[ Page 7087 ]

CONTENTS

Foreign Arbitral Awards Act (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 7087

Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Introduction and first reading –– 7087

Private Members' Statements

Future of the north. Mr. Passarell –– 7087

Mr. Howard

Forest Fire Suppression. Mr. Howard –– 7088

Hon. Mr. Brummet

News reporting. Mr. Reynolds –– 7090

Mr. Cocke

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M202). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7092

Medical Practitioners Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 1) (Bill M204). Second reading

Mr. Cocke –– 7093

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7094

Groundwater Regulation Act (Bill M205). Second reading

Mrs. Wallace –– 7095

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7096

Municipal Act Review Committee Act (Bill M206). Second reading

Mr. Blencoe –– 7096

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7097

Pacific Vocational Institute And British Columbia Institute Of Technology Amalgamation Act (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Introduction and first reading –– 7097

Discharge of Bill 59 (title as above) –– 7098

Women's Career And Employment Opportunity Act (Bill M207). Second reading

Ms. Brown –– 7098

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7098

Adoption Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill M210). Second reading

Ms. Brown –– 7099

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7099

Limitation Act Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill M212). Second reading

Mr. Cocke –– 7100

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7100

Vancouver And Cowichan School Districts Restoration Of Democracy Act (Bill M215),

Second reading

Mr. Rose –– 7101

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7103

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 7104

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1985

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Foreign Arbitral Awards Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: In speaking to the bill very briefly, I will say that it will set the scene in British Columbia for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Canada has had a distinctly inhospitable climate to foreign commercial arbitration, because Canada did not adopt the New York Convention of 1958, a convention which allows for the enforcement in Canada of arbitration awards obtained elsewhere.

British Columbia intends to open an international commercial arbitration centre in May 1986. This will be a first. There is an enormous opportunity to have such a centre. It will be the first in Canada, and the first major one on the Pacific coast of North America. The climate is right. The federal government has at last agreed to move to adopt the convention, and it has the agreement of all provinces. This is the first step to show that British Columbia means business. I have great honour in moving first reading.

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

TRAVEL AGENTS
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in moving that the bill be introduced and read a first time now, I'd like to make a few comments with regard to what this bill accomplishes. These amendments have been developed as a result of a full review of the Travel Agents Act and its administration, which I launched earlier this year in consultation with the travel industry. The amendments are designed to support the delivery of our travel assurance program by enhancing the powers of monitoring and control of the registrar of travel services over high-risk registrants, to help ensure future solvency of the travel assurance fund, and by providing for a council of industry experts to provide input into the decisions of the registrar and discuss mutual concerns on the operation of this very important industry. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

FUTURE OF THE NORTH

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, the topic I would like to discuss today is the future of the north. I want to be in a very positive frame, because many of us who live in the north are looking to be positive.

There's a great future for us in the far north, for native and non-native alike. One of the projects that will be an opportunity for a great future in the far north is the Klappan anthracite coal project. This will not be in competition with any other coal project in the northeast or southeast regions of our province. Gulf Canada is the operator of this project. In just the last year of its being in operation, starting, we've seen independent local truck drivers from the Terrace area to Atlin being hired; and the first test shipment of coal that went out through the port of Stewart, which is also having its difficulties because of the economic downturn — there's a lot of unemployment in Stewart — was loaded onto a ship called The Optimist. That is the way northerners are starting to look at some of the development.

Another thing that Gulf has done is hire locally for its initial project. In this area of Iskut and Deas Lake and Telegraph Creek, where Gulf Canada is hiring, some of these communities are facing 90 percent unemployment. These jobs, to native people particularly, are offering a future where a career can be made and pride can be developed by having a job and an opportunity.

The community of Stewart has pushed for better development of its port facility, the most northernly ice-free port in Canada. Its residents are looking upon development as beneficial to the community. We've seen that Gulf Canada, with its Klappan coal project, which will be beneficial to the entire province, has started a movement throughout the far north regarding development. Recently, Mr. Speaker, a mayor in Terrace was elected running on a platform of having more development for the Terrace area from the Klappan coal project. Northern residents want jobs, not empty political promises.

Mining is a major industry in the far north. Mining is one of the major economic aspects of this entire province. Many mining investors over the years are afraid that another Bill 33 might be brought forward. As northerners I think we're afraid that something of this nature could be detrimental to the far north.

This year we saw an increase of 15 percent in claims staked in the Atlin area. The three- and four-man placer operations in the Atlin area contribute 80 percent of the revenue to the local community through their gas sales, buying mining supplies and food sales. It's much needed in the Atlin area. We're very positive on the placer operations. Placer mining operations in the Dease Lake and Atlin area provide much needed jobs for young people during the summertime. These are often the only opportunities these young people have to have a job.

Other aspects of the future of the north include the Chevron project north of Telegraph Creek, which has hired many young people from the Telegraph Creek area. In the upper Nass, cottonwood timber sales have provided much needed jobs and benefits to the longshoremen's union in the community of Stewart, where many logs are shipped. The

[ Page 7088 ]

new D and T centre in Aiyansh was constructed by local people, making jobs available. The highway 37 improvement project, which is a shorter route to Alaska, has hired many local equipment operators, allowing a future for small equipment operators in the Iskut-Dease area, Stewart, Terrace and the Cassiar area. The Klappan coal project will improve road development of Highway 37. There is a future for road development to hire local equipment operators from these areas.

[10:15]

There is a future for all residents in the north. The north is the last frontier in this province. There is a future that will continue for residents of the north who want jobs — jobs provided in part by private enterprise. People are not afraid of development. We who live in the north live there by choice; we're not forced to live in the north. Development in the far north provides jobs. Mr. Speaker, when people are working, they pay taxes. When you pay taxes, the taxes go to improve a lifestyle for all of us in this province. Paying taxes helps build roads and helps build medical centres...

AN HON. MEMBER: Schools.

MR. PASSARELL: ...and schools. One can't be negative against all development. Northerners want a future, a future where one is gainfully employed if one is willing to work. Development companies throughout this province can't be chased away by economic policies developed by those who have no idea about or interest in the far north. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: What do you know about the north, Frank? Tell us all you know in 30 seconds.

MR. HOWARD: I can tell them about Oak Bay, Jack. At least I didn't run away. Just between you and me, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how one goes about redesignating the riding of Omineca to be the second member for Oak Bay instead, eh? No, Jack, I've got faith in the north; that's why I still live there.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has consistently said — and others have, as well — that when an economy is based upon the extraction and export of raw resources, we are all thereby extremely vulnerable to world events and factors beyond our control. What seems to be the case developing at the moment — not only in the extreme northwestern part of the province, but in other parts as well — is that we are going to, once again, consider re-churning our economy as an extraction resource exporting operation. That leaves us vulnerable. That leaves us outside of having control, of being masters in our own houses. Yes, perhaps within that narrow context of making us vulnerable, Klappan coal is a valuable thing to do. It's an export of a raw material, as is northeast coal.

I don't know how many members opposite know — probably not many of them, and certainly not those who have had any utterances today so far — that there are some very important and valuable byproducts from anthracite coal that we could develop in the northwest from a combination of the aluminium that's produced there in Kitimat and the anthracite coal that exists in the Klappan valley. We could be producing filters and electronic components for worldwide marketing. It's absolutely possible, absolutely feasible.

That's where the energy of the government should be directed: in trying to promote jobs around the question of increasing the wealth production of this province, and not continuing to make us vulnerable to every country's influence in the world against us. That's much more important.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) a little while ago extended a forest licence to a company in the northwest. Their principle purpose is going to be to log and to export the raw logs just across the B.C.-Alaska border to supply a pulp mill in Ketchikan in the panhandle of Alaska. There must be something seriously wrong with a government that thinks it's economically sound to keep pulp mills in Alaska running and not pay attention to using those logs for processing here.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but I spoke with the owner of one of the companies who got one of those forest licences, and it is contemplated that they're going to haul those logs out of the logged area right through the town of Stewart, dump them in Hyder, Alaska, boom them in Hyder, Alaska, and provide jobs for Americans in booming and towing and sorting those logs so that they can be towed away to Ketchikan. That is not a sensible way to deal with resources. That is not a sensible way to deal with a creation of long-term jobs for British Columbians.

Yes, we in this party have absolute faith in the north and in the northwest and work toward it every way that we can. We will continue to do so. We'll bend our efforts to providing long-term jobs, not short-term vulnerable ones. Perhaps in closing the second member for Oak Bay might want to engage in the debate himself

MR. PASSARELL: I appreciate the comments; they were done very reasonably for once. One of the things that we have to discuss is the member's statement of short-term. Klappan coal will be providing jobs for over 30 years, and to me that's not short-term.

The logging aspect — well, maybe that member is not aware, but many of those loggers who are hauling those logs in through the port of Stewart come from the Terrace area and have the opportunity to be able to have a job and use their equipment for once.

In regard to the member's statement on anthracite coal as a short-term aspect, it is true, and there are discussions going on with regard to Klappan and using that coal — not just for shipment to other countries, which also provides much needed jobs in this province and revenues for this country, but to replace the diesel generators that presently provide power in many communities in the far north. There are ongoing discussions in regard to using the lower grade of coal to replace the diesel generators and our dependency on diesel. To me, that's a future, a future that we can all be proud of. There must be mature discussions going on between all levels of government, between all members of this Legislature, to bring a benefit to all people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, continuing the private members' statements, the Chair has been advised by the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) that, because of a throat problem and laryngitis, he will not be able to take his place in debate. We move, then, to the third item, the member for Skeena.

FOREST FIRE SUPPRESSION

MR. HOWARD: The Ministry of Forests Act is the one that sets out the statutory legal authorities and responsibilities

[ Page 7089 ]

of the Minister of Forests. One of those responsibilities under section 4 of the act, under the direction of the minister, is to manage, protect and conserve the forest and range resources of the Crown. It's that "manage, protect and conserve" aspect that I want to deal with.

One of the things in preserving the forests of British Columbia is ensuring that they don't get burnt up with forest fires, and that if forest fires do take place they are detected quickly, a first-line attack takes place and the fire is put out as quickly as possible.

In 1983 a brief was submitted to the Premier by the Council of Forest Industries, the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association, the Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association and the northern interior lumber sector of COFI. It says: "Recent dramatic escalations and the very high cost of fire suppression in this province suggest to industry observers that there are more opportunities to become substantially more cost-effective. These costs urgently need to be brought under tighter control."

In response to that, the government and the Minister of Forests succumbed and said yes and sought, through the inappropriate application of the restraint program, to shut down the fire halls in the province, to close ranger stations, to curtail the forest fire suppression activities. They were warned of this. The Minister of Forests was warned in September of last year in a document called "Forest and Range Resource Analysis 1984," where his ministry officials.... They had the right approach; people in the public service knew what the danger was. They told the minister — let me quote from page E-63 — that "presuppression activities such as fire prevention, detection and initial attack have been reduced. This may lead to more and larger fires where the costs and damages will be infinitely higher than the original saving." A very succinct, two-sentence, sad commentary; a sad thing to have to draw to the minister's attention.

I submit to you that the Minister of Forests failed miserably in his responsibility under the Forest Act to protect the forest and range resources because he ignored that warning. This year people in North Bend, people in Canal Flats, people in Rock Creek, people in Nakusp, people in a great many communities in this province...

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: ...that that garbage-mouth from South Peace River probably has never visited in his life.... Their lives were placed in jeopardy.

[10:30]

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The member has been a member of this House and other parliaments for long enough to know that language of that type cannot be tolerated, encouraged or condoned and hardly reflects upon a member occupying a seat in this chamber. I would ask him to retract that statement without qualification.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: Without hesitation, Mr. Speaker. It's one of those expressions that slip out when one is enticed to do so by words uttered opposite that Your Honour doesn't hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: It's not your inability; it's just that they're uttered in such a low tone of voice, deliberately so Your Honour doesn't hear them.

In any event, people's property and lives were placed in jeopardy this year in the province because the Minister of Forests and the government ignored the warnings that went towards them. During the fire season, during the horrendous difficulty that faced people, the only comment of any consequence that we heard from the minister was to the effect that "You can't blame Social Credit; we didn't start the fires." What arrant, flippant nonsense! Nobody suggested that they started the fires. No one that I heard did. Maybe the minister had that in the back of his mind. But that's not the way to deal with that horrendous situation.

What the minister said was that we had the worst fire season for years; that's why we had more forest fires. But Dr. Evelyn Pinkerton, in an analysis of the forest fire situation in the Nelson forest region this summer, had this to say:

"By reducing the number of ranger stations, the summer crews in each station and the trained firefighters who were known to and could be rapidly recruited by each station, the organizational fabric of local fire suppression was torn apart in the 1980s. Local detection systems and communication and monitoring of fires were likewise undermined."

Undermined by the irresponsible application of restraint in shutting down the fire halls.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Pinkerton goes on in an analysis of a statistical nature, comparing 1979 to 1985. She points out that in the Nelson forest region in 1979 there were a great many more high-risk fire days than in 1985; that more fires were started in 1979 than in 1985; but in 1985, as a result of the irresponsibility of this government, we saw burned up 14 times the amount of timber in this province than was burned in 1979. Now something is seriously wrong.

The thing that's wrong is that we have a government that doesn't care about fair treatment for people in this province, doesn't care about preserving and protecting the lives of citizens and doesn't care about protecting our forests. I suggest the only way we're going to straighten that out is to get rid of the government.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the word "muckraker" any less objectionable in this House than garbage-mouth," as I hear uttered by the hon. member for South Peace River, when he doesn't have the floor?

MR. SPEAKER: The point made by the member for Nelson-Creston is a valid one. I would hope that members of the assembly would remember that they have the same obligation to guard themselves in debate as they do in remarks when they do not have the floor.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As acting Minister of Forests I would like to respond, although it's difficult to respond in a rational manner to the standard irrational diatribe by that member from Skeena. He talked about irresponsibility, and I think there's nothing more irresponsible in this province than the opposition's efforts to try to discredit the people in the forest industry and to put out distorted information about

[ Page 7090 ]

what is happening in this province. The member will undoubtedly come back with the same sort of attack as he does almost every day, bordering on the verge of propriety with the terms that he uses.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

He talks about "doesn't care." I think this government does care, and there are many, many instances where they do care. For instance, he makes absolutely no mention of the lightning-strike system, or of the computerized system that has been put into place in this province, which is detecting fires much more quickly than any other system has done in the past. He has made no mention of the 8,000 trained firefighters in this province, plus others that are available. He has made no mention of the forest-fire suppression programs that are going on in each ministry region and office, where they do have plans, they do have programs. In the usual ghoul system that the opposition uses, if something bad happens, then that is the whole focus of their emphasis.

For instance, he makes no mention of the 3,400-some fires this year that were detected and put out very quickly without getting out of control. All that he mentions is some of those. He talks about lives in jeopardy. Steps were taken, perhaps on the extreme side, to make sure that no lives were endangered. When that happens, the government is criticized when the fire does not burn down those homes. But I don't know whether that member has seen a fire travelling at 45 miles an hour. You do not have the luxury of saying: "As soon as it gets there we will move you out, but we will take no steps before that." So the Ministry of Forests, with the provincial emergency program, did take steps to make sure that whatever else was lost, there would be no lives or personal damage to those people. It cannot all be prevented, but I can assure this House and this province that there is a very strong fire-suppression program, using high technology, using scanners, using all of that, using initial attack planes and helicopters.

Yes, this summer was a bad summer because of the extended period of the dry season. There was no relief. The member will use figures about high fire days and so on. That happens in any year. In very few years has it happened that this has been such an extended period — almost two months.

The Minister of Forests cares very much, and has put into place many programs: the highest technology, the computerization, the trained firefighters that are out there doing their very best to control these fires. Certainly I need to express the obvious resentment that must be there in the Ministry of Forests staff, who do a great job, by the Minister of Forests, by all of his people, by their fire-suppression crews. Because a fire gets away and takes a while to control, they are maligned by this opposition for purely political reasons. That goes on time and time again, where they focus on any bad thing that happens, rather than ever giving credit to the many, many things and the technologies that are put into place and the many people who really work to try to preserve the forest industry in this province. If they would quit attacking once in a while and give a suggestion, it would certainly help.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think that with some calm I should point out to the House that the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing has just distorted what I said, and that's standard for that government. At no time, either in this House or outside.... And I wrote down the minister's words: he accused me of discrediting people in the forest industry. At no time have I done that. That is a false statement, Mr. Minister, an inaccurate statement and a distortion in order to advance your own peculiar political interests, whatever they might be.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I didn't say that.

MR. HOWARD: Those are your words and I can't be responsible if you don't know what comes out of your mouth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the minister please refrain from calling while the member has the floor, and would the member address the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: The minister has also said I have maligned the Forests staff. That is another falsehood. I've stood up for the Forests ministry staff on every occasion; I've applauded them. They did a tremendous job this summer, and I've told them so. The difficulty was that they had a minister who was careless in the manner in which he was listening to their advice. That's the problem — a ministerial governmental problem — not the staff. That's another example of distorting the situation in order to — I don't know what — protect the minister's position itself.

He made references to the fact that perhaps — this was by innuendo on his part — we were critical because the houses didn't burn down. What a flippant falsehood that is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member.

MR. HOWARD: That's exactly what he said. No, Mr. Speaker, we can't permit a minister of the Crown to stand up and make those kinds of false accusations and have them go unchallenged. Nearly everything that the minister said with respect to my position was not a true reflection of my position; it was a distortion of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Member. As you suggesting that the minister was telling falsehoods? If so I would ask you to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: That's a conclusion....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If that is so, the Chair would ask you to withdraw any such accusation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, that's a conclusion that the Chair may have to come to. I didn't. I just simply said that he distorted with false statements what I had said.

NEWS REPORTING

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, news is more than simple information. It is education. We need to learn about the world around us and we often rely on the news media for that education. It is extremely important that we, as citizens in a free society, be informed on all sides of an issue, not just the information that might reinforce a particular point of view. When only one side of an issue is presented, it may in fact be indoctrination and not education. The list of complaints against the press is diverse and sometimes contradictory, but there is a consistency to the questions that the public ask most often. Are the reporters scrupulously accurate? Or will they

[ Page 7091 ]

reshape a quote or ignore a fact in order to make a point? All too often, some reporters look only for controversy and not for the substance of what is going on. They tend to add a personal bias to the story rather than get the facts. The reader is subjected to sensational and inflammatory quotes. Too often the media reports allegations before getting a response from the target of those allegations.

Over the last weekend and earlier this week British Columbians in the Victoria area and the lower mainland were subjected to coverage of an allegation that could not in all sense be considered accurate, fair or objective. At least 18 articles appeared in British Columbia's major daily newspapers, including headlines like the one from the Province, "Friedmann Links Government to Break-in," with the accompanying lead paragraph, "It could be B.C.'s own Watergate." From the Victoria Times-Colonist: "Socreds Tied to Illegal Break-in." And from the Sun, "Government Accused of Theft," and, "Government Accused of Pay-off for Break-in."

They went on and on through the week until finally, following the statement of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in the Legislature Wednesday, the Times-Colonist ran a front page story headlined: "Socred Ministers Vent Outrage Over Break-in Tale." Mr. Speaker, there's finally a headline that called the allegations what they were — a Friedmann tale. In the Province, interestingly enough, after those statements by the minister the story died.

The NDP, merchants of muck, brought this simmering allegation to a full boil. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) — the socialists' main merchant — went on CBC TV news November 17 and accused the government of breaking the law and even cited Watergate. That member's so-called comfort zone could be termed a gutter of politics. He repeated the false statements of their ally, Karl Friedmann, and we all know, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Friedmann and Mr. Barrett both work for the same radio station. It is more than a coincidence that Mr. Friedmann is reported to have a contract with Barrett Communications Ltd., Dave Barrett's own company.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. REYNOLDS: Who's Dave Barrett? Why, he's only the former NDP Premier and, now, NDP bagman who sends out fund-raising letters for the socialist cause.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Attorney-General, during his investigations of this whole allegation last week, ever decided whether the rating period was on at CJOR when these accusations were made.

Very often the first impression the public receives from a story is almost always the one which lasts. And it is, or should be, the job of a reporter to provide factual information to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer you to a front-page photo of the Legislative Assembly buildings that appeared in the Victoria Times-Colonist on July 28, 1983. The caption under the photo read: "Defiant civil servants posted solidarity signs in support of protesters outside." I don't know if it was deliberate or not, but if the reporter and/or photographer had taken the time, he would have found that those Solidarity windows belonged to the NDP caucus research. Those pictures in the photo were not defiant civil servants, but members of the NDP staff. This irresponsible error left a false impression in the minds of the readers, and the seriousness of the issue only served to magnify the impact of the slanted, sensationalist and irresponsible reporting.

[10:45]

We all make errors, and when that happens corrections are made. That's fine. We all have political preferences; that's fine too. But a journalist must strive for accuracy and, more important, objectivity. What is objectivity? Webster's dictionary defines it as treating or dealing with facts without distortion, or by personal feelings or prejudices.

During the 1983 provincial election campaign, there were a number of interviews aired on CBC in which a particular reporter, assigned by the daily paper he worked for to cover our Premier's campaign, gave his opinion of the Premier's performance. This intrepid reporter made it plain for all voters in the province that he considered Social Credit through in British Columbia; the tide was running against the incumbent government. As the results poured in on election night, this same poor fellow appeared on CBC-TV from Kelowna, deflated and abashed. He looked more like a defeated candidate than a reporter assigned to cover the event. I guess he has recovered from that embarrassing defeat. He has written a book about B.C. politics and that 1983 campaign. One of his colleagues in the media had some thoughts on this reporter-turned-author and called the book: "The Embittered Complaint of a Journalist Who Lacks the Grasp of Reality."

Stanley Burke, publisher of the Nanaimo Times, has on a number of occasions characterized the British Columbia press as leftward leaning. He says advocacy journalism — soapbox journalism — is probably more prevalent here than anywhere else on the continent. He should know; he's been a part of the media in this province and this country for many, many years. To some, particularly those in the media industry and special interest groups that benefit from soapbox journalism, criticism of the media constitutes an attack on freedom of the press. But the press earns its right to be free by reporting the truth and defining clear lines between news, editorials, comment and advertising. Selection of detail is the proper venue of the artist, but art is not fact; innuendo is not news. I would not suggest for a moment that we would want to rely solely on government for information, as do citizens of the U.S.S.R. and other totalitarian states. B.C. has a free media in the best traditions of the free world; nothing should ever change the freedoms they enjoy. Yet those freedoms carry with them their own responsibilities. The small, elite segment of our community which we call the media should never neglect its duty to provide the most unbiased information possible for the rest of us.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one of the make-news kids has just spoken to this House. He represents a group over there that manufactures news, and he has the gall to stand in this House and curse the entire media in the province, talking about their left leanings — this, that and the other thing. Notice that he quotes others who seem to be closer to his persuasion. Everybody has a right to their opinion, and every person has that right in a free society such as that member described. He talks about citizens in a free society, and then as a legislator he goes about trying to muzzle people in a free society. That's utter nonsense.

He talks about one-sided points. The one-sided points are points that he doesn't agree with. For example, he talks about the papergate proposition. The fact is, whether or not he liked it or agreed with it, that was news. He represents and supports

[ Page 7092 ]

a government that won't make an inquiry into that proposition. They'll do their own thing. They'll send in their own investigators. He talked about gutter politics — that's when he was talking about our party, the muckrakers and so forth. That's the way he describes it. That's his unbiased, legislative high-profile person.

I notice he was particularly unhappy with the CBC. Why has that member got the kind of feelings that he has? Let me tell you, he has reason to be angry with the media. Allan Fotheringham said about him one time, in a book, "I have a candidate, a man I will hold up and defend to death as the nominee for the worst member of Parliament of the decade. Voters, I give you handsome John Reynolds, the one-edition wonder, now residing in the B.C. Legislature behind the tinsel." There's the real tinsel. Now you can understand why that member....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Two hundred and sixty-five. But that was over ten years.

He was also described as having "the attention span of a hummingbird. Disapproving press critics would attempt to zero in on one of his spurious issues, only to find he had fled the subject, flitting off to yet another one-day cause." No wonder, Mr. Speaker, he has some doubts about the media, because he hasn't particularly been treated the way he would like to be treated by the media. Maclean's magazine said: "In the world of politics one man stands head and shoulders below the rest: John Reynolds. When I initially detailed many of the above activities, it was the first and, I believe, the only time that Joe Clark, then Prime Minister, ever complimented me about anything. Reynolds was then a member of his caucus."

Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder? The fact of the matter is: if you place yourself in a position to be criticized, then be criticized like a man. Take it like a man. Take it like a human being. Take it like a person.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: And even take it like a woman. [Laughter.]

But, Mr. Speaker, we can understand his resentment. I stand here to tell you: I've been in politics longer than he has. I've been criticized by the press, but I'm going to take that. It's their duty to say what they think, to say it like it is. To stand in that way is to stand in the way of the democratic process in this country, and we should not, as legislators, do that.

Mr. Speaker, that was an outrageous defamation of character for all of the press. I stand here to defend them calling it like it is, the way they see it. They're human beings.

MR. REYNOLDS: I want to thank the member for New Westminster for giving me some of the quotes I've had over the 10 or 15 years I've been in politics. I would like to just suggest to him, Mr. Speaker, that his party's very upset because of the side they took on this issue I talked about this morning, because they were so wrong in supporting one of their friends, Mr. Friedmann.

If he listened to what I said, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't attacking the press for what they said about this member of the Legislature, or what they say about our government in particular. I was talking about accuracy, accuracy in the media.

To say that we're concerned about manufacturing the news.... This government is one of the freest governments in North America. We talk to reporters. We're in the papers all the time. We're not afraid of what they print about us.

But when some of us see stories like I mentioned, there is some irresponsibility. When you get somebody with the character of a Stanley Burke, who will talk about the media not treating things fairly, I think there are some concerns. There are members of our own media — one from the Vancouver Sun has just written about that other member of the media who wrote a book — who are concerned about accuracy in media. Mr. Speaker, I quote Barry Bingham, chief executive officer of the Louisville newspapers, and a former chairman of the International Press Institute, who puts this case with forceful simplicity. He said: "You cannot hold on to a free press if it behaves irresponsibly. The idea that our mission is so high that no one should question our performance is illogical. The higher the mission the more responsibility we should carry out."

Mr. Speaker, it's fairness, accuracy and objectivity. I don't think that's too much to ask. Sure, it's easy. The member made my story by some of those quotes that he gave today. When reporters want to make personal attacks on individuals, I don't like that, whether it's one of our members or one of their members, and I know they don't either. If he wants to start digging up quotes from some reporters who happen to maybe be right wing, that's not being objective either, if he's trying to report what these people want to do on this side. We can all dig that muckraking up, Mr. Speaker, but that's their game. They think it's going to win them an election, but it won't. It's the muckraking from the NDP that's going to ensure that the Socreds go back in next time with a bigger majority than they had last time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair would draw to the attention of the House that the last two speakers have used the term "muckraking," which is an unparliamentary term and not normally acceptable to this chamber.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, public bills in the hands of private members. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M202.

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING
IN PUBLIC PLACES

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) spoke to the bill yesterday. We have the opportunity of responding to a certain amount, as we have previously.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places, very briefly, as I suggested yesterday, has to a very large extent resolved itself. It appears that the trend is to continue to reach a resolution — and, I believe, without the necessity of provincial legislation. Municipalities are becoming more and more aggressive with respect to regulating smoking in public places. I have stated previously: if a municipality passes such a bylaw which requires the signature of the Minister of Health to be enforced, it is my intent to sign such bylaws as they come forward, as has been done in

[ Page 7093 ]

the past. So without added comment, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call Bill M204.

MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1985 (NO. 1)

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill M204. I put this bill on the order paper so that everyone interested knows the position that I take, as well as many of my colleagues and, I'm sure, many people on the other side of the House.

The Medical Practitioners Act is a pretty tight little instrument when it comes to excluding other people who have another direction with respect to medical attention or the treatment of illness. Acupuncture is looked upon as a quaint little procedure, something that has been going on in other parts of the world for many years — as a matter of fact, many thousands of years. That is how we regard it, because of the fact that we have highly skilled, highly trained people in the medical profession who feel that their avenue is the only avenue to successful treatment of illness and, for that matter, the only good procedure in terms of prevention.

Mankind has a particular attitude.... Most of us are quite small "c" conservative in our attitudes. Those attitudes are attitudes that we grow up with. We're educated in that direction, and if we don't understand something, then we write it off as irrelevant, as something that one cannot trust, without even really looking at it.

Acupuncture has never really been properly looked at in this province. For a short time there were a few hesitating steps forward. That was the situation back in the seventies. We've set up a couple of pain clinics, but there has been no expansion and no acceptance of the profession or the treatment.

[11:00]

Not to blow my own horn, I have taken the trouble over the years to at least look at acupuncture with some of my colleagues, particularly when we were government, and personally as well since then. As a matter of fact, in travelling to China in 1974, I spent considerable time at Chinese hospitals where both western and traditional medicine — which is what they call it there — were practised. I think Shanghai Hospital No. 8 is probably one of the best examples that I can use.

One of the reasons that I wanted to go to Shanghai Hospital No. 8 was that Dr. Chen, who was the director of that particular hospital, had gained a worldwide reputation. He was an orthopaedic specialist. I think he was being paid $75 a month or something like that for his expertise, but around the world they wanted to talk to Dr. Chen. As a matter of fact, he did move around. He moved to places to talk about his procedures — places such as New York and the European capitals of medicine. As an orthopaedic specialist, he was years ahead of his counterparts in the western world. They began sewing on hands — that is, hands that had been amputated by accident — years before the first trial procedure was done here, in the sixties, late fifties. They became so expert at it that they finally got to the point they could even put fingers back on, and that is microsurgery if you ever saw it. When you're thinking in terms of joining up nerves and tiny little blood vessels and so on and so forth, that is....

They got to a point where if a person was hurt, they would be flown. Now in China in 1974, they weren't flying very many people around very far, because, you know, it's an expensive.... But they did fly a worker, and providing they got them at Shanghai No. 8, and providing the limb was refrigerated, they could do that, get that procedure underway and successful in most instances, from all over China. Now that's the status of that hospital.

I'm only using this example because of the fact that in that very same hospital supported by that fantastic doctor was a whole area where they used acupuncture. They used acupuncture as anesthesia. They used acupuncture for, believe it or not, hypertension. They used acupuncture for, of course, pain relief. They used acupuncture for hemorrhages.

Mr. Speaker, that's a pretty classy example, when you consider the highly skilled, highly trained people that were working together in that particular hospital. I believe we should be taking a far closer look. Let's not just say: "Oh, well, this is some sort of procedure that came out of the Orient." Why would they continually use the procedure for 3,000 years if it was useless? We are far too conservative in terms of looking for other ways of caring for people, treating illness. As I said, we've had since late 1974, early 1975, the pain clinics. That was an experiment. As a matter of fact, when we set them up I announced that it was just the first step toward finding ways and means of assessing whether or not a therapist had proper training. But they didn't go beyond pain clinics. As a matter of fact, if you go there, there is such a lineup that you can't have proper treatment, because there's just not enough to go around. So I think we'd better smarten up.

Now why have I put this bill forward now and not before? Because I have confidence in the new group that are the association governing this particular procedure. We have an association that has taken responsibility to see to it that the members of that association are trained before they are admitted to the association. I know that every time anything new happens, you're always worried about charlatans. As a matter of fact, some doctors still take the attitude that every chiropractor is a charlatan. Now that's dwindling because they do have training and they do have success, so why should they be eliminated from the fold of those who are providing a service?

I say also that acupuncture has come of age in British Columbia. That sounds like an unreasonable thing for me to be saying, when you think that it came of age thousands of years ago elsewhere. But it has taken this long, and now I believe that that group has taken the responsibility, has taken the time, to see to it that they know how to police themselves.

We need more than Bill M204. Bill M204 is just merely the first step, but if I had included the other relevant aspects of what government must do in recognizing a new group, I would have been out of order, and by now the minister would have been up on his feet and said: "Sorry, you've got a bill that requires government dollars, and therefore...." I'm not asking for any government dollars here. All I'm asking for is an amendment to the medical act, and it's an amendment that can be made, particularly if the government is prepared to go the next step. I ask that this bill be passed unanimously, and that the legislation necessary to set up the proper controls be brought forward by the government, as only they can.

[ Page 7094 ]

I believe that everyone should have the right to this procedure. I believe that by leaving it as we have done, out there in a sort of limbo, we make the possibility of being treated by charlatans much more likely. If we did have a proper process, then I think — I know — that people would then have access to that procedure in the most beneficial way. I am absolutely convinced that they can govern themselves.

I was most interested when talking with a number of acupuncturists — Mary Watterson, for one. Mary Watterson is the president of the Acupuncture Association. Among other things, she is married to a physician. She is from a family of highly educated, highly motivated people — many medical doctors and others in that group — and I believe that she and some of her colleagues have done wonders to bring acupuncture to the point that they are of age. They're at a point now where I believe the government should immediately give them all the assistance it possibly can to make this procedure relevant, to make it legally available. It's available, but it's really illegal. I have to stand here and confess that I have availed myself of an illegal procedure.

Let me tell you a little bit of history. I shouldn't be talking about all my wounds and problems, but the fact of the matter is I became hypertensive in 1974. At that time I was Minister of Health. I was treated by conventional medicine for a number of years. They brought it down, but not enough and certainly nowhere near normal, with a fair amount of prescription drugs, as anybody that looks at our plan would know. Three years ago I availed myself of acupuncture, and my hypertension dwindled off within three months to a point where I was normal, and I have been normal for that full three years. In fact, it has already reduced the chemicals that were being put in my body by 50 percent.

That is not one of the procedures they really talk a lot about. As a matter of fact, it was one of things that, when I had seen a delegation of them, I indicated I was unhappy about. In all the literature I hadn't read anything about it.

[11:15]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: As far as I am concerned, this is not a joking matter. Some of my colleagues, some of the people in the House feel it is. The fact of the matter is, I'm standing in this House and very seriously talking about what I consider to be a first-class procedure. I'm not saying it's going to work for everything; I'm not saying it's necessarily going to work for others who may have hypertension; but I think it's something that we should have access to as human beings. I should be able to take my body, within reason, where I want in order to get the kind of treatment that I need. Believe me, I sure appreciate it, having lived in that iffy zone of hypertension for some time, and only being able to hold it down to a high level but not absolutely as high as it was, for the period until I got on to acupuncture. So as far as I'm concerned, my example is merely one of many. I have known people who have had crippling pain, and it's been helped. I have known people who have had all sorts of illnesses that they have had treated with acupuncture. Some successfully, others naturally.... You can't treat everything successfully, and the first to admit that would be the medical profession.

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill M204, I just ask that people be allowed legally to have access to a procedure that has come of age here. It's come of age elsewhere a lot sooner. There are places in North America where it is now legal. Alberta has recently made that move; they're having a bit of trouble there putting it all together, but nonetheless they're going in the right direction. In the United States there are a number of areas where acupuncture is freely available, in spite of the fact that down there the AMA is a pretty strong, tough union: the American Medical Association.

So, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what some conservative members of society say — and I'm not talking now politically; I'm talking small "c" conservative — I believe it's time that this government and this Legislature acknowledge a particularly important procedure that should become part of the arsenal of medicine.

Mr. Speaker, let's see the dawn of a new age today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in response to some of the statements made by the member for New Westminster with respect to his proposal to amend the Medical Practitioners Act, the question of adding to the list of practices which do not constitute the practice of medicine and therefore are not in contravention of such an act.... Adding to that list the practice of acupuncture occurs at a time when a committee represented in part by acupuncturists and medical physicians and others is investigating that very action the member is seeking in his bill.

The member mentioned the setting up a few years back of a couple of pain clinics where acupuncture and other procedures have been used in the relief of pain, or at least in the attempt to remove pain. The acupuncturists and the associations have changed over the years. There has been quite a change in membership and I think in attitude and certainly in style. The medical professionals — those who are medical doctors — by tradition and by nature seem to feel reluctant to consider any other form of medical procedures other than that which would be commonly practised by an MD. The list to which this member would wish to add one other category, I think, indicates that although the medical profession generally is very conservative — and I think that's probably the way they should be — and very traditional, over a period of time in British Columbia there have been breakthroughs and in some instances the leading edge and in others catching up and so on.

The member did mention that the acupuncturists have been dealt with in Alberta in a way the association in B.C. is suggesting we consider for our province. In B.C. over the years the governments of the day in their wisdom have decided that it is not offensive to the Medical Practitioners Act to practise chiropractic; therefore we have the Chiropractors Act. The member for New Westminster spoke about charlatans and others who, over history, have been engaged in certain practices where they've been condemned. Certainly the chiropractors have been called many names over the years. There still remains some type of knee-jerk reaction by some members of the medical profession when the word "chiropractor" is used, to the point where in a celebrated case a couple of years back it was suggested that a chiropractor had been denied office space in a building because the building was owned by medical doctors, and the opinion of one was that it was in violation of their code of conduct, or whatever, about associating with chiropractors. But today it is common for medical doctors to receive treatment from chiropractors. It is common for some to refer patients to chiropractors. That does show that it's not beyond the realm of possibility that other forms of treatment can be recognized

[ Page 7095 ]

by the one organization society has always relied upon to make the decision — the medical profession themselves.

In addition to the chiropractors, the dentists were, at some time, permitted to do what they do; naturopaths, optometrists, pharmacists, physiotherapists, dieticians, podiatry, psychology, the Dental Technicians Act, opticians, vendors of dental or surgical instruments, apparatus, appliances and so on; and, of course, nurses.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the dawning of a new era, which the member referred to, is probably not far away. I believe the committee that has been assigned the responsibility of considering acupuncture — in a very serious way — likely will produce a paper, which I believe — and I'm not attempting to prejudice their findings — will probably recommend the practice of acupuncture in a controlled manner similar to the process they've developed in Alberta.

We have one argument only — not mine personally, but the counterargument. The argument is that acupuncture should be performed only by a medical doctor. Therefore it would not be illegal. So what we're being told is that the procedure is acceptable, but it's who is performing it that's in question.

Medical doctors have indicated, I think, by their action that acupuncture is not likely to become a common part of their skill. Therefore we have an anomaly in that there are skilled people, but not qualified by degree; there are degreed people not qualified by skill. The interesting argument is that the process of acupuncture does not seem to be in doubt, but it's a matter of who is going to have the assignment.

I would think the committee probably will be bringing down some very strong recommendations, and it's quite possible, Mr. Speaker, that in the not-too-distant future what the member is seeking by way of a private member's bill may indeed become the practice in British Columbia.

I want to say to the member that it is an important subject. It is being reviewed most seriously, and I would think that we probably will see some action in the not-too-distant future. It's unfortunate that we do not have more open-mindedness when it comes to the health professionals with respect to their empire-building or empire-guarding or turf-protection. There is no question that what we recognize today as medical practice would not have embraced many of the practices their predecessors were involved in, but that was the state of the art at those times.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the discussion that's taken place with respect to this. I am not going to suggest that it be approved at this time, but I would ask to move adjournment of debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill M205.

GROUNDWATER REGULATION ACT

MRS. WALLACE: We're going to change to a different topic entirely, Mr. Speaker, but one that is probably the most important element there is in sustaining life, and that is water. Without water we can do nothing. One only has to look at what has gone on in Ethiopia and those neighbouring African countries to recognize the horrific situation that results when you misuse your natural water resource. At the federal level we have recently had a review of our water resources in Canada and British Columbia. Dr. Pearse has indicated in no uncertain terms that we are not as abundantly supplied with water as we might think.

Certainly in eastern Canada it has become quite evident that we have serious pollution problems in our lakes and rivers there. I don't know how many of you read the article in the paper yesterday about the St. Clair River and the kind of pollutants that were found in that river during recent tests.

Here in B.C. we have what we assume to be ample water, and yet we have continuing problems relative to the quality of the water, the demands upon our waterways for various developments, the conflict between forestry and fisheries, the conflict between hydro dams and free-flowing rivers, the industrial use and pollutants that go into those surface waters. We do have a Water Act which purports to regulate water. But the application of those regulations is extremely inadequate. They vary from place to place and from interpretation to interpretation.

There is no regulation in this province over groundwater. One complements the other, and without some regulations over groundwater, we are going to find that it becomes just as difficult to protect as has our surface water, even with the supposed regulations that we presently have.

I have cited examples in this chamber before when we have discussed this same issue of the kind of things that can occur and quite legally. I think the most astounding one was where two neighbours were having a bit of a rumpus. One neighbour's well was just near the border of the property line. The other neighbour brought in a drilling outfit, drilled a well just adjacent on his side of the property line and dumped two or three truckloads of salt into the well, which, of course, polluted the neighbour's well. There was nothing that could be done. He was quite within his rights.

[11:30]

A lot of the rural areas rely on groundwater for their domestic water — deep-driven wells. I know that in my own constituency both North Cowichan and Duncan rely on groundwater, and even more rural areas. Mill Bay is one example where there was considerable concern a few years ago because a developer was proposing to move in and drive down a well into the same aquifer to supply water for his particular development. The improvement district, which had invested their tax funds into putting down a well to supply that community with a community water system, were gravely concerned because that could have depleted their particular water supply. Again, there are no regulations to deal with that at all.

So certainly it seems to me that we need to have some protection for our groundwater, and that it should be brought in now. I would like to see some changes in our existing Water Act relative to surface water. I recognize that there is a section in that act which has never been proclaimed that would bring groundwater under that particular act. But because groundwater is so different from surface water, and the controls needed to regulate it are so different from granting a licence on a spring or allowing so many CFS of water to be taken from a stream, I believe there should be separate legislation. That's one reason why I believe there should be separate legislation.

The other reason is that the Water Act, as it is presently constituted, is not functioning in the way that I believe would be in the best interests of British Columbia's future generations. We do have a lot of conflict and, as I said earlier, a lot of

[ Page 7096 ]

misuse and spoilage of our water, and we are not really looking at any long-term plan. There have been suggestions. I think the province has been divided into seven or eight watershed areas which, as major regional areas for surface water, could be controlled; but that's not happening under the existing Water Act. Therefore, to simply invoke the clause that's in there relative to groundwater would not, in my opinion, be sufficient means to regulate the requirements over groundwater. This particular bill attempts to do that in a fairly detailed way.

I might say that a major portion of this bill is patterned on the basis of recommendations from the B.C. welldrillers society, which is also concerned. They feel that while they can police the members of their society to a degree — and most of them are very responsible — there are drillers who are not as responsible and are misusing their drilling opportunities. I know they're supposed to register all wells, but that, again, is not necessarily being done. Certainly we need some strong legislation that would protect that very valuable resource. We do not know how much longer we can depend on our surface water, how much longer there will be sufficient surface water, how much longer it will be sufficiently clean for drinking purposes.

The other thing is that through our drilling facilities, we could well be polluting our groundwater by puncturing the natural protection that existed there prior to our starting to use it, and if we do that we are in serious trouble. Without water we are without anything. It is one of our most valuable assets here in British Columbia, and should be protected.

I therefore move second reading of this bill.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the member has raised an issue which obviously is of some importance. The value of water can't be overstated. As the member has pointed out, there is a tremendous amount of dependency on groundwater in the province, in various areas. So I am not suggesting for a moment that the matter is not one of most serious import. However, Mr. Speaker, technically I would suggest that the bill is out of order, in that it imposes an obligation on the Crown, and would ask you to consider that point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is correct, hon. members. The bill before us does offend standing orders 66 and 67: no impost unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Standing order 67. I so rule.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill M206, Municipal Act Review Committee Act.

MUNICIPAL ACT REVIEW COMMITTEE ACT

MR. BLENCOE: If I may, I would like to move second reading of M206 at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I have introduced this piece of legislation is to try to standardize in legislation some formality about reviewing the Municipal Act on a regular basis. At times there is concern from municipalities that we review the Municipal Act on an ad hoc basis. I think it would be useful for those municipalities that are guided by the Municipal Act — that are, I suppose, a child of the provincial government to some degree, and therefore have to be guided by such an act — to know that there is a guaranteed time for review of that particular act. I have suggested in my bill that at least once every four years a review committee should be established to report on all matters concerning the Municipal Act and regulations made thereunder. That committee would recommend to the minister, obviously, and to the Legislature, in a democratic, cooperative fashion, changes to the Municipal Act.

I have suggested, and I think in a rather unique way, because we are in a very unique relationship with municipal government — that is, provincial government and municipal government — that there should be a wide spectrum of representation on that review committee. I have suggested that the membership should be made up of the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and, to recognize the regional distinctions of this province, one nominee from each of the North Central Municipal Association, the Association of the Kootenay and Boundary Municipalities, The Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities, the Okanagan Mainline Municipalities Association and the Lower Mainland Municipal Association.

I have also suggested, within the framework of cooperation between both sides of the Legislature, that there be a nominee from the government caucus, and I would presume that would obviously be the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and one nominee from the caucus of the official opposition, which I presume would be the debate leader for municipal affairs.

It's my belief, having worked in local government for a number of years, that it's time we established a further special relationship in terms of the working of this Legislature and how we deal with municipalities. I believe that such a mechanism as I have suggested today, to review the primary guidebook for local government on a regular basis, will indicate to local government that this Legislature — this level of government — is deeply aware of and believes in local government, and that we want to, with them in a cooperative framework, achieve consensus on issues that are concerning local government.

Now I have suggested in the act that currently we only look at the Municipal Act — narrowed it to that. There have been suggestions that we should go beyond the Municipal Act in terms of concerns that arise between the provincial government and municipal governments. I think that might be a useful avenue to pursue, but at the moment I am suggesting that we have a place in our routine for going over with local government areas of concern in the Municipal Act. Very often, changes are made in laws or in policies or in that act regarding municipalities that sometimes come as a great surprise, sometimes a great shock, and sometimes those changes are confrontational and both sides get their backs up against the wall, and we get into confrontational politics, which doesn't resolve anything in the long term.

What I'm suggesting here is a mechanism where we can work in true partnership between this level of government and local government to achieve solutions and resolutions to their problems vis-à-vis the Municipal Act. In terms of the regional approach that I have suggested, I think it recognizes that too often we in Victoria and in the lower mainland forget those up-country jurisdictions, those areas in the north and in the central area, and we do not ask for their participation. We do not ask for their ideas on developing concepts and changes for the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 7097 ]

So I hope that this review committee act will pass, that we will appoint a committee consisting of at least eight members, and at least every four years that committee will make a review in consultation with the representatives of local government across this province to indicate to local government that we are serious about their concerns, that we believe there is a unique and traditional partnership between the provincial government and local government, and that we want to broaden that partnership, so that together those two levels of government can become a dynamic force for all sorts of things to happen in the province of British Columbia.

[11:45]

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, what we are concerned about today is job creation. I know, and I have to share that that Municipal Act limits local government. For instance, being able to create community development corporations so a municipality could get involved in setting up community venture corporations is not currently allowed under the Municipal Act, Mr. Speaker.

Those kinds of corporations could create hundreds of jobs in various municipalities if those things were changed in the act. I believe we have to discuss innovations and creative ways to free up that act to allow local governments to get involved in job creation and in strategies for the future.

I believe that this act will start that process, that we can work in true harmony, in true partnership and create new ways that we can have real partnership with local government. I think the partnership program we have in British Columbia is a start. We supported it on this side. To give it some due, it's a start. I'll be fair. It's a start, but I think there are so many other things that can be done. I have suggested many of them in this Legislature.

For instance, it could very well be that the Municipal Act Review Committee could take a look at the problems involved in not being able to get infrastructure rebuilding going in the province of British Columbia, to get thousands of jobs created in British Columbia. Through this committee, in harmony, in cooperation and developing a framework for the future, we could develop the most dynamic partnership this province has ever seen between the municipalities and senior government.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this Legislature will support this act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before recognizing the minister, I'll have to have a motion, hon. member. Just move second reading.

MR. BLENCOE: I moved second reading when I started.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did you? I'm sorry. Now it is really done. Thank you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Again we have had the opportunity of hearing the words of the member for Victoria with respect to the needs and requirements and the advantages of cooperation and partnership between different levels of government and the need to review, consider and listen to those who are involved in the application of municipal bylaws and the functions of municipalities.

The ideas offered should be considered as part of future action by any government with respect to the need to work together to assist the citizens of the province at different levels of government.

Mr. Speaker, Bill M206, Municipal Act Review Committee Act, however, imposes an obligation on the Crown, and I believe it is therefore out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister's comments are correct. Payment is mentioned in the bill, and an obligation on another ministry is mentioned, so the bill would fail under standing order 66.

Introduction of Bills

PACIFIC VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE AND
BRITISH COLUMBIA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY AMALGAMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Heinrich presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In moving first reading, I would like to make a few short comments. Bill 59, which was introduced in June of this year, has now been circulated widely among all of the people who are directly affected: the students, the student societies, the board members, the executive officers, the faculty and the support staff. The bill was reviewed in some detail, and a number of items were advanced, all of which had a great deal of merit.

The bill makes reference to the merger of BCIT and PVI, and I can tell the House that this particular merger has met with excellent support from all who are actively involved with the new BCIT. The new bill contains additional language to make it parallel with some of the language which was found in the College and Institute Act. There was also the matter of pensions that had to be resolved. There is an option available to the support staff and the faculty to retain their access to the municipal pension fund which they are members of or to move into the college pension legislation.

There is one additional issue involving negotiation with the faculty, and that matter is covered. They are now in exactly the same position as all faculty in all colleges in British Columbia.

The amalgamation has had, I think, a very desirable effect. All publications coming from the students and the faculty indicate considerable support for what has occurred. I can mention to the House now, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of reorganization there will be additional moneys available through savings.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to stop the minister in full flight, but the purpose of the introduction, when we altered the rules, was not for a member or anyone else to indulge in a second reading debate to justify the bill or whatever. It's to say briefly what's in the bill, not how happy everybody is with amalgamation. It sounds a little bit self-congratulatory and all the rest of it. I don't mind listening to those little speeches on second reading, but it's definitely out of place here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, first of all the time has expired. Practice recommendation number 5 states: "...a statement not to exceed two minutes by the member in charge of introduction of a bill to explain its purpose." I

[ Page 7098 ]

feel that that was happening, and I'm sorry the member is offended, but....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister has not been recognized yet.

Now we've dispensed with the introductory statement, and I recognize the Minister of Education.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 59 is on, and I would ask leave to move that the order for second reading of Bill 59 be discharged in view of the replacement bill that has just been introduced.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, before we grant this unanimously, I would like to know the significance of what the minister has just suggested. Does that mean that we could proceed to second reading of the bill immediately? Because the other bill had had first reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Hon. member, Bill 59, by House agreement, has been discharged. It no longer exists.

MR. ROSE: That's good, because I wouldn't suspect the minister would do this, but I didn't want anybody to slip one past me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Hon. members, the message that has come to the House is simply a message, and second reading cannot proceed at this stage unless we have unanimous consent, but I don't think that will apply.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill M207.

WOMEN'S CAREER AND EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY ACT

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill M207 I am hoping that the government will recognize this bill for what it is: a plea for assistance to people who are doing everything possible to assist themselves. One of the phenomena of the really bad economic times that we're going through and the high unemployment is that women everywhere are taking the initiative and are now creating employment for themselves. They're entering into the job market not as employees but as initiators and owners of small business enterprises. One of the other phenomena is that for the most part they're having much greater success than other entrepreneurs in this area. The Canada statistics show that women take a longer time to actually get their business started, that they do much more research before actually launching the business enterprise, and as a result of that they're having far greater success in these businesses once they're on the track. The problem, however, that they still run into is in having access to financing. Lending institutions, banks, trust companies and even the government itself are still reluctant to take women seriously as borrowers and to permit them to have the sums of money which they need in many instances to get their enterprises off the ground.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

All this legislation calls for, Mr. Speaker, is that the government should affirm its commitment to assisting women in these endeavours and to establish a program which would assist women in terms of counselling and advice and in any other way possible to have access to the financing which they must have in order to get into the job market and get into the business of career development and job creation.

What women are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we recognize that the statistics would show that most of the poor people in this country are women and their children, and that statistic is not going to be changed by increased welfare payments or even by increased welfare programs. Women's poverty is an economic issue and should be addressed in economic terms. What women are also saying is that we don't want to be handed on a platter the resolution to this problem, that we're quite capable of dealing with it ourselves as long as our access to financing is not blocked.

Despite the fact that women have been fighting this issue since the royal commission report was tabled in the federal House in 1970 or since the royal commission itself was initiated in 1967, access to funding is still a problem. There is still a great deal of reluctance on the part of lending institutions to give women the kind of money that they need to run the very successful businesses which they do run.

Before the minister rises to his feet to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in fact one section of the bill does place an impost on the Crown, I want to say that I know that it does and that if in fact the government were willing to accept this piece of legislation, I would be very happy to have that section of the bill deleted, if the government wanted to substitute some other way of dealing and getting around the fact that the bill will be ruled out of order because it calls upon the Crown for an impost.

Women are really doing such a good job of fighting the recession. Women are doing such a good job of trying to turn the economy around, such a good job of very carefully starting businesses in all sorts of areas where a need has always existed but which has never been met before, and being successful at it, that I think women really deserve all the assistance they can get in the way of counselling and advice, as well as in having the barriers to funding removed. And if the government can do this on their behalf, I think that would be a major step in the right direction, because that would serve to unleash the potential which women have to take their full place in the economic structure of our society. For that reason I hope the government will accept this piece of legislation.

[12:00]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the.... I believe the member did move second reading at the introduction?

MS. BROWN: Yes, I did.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Thank you.

[ Page 7099 ]

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, the need for women's career employment opportunity programs, counselling, opportunities, assistance, cooperation — any word that would describe a willingness to assist the female half of our society, not because of incompetence or for negative reasons but for positive reasons — is certainly worthy of all our attention. I believe that one of the great resources we have in our society is the tremendous potential of and contribution by the female members of our society, which heretofore has not always been recognized for a number of reasons, one of which was an attitude that it was simply not the thing to do, and in some instances not the thing to encourage. I believe that's an attitude which has been traditionally and historically shared by many women as well as men, an attitude which today does not seem to be acceptable in our society, and one which would require demonstrative action to overcome some of the negative impacts of the past. So I can certainly relate to what the member has been saying.

Part of the Labour ministry is responsible for women's programs, and the debate which took place today will certainly be brought to the minister's attention. However, I must point out that, in my opinion, sections 2 and 5 impose an obligation on the Crown, and I believe the bill is not in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister is quite correct. Pursuant to standing order 66, the Chair so rules.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, continuing with public bills in the hands of private members, and by an understanding, I call Bill M210.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MS. BROWN: I move second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker. This bill simply calls on the government to amend the Adoption Act in order to establish under the Ministry of Human Resources an adoption information registry for adult adoptees and their natural parents. This is just to facilitate discussion around the issue. What we're saying is that people who have reached the age of majority in this province — that is, who are over 19 — and who were adopted children but are now adopted adults, should have the opportunity, if the natural parents share this concern, to have contact with their natural parents just to make contact after all those years. This adoption information registry already exists in seven other provinces — as a matter of fact, eight other provinces, because in July of this year Alberta became the eighth province to put into place such an adoption registry.

I am stressing the word "adult," Mr. Speaker, because a lot of the controversy and a lot of the insecurity around the whole idea of an adoption registry has to do with children and the feeling of adopting parents that they would be insecure if an adopted child at any time, either teenage or younger, could then demand to have access to his or her natural parent, or if a natural parent, at any time during that child's life, could demand to find out where the child was located and try to institute some kind of contact with that child. So this bill does not allow that kind of access to anyone under the age of 19. It is for adult adoptees only.

Secondly, no one person can initiate action. What the adoption registry does is say that a natural parent can file with the adoption registry an interest to make contact with her child if, in fact, the child is interested in making contact with her once that child reaches the age of majority or older.

However, if that child at age 19 or older does not register with the registry an interest to make contact with the natural mother, no contact can be made, and vice versa. In other words, the adoptee can register with the registry, but if the natural mother doesn't register, no contact will be made.

Nor will the government go out and search on behalf either of a natural mother or an adoptee for the other's kin. This is simply a voluntary registry which would exist, which could be used by both or either of the parties involved and which would not impose any compulsion at all on either party at any time to respond to it.

I want to bring to your attention that since 1930 in Scotland such a register has existed, but in fact they have found that only 2 percent of adopted children when they reach the age of majority have sought to avail themselves of that registry. I discovered that other countries deal with it differently. Earlier this spring I was in the Scandinavian countries, and there I discovered that in Norway and in Sweden and indeed in Denmark when a child was placed for adoption it was understood and explained to the natural mother that when that child reached the age of 19, that child had a right to know who its natural mother was, and the natural mother, in fact, would not be able to refuse to give that information.

This registry doesn't go that far. This registry respects the right of the natural mother never to be contacted by the child if the natural mother doesn't want that to occur. It also respects the right of the child never to be contacted by the mother if that child does not ever want to be contacted, even when that child becomes an adult.

This hopefully is just a first step in the amending of the adoption laws to bring them more into line with the other provinces, because, as I said, with Alberta coming onstream with such a registry in July of this year we now have eight provinces in Canada which have such a registry. I am hoping that the government will accept this, especially since — as I have said before and I cannot repeat too often — it will only apply to adult adoptees and will not at all apply to children. I move second reading.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the bill, Adoption Amendment Act, 1985, I would think one of the most difficult situations an individual could find themselves in would be to have no possible way to determine their origins despite having been advised or finding out that they were under the care of adopting parents. I would think the frustration of individuals not to be able to determine what their origins were must be one of the great frustrations of anyone.

We recognize the difficulties associated with adoptions, the natural concerns and fears of the two sets of parents — for want of a better term; the natural parents and adopting parents, or the natural mother and adopting parents, or whatever the combination may be — the fears that in such cases later on in life your own personal life may receive an intrusion by someone you have learned emotionally not to be associated with anymore, and there is a legitimate fear by the natural parent. There is also a legitimate fear or concern by the adopting parents, who feel that perhaps at some point later in life they somehow will lose the association with that child should the child be able to meet and develop a relationship with the natural parent.

Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult to even attempt to consider speaking on behalf of so many people, because obviously their own attitude and emotion would be different

[ Page 7100 ]

in each case. But I listened to the member and her comments, and personally I would feel very strongly with respect to that child particularly, and that child's desire to discover its roots. I appreciate that other provinces and jurisdictions have taken on the question and have developed registers, in different formats, but nonetheless basically for the same idea. I would think — and I can only say I would think, because I'm not responsible for this act — that as we mentioned earlier today about the acupuncturists, perhaps in the not-too-distant future there may be such action taken to assist. That's only a guess on my part.

Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid Bill M210, Amendment to Adoption Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, c.4, appears to be out of order in that it imposes an obligation on the Crown involving the expenditure of public funds. I would ask for your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has reviewed Bill M210 and observes that it does impose an obligation on the Crown, and accordingly rules that the bill is out of order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, some of the members are not present in the chamber today. I'm not criticizing them, but the various bills stand in their name, and unless there are objections by members present, we may not necessarily follow the precise list in numerical order. For a very specific reason I would like to call Bill M211 — that is, the Medical Practitioners Act Amendment Act, 1985 (No. 2) — although the member is not here. Unless I'm in trouble, I would like to move second reading. Am I able to do so?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister may move an order on behalf of another minister, but not in the case of a private bill.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Okay, no problem. That's fine, Mr. Speaker. I was going to point out that had I been able to move second reading on behalf of the member I would have done so, and then have pointed out to you that the bill appears to be out of order. Nonetheless....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would think, if the House Leader called the bill and no one stood to move second reading, it would fall off the order paper in very fast order. If he wants to do it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Possibly, with leave....

[12:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the information.

I would call Bill M212, Limitation Act Amendment Act, 1985.

LIMITATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I move Bill M212 because I feel that we should be looking at fair play for a particular profession in this province. I don't imagine there are any members of this Legislature who haven't received missives from the dental college of British Columbia. The dentists find themselves with a limitation of liability for thirty years, while their colleagues across the hall, the medical profession, have a liability limitation for six years.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's always a possibility. My colleague says: "Bring the medical practitioners up to 30." The big problem, of course, with a 30-year limitation of liability....

What we're talking about here is where a person can be sued for malpractice up to a time limit, and that time limit for dentists is 30 years. The time limit for a doctor is six years. The problem, of course — and the dentists will be quick to tell you — is that they've got to keep their files for 30 years, whereas the doctors only have to keep theirs for six. I recognize that one of the reasons the doctors have a rather favoured situation here is because the hospitals are mostly government run, and the government didn't want to be keeping files for a zillion years. The limitation for hospitals was six years, so to put the doctors in line with the hospitals, they also gained the six-year limitation. For two professions that are so parallel to have such a disparity of limitation, it strikes me that something should be done about that in short order to put this question into a perspective that would be fair.

It's not fair that doctors should have to retain all their files for a six-year period, and that dentists have to do it for thirty. There is not that much dissimilar in the practices. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the government could very easily amend the Limitation Act — if they won't permit me to do so — or the government could very easily accept this bill today, which does it all.

Mr. Speaker, it's not very often the practice of this Legislature to accept private members' bills, but when one is so logical as this, no one could vote against it. No one? I've noticed nods all over the place. No one could vote against it, because it's fair. I would therefore suggest that the House Leader get up and agree to vote for this to become law, because it's logical, it's fair and it's practical. Thank you.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the closing statement by the member for New Westminster is quite an imposing argument for carrying on — that is, that it's logical, practical, fair and so on. He could be correct. We're dealing with a situation in our society where one group of practitioners is required to remain available for action for a long period of time, whereas another group of similar practice is given the opportunity of a much shorter period of time to be in the same position. The members would be well aware of the need for the period of time for actions to be started with respect to the secondary results of surgery, be it dental, medical or any form of practice.

Thirty years against six or seven years seems to be inconsistent. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there could be an argument. Is the lesser the correct time or is the greater the correct time? It does seem to be difficult to argue that that range is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I leave that type of heady philosophical decision to our wise and honourable Attorney-General, who would be responsible for government action on such an act. Therefore I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 7101 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill M215.

VANCOUVER AND COWICHAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS
RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY ACT

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I notice in the rules that I have 40 minutes to present my arguments. I don't see how I can do that, since it's now 12:25, so I'll try to confine my remarks to about five or six or seven minutes, provided I can cover it. This speech that I have is elastic: it can go five minutes or it can go 40 minutes. It is, nonetheless, serious.

Mr. Speaker, when I presented this bill as a private member's bill last spring, I thought it would only be a matter of time until the revenge and the punitiveness applied to the Vancouver School Board and the Cowichan School Board by the Minister of Education would have been removed. I thought that they would have had their slap on the wrist, and then democracy, once again, would have been permitted to prevail in the province of British Columbia. But I was wrong. Even Cowichan, which under normal circumstances would have had an election on November 16, was forbidden to hold that election. This is the kind of behaviour that is much more common in developing countries under military dictatorships. We've got countries like Peru that abolished municipalities; we've got developing countries, like British Columbia, that have abolished two school districts and put official trustees in their place. Enlightened people find that offensive and revolting and unacceptable, and so do I as one of the enlightened people.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

"Heinrich Adamant," it says, "No Trustee Elections." We should ask ourselves why no trustee elections. After all, since budget time we've had, in effect, a military dictator in the form of an official trustee imposed on two school districts of our province. You'd think nine months of this would have been enough. Why wasn't there an election in Duncan, if not Vancouver? I have my own suspicions. My suspicions are these: that had there been a trustee election in Vancouver, or had there been permitted a trustee election in Duncan, those same trustees that opposed the minister's budget policies would have been returned overwhelmingly. So what that would have meant was, in effect, a referendum on the educational policies of this minister.

Now this minister was in here a little while ago, jaunting around introducing some new bill and trying to do his own promos, self-congratulatory as usual, and then he whipped out to the TV cameras. Where is he now, when this very, very serious subject is being debated? How do I know? He's probably writing more press releases; but he's not here, and he should be here to answer these charges and these questions. We are told that these two boards were removed because they broke the law. Well, if they did, it's because they were in a catch-22 situation. They had taken an oath or signed an agreement upon assuming office that they would provide for the educational needs and the shelter of the students of their particular districts. They were elected, and they took what was in effect an oath to provide those things.

If in their own consciences they felt that they couldn't, because of the imposition of budget limitations by the Minister of Education, then what choice did they have? They either had the choice of defying the law, or they had the choice — here he is — of going back, reversing themselves on their oath of office to provide for decent quality education. So some of them broke the law, an oppressive law. Does that make them criminals? No, because they weren't charged or sent to court or anything like that. That doesn't make them criminals. It might even make them heroes. Anyway, I've heard a lot about defying the law lately. We had a court case that came down yesterday that indicated that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), with his directive on school staffing policy, was guilty of providing a directive that was contrary to the law. We had a court case yesterday, and I'll go into it, on that very subject.

Anyway, there are times and conditions when the defiance of a law may be a noble act. There are some pretty good examples — perhaps overblown, overdrawn. I was thinking of people like Jesus Christ, who defied laws; George Washington defied a few; Mahatma Gandhi defied others. Who are they now and where are they? They are among the most celebrated people in history, because they had the courage to defy bad laws.

The school district trustees in Cowichan and Vancouver felt so strongly about their oath, their obligation upon taking office, that they were forced to defy the strangulation of the autonomy of elected members, and they took the consequences. How were they different, Mr. Speaker, than other districts? Thirty-four districts felt exactly the same way as Duncan and Vancouver. Thirty-four districts throughout the province said, in effect: "We cannot provide quality education, in all conscience, to our students with the kind of budget restrictions imposed on us by that great central government czar in the Ministry of Education. We can't possibly provide that." So they filed what were called "needs" or "noncompliance" budgets. Vancouver, Cowichan, Duncan, Burnaby and Coquitlam were among those who did that, plus 30 others.

Because of browbeating, because of bending the rules one way or the other, where they found unused funds in Burnaby, and bribery in Coquitlam in the case of finding further funds, finally the last two, except for Vancouver and Cowichan, knuckled under. They came around to the minister's view. But 34 boards felt precisely the same way as Vancouver and Cowichan. Those boards who felt that way, once they came along, were left to administer the budgets. Even though they didn't agree with them, they were left to administer the budgets. Not so Vancouver and Cowichan. They could have been left there to administer a budget they didn't believe in, just like the 30 others. So what do we get as a result of that? What we got was the imposition of an official trustee. And what did the official trustee find out when he went to Vancouver? He found out that he couldn't run the schools on the budget either.

[12:30]

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: "Stables' View Backs Ex-trustees." Yes, he found lots of money, the member says. He found lots of money, all right, by taking capital surpluses and squandering them on operations. That's what he found.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, there will be ample opportunity during this debate for other

[ Page 7102 ]

members to take their place in debate and reply to the member's statement. Please proceed.

MR. ROSE: Well, I think that would be really in defiance of the agreement, Mr. Speaker, if they take their place in debate, because I was just going to finish this up. I didn't want to start fighting here now.

I am reading from that estimable journal, the Vancouver Sun, May 16, 1985: "A letter obtained by the Sun reveals that Allan Stables has now reached the same conclusion as the fired Vancouver school board he was appointed to replace — a $7 million budget cut would result in unacceptable layoffs." That's what Mr. Stables said.

From the same article, here is what former NPA — notice, not COPE — alderman, Ken Denike, had to say on the same subject. He said he asked Heinrich at the meeting for permission to use the funds, the same funds that Stables was permitted to use. "'The minister said he was listening,' Denike said, but failed to grant permission. Denike said he was later told by ministry officials present at the meeting with Heinrich that the funds could only be used for severance pay and early retirement incentives." What were they used for, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you what they were used for. They were used to provide funding, the same kind of funding refused the duly elected trustees, and there is no way out of that.

Here is something else that has happened. Here is the same Mr. Stables, the official trustee, on Sunday, November 5, asking for $1.4 million extra. Why? Because there was some growth in the district, because there were increments granted, because of a number of other things that even his sellout of public property of the schools couldn't cover up. That's what happened, and there is no question about that. You don't have to take my word for it. I don't think you would anyway, but people feel strongly about this. They're outraged by it. The Cowichan people are in court over the matter. The skirts of this government and this minister are far from clean and sanitary on this issue, far from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no one up there.

MR. ROSE: Oh, yes, he's up there. No, I was looking for divine guidance; I wasn't looking for the press gallery.

Mr. Speaker, on this very subject, only yesterday the estimable Judge Anderson had this to say in a ruling on the Minister of Finance directives. This is what he had to say just in general of the tone of justice and democracy and how it has been distorted in this province. Now I'm sure the minister would respect the opinion of the learned judge. He's always talking about laws.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Right, but we're not talking about that particular case right now.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We're talking.... Maybe the minister is going to appeal it, but anyway, this is what Justice Anderson had to say yesterday in dealing with the Curtis directive, which reached right into the schools and put people in an impossible position. The Curtis directive reached right into the schools over the heads of the elected trustees — as a matter of fact, over the head of the Minister of Education — and determined to do certain things about staffing which made catch-22 about catch-44, because it's a double catch-22. Not only couldn't they raise any taxes, they couldn't even bargain with their teachers, and they couldn't even cut salaries if Mr. Peck granted an increase. So it forced them into breaking contracts. That's what it did. They had contractual obligations to provide increments to a certain number of teachers, and because they were prevented from doing that they were in catch-44.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are also a bit beyond the scope of the bill, which discusses public trustees.

MR. ROSE: Public trustees, according to Mr. Anderson.... He talks about the Legislature, and I'm not quoting him; I'm paraphrasing. The Legislature, by enacting the School Act, conferred important statutory rights on school boards, teachers and the residents in each school district. These statutory rights include the following:

1. Residents of each district were given the right to have quality education and educational policy determined by locally elected trustees, according to Judge Anderson.

2. School boards were given extensive powers to determine the quality of education, educational policy in the respective school districts. These powers include the power to determine the extent of teacher layoffs and to fix teacher salaries in accordance with the collective bargaining process outlined in the School Act.

Talk about obeying the law!

3. Teachers were given the right to have their salaries determined by collective bargaining and the arbitration process outlined in the School Act. In the absence of express language, it will not be presumed that the Legislature intended to abrogate existing statutory rights by the nature described above.

So much for Mr. Curtis's directive.

Likewise, if the Legislature is desirous of permitting Treasury Board to abrogate or impair collective bargaining arbitration processes established by the School Act, it must do so in express terms. In other words, bring in some legal machinery. This isn't some wild-eyed socialist making these charges, Mr. Speaker; it is a learned judge. It isn't a steel-belted radical of the far left; it is a learned judge.

Other people have had some thoughts on it, such as Dr Norman Robinson. Here's the report of the school dissolution committee. He looked into this. It's very difficult, I know, to get somebody who is objective in this province because, as other people have observed, we seem to divide on the far right and the far left around here. So the only people left who might be impartial, I guess, are Liberals. And they're hard to find, too, because most of them have joined that coalition of turncoats over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: A growing party.

MR. ROSE: Growing? You're suffering from groaning pains, that's what you're suffering from.

We had an agreement here. If it is agreed — and I think the minister should be entitled to his rebuttal; I don't deny that.... I think he should put his gum out. But we did have an agreement here that I wouldn't....

Interjection.

[ Page 7103 ]

MR. ROSE: You want me to keep on? Just let me deal with one or two other things. Just about the Robinson report, and the depth and scope thereof, this is what Dr. Robinson says. I'll just read you the headlines. I won't go into the details. I could actually, if I wanted to, indulge myself. I could go into the supporting arguments. But I am a humane person. I know that the opposition are anxious to get out of here, and I know that the government's anxious to get out of here, so I won't burden you for too long. He said that the minister could have continued to try to reach a compromise with the Vancouver boards. He might not have been able to do it, but he could have tried. He put the hammer on them before he was lenient with two other districts. "The minister could have had legislation passed to ensure that taxes could be collected." He had other alternatives. He didn't have to, as Dr. Robinson said, "undertake those draconian...."

MR. REID: That's not what Mayor Harcourt said.

MR. ROSE: If the member would permit, I will read what Mr. Harcourt said.

MR. REID: What did he say?

MR. ROSE: He said:

"Under the Education (Interim) Finance Act municipalities are required to advance monthly payments to school boards in anticipation of the adoption of the school board bylaw and the collection of taxes based thereon. In Vancouver the advances amount to approximately $22 million. I'm advised that the school board has not passed the bylaw."

All right?

Dr. Robinson said he could have passed the bylaw — he's got the power — and left the boards where they were. He didn't. He didn't just want to take away their powers; he wanted to kill COPE. That's what he wanted — nothing else. "The minister could have sought a mandamus court order to compel the board to pass the valid...." For those of the great legally unwashed out there, a mandamus is just the opposite of an injunction. "Mandamus" means you order somebody to do something, whereas an injunction means that you order them not to do something. So what he said was that the minister could have ordered the board to pass the bylaw. He didn't do that and didn't want to do that. He was out for blood. He was licking his lips, and he was out for blood. He could have recommended to the provincial cabinet a grant payable under the board of education. The minister could have allowed the board to operate a deficit for the current year.

The minister could have had the provincial cabinet dismiss the board for a day. That would have been enough. That's all he needed to do. That wasn't enough, so he did what he did. One of the reasons that that party over there is so sad in public opinion right now is because of the actions of that minister right over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't been out of the lower mainland.

MR. ROSE: Look, go and talk to your number-cruncher Mr. Spector. Go and ask him to grind out a few for you, and you will find the same things that we have. Authoritarian, heartless, cruel, dispassionate: that's what people think of you.

MR. REID: Not true.

MR. ROSE: Why don't you call an election? Why not?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order, and the member will make reference to the bill.

MR. ROSE: I didn't really mean to provoke them this way, Mr. Speaker. I'm just a mild, gentle little fellow, and I know I'm spoiling their lunch, but they've spoiled mine several times. At least I'll have a lunch; I'm not lined up in a food bank lineup somewhere.

Anyway, again, there are all kinds of things that he went into. There are all kinds of recommendations that he made. Just let me read a couple and then I'll quit here. "Restore the boards," says Dr. Robinson, number one. The government should recognize the value of the boards, number two. The government should review their method of financing education and give the boards an opportunity to share some powers instead of taking everything that they once had away. There should be some protection, a bill of rights to protect the rights of local government. How would the minister and this Legislature like it if the government of Canada marched in here and took away the rights of these duty elected people? We wouldn't like it at all. Finally, he recommends that the provincial government introduce legislation to amend section 51 of the School Act to specify more clearly the particular circumstances under which the cabinet can appoint an official trustee to conduct the affairs of the school district. If you hadn't had those two clauses separately instead of standing together, that court case would have been quite different.

I'm sorry if I went over my time, but I really needed to get this off my chest on behalf of all those people who respect democracy.

[12:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the hon. member move second reading?

MR. ROSE: Well, as a matter of fact, I overlooked that, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker. But if I may do that now.... I got so carried away, and a lot of people feel that I should be.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you please move second reading.

MR. ROSE: I move second reading of this bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'd like to read the final paragraph of the judgment rendered by the supreme court, and maybe it will put this in perspective.

"The evidence before me clearly shows that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council acted properly and reasonably in ensuring city schools would continue to operate, and that the city of Vancouver would continue to be able to maintain the integrity of its municipal financing system."

The Lieutenant-Governor had no other recourse; it's in black and white, the final line in the judgment:

"The board, as a result of its own intransigence and its failure to abide by the lawful directive of the Minister of Education, brought about its own dissolution."

[ Page 7104 ]

Now its interesting that you talk about polls. Your former leader on CJOR got the former chairman of the school board down to his office, and what did they talk about, thinking that the city of Vancouver was not in support of what we had no other choice than to do. So they decided they would have their poll. Well, the results came in on the issue. Should there be elections in Vancouver this fall? Well, do you know, 450 residents in Vancouver said no; 242 said yes. Roughly two to one. I can tell you, Mr. Barrett and Mrs. Weinstein were somewhat nonplussed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I have pointed out to the member who introduced the bill, we are discussing the principle of the official trustee, not polls. Some latitude has been allowed, but if we could get back to the bill now.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order similar to that raised by your majesty: that is, what we're calling for here is not discussing the act of firing the board but the bill to restore elected boards in Cowichan and Vancouver.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, that's not a point of order. Let's get back to the bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With due respect, that's not a point of order, and with due respect I have the opportunity to respond to matters he has raised and which have not been challenged by the Chair. That's why I made reference to the poll.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, they were. Your Chairman asked the member for Coquitlam-Moody, when he was discussing matters not in the bill, to confine his remarks to the bill, and the member did. I have simply asked you to do the same thing. Thank you. Some latitude was allowed; now back to the bill.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to the comments he raised, which were not challenged. He made reference to a Mr. Denike. Interestingly enough Mr. Denike, a newly elected member of the former Vancouver School Board, seems to be somewhat ill-informed. The information about the utilization of those funds had been available to that school board since November 1983. Interestingly enough, they had encroached upon the use of non-shareable for operating to the tune of about $6 million in 1983 and 1984. They cannot then be heard to say that they did not have access to those funds.

You talk about Mr. Denike? Two other members as well — Graeme Waymark and Jonathan Baker — said the board had invited the chaos which ensued.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would like to make reference to a fact with respect to Burnaby and Coquitlam. You made reference to bribery. I can't believe it! The fact is, no additional money was given to either of those boards, and to make sure of that, I published a letter and made that letter available to everybody. I sent a copy of that letter to every school board in British Columbia so that they knew exactly what happened, and there wasn't one dime thrown in. Not one dime.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I beg your pardon? The letter was current.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: He makes reference to the mayor's letter. The mayor had that letter personally delivered to me, as well as everyone else: "Please do something." Something was done. Now he might be in bed with you people, but the fact is that he's got a duty to the city of Vancouver, and they were indebted to the sum of $22 million. As the supreme court decision said, we had no other choice if we were going to preserve the integrity of the municipal financing system for the city of Vancouver.

You also made reference to the Robinson report. I would invite you to see how many people showed up with the self-anointed commissioner: a gang of sixteen showed. One person showed up and said: "I like the way it is." Sixteen people, and then look at the people who showed who were concerned about it: the deposed members of the Vancouver School Board. The Vancouver School Board deposed members took that position, and they have taken it all along. They did not have the interest of education; they were trying to make a political statement. If they want to get into that level and forget about the education of the kids, that's on their heads, not ours.

The sale of public property; that particular board had authorized the sale of property, and so had previous boards. Suddenly they get in bed and try to prevent a duty elected body or the official trustee from disposing of property, which they have a right to do. How did you think they have secured much of the revenue they have? They have the right to dispose of it.

MR. ROSE: The official trustee?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The official trustee is the board.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items we could go on about here, but I understand that the clock is.... There is some agreement that my critic is entitled to 25 minutes and I am entitled to five. I guess you got that one round.

I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Introduction of bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 4), 1985

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985.

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:53 p.m.