago we had a poll which said that we want to spend more money on education but teachers shouldn't get any. So I think it's pretty safe ground to scapegoat teachers for a variety of reasons. But I've got a poll by the BCTF that was recently published, and I'm sure it went to every member. I know the minister has done some analysis of that poll, too, and probably feels quite good about it because he thinks there are some leading questions. But there are some interesting things here, and I refer to point (9). If you want me to table this, I will.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Three minutes.

MR. ROSE: Thank you. It's volume 3, number 5, of "Action Update," May 7, 1985, and point 9 on page 3 says: "In what ways have the cutbacks changed your political support?" Number 1 gives the change from Socred to NDP, total 14 percent, parents 16 percent and non-parents 13 percent; change from Socred to another party, 12 percent total, 19 percent for parents, 10 percent for non-parents; change from Socred to undecided, 15 percent for total, and 19 percent and 13 percent for parent and non-parent; change from NDP to Socred, 1 percent, parents 3 percent, non-parents nothing; change from NDP to another party, 2 percent total, 1 percent parent, 2 percent non-parent; increased interest in third parties, 6 percent and 6 percent.

And: "If a provincial election were held today, which party would you vote for?" I'll just give you the total, because we're short of time. Even if I'm designated, are we still short of time?

[ Page 6270 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, if the member wishes to be designated, you have two hours.

MR. ROSE: Left?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, an hour and a half.

MR. ROSE: Oh, well, I'm sure glad that I don't have two hours left. I have an hour and a half left.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Seriously, do you wish to be designated?

MR. ROSE: Why not? It doesn't hurt, does it?

Well, just let me close by saying this. "If a provincial election was held today, which party would you vote for?" Now I don't think that's a leading question. It says 16 percent Socred, 33 percent NDP, 6 percent Liberal, 7 percent Conservative, the United Party didn't get any and the Rhinos got 1 percent. So at the moment the Rhinos are ahead of the United Party, and they've abolished themselves, so what will come next I have no idea.

Anyway, I don't mean to be frivolous about this. I think that the attack on education has left many people really disenchanted with the minister, and I don't care what smiling face he puts on it, or how many people in the claque over there beat the hell out of their desks when he stands up to answer a question, which he usually obfuscates. I think that it's a very serious thing when you put public education under such an extreme attack for so long. I hope.... And I think it'll probably happen, elections being what they are.... The minister said up in Vernon.... You know, maybe you won't need all these layoff agreements because, as he said in Vernon: "There's more money coming."

AN HON. MEMBER: Next year.

MR. ROSE: Oh, yes, next year. Well, when elections are coming there's usually more money coming for education. So we'll all hold our breath, we'll keep our heads down, those teachers that are terminated will try to get jobs somewhere else in the meantime, and then maybe they can come back to this province a year from now after the next election — or up to the next election while we're hiring, putting a lot more money in the pot — and then maybe they may be able to have a job.

In conclusion, the bill in such a form is not necessary. It gives too much power to the boards, who can use it for their own purposes. It tips the seniority and qualifications provision on its head, and it, allows people to be terminated who have given a lot of good, sound, able service to their particular districts. I think it's unfair, unjust and unnecessary.

Thank you.

MR. VEITCH: It is my pleasure to rise and support Bill 35, the School Amendment Act, 1985. I always enjoy what the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody says. He's a very good speaker, and he puts his point across well, but it's interesting that he's caught up in the dichotomy of his own particular party. It's very interesting to me that you seem to say — or at least your party seems to be saying — that seniority should prevail. Yet we just spent several hours here — in fact, several days — saying that doctors shouldn't have seniority. Isn't that interesting? We said we should bring in the bright, new people.

I'll get around to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, if you'll just hold with me for a while.

It's interesting that they seem to state that young doctors should be brought in with fresh ideas, with new ideas and new training, and bring a real emphasis to the medical profession. Yet they don't want to do the same thing in education. There's a double standard here. What they want to do is keep seniority because that's the trade union motive. They're caught up in this whole business of following the unions, and they will never go anywhere until they're able to change their standards and have a standard of their own.

It's interesting that we spent all of that time on Bill 41 saying that we shouldn't have seniority in billing numbers or anything of this nature, but in education, that's a different load of poles. We're dealing with the BCTF, which is a union, and we should have strict seniority.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that several districts did sign exemptions under Bill 3, and School District 41 in my area, Burnaby, signed such an exemption. I want to tell you it's one of the most cushy exemptions that you'd ever find. You'd never find a way of laying anyone off or bringing in any new talent under that exemption, because they had a left-wing school board that made darned sure that seniority was the only factor. That's where it is.

That's why I'm so proud to agree with this bill, because it brings equity to the teaching profession. It brings in new blood; it brings in new ideas. Someone told me a number of years ago — he was working in education and was a little down on it at the time — that education was 100 years of experience unimpeded by progress. I don't believe that at all; maybe the hon. member does. But that's what seniority does.

Seniority in itself and by itself alone brings the status quo. It brings 100 years of doing the same thing over and over again without any new ideas, Mr. Teacher. This allows for the process of ability to take place. What's wrong with the process of ability?

It's interesting that in Burnaby in one year — and I can't remember the exact year, but just prior to restraint — the school budget in School District 41, which is now about a $60 million budget, increased by $12 million in one year, while in the decade leading up to that period, the school population decreased by 50 percent.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just turn to the bill for a minute. What the bill does is provide equity. It provides that school boards and teachers' associations may negotiate layoff agreements. That's collective bargaining; that's what we're talking about. In the event that a board and an association fail to conclude an agreement, education is taken into the thought process at that point in time, and this agreement will then be instituted in place of that. I see nothing but equity there.

There's nothing wrong with the discontinuation either, Mr. Speaker, as the bill points out — unlike Burnaby which decreased its school population by 50 percent and increased its budget by $12 million in one year, but that's okay, that's all right.

MR. ROSE: What was that again?

MR. VEITCH: The school population, through you, Mr. Speaker, decreased by 50 percent in one decade, and in the year just prior to restraint, the budget itself increased by $12 million in that one year. What this does....

[ Page 6271 ]

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: Why? Why, Mr. Speaker? Because there were no such provisions as those included in this bill. They thought that all you did was turn on the magic money tree and somehow tap people's pockets. They didn't know that someone has to earn that money in order to pay teachers or anyone else. It wasn't education; it was simply putting teachers in place for sometimes no good reason.

[4:30]

This allows for discontinuation or reduction in the level of program and activity of service. Why should you be continuing to teach the same thing again? Mr. Speaker, in Burnaby if you are an English teacher and you have seniority, and if the position open is for a mathematics teacher, they must take that English teacher and train that person to be somewhat proficient in mathematics. A younger person, who is proficient in mathematics, would be laid off. Now tell me where the equity is in that position. Is there any equity at all, Mr. Speaker? I think not, no equity at all.

MR. ROSE: Lay off the old guys.

MR. VEITCH: Some old guys need laying off. Some are long in the tooth — maybe you and I both, hon. member.

What this bill is about is current demonstrated ability, and the word "current" is underscored. It's about the state of the art in that particular discipline being required at that point in time. You're not in education to simply employ administrators or employ teachers; you're there for the training of the students. That's what it's all about. Sometimes we overlook this in our thought process; and certainly the NDP overlook this in their process.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Bursars are always good people.

Mr. Speaker, we are always talking about PT ratios. In 1973 then Premier Barrett targeted a PTR of 25 to 1. He didn't do that. He didn't make that by the time he was turfed out of office in 1975. But what is it now? With all of this talk and all this verbiage, it's about 18 to 1, isn't it, Mr. Minister? It's somewhere in that area. Now come on, don't tell me that this government has been hurting education. That's pure and absolute nonsense.

What seems to be the position of the opposition and, indeed, of the Leader of the Opposition? Instead of getting through this smokescreen and doing something about the problems and opportunities that exist in education, he's standing on the steps of the Vancouver School Board and maybe not conditioning people to break the law, but not telling them not to. That's where it's at. Why doesn't the opposition get on and talk about the rule of law, about doing positive things for education, instead of getting on a bandwagon where they think they're going to win some Brownie points in the next provincial election? That's what it's all about.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This bill offers assistance to school boards that have had precious little assistance to do their job all along. I really wish that something like this could have come in in place of Bill 3, but it didn't. It's a good bill. It's been a long time coming. I wholeheartedly support it.

MR. ROSE: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the member who just spoke implied that the opposition had counselled people to break the law.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He didn't? I accept that as a withdrawal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't believe that was a point of privilege.

MR. GABELMANN: In a long list of political bills this session, this tops the list. I think what we need to understand about Bill 35 is that it is a political recovery bill and nothing more. The government decided some time ago that it could win political points by attacking education and educators, and it proceeded down that path.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you guarantee that?

MR. GABELMANN: I guarantee that. It started down that path, and it was doing fairly well from its own perspective in terms of its political agenda, until it went so far that it not only had professional educators up in arms about what it was doing but also parents, trustees and children in the system. It got so bad that the polls began to show that the course they were embarked on was not as popular as they believed it was going to be, and they needed to recover from that.

How did they recover from that? They sat down and they said: "What we need to do politically is separate teachers from trustees and parents. What we need to do is try once again to single out for scapegoating the least popular element in the education field." That's what this bill is about. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) indicated that it wasn't necessary, and it isn't. If there's a failure in respect to that stupid Bill 3 process, then that can be remedied easily enough by simply requiring boards and their teacher associations to reach agreements in respect of termination and recall.

But no, we don't have that. What we have here is a bill that sets out the government's own agenda about what it believes should happen in respect to those layoffs — not allowing or requiring local boards to reach those agreements with their teachers, but giving all of the incentive in the world to the boards not to reach those kinds of agreements — and therefore we have this particular legislation in place. Why? Because there's a determination that we've got to, once again, single out a particular element, an unpopular element for scapegoating so that we can, in the government's thinking, once again try to make education a politically popular issue for Social Credit. That's all this is about. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand the Machiavellian nature of Social Credit. If not, Mr. Speaker, why have we had bill after bill after bill in this session proposing to do things that aren't required in legislation? Why do we have a Coquihalla bill on the order paper, to permit the government to spend money on highway construction, which they can do on their own anyway?

Mr. Speaker, I'll just take a moment to say that if there are any problems in terms of funding education properly in British Columbia, you can just take the money that's being

[ Page 6272 ]

wasted on the Coquihalla Highway project and you'll have more than enough to fund education properly in this province.

I spent all day yesterday going up there and traveling on that route....

MR. REID: That's how to put people out of work: close the Coquihalla down.

MR. GABELMANN: Putting people to work — 1,600 people working for three or four months on a project that's going to cost us half a billion dollars at least, wasting more money than we need to put education back on tracks — building highways through 20 feet of snow!

Mr. Speaker, that's not in order, so I'll pretend I didn't say all of that. But it makes me a little bit angry when the government brings in bill after bill, including Bill 35, which is designed not to promote good government, not to promote harmonious relationships in our community, not to try to get progress in our society, but rather to create divisions in order to try to create political Brownie points for the government. To use the kids in our school system and to use education for those political motives is absolutely scandalous. The minister, who is in private life a decent guy, should have the courage and the guts to recognize that he's being used as a pawn by the political manipulators who run that government. It really is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker....

MR. REID: He's his own man. He always has been.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Education were his own man he would not be succumbing to the requests of the people who run this government — the people who conduct the polls and determine which policies are required. He would not be succumbing to their demands that education somehow be saved as a political issue, because right now it's an issue that's going to do them in at the next election.

MR. REID: Not so.

MR. GABELMANN: That's what this bill is about, and all the "not so's" and all the catcalls and all the minister's shaking of his head don't deny that reality. Why then, if it isn't so, have we had this long series of political bills this session? Legislation which isn't required except for one purpose: to make the government more popular, or if they can, to make us unpopular because we defend some basic rights and some basic services and principles in this province. That's what the agenda is. Let no one misunderstand or mistake what the agenda is.

All the government has to do to get around the technical problem is to require that boards and their teacher associations reach an agreement on these matters. Then the boards and the teachers have to do it, don't they? That's all that has to happen. There is no incentive in this legislation for those boards which have reached an agreement to renew that agreement. Now the civilized ones and the ones who care about education will negotiate their own agreements and will not rely on this legislation. The ones who do not want to politicize education will not use this legislation. And the minister says that's right, admitting that it's political legislation. It's not necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: All agreements are gone at the end of the year.

MR. GABELMANN: I know. They have to be renewed.

Now I'd like the minister, when he wraps up second reading, to tell us why he didn't just require them to do it. That would have been enough. Perhaps there would have been no political marks in it. There would be no ability to set one part of our society off against another, which is the hallmark of this government since July 7, 1983. Political division among people — let's do what we can to divide people one from another, and let's do whatever we can to make sure that Social Credit is re-elected in the next election. Everything we see in this session, including this bill, is designed with that objective and nothing else. Obviously it is not designed for good education, because every teacher in British Columbia who operates under this legislation will fear for his job. It's bad enough now that all kinds of them fear that their jobs will be gone in the current situation, but a number of them know, because of their long service and because they haven't had reports on file, that they're competent teachers and will not be subject to firing. Every single teacher who falls under this legislation will now worry about whether he is the one who will be fired. What does that do to the morale of a teacher in the classroom, when he or she wonders whether or not the job will exist tomorrow or next year? What about the competition that engenders among teachers about getting summer school programs in order to get a higher qualification than the next guy or the next woman? It's a kind of atmosphere in which good education cannot take place.

But then again, Mr. Speaker, we make a mistake. We on this side of the House sometimes think that the government is interested in good education. It's not. It's only interested in good politics for Social Credit. That's all that matters to them.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: You can say "not true" all you like. It's a fact.

Mr. Speaker, the chirpy member for Surrey rarely gets up and defends her position. I'm sorry to hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) refer to the children of this province as an interest group, but damn it, I'm going to defend those children here in this House even if he won't. That's what we're talking about: the education of our children in this province. And when you engender fear and mistrust and nervousness in the system, more than is already there — it's hard to believe there could be more, but there will be — you damage — hopefully not irreparably but you damage severely — education in our system.

The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) said: "Oh, what's the opposition doing, taking one position on doctors and another on teachers?" Absolutely ludicrous. How many doctors have been fired recently? And if they are to be fired, they fire themselves because they govern themselves. The government hasn't brought in a bill saying that certain organizations in the community are able to do a quality check on the doctors and fire some of them. The parallels are absurd.

[4:45]

Let's deal with the question of quality, because it needs to be dealt with. I remember one teacher in particular in my

[ Page 6273 ]

school years who should have been fired. He had a lot of seniority. If I'd been on the school board in those days I would have made sure he had a report on him, and he would have been fired. The procedure, the process, is there now, and because it may not be used properly doesn't mean it isn't a procedure that works. The procedure, for those who don't know, is simple. Reports can go on a file, and if there are three within two years, the teacher is down the road. If a teacher is incompetent or for some other reason should not be teaching, then the process is there. That teacher has every opportunity to have input as to whether or not that report is appropriate.

The process is there; it's a tough one on those teachers who have reports on them, but it's there. It's available to people in the system to get rid of incompetent teachers, so we don't need this kind of bill which lists current demonstrated ability as its number one priority in determining layoff. In whose eyes? What is current demonstrated ability?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, for an ex-personnel manager who used to be on the other side to make that kind of comment is a bit interesting. People have a right to some input into what goes into their file and have a discussion about it, but that's beside the point.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: But you don't mind it with doctors, do you, or with lawyers?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members will have their opportunity to stand in debate on Bill 35. In the meantime, the member for North Island has the floor and should be the only one recognized.

MR. GABELMANN: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke has no problem whatsoever in allowing doctors and lawyers and many other groups to govern themselves, but he doesn't want teachers to. I don't want any of them to, frankly; I don't think any of them should. But those guys have a double standard. It's not politically popular to do to lawyers and doctors what they want to do to teachers. We're talking about politics here. Current demonstrated ability, qualifications and service seniority. We could end up in the absurd situation where good teachers who have taught for 20 years and who got their certificate under the old system, which meant four years of training, are lower on the list than someone who may have taught for two or three years but has had five or six years under the certification program as a result of the qualification part of section 5. So you've got a situation where the first priority for judgment is current demonstrated ability. Judged by whom? You then have a question of qualification. Mr. Speaker, if the teacher has neither demonstrated ability nor qualification, he shouldn't be teaching; he shouldn't have been hired. If they don't have the ability or the qualifications, they shouldn't have been hired in the first place. If, somehow, they were hired, the process is available for them to be dumped by reports on file. What this opens up is a Pandora's box, creating a situation where every single teacher in the system says: "Am I next? If I'm active in my association, will that make me more vulnerable?" The answer is obvious: of course it will in this climate. "If I'm active politically, in a direction different from my board...." That can be either way: you could have a Socred board and a teacher wanting to be active in the NDP, or vice versa. "If I'm active politically, does that make me more vulnerable?"

Current demonstrated ability: "Well, you know, that teacher is involved in politics, and the kids read about it in the newspaper. The ability to teach may not be there as much because they've got political opinions, and that may influence how the kids think, and there shouldn't be that kind of stuff in the schools." That's open. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about that kind of thing, but I won’t.

I just want to conclude by saying that if the minister honestly believes that these decisions can be made locally, and if he honestly believes that he has a technical problem, then the resolution to it is simple: a simple piece of legislation which says agreements must be negotiated in respect of layoff and recall.

Why give this kind of legislation to boards who now will say, "Why should we negotiate?" I'm sure many will, and I've said it before. The ones who are interested in education and the ones who see that the most important interest group in education is the children and see that the system be stabilized and civilized — but most importantly, in this context, stabilized — will negotiate agreements on their own and will repudiate this legislation by that action.

MRS. WALLACE: I would ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to introduce four members of the home and school association who are in the gallery, I think, behind me, Mr. Speaker. There is the president, Eva Towner; the secretary, Fran Darling; members Star Fuoca and Arlene Kuli. They are here hoping to meet with the minister at a later date.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes debate on Bill 35.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, first, my apologies to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). I had made a commitment, and I said that I would meet if I was available. I sent a message up to my office, explaining to your constituents why I couldn't. I hope that's accepted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The last speaker, Mr. Speaker.... It surprises me, because I think he thinks paranoia has gone wild. I don't know what politics has to do with what's in the bill. We're talking about three items: they're in parallel, and they're all equal. Just because current demonstrated ability is followed by seniority and qualifications, or whatever it may be, doesn't rank one any more important than the other. Because somebody happens to be active politically within the community, I would say that that would not affect that at all. Why should it? What we're interested in is what happens in the classroom. I think the best teacher I ever had was probably a member of your party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no!

[ Page 6274 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's the truth.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it may have turned me into a moderate individual....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the minister withdraw that remark. That is not fair to suggest that a member of this party educated that particular member. [Laughter.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That was not a legitimate point of order. I would ask the minister to continue on closing remarks on Bill 35.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'd be pleased to, Mr. Speaker.

I think, as a matter of fact, he did a pretty good job.

When the bill was being drafted, and when we were going through the preparation of it, I want to advise you that this wasn't created in my office or within the ministry. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that we went to the field. We went to the field, and we involved professional educators who shall remain nameless, but I can assure you they are busy right now out in the school system.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I can tell you that they are out there, very active in the school system. We relied upon their counsel, and I thought they'd given us good counsel. As a matter of fact, I made a commitment to any of the associations: if you want to be involved, approach me; demonstrate your interest. They did, and I took full advantage of it.

Categories. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) made some comment about the number of categories and how particular districts are classifying the performance of teachers. I'm not the author of that comment. I'll tell you that it's right within some of the school district agreements.

MR. ROSE: It's within your regulations.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Part of it is, but the school districts themselves, with the local teachers' associations, have worked a lot of this out, But many school districts have not at all. Now I want to know, Mr. Speaker: if many school districts can do this, why can't the others? What we've encouraged them to do is to prepare an agreement, and if they can't prepare an agreement, we'll provide some guidance. I think most of them will resolve it.

I want to repeat again a section which refers to current demonstrated ability, seniority and qualifications. It ranks equally, because it happens to be in that particular order in the bill. The way you read the bill.... Any legislative counsel will tell you the interpretation is that they shall be read equally on the same basis.

MR. ROSE: Look at section 6(6).

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Did I interrupt you, Mr. Member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you direct your comments to the Chair.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, another comment was made here. We're talking about the autonomy of boards. All we've done is provided in legislation some direction. It's up to the boards and the local teachers' associations to hammer out their agreements. Now what could be more fair than that? Nothing at all. I have confidence in the school boards to do something like this. The B.C. School Trustees' Association was banging on my door for months to bring in this particular bill. All of the trustees, through their general meeting, have requested that this be done, and here we are. Why all the foofaraw?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to confine my remarks to Bill 35, not to my critic, who rambled on.... You'd think it was my estimates over again. The bill is perfectly fair. It had to be brought in because there are no regulations under Bill 3. This is where it ought to be — in the School Act. I don't think there's any disagreement with that. There's no need to have regulations under Bill 3, because all the members of the public sector were in a position to negotiate an exemption agreement. They had fallback positions. There's no fallback position here, because section 153 of the old School Act had been removed. So there had to be something for the school districts to use.

[5:00]

Due process — I notice there's been no comment made with respect to that. Remember what happened under the old School Act? Thirty days' notice, and that's it. Now what happens? If somebody is given notice, it may be 30 days, but there's a severance requirement which has to be paid. That was non-existent before and is perfectly fair and reasonable. I believe anybody who has given service to a community, to a school district, is entitled to be treated that way. That wasn't in the old School Act.

MR. ROSE: It's in the Victoria agreement, though.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: It's not in the act. But some agreements have them and some don't. Why not be fair and equitable to all?

The last comment I want to make.... I don't understand how reference can be made to this being a political bill. If we are all interested in having the best in our classrooms, let it evolve over a period of four, five or six years. It will take that long before it all comes into effect. I don't think anybody is going to dispute that. This bill won't resolve those problems overnight, and we recognize it. But at least one thing it had to do was to insist that school local teachers' associations and school boards have agreements, and that they have them prior to the end of the month, in order to accommodate the 30 days' notice; otherwise they don't have a management tool.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I ask leave to move to committee.

Leave not granted.

[ Page 6275 ]

Bill 35, School Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY
AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
(continued)

On vote 44: minister's office, $196,194.

MR. HOWARD: On the last day that the estimates were considered I posed some questions to the minister with respect to a specific company in Terrace and what had happened with respect to it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member actually asked me about two companies, two examples anyway. On the matter of the Lakelse Computer Sales, the question was: the original loan authorization was $13,000, now is $6,325; why is the loan amount half the original? The answer to that is that we always distribute funds as their actual expenditures are made. We don't give amounts in advance, and in this case the final project costs were half of what was projected by the applicants, so our loan was also half of the original amount. At the present time we have called that loan, and the company is repaying it in a series of monthly payments. It should be completely paid off by early next year.

The second, Hexagon Forest Products, Madig Industries. Unfortunately that loan got stacked with two companies who are doing the same thing; each got a loan. I think that our people investigated the loan applications in the best possible way they could, but for some reason they weren't cross-checked. They do try to get duplicate applications sorted out, but these were different names; there didn't seem to be any stacking going on. I'm satisfied that the staff did all they could. But unfortunately, that was what happened there.

MR. HOWARD: With respect to the two latter companies, I say again it was common knowledge in Terrace who was who and what the process was, and how that didn't get through the system is beyond me.

With respect to Lakelse Computer Sales Ltd., was it found that it was the desire or the intention of the company to use the loan funds for purposes other than the original application?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know whether that's the way it happened, but I'm advised that the loan application was for the production of computer software, and that the company in one way or another did not use the equipment for that purpose. They used it for another purpose, and that's really the reason that the loan was called.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think it's worth reflecting on the range of things the department deals with, and it does deal with the question of regional industrial activity and regional development. If one reflects on the diversity of the regions in British Columbia, it starts becoming fairly apparent that they're not looking at the regions in terms of their unique opportunities and unique potential. The tendency has been to go for the big project rather than diversify and reflect the differences of the regions and the opportunities there.

I think it's worth, then, harking back to northeast coal for a moment and reflecting on when this administration came into power in 1976. At the time a new minister, with respect to industry, was appointed, who has now been elevated to the friendly skies and is now responsible for international trade. At that time the ministry that currently has this name really in fact had not been carrying out much in the way of economic planning or economic analysis of the whole province. The truth of the matter is that this ministry had been limited in terms of intensive work to the northeastern part of British Columbia. That's a story that's never been told.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's a story that's never been told, I repeat for the benefit of those with less capability from the Shuswap.

So there we are. Much of the economic planning that was done in the previous years was carried out through the secretariat of the Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet. They worked throughout British Columbia. But this ministry, in terms of intensive work, had only the northeast part of the province to concentrate on.

So it is rather ironic that when a new administration came into power they appointed a man from the northeast part of the province. The man from the northeast part of the province went to the ministry and said: "What kind of economic plans have you got?" What happened was there was only one drawer where there might have been four. So the northeast drawer was pulled out, but the staff never, ever told the minister: "We only have a quarter of the drawers here." That in fact was the case.

So this naive new administration in 1976 tied its star to this one great project: northeast coal. No analysis had been carried out in the broader sense in terms of costs and benefits and other opportunities in other regions. As a result, a decade has been spent with this administration in terms of northeast coal. A decade, when in fact you had a staff with limited background. It's an extraordinary story.

It is an extraordinary story that the southeast, with its lower cost, with its infrastructure in place, and all the rest, didn't get the attention it deserved. The benefits, in terms of pluses for the province, were much greater. We could have applied — just think in terms of the provincial expenditures in the northeast — close to $1 billion on a multiplicity of regions around the province. We could have thought in small scale terms. There may have been some mistakes and there may have been an occasional failure, but when you diversify you don't run the risk of it all blowing up in your face. Now we've got this project there that's not producing a net return for British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it is not. It is not producing a return for British Columbia. It was predicated on corporate tax to be received as one of the benefits for justification. Of course, the feds would get the bulk of those benefits. It's almost taken 10 years for this administration to figure out the breakdown of tax benefits. It's only lately we've heard the odd clue, from the odd cabinet minister over there, that yes

[ Page 6276 ]

indeed, the federal government has had the bulk of the benefits in terms of tax revenues out of a particular project. It never was put together before, in terms of this one. So you can say all you like about it, but that's the story. You tied a decade to this one project. You could have been working in all regions of British Columbia. You could have been rebuilding the forest industry, and you did not.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ho! No. It was the old single-shot approach, rather than seeing the diversity of the regions and the opportunities that were there. We're all the losers for that.

Eastern Canada was busy rebuilding its pulp and paper industry. You people — that minister over there with the red carnation — was sitting on his hands while eastern Canada was rebuilding its pulp and paper industry. While eastern Canada was starting to pick up our markets through federal grants, this administration sat on its hands and said: "We can solve all our problems on our own here in British Columbia." That's not what's happened. We've been the loser. It's been a very badly administered department, a department that desperately needs more staff in terms of solid talent that can deal with the major industries of the province. It does not have the capability of doing so now. There is not the capacity in this department in terms of the talent you need to deal with our big problems and the range of industries that we have. It is still a modest operation that took its big plunge on one big project and didn't do very well at all. We have a forest industry that needs retooling in British Columbia. We have a ministry that needs retooling as well.

[5:15]

I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) had some specific questions regarding Cowichan as well, but is not here at the moment. I would appreciate it if the minister could advise the House what specific regional approaches he's taking currently in terms of the direction of this department.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, as always, we look at all regions of the province. Not long ago we published a study outlining all of the economics of the northwestern region of British Columbia. We've had studies done on the Okanagan, the southeast, the lower mainland. We treat the province as one province; we don't single out areas for special attention. The northeast coal project was a very important economic project to the entire province of British Columbia. I don't think it's ever been any secret that in most industrial projects of that nature, the major share of benefits would go to Canada. The same thing has been pointed out in the study for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline: the major benefits will go to Canada. That's why we try to convince people in eastern Canada that they should be supporting projects in British Columbia. That's not a secret, and it's not new by any means.

Some of the things you've said.... One of the things I take issue with that member about, Mr. Chairman, is that the secretariat for ELUC did economic planning for the province. They didn't do economic planning at all. They did land use planning.

Interjection.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: They certainly didn't do any that I've ever seen. You might have thought they did, but they didn't.

The facts don't support the comment that British Columbia pulp and paper sales are declining. In fact, they're increasing. We're not losing those sales. The only slight loss was because of the prolonged work stoppage in the recent past, but the value of shipments registered a rise 1984 over 1983.

Also, Mr. Chairman, in terms of where some of our support goes, it goes to all of the regions. I can tell you that it goes mostly to small business as well. Most of the loans made are with companies which have fewer than 20 employees. Most of our support is for the same kinds of companies, and they're in every part of British Columbia. Yes, there have been some megaprojects, but they have been balanced with a lot of other economic activity which could not be described as mega — certainly mostly small business and certainly balanced as well with a strong regional program all over the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've read a lot of those regional studies, Mr. Chairman, and they're pretty bland. They don't generally have an investigative depth, in my view. It's generally a matter of accepting data from other people. You go to the Forests ministry and accept the general data out of that ministry. There's not a kind of hard-nosed review of opportunities in these regions. It's generally a kind of bland acceptance of data that's available on the shelf. It isn't a kind of real research, getting your nose into a region. I don't really know if that can be done the way you presently operate. I think you have to have a genuine regional orientation and focus, and I think that requires the people of the region themselves. We don't have that kind of pattern in British Columbia.

Our regions are very different indeed. One could really spend some time with local people and hold hearings and discussions with the people who are closed out in terms of working within their own regions and achieving economic success. We have a system that frequently closes people out, so we tend to listen to the others that already have privilege or the like. I don't think we're anywhere near operating at our potential in British Columbia, and I suspect that much of the reason is that we're not participating with the people of the regions in a thorough or meaningful way. You can turn out those regional reports, as you do, and as this agency has done for 25 years, to my memory, when it was just the department of statistics and the like. These kinds of regional studies were done 25 years ago, but I'm not convinced that they've changed very much. I think part of the reason is that the people in those regions simply aren't involved in the process.

You think of the unemployment levels in regions like the Kootenays. It doesn't make any sense. You look at the resources of, say, the East and West Kootenay regions. They have official unemployment levels of around 22 percent, or something like that, and they don't have huge populations at all. The West Kootenays, in fact, have probably been declining to some extent over the last decade or so.

How can anybody look at a region like that and say: "There's no work here"? There's a good reason for a fifth of our people being unemployed. You have very interesting, significant towns in regions like that. The town of Nelson, for example, is one of the most interesting, beautiful communities in the province. I would think that if you had a regional

[ Page 6277 ]

orientation in terms of the West Kootenays, you could develop a program that would strengthen the town of Nelson, for example. But that hasn't happened. You end up getting stuff off the shelf, and it's some mediocre forest study that says, "Gee, we've got tough costs here," and so on, and the thing gets repeated in the regional economic analysis. That doesn't make any sense.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: What did you do in Kaslo? What did you do in those towns? You've left a fifth of them unemployed. In the Kootenays you have left a fifth — one in five — unemployed. That's what's happened. And where government had some discretionary power, as it has had in Nelson through the years, it has taken a stick to the community. The David Thompson University Centre is gone. The CPR had already pulled out. And your creature, BCRIC, pulled out the sawmill. It seems to me that a ministry such as this has some obligation in circumstances such as that. You have the obligation to say: "Well, if we're going to be doing this" — i.e., cutting back at DTUC — "then we should do something else in terms of maintaining employment in the community." If you're satisfied that the university wasn't the best public policy, then you should be looking at alternatives. But there's never that kind of half-comprehensive took at a region. These decisions are made and you don't pull it all together.

How can you travel through the Slocan to Nakusp and the Arrow Lakes, and between Trail and Nelson, and not think that you could have full employment in that region? But we don't have. There is no attempt to take a positive view of the region and say: "Yes, it can be rebuilt." I suggest to you that the human capital in regions like that is extraordinary. You look at the West Kootenays. You look at the history of the West Kootenays. You look at the kind of people that are there. You've got a tremendous amount of human capital. But this administration has dissipated human capital in these regions.

The Kootenays was one of the first settled regions of British Columbia. They have a great history. There are people in the Kootenays with roots. You don't have that kind of volatile movement that you get in parts of the north and elsewhere. You've got a people that have roots there that are determined to carry on despite the kinds of economic policies you have laid on them. That, I think, never gets looked at in terms of your regional analyses and studies.

When I was involved with Kootenay Forest Products at an earlier stage, and working with young people who worked at Kootenay Forest Products, I was very impressed with the kind of calibre and quality of the workforce in that community. I was convinced that they could move into a value-added kind of product in the woods industry, probably more capably and more quickly than most any part of the province I had any experience with. There is a whole generation there at Kootenay Forest Products and involved with wood in the West Kootenays who have a lot of skills and drive and energy. They're impressive young people who had something to deliver, who had something to add.

But your regional studies never show that. Your regional studies will pull off the shelf that junk that the Forest Service has promulgated, saying, "Well, there's nothing more here," and that your staff sends up, repeating it: "There's nothing more here." It's that kind of empty, negative stuff rather than getting directly involved with the people of the region, that has been the hallmark, really, of your ten years — it's really been the hallmark. You've gone for the big project. You've fallen flat on your face more than once, and you've ignored the really great potential that's there in terms of human capital in the regions of the province you've been willing to forget.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few of my thoughts to the discussion of the direction this government has taken over the past few years in economic development — or rather the lack of direction. Like my colleague who has so eloquently stated the position, I have some very grave concerns about the direction that we've taken in terms of our blinders-on approach to economic development in the province of British Columbia. We've really put all our economic eggs in one basket in this province, trying to rely almost desperately on this megaproject economy that we're involved in.

There is nothing wrong with large-scale projects during good economic times, but before this government even got involved in northeast coal, before it even got involved in some of the projects, the economists were telling us that we were going into a few years of economic doldrums and we should be very careful with some of the projects we were getting into. Still this government went ahead, blinders on, and instead of invigorating and pumping vibrancy into the small business economy of this province, they've relied on driving all our tax dollars into megaprojects that have not given us the job creation potential for the number of dollars that we have spent.

When we get into large-scale projects such as exploration, development of energy resources — northeast coal, to be specific — it takes about a million dollars of capital investment to create a single long-term job. If we take that million dollars that was pumped into cold-field development, where most of the jobs went to Albertans anyway, and we put it into the small business sector of our economy, we can create 10 to 40 times the number of jobs for the same amount of money spent. So simply looking at the economies of scale, where do you get the biggest bang for the buck? Is it in the large-scale projects that we've been so enamoured of in the past decade, or is it in the small business sector? I and my colleagues feel it's in the small business sector, because that is the area where most of the job creation has taken place and will continue to take place in the future development of this province and this nation. It's in the small business sector that we have to put our emphasis, but that is not happening.

[5:30]

Small business is the major area for new job creation development. That's been proven time and time again in many studies. It's estimated that 71 percent of all new employment throughout Canada will be created in the small business sector, in firms of 50 people or less. In fact, they make up about 42 percent of the workforce. It's estimated that by the year 1990 small businesses are expected to create almost 800,000 new jobs throughout Canada, if we put our efforts into that area.

I don't believe we're doing that at all. I think we're only paying lip service to the small business sector. This government, which, as I said before, has long believed in unfettered free enterprise, is really not paying attention to the very language it has been using. It is not giving the small business sector of this province a chance to realize its full potential. We have about $36 billion locked up in personal savings accounts in this province. Think of it — $36 billion locked up in personal savings accounts. You want to know why they're

[ Page 6278 ]

locked up in savings accounts? Because people are afraid to spend that money. They're concerned about their futures — their personal futures, and the collective future of where the devil this province is going. They're concerned about that, and when people are concerned and worried, they don't stick their necks out.

That's why the entrepreneurs and investors have been refusing to invest in the province of British Columbia. That's why investment in this province has plummeted in the last few years by over $2.5 billion to $3 billion. Investors are simply afraid to stick their necks out when we have a climate of political turmoil and confrontation, when we have a climate in which there's simply no long-term planning taking place. The furthest this government thinks is up to the end of Expo, and God knows what will happen after that. There's no long-term planning evident. Until we have political stability, we're not going to have that investment taking place.

I want to mention one particular point: the government's LIFT program that it brought in prior to the '83 election — $190 million in small business bonds, $190 million offered as an election gimmick. But it was collapsed after the 1983 election. There's still $135 million left sitting in those BCDC bank accounts, plus or minus — I might be out a few dollars. But there's still a tremendous supply of money sitting in those bank accounts that is not being used by small business today, because the program has been virtually eliminated. The bonds were originally issued for expansion programs and projects in the small business sector, but when small businesses went to apply for that money, they found out, lo and behold, to their surprise, that the program was too limited in scope to be an effective job creation tool. In fact, 85 percent of those small businesses that applied couldn't qualify because of the terms of the program. Retail sales, for example, could not qualify under this. The program sounded good, looked good, but in the final analysis had virtually no impact whatsoever. There's still that money sitting there.

Earlier I proposed the concept — and I did talk about it at some length in the House — of small business enterprise bonds. I'd like to refresh the minister's memory and brief him on some thoughts that I have on a program I believe could be very worthwhile in setting some direction in small business development in the province. I guess the simple line to take is that in order to make money you have to invest money. Any businessman or anyone involved in the business field certainly knows that. To make money you have to invest it in the first place. In addition, when money is invested economic activity is generated. Jobs are created.

I propose the concept of small business enterprise bonds. This is not a new idea; this has been looked at by a federal committee that one of my federal colleagues, Nelson Riis, sat upon. This has been utilized in other countries as well as in the States. A pool of money is made available to the small business sector at a low interest rate, through the offering of low-interest bonds that have an equivalent tax credit return for the investor, so that the investor is getting a reasonable return for his investment. The money that's created through those bonds is then offered to the small business community at a much lower rate of interest than they can get by going to their friendly neighbourhood bank, which certainly seems to be most protective of its profits. They don't seem to be too interested in giving the small businessman a hand. Perhaps it's time we developed a program that will really give these people some assistance. The generation of low-interest funds for the small business sector will, I think, go a long way in creating some economic activity throughout this province.

I come from an area that has quite a bit of unemployment right now. We're sitting at about 15 percent overall. There are some local areas within my constituency that have unemployment that ranges up to 50 percent. Many of those people who are unemployed in the forestry sector in the eastern end of the North Okanagan are unemployed because they can't get access to adequate timber supplies. These timber supplies are all locked up by the large corporations — Westar and others. What have we done to release available timber for these small entrepreneurs, so that they get access to that timber and can darn well put people to work in the communities they're serving? We've addressed that question a number of times to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland). As far as I'm concerned, we've received virtually no reply. That's a real concern in areas like Fauquier, Edgewood and Burton. People are unemployed there; half the community is on unemployment insurance or welfare.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget Needles.

MR. MacWILLIAM: And Needles.

We've got a serious concern in terms of helping out the small businessman in the forestry sector. That's something we certainly should be looking at, and something that we have not paid enough attention to.

In other areas of the constituency.... In the town of Vernon, for example, there's a new group that is coalescing, a group of small businessmen in the community under the name of VIGOR. It's a group that has said: "We've had enough of the inaction of this government. We've been ignored for too long. If those guys won't do it, and if the Socred farm team on municipal council won't help us out, then we're going to have to make some waves around here." I want to tell you, that's happening there in the North Okanagan. They're getting doggone concerned about the lack of regional development in the small business sector. It has not taken place in this province.

My colleague was discussing the regional input. One of the critical issues, I think, with regard to this megaproject economy, is that it is drawing tax dollars out of the communities and tunnelling all those dollars into one, two or a handful of large-scale projects. It's nice for the people that live down in Vancouver. There is economic activity generated by the construction phase of Expo; I don't deny that. There is economic activity generated by the building of ALRT; I don't deny that. There is economic activity developed in northeast coal, especially when they have to dig more holes. There is economic activity developed; nobody denies that.

But what's happening in the regional areas of the province? What's happening up in the North Okanagan and in the Kootenays and in the other northern parts, where those megaprojects don't exist? I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, what's happening is that tax dollars are leaving those communities, and they're not being put back in in adequate amounts. What we need to look at is a regional approach to economic development that stresses community development programs and builds throughout this province an infrastructure of a diversified industrial and small business sector.

One of the things that I really fear, in looking at where we seem to be going with our economic strategy, is simply that

[ Page 6279 ]

there is no economic strategy. There is no long-term planning. There is no diversification of secondary industries that I can see. There's very little taking place. Where is the long-term goal-post? Where will we be ten years from now? We seem to be interested only in the next few months or, at most, the next few years. I think it's high time that this government looked very closely at setting some long-range objectives for the economic recovery of British Columbia. It's not happening. The people in those areas who are not receiving the benefits of those large-scale megaprojects are getting very uneasy, Mr. Chairman.

1 want to tell you that we did some very solid research in the North Okanagan. We asked the people what they thought about the economic performance of this government. Those people told us that this government is failing in generating the appropriate economic activity; it is failing in managing our resources properly; it is failing in bringing the recovery that was promised prior to the 1983 election.

I have a few more questions that I want to bring back to the minister, but I did address one question in terms of the small business enterprise bonds. I would ask that the minister, in the spirit of cooperation, would take a look at this, would investigate the concept. I really do feel it is worthwhile. As I mentioned before, it has been used in certain of the European economic communities; it has been used in a number of the States. The federal government has looked at it and is considering it. How about the province of British Columbia? Let's put that $36 billion capital pool of personal savings to work for us. Let's use that cash flow to generate jobs.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't think the member has really read the budget which came down on March 14. It sets out very clearly our goals for economic renewal, as do the other packages which have been introduced in the House under my ministry and other ministries. They are almost exclusively focused on small business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not enough.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You haven't been looking or listening, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, because if you look at all of the programs which are made available, including the recent agreement that we signed with the federal government, they're designed for small business — all of them — and they will be used for small business. They will be focused in some of the areas that we think we can attract economic renewal most quickly, like aquaculture, agriculture, processing and manufacturing.

I would suggest that that member could usefully occupy some of his time by meeting with the British Columbia branch of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. They'll give you some very startling statistics about how secondary industry has grown in this province and how the manufacturing sector is now likely the third or second most important sector in our province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd invite the NDP caucus to invite the Canadian Manufacturers' Association to come and talk to them. You'll find them to be very nice small businessmen in this province. It would be very useful for you.

On the matter of the small business bond idea, I think we have looked at that, and I think we've decided instead that we'll go with the legislation on the order paper now in terms of venture capital corporations, which we hope will not only make those pools of investments available, but which will make them available to the small businessman without any interest, because the generation of profits will give the return to the investor. So they will be pure investments.

I agree with that member that there's far too much money in savings accounts — in this country, not just in British Columbia — but I don't necessarily agree on the reasons. I think traditionally British Columbians have been savers rather than investors. Somebody told me the other day that six in every ten people in the United States have shares in a company. In Canada, it's something like one in ten. So we've had a tradition of that. We've got to encourage people to be investors in their own community, and we think we can do that through programs like the venture capital corporation act.

[5:45]

MR. MacWILLIAM: It's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that the minister does mention assistance for the manufacturing and processing sector, but it begs the question as to why he shut the tap off a few years back in the first place. I'm not speaking to the present minister, of course, but about the position. Why was the tap shut off for the LIFT program? Why was there still all that money remaining in a BCDC bank account? Why didn't they spend the money? Why didn't they utilize that money for small business development in the retail and service sector? Why was it restricted to the manufacturing and processing sectors? I want to know. The people on Main Street, Vernon, and Main Street, Needles, want to know. Why wasn't that money available to the service sector industries? Why restrict it to a sector which in numbers is really very small in terms of the total small business sector? We've got to expand the program, not limit it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That particular program was designed for a period of very high interest rates, and when the interest rates came down that program wasn't effective. We haven't shut off programs to small business. We've been loaning money to small business at various kinds of interest rates, and no interest rates, for some period of time. BCDC does that, my ministry does that, and we'll continue to do it. In fact, we've been given a big leg up with the new agreements that we'll be signing with the federal government. So I just reject that part of the member's submission.

As far as the service sectors of the economy go, I simply believe that there would be no way that any government could ever get themselves involved in attempting to service the service sector as a bank would do. We would face terrible problems of trying to decide which shoe shop to support and which shoe shop not to support. We'd be....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Shuswap, yes.

We'd be supporting competitors in a very major way, Mr. Chairman. So it's a difficult one and it's one that no government has ever agreed to do. However, the option is that if you can target your assistance correctly into the areas that do have he opportunity for growth, then the growth in those areas will support the service sector. That's been the philosophy of

[ Page 6280 ]

every government that I've ever seen across the country. It's certainly the philosophy of the federal government as well. It's one that I don't think we could ever fill.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to hear the unqualified support that the minister does give to small businesses starting up. I have a very specific question to the minister, a question which I addressed to him in written format sometime earlier, but haven't received any written response to at this point. I'll remind him again of the serious unemployment problem up in the North Okanagan and the fact that there are some individuals up there trying to do something about it. One in particular that I might mention, Silverstar Meats, is a new firm that is starting up a rabbit processing operation. Now they have done two years....

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Little Easter bunnies?

They have done some very intensive research over the past two years, looking at the markets, the demand, the cost factors. Basically they have done their homework very well. They are in the process of trying to secure development capital for the construction of the plant. As a matter of fact, people up in the North Okanagan area feel so positive about this that the city of Enderby, in someone else's riding — Shuswap-Revelstoke, I believe — has offered land at virtually basement prices to get the industry in there.

The North Okanagan Commerce Inc. has wholeheartedly endorsed the proposal, as well as members of the Vernon Chamber of Commerce and a number of others. The problem, the crux of the issue, is that this firm, after doing a very detailed study, has applied for a development loan through British Columbia Development Corporation, has already secured other sources of funding through North Okanagan Commerce Inc. — as well as personal funding — and has been denied the loan application. I had written the minister outlining the reasons for the denial and the rebuttal of those reasons for denial, which I feel are very strong points in favour of the application.

I might point out to the minister that the jobs involved are the immediate employment of about 44 employees plus the spinoff industry of up to 250 interested growers to supply that firm with the rabbits. As the industry grows, it has the potential of generating many more jobs. So we're looking at, on the immediate basis, possibly up to 300 jobs that may be created by this firm. What they need is the seed money. What they need is the helping hand — not a handout, but a helping hand. That hand has been denied. I am appealing to the minister to have a very close look at this application. I have requested the minister to ask the Development Corporation to review it once again in light of the job creation potential. Perhaps the minister is prepared to answer at this point or wishes to receive more information, but I'll let him answer the question.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I need any more information. I thank the member for the letter that he sent. I believe that we may have the opportunity to discuss this matter with BCDC at its board meeting this week — tomorrow. So I fully intend to answer the member's letter, but I wanted to be able to talk to them personally before I did. So with leave of the Whip, I'll be attending a BCDC meeting tomorrow, and I'll make sure this matter gets discussed.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just in closing, I appreciate the minister's comments. I will relay that information to the principals involved. I know they will be most pleased to hear that. Thank you.

Vote 44 approved.

Vote 45: ministry operations, $22,467,046 — approved.

Vote 46: economic renewal, special initiatives, $8,300,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.