[ Page 7105 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Government legislative program. Mr. Skelly –– 7105

Canadian Commercial Bank. Mr. Lea –– 7106

Southeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 7106

Disposal of government documents –– 7107

Society Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7107

Mr. Stupich –– 7108

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7108

Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 66). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7108

Mr. Nicolson –– 7108

Mr. Blencoe –– 7108

Mr. Williams –– 7109

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7109

Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 69). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7110

Mr. MacWilliam –– 7110

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7110

Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 71). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7111

Mr. Blencoe –– 7111

Mr. Hanson –– 7112

Mr. Williams –– 7112

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7113

Pacific Vocational Institute And British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act (Bill 72). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7114

Mr. Nicolson –– 7115

Mr. Veitch –– 7116

Mrs. Dailly –– 7118

Mr. R. Fraser –– 7118

Ms. Brown –– 7121

Mr. Reynolds –– 7122

Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 7125

Mr. Lea –– 7126

Mr. Michael –– 7128

Mr. Howard –– 7129

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 7129

Tabling Documents –– 7131

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In the absence of the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks) and the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), I'm sure that all members would like to join me in an expression of the heartiest congratulations and indeed a rousing welcome and a rousing round of applause to the B.C. Lions for their outstanding victory yesterday afternoon.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition wishes to join the government in this case and congratulate the B.C. Lions for a game well played, and looks forward to the fact that in the future they will be winning many more Grey Cups and bringing them home to Vancouver.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today we have visiting us Dr. David Strangway, president of the University of British Columbia. He is here to establish a dialogue with members, and while here he chose to visit the galleries to listen to debate — I'm sure at a level which he is not accustomed to in the academic world.

MR. REYNOLDS: In the galleries this afternoon I'd like the House to welcome John and Elaine McLeod from Bowen Island.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery today we have a large delegation of students from Surrey. On behalf of the two members from the constituency, I would ask the House to welcome Rev. Marvin Hunt and 45 students visiting us from the Pacific Bible College and Bible Fellowship Christian Academy in Surrey.

MR. NICOLSON: In view of the success of the B.C. Lions, I hope it will not go unnoticed that one of British Columbia's native sons won the world golf championship with Dan Halldorson. Congratulations to Dave Barr from Kelowna, now living in Richmond. I'm sure that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) joins me in this.

MR. VEITCH: Located in the members' gallery this afternoon, from the new BCIT, are Mr. Pat Thomas, Mr. Michael Stepler and Mr. John Waters, all representing the British Columbia Institute of Technology Staff Society.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the Legislature has been in session now for three days. Most of the material we've been discussing has been housekeeping material that could have been dealt with earlier this year. I would like to ask the House Leader a question: when there is only a two-day first ministers' conference in Halifax a few days hence, why is the Premier not in the Legislature presenting his proposals to solve the economic crisis in the province of British Columbia? Why is he away for 11 days when he only has two days' public business to do at the Premiers' conference?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't know if we have a question there.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, first of all, I think you'd better change your research officer, because that's probably one of the weakest questions we've ever heard. Secondly, as you're well aware, hon. member, the hon. Premier is involved in meetings across the country, and we're indeed looking forward to his return.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the House Leader. If the Premier is involved with meetings across the country, why did the Premier call a session when he had virtually no business of any worth for the province to do? Where is the business on the docket of this Legislature to deal with the employment and poverty crises that are facing the province of British Columbia? Why did the Premier call a session and then take 11 days off, avoiding the Legislature and indicating his contempt for this Legislature?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I see the hon. leader of the official opposition had such a weak week last week that he's recycling the same questions. I think each question that the hon. leader is posing to me has been responded to very fully and very firmly by the Premier. I seem to have heard — and I'm sure I wasn't hearing things.... I think members of the government side heard members of the official opposition say they were very desirous of returning to a session.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the opposition was very desirous of returning to this session to see some business done on behalf of the citizens to create employment and to deal with the problem of poverty. My question to the House Leader is: where's the meat? Where's the business? Where's the legislative program to get people back to work in British Columbia?

[2:15]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I think first and foremost that the official opposition should take a look at the community and see the projects that this government has been able to put into place, most of which — again, correct me if I'm wrong — the official opposition criticized and said should not proceed. Too bad no northeast coal, too bad no Expo....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order'.

HON. MR. GARDOM: But those were the positions that you were taking. However, you're enjoying a little bit of a fanciful political flight today, but until you come up, sir, with a question of more substance, there's really not too much we can do with you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before recognizing the member for Prince Rupert, I will remind all hon. members that only questions that are urgent and important shall be permitted, and that we should not anticipate future action in our questioning.

[ Page 7106 ]

CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. In March of this year the provincial government, through an agreement with Ottawa, put forth $13 million of British Columbia taxpayers' money to help bail out the Canadian Commercial Bank. I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance what he did to ascertain whether that would be a good $13 million investment. The minister at the time stated that he was doing it to pick up some bank debentures. In other words, some institutions had bought debentures from the Canadian Commercial Bank, and we were picking those up with taxpayers' money. What did the federal government tell the provincial minister that would lead him to believe that it was a good investment of British Columbia tax dollars?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, thank you to the hon. member for Prince Rupert.

I'll attempt to answer the question as he has asked it, but I would refer him to the statement which I made at the earliest possible time following that weekend in March.

There were so many discussions with the Hon. Barbara McDougall, Minister of State for Finance, and with others in the federal government — not ministers but other officials — including conversations with the governor of the Bank of Canada, through that weekend, that it would be difficult in question period to recite all the points which were offered by the Hon. Ms. McDougall and Governor Bouey and others. The fact of the matter remains that there was grave concern on my part, grave concern on the part of others representing western provinces and clearly concern on the part of the federal government with respect to the fact that some of the deposits which were in place at the Canadian Commercial Bank at that time were from a variety of organizations with their base in British Columbia. Therefore the paramount consideration that I had through that particular period — and it's a weekend, I might say, that I will not forget in general for a long time — was the continued confidence of the people of this province — I can't speak for other provinces — with regard to the credit union movement, with regard to other financial institutions and, indeed, with regard to the entire financial structure in British Columbia, as well as in other parts of the country.

I have spoken with the hon. Barbara McDougall on a number of occasions, as recently again as today, in response to a call that she made with respect to this and other matters. The commission, which is reviewing the Canadian Commercial Bank matter as well as Northland, has not concluded its hearings, so has not obviously then filed the full report.

In terms of detailed comment, I will want to read the final report of the commission, but given the circumstances of that weekend in March, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, if it were presented to me again in that same context, I would take the same action.

MR. LEA: I guess, Mr. Speaker, you can't fault the Minister of Finance here for taking the word of the Bank of Canada and the government of Canada. But it is now obvious that they weren't telling all, and I just wonder whether they told this minister all, because if he had known all, I would be very surprised had he put the money forward under the circumstances. Obviously the federal government had information that should have led them not to make the decision they made. We now know they made a bum decision. Are you going to apply to the federal government to get our $13 million back into the taxpayers' hands here?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, through you the member, I have, both verbally and in writing, communicated to the hon. Barbara McDougall my concern over all of the circumstances surrounding that period at the end of March and subsequent, and I have indeed indicated that insofar as the government of British Columbia is concerned, we would welcome repayment of the money which we advanced.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Actually, to whoever interjected, it was a little heavier than that, Mr. Speaker. I have just received a reply from the hon. Barbara McDougall, and I intend to reply to that letter. But I want to assure the member for Prince Rupert that this is not just an exchange of correspondence but, rather, a point which I have made and to which she has responded, and that will continue. It is not for me to say, in this House or in any other forum, because I could not confirm that information was withheld from me; but while the commission continues its hearings, I have expressed concern — verbally and in writing — to the federal minister of state for Finance, and she has, I think quite properly, replied in part to the effect that the entire report, the entire commission review, is not yet complete. I accept that point.

MR. LEA: A supplementary. I certainly hope, for the minister's sake, that they didn't give you all of the information that they had, because if they had done, I'm sure you wouldn't have made the decision that you did. Obviously they withheld information from the Minister of Finance of British Columbia. Would the minister undertake to keep this House posted on the negotiations with Ottawa — in terms of getting our $13 million back — through ministerial statements over the coming days?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, yes, I can give the commitment — not necessarily in terms of coming days, because not much may occur over the period of the next 10 or 12 or 14 days. But I certainly undertake to report back to the House when I have information which properly belongs with the members of this House. I will be happy to give that commitment, but not in a matter of days.

SOUTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Labour. Has the Minister of Labour met with the officials of Westar Mining and Fording Coal to determine some means by which the recent layoffs in southeast coal can be ameliorated or avoided?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have met with representatives of Fording Coal and Westar Mining.

MR. WILLIAMS: With respect to those companies in the southeast, development of the northeast coalfields has cost 200 layoffs this year alone. There have been cutbacks to 50 percent in the south, 107 percent of contract in the north. Has the minister promised them some kind of balancing between the marketing of southeast coal versus northeast coal, which is clearly getting government and Japanese support?

[ Page 7107 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I've had good discussion with representatives of Westar and Fording Coal with respect to the coal production in southeastern British Columbia. Just for the member's information, there is more coal moving out of southeastern British Columbia today than they ever moved in their history. It's been done with less people, no different than sawmilling or pulp milling or anything else. Across the province, where there were larger trucks and bigger shovels compared to a few years ago, when there was smaller equipment operating at the minehead.... The comment made by the member that northeast is getting special favour over southeast is untrue, and he knows that very well. It's no different than.... Companies operating in any part of British Columbia, whether they're building sawmills, mines, pulp mills or whatever, are entitled to access to their community, to schools, to sewer and water projects, to highway projects, and so on and so forth.

I am pleased to say that since 1975 the residents of southeastern British Columbia, since they joined the government team and moved away from the sleepy end of the Legislature, have been provided access and fair opportunity to all of those projects and programs that are provided by the government of British Columbia, and that is due in part to the MLA who represents the constituency and in part to a government that understands the needs and concerns of the people of the interior of British Columbia.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's get it straight. There's been a 50 percent cutback in the southeast, they're at 107 percent in the northeast, and the issue is: will there be some equitable sharing of the cutback? Have you dealt with this with your cabinet colleagues? Will there be an equitable sharing, if we have to face cutbacks, across the board, so that the southeast is no longer discriminated against as it has been under this MLA and this government?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The member for Vancouver East, who would advise firefighters in southeastern British Columbia how to fight fire from his barstool in Vancouver, would presume to tell the miners in southeastern British Columbia that they don't have the ability to compete with other miners in any other part of the world. I want to tell you that I have faith and confidence in those miners in southeastern British Columbia, and I have faith and confidence, too, in those companies' ability to go out and find new market opportunities and compete with anybody else in the world in a fair and open-handed way.

He should also know that while the northeast coal projects were under construction, two new mines were opened up and built in southeastern British Columbia. And he should know, too, today, that there is an expansion of a mine in southeastern British Columbia while he would go around and talk about gloom and doom. There are, indeed, quite positive changes taking place in the marketplace, and the companies in southeastern British Columbia are taking advantage of those new opportunities today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period. Once again I'll remind all hon. members that "questions and answers shall be brief and precise, and stated without argument or opinion." If we would remember those rules, then I am sure we would have a better and far more informative question period.

DISPOSAL OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

HON. MR. SMITH: I wish to respond to a question asked of me in the chamber on Wednesday. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked me if I would have an investigation into an allegation that the former ombudsman removed certain files from his office when he left. I wish to inform the member and the House that I have had an inquiry — I wouldn't call it a police investigation — into that allegation.

I'm able to report to the House that correspondence and documents went missing from the office of the ombudsman when Mr. Friedmann left. A month ago, in early October, the acting ombudsman's office made a request to Mr. Friedmann for the return of these documents. That request was not successful; the documents were not recovered from Mr. Friedmann. A demand was then made upon him by registered mail, which was not successfully served upon him, and formal demands have been made upon him within the past couple of days by counsel that the acting ombudsman has retained to recover these documents.

I might say that the whole matter is in the hands of and under the authority of the acting ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act, and he operates independently and retains counsel for that purpose. So I'm happy to tell the member for Skeena that this is the only information I have available today. I have no doubt that further information will be made public in due course by the acting ombudsman.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker. I call second reading of Bill 48.

SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: I rise to move second reading of Bill 48, the Society Amendment Act, 1985. Members of this House will recall that this bill was introduced last spring. The bill permits occupational groups to apply to the registrar of societies to have their occupational title and initials registered under a new section of the Society Act. Once registration is granted, no other group or individual may make use of that registered title or initials.

Under the provisions of this bill an occupational group can apply for registration with the following provisos: that it be registered under the Society Act; that it have at least 50 members; that it has as its purpose the promotion of interest of the group, and the granting of the occupational title and initials is considered to be in the public interest; and that the society has bylaws in place to define membership qualifications, membership prerequisites, member conduct and penalties for misconduct of members. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, the registrar of societies may cancel registration if he deems the terms of registration have been violated.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

To summarize, this bill accomplishes two objectives. It enables members of a particular occupational group to protect themselves from individuals who may claim to have occupational qualifications or belong to an occupational group when in fact they do not. Secondly, it signals consumers that an occupational group and its bona fide members

[ Page 7108 ]

have status to conduct activities in the name of that group and for the purposes for which it is registered.

With those comments, I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: In the hope that we may soon see some justification for calling this particular sitting of the Legislature, the opposition will support speedy passage of this particular bill.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the opposition concurs with the government that this is a positive piece of legislation, and I therefore move second reading of Bill 48.

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Society Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: I am pleased to rise again, this time on Bill 66, the Real Estate Amendment Act, and pleased to move second reading. This bill marks another step toward ensuring our regulatory function is properly balanced, that it achieves public protection on the one hand without unnecessarily impeding business activity on the other. Relating that general philosophy to this bill, the principle underpinning these provisions is clear. To the extent possible, it is desirable to expedite land development in B.C. by permitting some developers to submit a disclosure statement that is shorter and less complex than a full real estate prospectus. This disclosure statement would not require pre-vetting by staff before the subject property can be offered for sale, as is usually the case under our prospectus system.

Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that I am not proposing removal of prospectus filing in circumstances where the public is at greater risk, such as in time-share offerings or offshore projects.

This bill would remove unnecessary and sometimes costly delays for developers while still protecting the average citizen. Being able to progress on the deregulation front does not mean we are abandoning the need to protect the average citizen. The superintendent will prescribe the form of the disclosure statement, and it will be certified correct by the developer or his representative. Contravention of this act will result in increased penalties — up to $100,000 or five years less a day in jail — when the system is abused.

Also, under this bill, because there is no pre-vetting of developments where prospectuses are not required — only disclosure statements — purchasers will be afforded a recision right of three days. And as I mentioned before, penalties for contravention of disclosure requirements have been increased.

Mr. Speaker, with those comments I am pleased to move second reading.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the government has created a problem for itself, and it has sought to simplify and to supposedly solve this problem by really loosening up requirements for the filing of a prospectus. It is my understanding that there is a delay of up to four months right now, but it is due to a shortage of staff. The opposition realizes that on an average project of, say, $5 million, which is not too outsized, this could be costing as much as $3,000 a day, and that that is ultimately passed on to the consumer.

We would support this legislation as an interim measure until a proper government that understands the priorities of people and has proper consumer legislation can be elected. We will support this as an interim measure, because I think it is the best that this government can do. But believe me, while the spelling out of penalties and such is some improvement, I don't see how the present prospectus system would have been any problem. It hasn't been a problem for over ten years — until there were massive layoffs in the department and a backlog was created. Indeed, even with this new system, I can still see backlogs being created if other corrective measures are not taken.

So because we don't want to see additional cost burdens placed on consumers — and it is a very difficult situation — we will support this rather reluctantly, hoping to amend it when we are sitting over on that side of the House at some future date.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we have said on this side of the House that we have been waiting for some meaningful legislation in a number of areas. This is one particular area — consumer protection and consumer awareness, and some legislation that would do something for some of the problems we have been facing in the last year in the province of British Columbia. The minister knows what I am referring to. I am referring to companies in the real estate business that are going bust in the province of British Columbia.

This minister refuses to look at policy or introduce legislation that to some degree protects consumers. Rather than have some lightweight consumer-protection legislation before us, we need to see legislation by this minister and by this government that takes a look at these corporations that are doing business and, in my estimation, misleading the public to some degree. I indicated that to the minister. We have a situation in Victoria in which the Victoria Mortgage Corp. put out advertising indicating to the consumer or the potential investor that that company was secure, that its debentures were similar to guaranteed investment certificates. We had people, particularly elderly people, buying thousands of dollars worth of debentures in a very unstable company. This minister refuses to introduce legislation for future reference that brings in consumer protection.

We have the teachers' cooperative today. We find that in these areas — these kinds of corporations — there are no inspection requirements, or virtually none. There are no liquidity requirements or reserve requirements under provincial legislation. It's time, Mr. Speaker. Rather than some innocuous piece of legislation like we have today, we need a total review of how these kinds of businesses do business in the province of British Columbia. We need to look at policy and legislation that protects the consumer in these types of businesses and corporations.

We have in this city and in the city of Vancouver thousands of British Columbians who have bought into real estate corporations and companies and who in my estimation have been totally misled as to how those companies operate. The legislation is poor. It doesn't protect, and it doesn't set up the

[ Page 7109 ]

checks and balances that British Columbians are entitled to. Above all else, it brings in a lack of confidence in those institutions and in our financial institutions in the province of British Columbia.

I'd like this minister and this government to bring in good, solid checks and balances for dealing with real estate corporations and with these cooperatives, so that people when they buy into them know that there's some protection. Let's have that kind of legislation before us, rather than some innocuous piece of legislation like we have before us today, Mr. Speaker. People and consumers want checks and balances. They want to know what they're buying into. There's lack of confidence in this government and in those financial institutions; it's hurting investment in the province of British Columbia, and it's hurting in the area of job creation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the minister that sat twiddling his thumbs all through the Victoria Mortgage debacle here in this city, the man who should have been on the job, reviewing questions like that, where countless British Columbians lost.... Some of them lost their life savings as a result of his inactivity and the lack of vetting in that department, and the rest of it, and now he's moving again in a direction that.... One would have thought that, after all of those losses suffered by British Columbians through Victoria Mortgage, which for them was every bit as serious and devastating as the Canadian Commercial Bank or any other institution, we should now face this prospect.... It isn't fair to the public not to vet a prospectus. It isn't fair to the public not to review these matters in some detail and have that process as an ongoing process that provides some kind of basic minimal protection at the beginning.

I remind the minister: he's responsible for a lot of these agencies; he's responsible for the financial institutions in this province and for other regulatory bodies related to them. It's abundantly clear to me that he doesn't take that job very seriously and that he hasn't had a careful review in terms of a conservative approach to a whole range of questions with respect to these institutions. Victoria Mortgage is just one sad example. What he is doing is opening up his vulnerability further, with respect to this legislation that's before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs closes debate on Bill 66.

HON. MR. HEWITT: To respond to the members opposite, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) talked about delays. I concur that one of the reasons for this change in policy is the time delay, where developers, those people raising money for new developments, only have a window in time to do that, so that if the document is held up for vetting in the superintendent's office, the opportunity to raise capital might be lost. But it's not, Mr. Member, due to a shortage of staff. You would be interested to know that there have been no cutbacks or reductions of staff in that particular sector of the corporate side of my ministry. What we have had, in many cases, is reviewing of prospectuses, many of them coming in — which indicates economic activity — only to be frustrated through the delays of having to have them vetted and of material going back and forth. In many cases a lot of these issues that they're waiting for approval on are now dealt with by other approving officers — i.e., municipal councils and municipal staff that deal with whether or not a property has light and water, etc. We were really duplicating a lot of activity. But when you got a document in, you had to ensure that it was completed.

[2:45]

Now the system that has been developed in this bill is to require a disclosure statement meeting the criteria to be set down by the superintendent and then certified by the developer or his representative that this is true and factual. The information is there for the consumer to see whether it is a good purchase or not. However, the costly delays of going through the system have now been set aside, with one exception: time-share or off-shore developments still require a full prospectus. But what we have done — an approach that I think is correct — is that we have said to the entire community of developers: "Here is the flexibility you want. You must disclose all the factual material. If you fail to do that and misrepresent your product — your development — you will pay a severe price." We raised the fine limit up to $100,000, and we also have a provision as an alternative that that developer can spend up to five years less a day in jail.

I'm one, Mr. Member, who believes very sincerely that we should let the marketplace work, and that means that 98 percent or 99 percent of those people who are honest business men and women in our province can get on with the job, but those who abuse the system will pay the price. That's why this development has taken place in this Real Estate Act. I think it's a good positive approach and one that's been concurred with by the Canadian Home Builders' Association, the Urban Development Institute and by members of the legal community who have had input into this bill. So we have now, I think, a fair and equitable approach to dealing with new developments.

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) talks about consumer protection. I mentioned in my opening remarks, I believe, that there was a cooling-off period — a rescission period — of three days for consumers who may sign in the excitement of seeing a property and decide after that that maybe they couldn't afford it. Therefore they have the opportunity to back off. I also mention again that there are severe penalties to those who abuse the system, and there are prospectuses required for time-share and off-shore developments.

The second member for Victoria talked about lightweight legislation. I don't agree. I think it's positive legislation. I think it's legislation that allows the marketplace to work, but it also puts in place severe penalties for those who abuse the system.

The second member for Victoria talked about investors in Victoria Mortgage Corp., which really, Mr. Speaker, does not apply to this bill. He talked about the Teachers' Co-op, which also doesn't really apply to this bill. Those people were making investments, if you look at the Teachers' Co-op, as member-shareholders of their cooperative, a common bond institution that has the opportunity to express its views as member-shareholders and the opportunity to give guidance to their directorship or their management. They made some investments and were caught in the downturn of the economy.

I would say one thing: although the members opposite want to attack that institution, I give them a lot of credit, Mr. Speaker, for taking the tough decision they had to to get control of the situation. I'm quite hopeful that they'll be able to work themselves out of the situation they find themselves in, because they took action quickly and dealt with the problem themselves, rather than looking to government to solve the problem.

[ Page 7110 ]

Mr. Speaker, again the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) talked about Victoria Mortgage and insisted that there was still a requirement to vet. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation provides all the protection to the consumer, provides the criteria for the developer and provides penalties where those people may abuse the system. I think it's a positive piece of legislation, and I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill 66.

Motion approved.

Bill 66, Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

TRAVEL AGENTS AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, again I'm pleased to rise to move second reading of another bill, Bill 69, the travel agents amendment bill. These amendments are the result of a review of travel services initiated by my ministry at my request earlier this year. The review identified changes necessary to continue effective delivery of the act, to return the travel assurance fund to a sound base and to minimize future risk to the fund.

I believe this bill is timely and that both the industry and the public support the objective of improving administration of the Travel Agents Act.

Through extensive consultation with the travel industry associations and other interested travel representatives, these legislative proposals were developed to meet three objectives: firstly, to enhance the registrar of travel services' power to monitor and control high-risk registrants; secondly, to minimize future risk to the travel assurance fund; and thirdly, to provide for a travel council to provide input into decisions to be made by the registrar.

Mr. Speaker, the Travel Agents Act, passed in 1978, was designed to protect moneys paid by consumers for travel services, with a minimum of interference to the normal business operations of the travel industry. As measures to increase confidence of consumers and to enhance viability of the industry, these amendments should be supported by members of this House.

Since I commented on the highlights of the amendments at the first reading, let me add, Mr. Speaker, that these amendments represent one part of my ministry's response to the need to tighten up the administration of the act. Operationally, we have recently appointed a full-time registrar with 25 years of experience in the travel business, and we are increasing the use of computers to improve monitoring capabilities of agents.

Taken in concert with the regulatory changes which will be required to implement the intent of these legislative amendments, I am confident the act and its administration will be improved, to the benefit of the industry and consumers alike. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I can't understand why this present bill is before the House at this time, although it does address a very narrow range of problems. I can't understand why it has come up at this point, because this legislation does nothing to resolve the immediate problem that this House should be sitting to resolve, and that's the creation of jobs in this province. It has done nothing to answer the critical concerns of revitalizing our economy, and I really don't know why it's before us at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I thought, with great expectation, that when the House was called back into session we would come back for a purpose and a reason: to debate and discuss some of the issues of critical importance that face this province today jobs.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It seems to me that we have a bill before us which deals with a specific topic. Whether the member feels it should be here or not is surely not relevant, when he moves on to other topics. This is a very specific bill presented by my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Debate on a bill should be relevant to the subject matter of the bill and not to other matters or other legislation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to emphasize was the point that although this bill does address many of the concerns relevant to the travel industry itself.... My question was: why was it being brought forward at this time, when we could be doing other much more vital business, addressing some of the very serious concerns that face this province at this time?

We've got no real difficulty with the bill in itself. The bill tries to deal with recurring problems in the travel industry. It does strike a reasonable balance between protecting the traveling public and preventing responsible travel agents from being held liable for debts of their less reputable colleagues. It does makes sure that the travel assurance fund is maintained to an adequate level, so that further loans or topping up from public sources hopefully will not be necessary in the future.

It does address those concerns, and it does it fairly successfully, giving the registrar of travel agents broader authority through other legislative means. My colleagues and I have no difficulty with this bill. It's a minor piece of housekeeping legislation. My concern that I initially addressed is: let's get through this stuff. Let's get on to more critical debates. Let's not waste any more time with minor housekeeping amendments such as this.

We will support the bill. Let's get on. to more relevant topics.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the opposition are going to support this bill. It's a good bill and does relate to prevention of a problem as opposed to picking up the pieces after it happens. We've had ongoing discussion with the travel agents' association in this province, a number of meetings to attempt to bring forward amendments to the act that would do just that: provide prevention of a problem, as opposed to having to cure it at a later date at a cost to the travel agents themselves. As members here know, travel agents and travel wholesalers that are registered in this province fund this travel assurance fund and have only had to call on the government for a loan, which they must repay. They're hopeful that with these changes, with a little more

[ Page 7111 ]

control in investigative powers by the registrar, we will not see as many failures as we've seen in the past.

It's another move in consumer protection by my ministry, and I'm pleased to see that the opposition will support it. I therefore move second reading of Bill 69, the Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985.

Motion approved.

Bill 69, Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today,

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

CAPITAL COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 71, the Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985. Purposes of this amending bill are to effect a number of administrative changes in the operation of the commission, to slightly broaden the commission's mandate and responsibilities, and to improve management flexibility, particularly in the making of expenditures.

First, with respect to administrative changes, the amendment act provides for an increase in the commission's membership by one person. This increase is in response to changing population numbers in the Capital Improvement District. The amendments also provide the commission and its agents with legal protection consistent with that of similar organizations. It further clarifies the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman, and it brings up to date the current act's provision for offence and penalty.

The commission's mandate and responsibilities are broadened. This amendment allows the commission to widen its funding base through subscriptions, donations and bequests. It also enables the commission to enter into agreements and to provide loans, grants, advice and other services consistent with its mandate of the continuing improvement of the capital district.

The commission already has authority to enter into agreements with municipalities, but it would like to be able to work with other non-government agencies in the capital district, as well as with the government of Canada.

[3:00]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The amendments to the act further improve the commission's management flexibility with respect to expenditures and clarify where an order-in-council is required to expend funds. Under the existing act, members will note, an order-in-council approval is implied for all expenditures not explicitly provided for in an appropriation. So this approval requirement is inconsistent with the commission's operating as a semi-autonomous agency, and does not recognize that the commission has been relying more on its own operating revenues and revenue sources.

The commission now receives an annual operating contribution, as opposed to the government's specifically providing for all costs and staffing in the estimates.

The amending bill also removes what constituted statutory authority for the commission to spend funds out of the consolidated revenue fund. Any capital or operating contribution will now have to be provided for in the estimates presented to this chamber or, less likely, through a separate bill.

The new section 10 maintains government control over the commission's major capital spending by ensuring that order-in-council approval is required for all capital expenditures exceeding $200,000, or for those expenditures that are undertaken in cooperation with a municipality or some similar authority. However, it allows the commission the required flexibility to operate, as I said before, as a semi-autonomous agency.

The amending bill also addresses the concerns expressed by the office of the auditor-general by clearly delineating those occasions on which the Provincial Capital Commission must seek order-in-council approval for expenditures. It should be noted, I think, in dealing with Bill 71 that provincial government support will continue to be appropriated and fully disclosed in the estimates, and that the commission, as it has, must continue to provide an annual report to the Legislature, including financial statements audited by the auditor-general.

I would think that a number of members of the Legislature are very keenly aware of the significant contributions made by the Provincial Capital Commission and its predecessor organization, the Capital Improvement District Commission — that first body being established in the 1950s — as both have assisted in the enhancement and beautification of the capital region of British Columbia. This bill is intended to facilitate increased activity by the commission and, as a result, to ensure continuing improvement of many features of this capital district, in which many of us take great pride. I move second reading of Bill 71.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to join the minister in talking about the work that the Provincial Capital Commission has done in past years, and certainly add our support to that. It has indeed done some useful, progressive and innovative things in this community. There are a couple of things I want to talk about for the future. But first let me say we will be supporting this legislation.

I think the Provincial Capital Commission could be expanding its role. Thus far it's basically been seen as a beautification agent. We're all very supportive of that, and it's done good work in that area. But I'd like the government and the minister responsible to consider this commission's expanding its role to take a look at the job potential involved in the commission's area of jurisdiction. I'd like the commission to consider taking a look at proposals for industrial projects, because the commission does have a broad section of the community on its board — all four core municipalities in the capital district are represented, I believe. I think the commission should be project-oriented in the future.

I think the commission, for instance, should have supported the Oakland fish plant study that this government had done. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) has done a lot of work in that area. That report indicated that that plant was viable. The commission should have been advocating the introduction of that report, and should have been ensuring that that plant reopened and that the Japanese owners played a fair game. We could have seen that fish plant open as a cooperative, with the 300-400 jobs that went along with that

[ Page 7112 ]

plant. The commission did not take a role in that. Here is a body that has an opportunity, I think, to show some leadership on behalf of the citizens of the capital region. Employment in this region is what we want to talk about — jobs, jobs, jobs — and that commission, with its broad perspective and its broad representation, has the opportunity to take a look at the Oakland fish plant.

The commission, for instance, could have taken a position and done some heavy work in the Seaspan situation and in the closing of the Genstar operation. The commission could be getting this government off its rear end and doing something about VMD, a fine institution in this region which is going down the tube because we're not seeing any action on the part of this government to save those jobs at VMD. We know what happened with VMD: it was bought by that IEC corporation that came to town, and many Social Credit friends participated in that IEC scam. We all know it was a scam; we all know it should have been investigated. The commission had the opportunity, and still has the opportunity, to ensure that VMD, which got involved in that particular fiasco, is saved.

The commission should be looking at job creation. It should be given the mandate to explore saving industry in the Inner Harbour and in the capital region. I'd like to see that particular aspect of the commission endorsed and go ahead.

The second aspect that I want to talk about and which I think is very important for the future — an issue in this community for many years and one which this minister has not referred to — is that this commission does its work in secret. It is not open to the public, so there's very little public accountability in terms of the checks and balances of the media and this community in general being able to watch what it's doing. It meets in secret. Very few people know what it's doing, and therefore cannot share in the objectives of that commission and voice their ideas on what that commission should be doing.

I'd like to propose once again, as has been done by other Victoria MLAs, that that commission be open. It should have open meetings. They should not meet in secret except, obviously, when they are dealing with land matters or purchases of land. We all know that that should be done in camera; we recognize that. But the majority of the work of that commission should be done in full view of the Victoria public.

It has created problems. It created a long controversy and the minister knows this — over the restaurant proposal for the old Esso site where the Victoria tourist bureau is currently located. That got us into court. Who said what? Was the past mayor of Victoria accurate in his statements about whether he endorsed that? We don't know. That proposal came out of that commission. The media were not part of covering it; they did not know what was said. We don't know how that proposal for the restaurant came out of there; we don't know who endorsed what. We got ourselves in trouble with that proposal — and we still are today — and the community still doesn't understand what happened, although we've had libel and other lawsuits.

We need to open that commission to public scrutiny and public accountability. I would ask this minister to seriously look at that, and recommend to that commission that they do public business in public view. It's no longer acceptable that that commission meet in secret. It has got us into trouble. And I suggest that if that commission were well known in this community and people knew what it was doing, rather than it meeting behind closed doors, we'd have greater support and interest, and we'd get citizens of this community suggesting to that commission ideas for future development, jobs, industrial growth in this province, this capital region. Open the doors and let the public see what is happening in that commission. That's my recommendation.

MR. HANSON: I would like to add just a couple of comments to those of my colleague in Victoria.

The Provincial Capital Commission has a presence here that hasn't been realized fully in terms of its job-creating potential, and I think one reason is that it doesn't have a clear mandate from the provincial government. It doesn't know whether it is a property manager, an entrepreneur or a developer, or a regulator reviewing private proposals. It appears that the amended section 5, which requires that any transaction involving an amount more than $200,000, has to be managed by the cabinet. Clearly, that doesn't give the owner of the properties, the Provincial Capital Commission, a chance to deal with the properties under their jurisdiction.

Let's quickly go through what they hold. For example, they have a number of properties in the Inner Harbour. The old Esso station located at the corner of Government and Wharf is tenanted by the Greater Victoria Visitors and Convention Bureau. The old CPR building on Belleville Street is rented to the Royal London Wax Museum, ground floor and basement, and Pacific Logging, second floor. The Blackball Ferry property: two parking lots at Ship's Point and Reid site, both of which are located in the Inner Harbour. Revenues are received through a private contractor that administers the lots on the commission's behalf There is the wharf at Ship's Point. The Undersea Gardens is located on the commission water lot and leased at rent. There is St. Ann's Academy, and other landscaping functions and so on that they have.

The Provincial Capital Commission has, under its mandate, the management of significant pieces of property in the Inner Harbour area. As my colleague said, other important projects of economic benefit, of job creation benefit to the people of this city, could be initiated, but to reiterate my point, they don't have a clear mandate. They don't know whether they are to manage it for the cabinet, initiate development on their own, or just regulate private proposals. I would like the minister, in his conclusions, to outline clearly the mandate, the responsibility. To what extent can they initiate things themselves and how much do they have to rely on cabinet decisions to authorize action on their behalf?

MR. WILLIAMS: Just on some of these specific beautification projects, which as a former town planner intrigue me, it does seem that there has been a strong focus on the inner areas, and there is the whole region. When one thinks about the huge growth areas of this region, the western communities of course stack up as the important new growth area. I think those are areas that could benefit from the kinds of amenities provided by the capital commission in other parts of the region.

You can't help but think of places like Langford Lake, for example, which I think are underrated assets in this region. Or Glen Lake, or even Florence Lake. All of those lakes could have more benefit in terms of amenity. In some cases we're not talking about high land costs; in others we might be. But clearly there could be greater access to these lakes in the western communities, and that would benefit the capital region and everybody who lives in it.

[ Page 7113 ]

So I think there is a bit of a blind eye when it comes to looking at the outer areas. That would apply even to places like Sidney, for example, which I personally see as part of the capital region, and which in turn might benefit as well. The MLA for the area might agree, but that remains to be seen.

There are other areas that invite continuing work, though — Bowker Creek in Oak Bay, for example.

[3:15]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know about that. As you get closer to the waterfront there are real opportunities that could benefit that. I wonder if the Gorge work might well be extended. I think the work that has been underway in recent years on West Bay — access and so on — is an important new addition in terms of public access and amenity and benefit; but I wonder if there shouldn't be another look at the Gorge at this time, particularly with respect to at least the Songhees land on that side of the Gorge in terms of some significant opportunities as well.

I am simply suggesting that maybe the horizon should he broadened a little so that the benefits might be shared and opportunities seized which to date have been ignored elsewhere in the region.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the three members opposite who participated.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will not, sir, but I have the temptation to speak for perhaps an hour about the Provincial Capital Commission, its past....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, actually I'll get to that in just a moment. I heard the member for Vancouver East interject when I rose to commence second reading debate: "One job." The commission, when one considers not only the general operation but the Crystal Gardens immediately adjacent to this building, has a salary bill of not quite half a million dollars. It's more than one job.

The commission has undergone significant change from the days when I sat on it as a representative from Saanich, when it had no staff, and someone was seconded from a department of provincial government and it was almost traditional that the Deputy Provincial Secretary attended the meetings. In fact, in those early days the minister responsible was usually the Provincial Secretary. Changes have occurred over time.

It's a credit to the late W.A.C. Bennett and to succeeding governments that, first of all, the commission was established in the mid-fifties — '54 or '55; I'm subject to correction on the precise date. But obviously the late W.A.C. Bennett saw the provincial capital as an important area, and he saw that with a relatively small amount of money, over time, projects could be undertaken. They could be staged. I recall clearly, with respect to the Gorge beautification, that when I took that to members of the commission of that day, looking for a fairly significant amount of money, they said: "Well, we like the idea, but you're probably going to take four, five or six bites at this before you'll finally get it complete."

There was a former member of the official opposition who spoke repeatedly about the secret meetings.

I won't be dealing with these in sequence, but just as I made notes about them.

I leave that really to the commission. Please hear me out. There has never been a directive from me that the meetings should remain secret; that they should be open meetings. There's a reason for that. If the commission makes the decision — and with passage of this bill it will have two representatives from the municipality of Saanich, two from the city of Victoria, one each from Oak Bay and Esquimalt, and then it has a member who nominally represents the Saanich Peninsula but is asked at the same time to take into consideration the entire capital improvement area. I did not, when looking at the request....

A number of these legislative changes, by the way, came from the commission. We were able to agree with some and not agree with others. But the initiative for the amending act came from the commission. I was not about to expand the commission to provide for one member each from Central Saanich, Sidney and North Saanich, because I think one then begins to see a body which could be somewhat unwieldy, in terms of regular meetings, discussion and debate.

If the Provincial Capital Commission decides at its next meeting, with municipal representation.... They're not all Social Credit supporters who somehow just arrive and attend a meeting and disappear. There is strong municipal representation. If they decide they want to hold every meeting or every other meeting or a portion of each meeting in open session, that is entirely up to them. I leave it with them.

The member for Vancouver East spoke about moving out beyond the inner area. I agree completely. Obviously as an MLA who represents a constituency slightly to the north of this one, I have encouraged them to do that, but not at the risk of abandoning projects in other parts of the capital region. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) will have noted, as I'm sure others have noticed, that the most recent approval, given just a couple of weeks ago, was for an additional portion of the so-called West Bay shoreline walkway — $190,000 — not, I believe in that member's constituency, but very close to it, in the city of Victoria. Obviously here is a continuing part of a very beautiful shoreline walk, and then it suddenly stopped. That link had to be closed.

The commission recommended to me, and I was very pleased to endorse it, the start of something which will go on for a good number of years, I would think, in a small way each year: that is at Reay Creek, which is to the west side of the Patricia Bay Highway, in the vicinity of the eastern edge of Pat Bay airport. It's a little creek which had some problems, originating at the airport, but which wends its way through some forested land, through some publicly owned land, under the Pat Bay highway in a culvert — and that's going to be a major challenge at some point — and then eventually to the sea; its fall, its drop, from source to sea is not very great, but a little bit of money was put in there.

Similarly with Brentwood. Those who drive the West Saanich route to Sidney or Pat Bay airport or Swartz Bay will note that there is beautification in what could be called the business core of Brentwood. That was undertaken in cooperation with the municipality of Central Saanich, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Provincial Capital Commission.

So we still have an obligation, in my view, to continue to work toward beautification — I use the word in a very broad

[ Page 7114 ]

sense — in the inner part of the capital region — in the precinct, if you will — but also to reach out. And the member has quite usefully spoken of lakes to the west of the city. Indeed, I'm sure that the commission will read of our exchanges today and will start looking at those. Langford Lake — off the top of my head — I think would present some pretty expensive problems, as the member indeed acknowledged. Nonetheless, we are so closely tied with sea and hills and lakes and streams in this beautiful capital region that the enhancement of those — whether the enhancement of the shoreline or the rehabilitation of a small lake, or whatever — is an important part of the mandate of the Provincial Capital Commission.

I would not want to overlook another point that was made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who really would like to alter the mandate of the commission. I can't associate myself with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, not because they were offered by a member of the opposition but rather because the Provincial Capital Commission for some 30 years now has had a mandate and a responsibility, which has expanded. Who would have expected, 15 or 20 years ago, that the Provincial Capital Commission would actually be a landlord, would actually have rental revenue, and would have an operation — more than one operation, in fact, but I refer specifically to the Crystal Gardens?

The fact of the matter remains that we have several municipalities — and there are those who suggest that perhaps some of those should be amalgamated; I make no comment on that. We have regional government here, as across virtually all of the province. We have economic commissions. We have other people who are involved in generating employment in the capital region. I think it would be somewhat duplicative, in my view, at any rate — we disagree on this.... It would be somewhat of a duplication to assign....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's better? Strike "duplicative." I think that it would be somewhat of a duplication to broaden the Provincial Capital Commission's jurisdiction to include job creation. I don't see that as the fundamental role.

Another one or two final points, relating to St. Ann's Academy, one of the most historically important buildings in the province of British Columbia, the history of which is well known to all members who are interested in greater Victoria and in the Sisters of St. Ann, who came here very early on. I was particularly happy that, with the cooperation of my colleague the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and with the encouragement of a number of people in greater Victoria, we were able to secure heritage designation. I see, over a good number of years — probably one can think in terms of 5, 10 or 15 years — the gradual, careful, cautious, imaginative restoration of that building, perhaps to retain the exterior. I know there is a debate with respect to the so-called new wing, the 1912 wing, as to whether that particular part of the building should remain or not. Nonetheless, I have been encouraged by the fact that we have heritage designation for St. Ann's Academy. That building must not be permitted to just fall into decay. It must be saved, not just for greater Victoria but for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as a building which really is so closely linked to the origins of British Columbia as a colony and as a province. To the extent that I am able, for so long as I'm responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission, I will respond positively to recommendations which come from the commission.

[3:30]

That leads to perhaps the final point. That is that I think there's perhaps only been one minister who has been responsible for the commission in the past who dictated or directed the commission as to what it should or should not do. We have 13 or 14 men and women, who, by the way, receive absolutely no per diems, no payment whatsoever for the service they render. This is one of the very few agencies in the province of British Columbia where there is no per diem. They've not asked for one and I've not suggested one, because I think it's a very important aspect of commission work. When we have sufficient numbers of people such as that — municipal and nonmunicipal representatives — who bring a variety of interests, skills and talents, people who are interested in the present and the future and the past of the greater Victoria capital region area, then I don't think it is correct for the minister of the day who is responsible for the commission to say: "Well now, here is your next list of projects. I think you should do this one first and that one next." That did happen. I don't want a capital commission that is simply a rubber stamp, saying, "Yes, minister. No, minister."

I want the commission to feel free to examine a variety of ideas, thoughts, suggestions; to reject them, pursue them, study them — to do whatever they wish with them. I want the commission to feel free — within budgetary limitations obviously — to examine any and all parts of this magnificent capital region. They've done tremendous work. Their predecessors did tremendous work. We're now up to.... I'm subject to correction, but if one looks at the annual report, I believe we are up now over these years to something in excess of 90 — approaching 100 — individual beautification projects. What a tremendous record of service that the original members have, the successive ministers who have been responsible, and present members of the Provincial Capital Commission.

I take the points that the members have made. They have helped me, and I'm pleased that I had an opportunity to speak in particular about the St. Ann's Academy building. Mr. Speaker, this is an important agency in the province of British Columbia. Long may it succeed, and may it continue to have the support of all members of this House, whether their constituencies are within the commission area or hundreds of kilometres away.

I move second reading of Bill 71.

Motion approved.

Bill 71, Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 72, Mr. Speaker.

PACIFIC VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE AND
BRITISH COLUMBIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
AMALGAMATION ACT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, as the House will recall, Bill 72 was recently introduced and the old Bill 59

[ Page 7115 ]

withdrawn. All members of the House are aware of the contents of the old bill, and this new bill does cover some additional points.

I might mention that it was certainly advantageous to introduce the bill last June. The object when we did so was to have it circulated among all of the people who are affected. As a result of that circulation, a number of suggestions were made. This bill contains those suggestions. There are a half-dozen points that I would like to raise in moving second reading, Mr. Speaker.

The first item, under "Amalgamation and continuation," is that the two institutes be amalgamated and continued as one amalgamated corporation under the name British Columbia Institute of Technology. Another issue came up to assist in the merger, and that involved three student societies. There are student societies for Pacific Vocational Institute at the Burnaby campus and at the Maple Ridge campus. There is also the student society at the British Columbia Institute of Technology. With the support of the students themselves and their societies and executives, a request was made to incorporate a provision within the bill to accommodate the amalgamation of their student societies at the time the two institutes are merged.

In addition, there was a provision put into the bill bringing the new British Columbia Institute of Technology under the Essential Service Disputes Act. The reason for this is that the support staff for both PVI and BCIT fall in that particular category, as well as the instructional staff at PVI; the faculty at BCIT do not. The issue which had to be addressed — and has been in the bill — was to draw a parallel under the College and Institute Act so that they do not have, in the case of the faculty for BCIT, the unilateral right to invoke compulsory arbitration. All others fall under the Essential Service Disputes Act. The only time the unilateral request can be made is in the event of an intervention by the provincial government — save and except under the Essential Service Disputes Act in the matters of health, life and safety involving hospitals, police and fire.

I might say, a number of provisions within the bill bring it in line with the College and Institute Act. You will note that a number of matters have been added to it. One particular item which I specifically wanted changed is that in the old legislation, approval of admission requirements can in fact ultimately be made by the Minister of Education. Why that is there, I do not know. I really don't think that's my function or the function of any Minister of Education. So that matter has been deleted.

The additions to the bill on items...they are tabulated on section 15 and following. I think one of the important items is that the merged corporation in fact is an agent of the Crown, and it will be exempt from taxation.

Another item which had to be addressed involved the pension requirements for both faculty and support staff. The faculty was interested in having an option open to them which they could elect one way or the other, on or before April 1, 1986. That has been covered as well.

I suppose it would be appropriate to make some comment about the merger itself. Although much of it now is history because of what has come to pass, I think it would be fair to say that there was considerable support from faculty, support staff and students for the merger to take place. To the best of my knowledge, it is moving very well. Others can make that observation, but I'm pleased that everyone seems to be happy with what occurred.

1 think, Mr. Speaker, that is all that I would raise at this time. I'd be prepared to attempt to answer any questions from the members opposite if there are any. I move second reading of Bill 72.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a fait accompli. The essential part of this bill is really already in effect, and a great deal of this is cleaning up certain things. But one thing that does concern me is that the parliamentary secretary to the minister is alleged to have given undertakings to the British Columbia Institute of Technology Staff Society and Mr. Michael Stepler, president of that society. I'll quote from a letter to yourself from Mr. Stepler, a copy of which went to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch). It said that during a discussion which they held in May, 1985, with the parliamentary secretary, he has been assured that the proposed amalgamation had no labour relations implications. You acknowledged receipt of that letter. The parliamentary secretary also acknowledged receipt of a copy of that letter and said: "Thank you for your recent correspondence. I appreciate you keeping me advised regarding the above captioned subject." He did not object to the veracity of the statements or the claims made, so we can only assume that he did give that undertaking.

But in this bill there is a very serious matter which is a labour relations matter. It was referred to by the minister. It is that they have had the right to compulsory and binding arbitration and really, you know, a lot of people in collective bargaining look upon that as an infringement upon the collective bargaining process. But where it does exist, and certain groups have elected for it, it has not meant anything much more than that they tend to follow the other indicators in the economy, which is regulated by other means. Therefore I don't see why such a measure had to be given in this bill.

Another thing in the bill I notice is a limitation of liability. The way in which that is worded is pretty broad. It's rather ironic that here we have all the municipalities in British Columbia concerned about limitations to liability, but the only place where we see any legislation of this type is in this consequential amendment in Bill 72 in the case of the amalgamation of BCIT and PVI.

Mr. Speaker, I would be concerned too with the fact that there is a prohibition of the Crown expropriating land from this institution, and it says that there will be no power to expropriate land enacted under this section after this section comes into force "unless the act expressly applies to that land." In other words, I think that this section is totally out of order. I don't see how we can be placing what is almost a constitutional amendment. We are taking a power away from the Crown which is implicitly a power of the Crown. I'm looking at section 15, if the minister is looking there. We're taking a power of the Crown that is implicitly a power of the Crown out of the legislative agenda. The only way that such a thing can be done, to my knowledge, is by constitutional amendment. I don't see how we can say that this is going to apply, and that any act in the future will not apply. That can't be done. You can say that this act supersedes any act passed to this date, but to say that this act is going to supersede any act in the future.... That binds future governments. That clearly is incorrect, and I would hope that the minister would have a dammed good close look at that before proceeding.

[3:45]

[ Page 7116 ]

We're going to give the institute the power to borrow money to meet expenditures. Like the hospitals or the universities, I suppose we're not going to give them their budgets until they're five and six and seven and eight and even nine months into their fiscal year. They will be going into....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm talking about the University of British Columbia, for instance, when I go that far.

Then we'll say that they're irresponsible and we'll force them to make cutbacks and force them to pay interest charges out of the budgets when they finally get them. I just don't think that we should go down that road any further. It's been an absolute disaster where we have done it.

It is necessary to create certain changes. One could question the principle of the bill, which is the amalgamation of the two institutions, and whether the two are going to actually operate and serve educational objectives better as two separate and distinct organizations or as one unified organization. But there's not much point in doing that. That's already a fait accompli.

In this there are clearly labour related matters, some of which have considerable...such as looking at the pension plan. One other question, too, at the very outset in the bill would be whether the successor rights are actually covered for the various institutions. In passing this bill, I think some people would like the assurance from the minister that they have their full successor rights under the labour laws of this province.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that this, member would try to take something as positive as the merger of these two institutes and accentuate the negative. I really don't understand that at all. I might just tell him, for his edification, that both the Assistant Deputy Minister of Education and myself did meet with the staff society and a group of other people, and the undertaking was that there would be plenty of time to vet any changes in legislation, and that time was given, as the hon. minister has alluded to previously.

He also spoke about the borrowing aspects and allowing boards to be able to borrow. I can tell you, as chief financial officer for one of the institutions prior to coming back into this House, that that is something that bursars and chief executive officers have been asking for for years. I commend the government for taking this forward step in allowing for better administration.

A little history, Mr. Speaker, for those who maybe are not aware of the history of the British Columbia Institute of Technology or, in fact, the Pacific Vocational Institute. The Pacific Vocational Institute actually predates BCIT, and its former name was the British Columbia Vocational School. It started many years ago in one of the buildings at the PNE. There was a need, at that time, to enhance vocational training in the province.

Someone said, Mr. Speaker, that for every time, there is a season, and I believe that this is a point in time when season and times have come together. The Pacific Vocational Institute, in its time, and at the time it was made a provincial institute, was exactly the right thing to do for vocational education at that point in time. A little over 20 years ago, the former Premier of this province, the late W.A.C. Bennett, and the minister at that time, the Hon. Leslie Peterson, brought into force the British Columbia Institute of Technology. That was exactly the right thing to do at that point in time.

Mr. Speaker, the bringing together of these two institutions, as far as vocational and technical education in British Columbia is concerned, is exactly the right thing to do at this point in time in educational history in the province.

I had the good fortune this summer to be able to tour most of the colleges and institutes in British Columbia, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the college and institute system can and will be at the cutting edge of economic renewal in the province of British Columbia. The new British Columbia Institute of Technology will be the flagship in that particular endeavour as far as the technical and vocational education is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it's with great pride that I stand to speak in support of the Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act. The joining of these two important and innovative institutions will lead to the creation of B.C.'s first supertech.

Interjection.

MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I hear a noise blowing in from the interior. I'm just wondering what that is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon has the floor.

MR. VEITCH: The new BCIT will provide improved education in trading and technologies and trades which British Columbia needs to make the most of opportunities in new industries and new processes which are appearing every day in this province. The amalgamation of PVI and BCIT represents the provincial government of British Columbia acting decisively to prepare British Columbians for the future. We've all known for some time that the global economy in the world has been in a state of flux. New technologies, computers, manufacturing processes and medical services have been changing the face of the world in which we live.

The provincial government faced the choice of being timid and not diversifying and advancing our economy, or looking ahead and having enough confidence in ourselves to compete in the new industries. This Social Credit government had the courage to act and make sure that British Columbians have access to the training and education they need to be leaders in electronics, medical technologies, biological technologies, engineering services and a host of other areas, and I believe that this is showing vision for the future.

The provincial government stands committed, as always, to strengthening our vocational and technical education system and to enhancing our post-secondary facilities and, in doing so, expanding the economic growth potential for British Columbia. It believes that cooperation is the way to achieve this objective.

I say that because I've read letters from the British Columbia Institute of Technology Alumni Association, students' associations, giving their full support to this amalgamation. Two comprehensive studies solicit the views of the administration of both institutions. My impression, from the discussions and correspondence I've had with members of both bodies, is that there is a very strong confidence that we will all benefit, in fact that British Columbia will benefit, from this very important move.

[ Page 7117 ]

There is also a strong confidence in the new president of the combined institution, Mr. Roy Murray. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker: don't believe the myth that strong academics are not attracted to our post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. I can tell you that. I'm sure that this House joins me in wishing him the very best in his new responsibilities, and they are great responsibilities indeed.

The new British Columbia Institute of Technology will, in the words of the Minister of Education, provide a centre of excellence for high-technology training, capable of transforming the high-school graduate into a highly competent tradesman and/or technologist.

British Columbia's new supertech will create links between the trades and technology programs in such areas as fibre optics. These bridges will allow for more flexible career paths and broader diffusion into our creative and energetic entrepreneurial business community and the latest advances in science and technology in the province of British Columbia. The new BCIT will be able to offer programs including offerings in cardiac perfusion, cardiology, nuclear magnetic resonance and tomography. In line with British Columbia's new rule, some of its older program will be transferred to the college system. For instance, the food production and agriculture will be transferred to the Fraser Valley college. The recreation facilities, management and building service worker program will go to Vancouver Community College. PVI's adult basic education and business office training program will be phased out and their enrolment picked up by lower mainland colleges. VCC's present programs in postbasic nursing, welding and machinists' training will be moved to the British Columbia Institute of Technology. The minister has promised that these shifts will take place so as to minimize disruption to students and to staff, and I can tell you that that is progressing in a very satisfactory manner.

British Columbia Institute of Technology will be even more responsive to the changing requirements of employment and standards of excellence in our economy. It has the full support, I'm sure, of this government in reaching its fullest ability to be an educational leader in the whole of Canada. This will contribute to the thorough upgrading of our creative entrepreneurial business climate.

The partnership between BCIT and private sector entrepreneurs is being facilitated by the nearby Discovery Park complex. This park is the largest of four Discovery Parks. All of its 85 acres have been developed according to guidelines agreed to by the Discovery Foundation and the municipality of Burnaby. Right now, a new $8 million building is being constructed by a private consortium on that particular site. The centrepiece of this park is the $15 million Discovery Park research building. In all, there are 45 tenant companies which have a private capital investment of over $2 million and provide 280 jobs to British Columbians.

It should be noted that in five years of operation the park's tenants have had a 95 percent success rate. One must remember that they are active in highly competitive fields such as software, biomedicine, automotive products and various types of electronics. The students at the BCIT play an active role in the discovery park. They are constantly finding work in the park on a full or part-time basis. Many of them have gone on to start companies in Discovery Park. I would like to announce that the BCIT Student Association has entered into an agreement with the discovery park management for a restaurant in the main building to be called "Bits and Bytes." The administration is providing the space and the student association will be purchasing the equipment, running the restaurant and so forth — and that, Mr. Speaker, is cooperation.

The government is contributing to the emerging partnership and cooperation we see displayed so successfully at the new BCIT and its discovery park. Its small business venture capital program will be producing the investment funds that are necessary for young entrepreneurs coming out of the new BCIT to turn their ideas into marketable products and services, which in turn will provide thousands of new jobs in the province of British Columbia.

The partnership and economic renewal initiative is supplying colleges with funds to start business liaison programs and exciting new developments such as a new agricultural centre being created jointly by Capilano and Malaspina Colleges. The Premier's unflinching promotion of new export markets for British Columbia products and the defence against attempts to close those and traditional markets by protectionism, both at home and abroad, are equally important to the new BCIT and BCIT's students.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The amalgamation of BCIT and the Pacific Vocational Institute is an important part of this government's strategy to diversify and advance our provincial economy. It will be a centre for excellence that will prepare its graduates for the innovative industries which will be the success story in this province for the rest of the century and on into the next. The new BCIT will be an engine of economic growth and new jobs for all British Columbians.

I believe we have another challenge that we must face, and that is the challenge of finding new ways of dealing with what we loosely call apprenticeship. I believe that those interested parties, whether they be unions or management or educational institutions, must find a way of bringing trainable people on stream in times such as we face today, when there are really not many apprentices employed in the system. We realize that apprentices are those people who are employed, and we must find new ways of cooperation, in the spirit which created the new BCIT, to bring trainable people into the marketplace.

[4:00]

I support this bill because the government and myself are committed to the courage British Columbians have shown in wanting to compete now and in the future in the most modem industries. The administration that I have spoken to, the staff, the students and alumni of BCIT and PVI, I believe, appreciate the strong vote of confidence for them and their potential, and for the future of British Columbia.

I don't know what the future will be in education, but I do know that institutions such as the new British Columbia Institute of Technology will play a strong part in influencing and changing the future not only of education but of technology and business in this province and, indeed, in this country. I hope that government — maybe 10 or 20 years down the road — will have the same courage and foresight as the two preceding Social Credit governments have had to do such things as bringing together the PVI and the BCIT, for this is strong, dramatic, good news for the province of British Columbia, its students and its future employees and employers. I support this act.

[ Page 7118 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I think it's unfortunate that the member who just took his seat, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Education, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, had to open his speech — and indeed it was a speech on BCIT-PVI amalgamation — with an attack on that very pleasant, charming member from Nelson. Yes, it was an attack.

The member from Nelson, I thought, gave a very rational second reading comment, and at no time did he suggest that the NDP opposition is against this amalgamation — at no time. He said that right from the beginning, and it is unfortunate that the member, who was probably preparing his speech or thinking about it too much, was not listening to the words of our member from Nelson, who stated quite clearly in the beginning that he and our party are in favour of the amalgamation.

However, he continued — and I intend to just repeat it very briefly — with some concerns that we had. One of the concerns is primarily with the matter of.... We cannot understand why the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has decided to remove something which the BCIT staff had been given in the past. We don't understand why the unilateral access was removed. Now we are not getting into the argument of the pros and cons of arbitration and the access to binding arbitration. That isn't the issue we are bringing up here.

The issue we wish to present again to the minister is that this was given to them; it worked. It was only used once, I understand, in 11 years. It seems to us that you're almost waving an unnecessary red flag up here to the staff and faculty of BCIT. We don't understand why you have found it necessary to remove this.

Now I know that perhaps it will be said it's to make it consistent with the colleges, the other institutes. But I think we should remember that BCIT is a very large and important institution. I think it deserves to have some attention paid to the fact that they are a very respected institution — not that the others aren't, but they are the largest in this merger. We do not understand why you are bothering to upset what was apparently a fairly good labour accord; it's not exactly an accord, but the way they had it operating before was primarily working all right, so why change it?

I hope that the minister will deal with that more clearly than the parliamentary secretary did. Speaking of the parliamentary secretary, in that long analysis and speech, which I agree on the whole was a positive speech, and so it should be.... However, at no time in that speech which he just gave to the House did he attempt to explain why he had more or less...not more or less, but he had suggested to the faculty of BCIT that there would be no interference in this area. You know, that was just brushed over. I think that that was unfortunate. He took up much time in this afternoon's debate, but there was no mention and reference to that. I think that it is too bad that he didn't see fit to deal more clearly with that aspect of it.

He went through the history of the BCIT from the first Socred administration through now, but very carefully skipped right over the three years of the NDP administration. Those three wonderful years, positive years which the people of British Columbia yearn for and are hoping to see return very soon, did see the opportunity for BCIT to have their own legislation and for the faculty and non-academic staff to also have a right to representation on the board, because the NDP does believe in and always has believed in this involvement at that level, at the board level. Prior to our coming into office, this right had not been granted to them.

We also continued with the programs, inserting the moneys, trying to create the same program of up-to-date technological advancement for the students and the ability for those students to go out into the working world. I think that we, as well as the Social Credit, have recognized the importance of that institute.

So I simply want to say, without taking up any more time, that I hope the minister will address this major concern of the faculty. I hope that perhaps you can give them some hope that there may be some discussions on this matter before this is put through.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to talk on the subject of education, because it happens to be a very high priority with me. Of all the subjects that we deal with as MLAs, this is one of the ones that occupies a great deal of my personal time, because it is my view that education, whether it is K to 12 or post-secondary, is of utmost importance to the future of our province. In fact, this is the key, as I see it, to greater and greater and better opportunities for the youth of the province.

I have spent a great deal of time not only in the colleges and institutes but in the high schools and universities talking with my friends and colleagues there, many of whom I went to school with, incidentally, Mr. Speaker — talking about what it is that they are trying to do. I was even invited at one point recently to address a group of young high-school leadership candidates who were attending a conference in Tacoma. It was interesting how the leadership candidates — and they were boys and girls who were captain of their team or editor of the newspaper or whatever it was they were doing in a leadership role there — understood so clearly the responsibilities that went with education. It was the kids — or the young adults, if you wish to call them that — who understood better than many adults in the community today that without the taxes from the corporations and without the taxes from the individual employees and without the taxes paid on dividends by the dividend owners, there would be no education. How simple; what a little equation; what meaning it brings to all of us who have enjoyed the benefits of education. How simple it is when you finally understand where the money comes from. And those young adults did.

The same applies to the students at BCIT. This very simple bill here doesn't look very important, but it is significant, because the amalgamation of these two great institutions will, in my view, do some of the things that ought to be done. For example, if we can spend a little more money in the classrooms and in the training centres than on administration, then I think we will be doing our job correctly.

My colleague the member for New Westminster said just a minute ago that we're waving red flags at the students and the teachers and faculty at these institutions, and I disagree. I seem to have a higher regard for the ability of our instructors in all education activities and facilities than they do, and it strikes me that by far the majority of the teachers in the system are more interested in teaching than in marching around. It seems to be only the radical few who are prepared to go on and on at length about their real or imagined — and mainly imagined — grievances. The teachers just want to teach. The day before the article about increments came out in the Vancouver Sun the other day, one of my teachers said simply that there was no way they were going to withdraw

[ Page 7119 ]

their extracurricular activity work; they were going to stay with it. And that, I think, is a fundamental thought process that goes through BCIT, PVI, Camosun College and all the colleges and institutes, incidentally, which this and past Social Credit governments have built.

My colleague the parliamentary secretary to the minister pointed out so clearly the advantages and the opportunities and the history and the programs and said education will lead us into new territory. And that's absolutely true.

MR. REID: That's leadership.

MR. R. FRASER: And that's leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the president of our own Young Socreds was a very successful graduate of that very same school.

AN HON. MEMBER: Works at Discovery Park.

MR. R. FRASER: Works at Discovery Park. He's taken the opportunity he had and built on it. It's like everything that this government does, Mr. Speaker. We plant the seed, put a little water on it, and it grows. And when you get right down to the basics, you find that it will work if you just give it a chance. But so often we hear people saying: "The line says we go here and therefore if we put the line there then we can't do this, and we can't do something else." And the objections that are raised strike me as being frivolous at best, because what you have to do, when you have a system like we have, is not to object when you think you see a problem, but to try to find a way to make the educational system work. That's what the students are doing, and that's what the faculty is doing.

Now whether or not we have a staff member on the board doesn't strike me as being particularly important. I would think it would be more significant to have board meetings open to the public than to have one token staff member on the board — or two or three for that matter. And in everything that I've done with respect to education I've tried to make it into a public opportunity for everyone, so that if you have a specific interest in any subject at BCIT or PVI, you would simply ask the board for an opportunity to appear, and, in my view, it should be granted. If it was denied, then presumably the grounds would be reasonable. But there are other opportunities to make your problems with BCIT or your thought processes or whatever known to people. It's not that hard.

So I would like our friends in the opposition to think a bit more positively about the educational opportunities we have in the province, for they are in fact limitless. In every situation we have students who come here from overseas, whom we welcome because we wish everyone in the world to know how good we have it here — we want them to take our thinking back to their countries and to help their people get ahead in the world, as it is the right of every man to try, and in fact it is the will of every man — man and woman, if you let me use the common word — to improve himself or herself constantly.

[4:15]

Education, of course, is an ongoing, lifetime opportunity that we all have. The formal setting will end in the early years of our life — the BCIT setting or the former PVI setting or any other college setting; university, high school, whatever. The formal setting will go, but if we've done our work correctly, we will not have taught the students how to be machine operators; we will have taught the students how to think about how the machine works and the principles behind the operation of that equipment, or: "How can I use that principle to build something and to give something back to society in the way that I have received it myself? How can I pay the taxes that will help some other student, or a lot of other students, get to go to these educational opportunities that are presented to us in abundance in this province?"

I had the great opportunity recently to accept an invitation from Dr. Strangway, who was introduced here earlier today, to visit the university campus out there. While we hear little rumours now and then that they're not always completely happy, the fact of the matter is that I was impressed, and so were all my colleagues, with the opportunities out there and how they are transferring students with certain extra requirements from time to time into the universities from all the colleges and institutes in the province. This is very important, because you may just find that every student hasn't been completely sure of where he wanted to go when he started in the institutes or colleges. Instead of being a technician, maybe he wanted to be an engineer; instead of being an engineer, maybe he wanted to be a technician.

You have to provide these transfer routes so that students who don't always get it right — and no one ever does get it all right; none of us gets everything right all the time.... If they want to go back and regroup and come out another way, there will be a mechanism for them to take hold of that opportunity. I like to think of everything as being an opportunity, and with students, particularly in this post-secondary area of education, it's very much like nature. We all know that if you cut a butterfly out of a cocoon too soon, the butterfly dies; it needs the struggle. There's every reason to encourage our students to work hard and to struggle with things they don't understand on their own time, to get some help from their teachers and associates and colleagues and friends when they can't do it on their own.

What we must do, in the main, is teach the students how to think, and with BCIT, in a practical way teach them how to make things work, how to fix gear, how to do good work in construction, how to use CADCAM or the high-tech drafting equipment that they have there. In fact, when I was at the week honouring the colleges and institutes recently at VCC, it was significant that ten to a dozen companies were being honoured by the college system for their contribution to the facility and to the students — great B.C. companies like Finning Tractor, Cullen Diesel, MacDonald Dettwiler, H.A. Simons and all those great companies who have given of themselves, their time, their money, their management talent and their technical talent to help the students get through the system, to help them work through the system.

As I said, if we can find any way at all to put more money into the classroom and less money into the administration, and get a beneficial result in the community, then I think we should do it. That is the essence of this bill. This fabulous BCIT; this huge organization with thousands of teachers, thousands of students, lots and lots of building space, labs that are the envy of almost everybody in the province who has any knowledge of labs whatsoever.... It's absolutely stunning.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the world.

MR. R. FRASER: Well, all the world is probably right. Anybody who has ever been outside of this country, say to some of the western nations, who does not have an appreciation of the opportunities that our students have here simply

[ Page 7120 ]

has not gone in these other places with his or her eyes open. It is magical, the opportunities, and there are many times when I wish those who protest — and protest too much, in my view — would have a look at what other people have compared to what we have here for them, and what opportunities they have for themselves.

We simply don't appreciate often enough not only the things we have in education but even the glorious place we live in, where there are no guns in the streets and where airplanes aren't being blown out of the sky or off the ground. We simply have things too close to our faces with respect to every single opportunity we have in the province, and BCIT is no exception — no exception whatsoever. It is so easy for me to support this bill and, in fact, all the bills that come forward. But this one I like particularly because of my special interest in education, and I won't bother going into the fact that I have children in the system right now who will one day be going to a BCIT or to university or whatever.

Be it their own choice, I'm glad for them that they are in the public education system. I'm glad for them that they will have the chance that was not available to the thousands and thousands of other students who went before them, who either went from high school to university or went from high school to a job. There was never the step past grade 12 for them to get that extra little help, that extra bit of education that would make it possible for them not only to get a job but to create a job for themselves and, very likely, jobs for other people.

We need those taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, because there is no other way to finance public education than through a general tax. You know, we hear very often about the fact that we should take education off the property tax rolls and that sort of thing, which, of course, is very nice when times are tough. Let's put it on the income tax bill, say many. But the fact of the matter is that the sharp valleys and mountains you would go through if you did that would be so stunning that the education system would be in a shambles from one decade to the next, or even in one four- or five-year period. You have to have a constant base, and while it may not seem fair to everybody, the fact is.... I remember a columnist in one of the local papers talking about changing the system. In fact, the very day the colleges and institutes were celebrating their twentieth anniversary he was going on about the death-knell of the system. The people I talked to who run the colleges were disturbed, upset, annoyed, frustrated that it seemed to be more of a political opportunity for him than an educational experience for the readers. It did not help. Detracting is no good. We're talking about how to make this system work.

A very famous senator by the name of Herman Talmadge, who at one time was the Governor of the state of Georgia, when asked about the American system, "Why isn't social security working?" said: "Well, even as a farm boy in Georgia I knew we had to have more people pulling on the wagon than riding on it." It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. It's the same with education. You're not supposed to go out and always say: "Somebody owes me a job." You're supposed to go out and say: "I can make a job if I can't find a job, and I can create a job for somebody else." That's what we're doing. I have no doubt about the fact that our educational system will provide that kind of impetus for our students.

I am very pleased to learn that more and more people in the business community are getting involved in educational circles. As I spoke of earlier, the MacDonald Dettwilers, the H. A. Simonses, the Cullen Diesels and Firming Tractors and all the other companies who are putting their time and talent and management ability and thought processes into education so that the students, the young adults will understand.... Comprehension is everything, and without that it's meaningless. The days of not too long ago when you used to go to school and just take whatever class you wanted and in whatever order you wanted it.... That was very much in vogue and everybody thought it was just terrific. Well, the fact of the matter is that in most things in the world there is an order to things. It is very difficult to take French 4 if you haven't had French 1, 2 and 3. Even if the students don't care for it very much, sometimes the discipline they get from doing things in order is good for their thought processes. There are logical sequences that we must follow. You've got to start at the beginning and go through to the end, don't you?

If we can continue to expand the opportunities in education, even in K-12, where you have learning enrichment for the bright kids, learning assistance for the kids who need a little help, the special programs such as the one that this government put in when the Vietnamese refugees came in a stunning response to a dramatic need....

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: If you're talking about ESL, as my colleague just was, there are many more dollars than that, and they're all in the city of Vancouver, which I am very pleased to represent.

No, we have a system here that's going to work in spite of those few people who object, in spite of those few who get a little cranky, in spite of the few students who can't make it and who maybe shouldn't be there. Education doesn't work for everybody, but those who can make use of it and who are thinking about it would welcome the visit of any MLA, as an educational opportunity, to any campus.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The president-designate of UBC, who was here this afternoon and who kindly invited us out to his institution, was embarrassed when a bunch of students demonstrated against the visiting MLAs. It was outrageous behaviour; they totally occupied the foyer of the faculty club. The members couldn't get in or out — yelling and screaming, completely unconscionable behaviour. It turned out that they weren't from UBC. There were two or three dozen students making all this fuss, and about 25,000 other students at UBC were working. You couldn't even hear the president speak. It was a shameful display, obviously motivated by something other than their ideals of higher education. It is hard to achieve the desired result with that kind of exposure. If you didn't know there were 26,000 students working you might be upset with the two or three dozen that make all this fuss, but they can be dismissed for what they are. I suppose we will have to accept the fact, as many of us do, that some of the students will be disruptive no matter what. I can recall the stunts that some PVI and BCIT students got into, which were positive and fun; no damage or harm was done, no reputations were ruined.

That's the kind of thought process we want to come out of these good schools: the positive "I can do it" syndrome. The students will come out and say: "I have finished my formal

[ Page 7121 ]

educational opportunity. I now start the educational opportunity of my lifetime, which is ongoing and upgrading education here in the province of British Columbia."

MR. REID: Tell it like it is!

MR. R. FRASER: I really do love the subject of education. It's probably a very lucky thing that I have this opportunity in the city to visit so many great schools. It's just unbelievable, the great schools we have there, and the wonderful experiences I've been able to share with our leaders in education, and the processes they all have. Every individual man....

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: You want more? You want good stuff? Listen, I could go on for days on education; no doubt about it.

[4:30]

Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: Am I the designated speaker here? Do we have that anymore?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. We're on Bill 72, and ... remarks appropriate to the bill.

MR. R. FRASER: I never like to inflame people when I speak. I'm not the kind of guy that would....

AN HON. MEMBER: You couldn't tell by this speech.

MR. R. FRASER: That's right; you could never tell that I don't like to inflame people.

I just want them to think, for once, what the object of all this is: to put it into the classroom and make the kids think. Give them at least a chance. I guess you can't make them think, but you can certainly try. With some of them it is actually more difficult than with others. I heard a story recently about a bunch of parents going to a high school meeting — you know, parents meet the teacher. One person got up and said: "I want to explain that when kids turn about 14, 15, something happens to them, and it's not just the biological change. Their brains go to mush and you would hardly believe they could learn anything. We have to deal with them until they are about 18, when magically the brain comes back, the mush goes away and the kids are okay. They can do it."

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: An opportunity for our young friend here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You mean there's still hope for some people?

MR. R. FRASER: You're not old enough; your brains won't go to mush just yet.

When I was just a young lad — which wasn't that long ago, in fact — the thought of people actually going to the moon was unheard of. That was absolutely unbelievable. Now, with institutions like BCIT, our young students will be going into space-age technology, space-age equipment, space-age philosophy. Mr. Speaker, these bills are so easy to support when you think of things as opportunities.

I could go on about this one. My friend the minister can hardly wait to have his turn. I actually have been up to Prince George and the school in your riding, Mr. Minister, in New Caledonia — and a very good school. We spoke to the people on the sidewalk and in the building, and visited the facility there.

Education is not the four walls that many people think it is. It's not the brick and mortar; the mind is where it's at. That's the critical thing: how do we get people to the point where they can solve some of their own problems and put something back into the system? Absolutely imperative. Some people never learn that. Some people always ask; they will never do, they will never help. We can afford to help some people in that condition, but the majority of us have to put something back into the system, and the educational facility is how we are going to make it easier for people to do that.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you quite clearly that I intend to support this bill.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister could clarify for me whether this bill, in amalgamating the Pacific Vocational Institute and the British Columbia Institute of Technology, sees them as the continuation of one institute rather than something new which is beginning. The reason I'm asking that is because there is some concern among the employees as to whether there's going to be continuity in that area and their rights and benefits are going to be carried on, or whether in fact what we're dealing with here is a brand-new institution for employment purposes.

I also want to repeat one question that was raised by my colleague from Burnaby North. The reason I am participating specifically in this discussion is to raise questions on behalf of my constituents who happen to work at PVI/BCIT. The statement was made by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) to the effect that there would be no labour relations implications whatsoever in this new bill. Can the minister, in closing debate or in continuing the filibuster on this bill which his colleagues seem to be involved in, say whether the old question about staff who are moved from one institute to the other and are fighting to retain their banked sick leave benefits...? Will this be honoured?

To give an example, 18 PVI staff went to the Vancouver vocational institute and 12 PVI staff to Douglas College. Apparently some or all of these staff are in the process of losing their banked sick leave benefits. This is a dispute that has been outstanding, I understand, for nearly two years. Is it going to be resolved in the best interests of the people whose jobs are affected? I recognize the importance of saving money, Mr. Speaker, but I also recognize the importance of people's jobs. We don't want any more jobs to be lost in this province. We've already broken all of the rules, all of the goals. We are now second only to Newfoundland in terms of level of unemployment, and any legislation debated at this time, or introduced by the government at this time, should be geared towards creating jobs, not eliminating jobs.

I think the labour relations aspect of this bill is very important. The minister has to assure us that no jobs are going to be lost as a result of this legislation, nor any benefits lost to the staff who are going to be moving from one place to another. The question about continuity is one they are very

[ Page 7122 ]

concerned about, and I wonder whether the minister would deal with that.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to get up and speak on Bill 72, if only because I've been listening to some of the comments made by members on both sides of the House. I've had a chance to visit both of the institutions a number of times, and also had the opportunity and pleasure in the past to go out to the BCIT broadcasting section and work with some of their graduates when I was in the radio business. Over the years I've had a couple of sons who've done some attending at BCIT. In fact, right now my second son's fiancee is attending there and doing extremely well, and has nothing but fine things to say about the institution.

So I wanted to get up and say a few words, and also to read into the record an article written by the PVI and BCIT people, called a souvenir issue — just parts of it; obviously not the whole newspaper — to show that side of the story. We get so many sides of the story when we are in this chamber, because everybody has certain questions to ask. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds was just up talking about some issues that concern her, and I'm sure they're concerns she wants answered. Other members have things they would like answered. I think it's a very positive thing.

I understand that the opposition is going to be voting for this legislation, and I think that's a very positive thing. In talking to the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) in front of me, he asked me to ask them how many they placed out of that dumb institution. He obviously doesn't agree with his own colleagues, but I imagine he'll be voting with them in passing this legislation.

I would like to put on record, Mr. Speaker, some of the comments made by the people who work at and attend both institutions. It's an article called "An Idea Whose Time has Come."

"Friday, May 31, 1985, dawned clear and cool, the cloudless sky promising a hot early summer's day. The atmosphere inside the food training centre was charged with anticipation as about 250 invited guests awaited an announcement regarding the futures of the British Columbia Institute of Technology and the Pacific Vocational Institute. Speculation about a possible amalgamation of the two institutions had been growing since the resignations a week earlier of BCIT president Gordon Thom and PVI president Henry Justesen, and the dissolution a few days later of both institutes' boards.

"An expectant mood prevailed among the senior administrators and community guests in the FTC, a facility which has always been symbolic of cooperation between PVI and BCIT. Among those in attendance were presidents and board members from several lower mainland community colleges, as well as representatives of the Justice Institute of B.C. and the B.C. Association of Colleges. Students from PVI's food training programs prepared and served a hearty buffet-style breakfast to the assembled crowd. An overflow group was admitted to the banquet area on the other side of the facility. The public address system was extended so those present could hear the speakers.

"BCIT board chairman Malcolm Wickson introduced the Minister of Education, who made the announcement of a new, dynamic, supertech BCIT to be formed by the merger of the existing BCIT and PVI. According to the Minister of Education, the new institute will be a centre of excellence for high-technology training, capable of transforming a high school graduate into a highly competent tradesman or technologist. Links between the trades and technology programs in such proposed new areas as lasers and fibre optics will provide tradespeople with bridges into technology training. The minister also indicated that discussions are in progress with the Minister of Universities to allow those who are interested in pursuing their education at even higher levels to do so with a minimum of obstacles.

"Certain other program changes at the new BCIT are foreseen. Suggested new programs include offerings in cardiac perfusion, cardiology, nuclear magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography. Some existing programs will be transferred to community colleges, while others will be brought in. Food production and agriculture from BCIT's biological sciences technology will be transferred to Fraser Valley College. Recreation facilities management and building service worker will move to Vancouver Community College. PVI's adult basic education and business office training programs will be phased out, with their enrolment being picked up by lower mainland colleges. VCC's present programs in post-basic nursing, welding and machinist will be moved to BCIT. In addition, the board may propose further changes. The minister promised that the shifts will take place so as to minimize disruption to the students and staff.

"The Minister of Education also made public the names of the new BCIT board of directors. Malcolm C.J. Wickson, chairman of the former BCIT board, will be the new chairman, while Fleming Sondergaard of the former PVI board will serve as vice chairman. James L. McPherson, Keith Yorston, Vinod Sood, Carole Taylor, Rose-Mary L. Basham, E.A. Taylor, Kenneth Frederick Harding, Thomas Edward Kisling, Donald Norman Riley, Edward J. Simey, Frederick George Randall and Tom Symons are other identified members of the board. Others are still to be confirmed. Because of the institute's provincewide mandate, the minister stressed that the new board will be a broad one, with appropriate geographical representation for B.C. 'After all, BCIT serves all of British Columbia, and your graduates are everywhere throughout the province.'

"The Minister of Education thanked everyone who had been so supportive of the amalgamation, which he has found is generally perceived as an idea whose time has come. He praised the former chief executive officers, Gordon Thom and Henry Justesen, saying: 'Through their leadership they have provided us with a strong direction and an excellent springboard into the future.' Heinrich also expressed particular appreciation to the students of the two institutions who earlier that morning had issued a joint press release congratulating the minister and the minister's parliamentary secretary for taking steps to assure that BCIT is at the cutting edge of economic renewal for the province.

[ Page 7123 ]

"This amalgamation represents an opportunity for this new flagship institute to make a significant contribution towards workforce training, upgrading and economic recovery. Students regard this as a visionary move."

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair presumes you are reading only excerpts from and not the whole newspaper.

MR. REYNOLDS: These are captions, Mr. Speaker. This is a very long newspaper, and I'm probably just taking about a page or a page and a half out of eight pages — just the highlights.

"The minister welcomed Roy Murray, a Nova Scotia native, as president and chief executive officer of the new BCIT. Mr. Murray, a professional engineer with a master's degree in soil mechanics, has been president of Lakeland College in Lloydminister in Alberta for the past five years. Previously he served seven years as dean of technical...."

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor. I do not see any other members standing.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll continue: "Previously he served seven years as dean of technical and business education at Confederation College in Thunder Bay. Prior to that he was a professor and chairman of civil engineering at...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver East rises on a point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, that the member for West Vancouver is simply reading newspaper material. That's hardly the kind of thing we should have in the House when we have the problems in British Columbia that we have today. When you have no legislative program at all on the government side, when the leader has abandoned the ship — and I don't blame him with the kind of talent he has left behind.... But at any rate, the whole point of this legislation is clear. That member is simply providing padding for an empty vessel — the empty vessel that the Socred ship is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The point is well taken. The House has allowed members to read excerpts or captions from printed material from time to time, as long as they are not introducing or reading the whole item. With that caution, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound continues.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's interesting that the second member for Vancouver East wants to stand up and prevent me from reading excerpts of an article that's so positive about this amalgamation into the record. That same member, before I got up to speak, asked them how many they place out of that dumb institution, which would show his regard for PVI and BCIT.

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver East. That's what he thinks. And yet he wants to get up and criticize when I want to quote out of a newspaper about the benefits of this merger, to say nice things, Mr. Speaker, from the students of that institution. These are the students and the faculty who put this together. They have nice things to say about what this government is doing in British Columbia, and yet the second member for Vancouver East, who has a number of his constituents who attend that institution, wants to stand up and knock it. This is the same member we see on television accusing this government of stealing documents. Without any facts, he was on TV, motor-mouthing away, saying the negative things that scare people away from this province. He's the same member of that party that caused his government to be defeated in 1975 — the same member who, I'm sure, his colleagues will blame after the next election for the fact that their numbers have been reduced in this institution. That's the man who wants to prevent me from saying positive things about PVI and BCIT and supporting Bill 72.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections.

MR. REYNOLDS: That's the same one. And there we've got the member for Skeena interrupting again. He got his friend Mr. Friedmann in trouble; now he's coming to the aid of the guy from Vancouver East.

Mr. Speaker, in reading from the newspaper, I just wanted to point out the positive things. I mentioned at the start of my speech that members from both sides have made speeches here. We can all have our own opinions. I thought it was about time that we put on record the ideas of those who work and serve and go to those institutions.

MR. VEITCH: And of those who benefit from it, too.

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, of course, that's what's most important. I think it's important that that message be put on the record of this great institution, our Legislature in British Columbia. I would want to make sure that some of those who might read speeches in here — quotes from the second member for Vancouver East, who doesn't have a very high regard, obviously, for PVI, or sometimes anybody else.... I would want to make sure that those students and teachers and members of the faculty know that their point of view was put on the record in this institution and will be there forever.

As I mentioned earlier, BCIT has a tremendous record in their broadcasting area. There are a number of people working in radio, television and newspapers across this province and outside of this province and around the world who have graduated from that institution. I know from my experience, as I know other members of this institution who have been in those businesses will recognize, the great job that they did in that area. I know they spent a lot of time at it, they're very professional, and the teachers and professors have to be congratulated for their hard work and the good training that they put in in that area.

I think the second member for Vancouver East is always talking about jobs. There are no two institutions in British Columbia, in my way of thinking, that are doing a better job

[ Page 7124 ]

right now in preparing people for the future workforce, the workforce that the member for Vancouver East talks about.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many jobs?

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I will leave it up to the minister to tell you how many jobs, because I know he has got something in his wrap-up speech to tell you about that. A number of jobs have been created out of that institution. I'm sorry I don't have those figures, but I know the minister has nodded that he is going to give you some of those figures, and we'll give you some positive facts instead of some of the negative drivel that comes out of the member's mouth.

Mr. Speaker, he wants to talk about jobs. I know there are around 5,000 full-time students going to those institutions, and about 15,000 part-time students. They're going there for a reason. They're being well trained, and I would not want anyone to think that they were dumb or stupid. I would think they were going there to get proper training to prepare themselves for the future. Under this amalgamation they're going to get that training. If the second member for Vancouver East had taken the time to take a look at the newspaper that was put out by the students and the staff at BCIT and PVI, he would have seen that there are some new programs that are heading in the direction of training in the area where new jobs are being created in British Columbia.

The very top one under the new BCIT is new high-tech programs. There are a number of new high-tech companies in British Columbia, and they are going to need people that are properly trained for those jobs. That's why we've got this merger, so that they will be properly trained. When the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. Phillips) travels around the world, they say sure, we want to build a plant in Delta; we want to build one in Vancouver East or maybe even, as the Whip says, in Surrey. One of the questions asked is, what about employees? Have you got people properly trained?

As the second member for Vancouver East would like to forget, there is a world recession in some areas. Lumber and mining, which have been our two major employers, are suffering, not because of the government of British Columbia but because of the situation in the world. We've got to retrain some of those people so that they can fit into these new hightech programs, so that they will be prepared for the jobs that this government is bringing to British Columbia, so that they will be prepared for the jobs that are going to be here when the world comes to see British Columbia next year during Expo 86.

Mr. Speaker, if we had the negative attitude of the second member for Vancouver East, my God, where would this province be? Could you imagine where we would be without this amalgamation of PVI and BCIT? Where would we be without Expo? Where would some of his people, the thousands from Vancouver East, be working if we didn't have Expo going on, if we didn't have ALRT going through his community? Can he never say: "Hey, things aren't all bad in British Columbia"? I can understand being negative; that's the job of being in opposition. But all the time, Mr. Speaker?

This merger is a good merger. The trades-to-technology bridging, another new section of this joint BCIT-PVI merger. Third-year post-diploma programs, another new section. Engineering technologies, health technologies, an area that is broadening in a very quick manner, and we are going to be ready for it because this government had the foresight with the people working with it to allow these things to happen. Business management, trades training, training access, aircraft maintenance — now there's one. I remember when I was in federal politics: we used to have at least 65 immigrant families coming into British Columbia every year to work at our airport in the maintenance area because we weren't producing them fast enough. I remember Henry Justesen making a speech about it years ago, saying we had to get into this area training our own people. We often complain, why are these people coming in to fill jobs that British Columbians could have? But the second member for Vancouver East doesn't understand these things. He thinks you can take somebody from a mine and make him an aircraft mechanic overnight. You can't do that, and this government has set this program up so that we can train people to fill jobs in our own community. That's one of the benefits of this amalgamation.

Mr. Speaker, to show the success of some of these things, there is a two-year wait to get into that course right now. He wanders away. Tell him about jobs.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: They don't wait for jobs in this field, sir. If you were to have any common sense at all and know what you were talking about, you'd know that anybody who graduates in aircraft maintenance gets a job right away in this province because there's a shortage of workers in that field.

Mr. Speaker, post-basic nursing, welding and machinists are being transferred from the colleges into this new amalgamation. That can only benefit the people in this province.

I would like to say a few words about Henry Justesen, because I think he deserves some credit for the great job he did at PVI.

MR. LAUK: All the hacks and flacks.

MR. REYNOLDS: The second member for Vancouver East says: "All the hacks and flacks." He can't even take the time to say thank you to a man who served his students and served as faculty in this province as a good British Columbian. He has to lower himself, Mr. Speaker, to insults to a man who's got a nice family — daughters. You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand that kind of...

MR. REID: Mentality.

MR. REYNOLDS: ...mentality — for lack of a better word — to attack individuals.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the gutter politics.

MR. REYNOLDS: I mentioned gutter politics the other day, and I think really it gets to that when we must lower ourselves to attacking an individual in that manner — a man who's done a good job for his community and for his province.

Mr. Speaker, Gordon Thom is not a man I knew as well as Henry Justesen, but I know he deserves our congratulations for the good job that he did. Both of these gentlemen had these institutions ready for the merger that took place, and in the newspaper they say: "Meeting Tomorrow's Challenge Today." I think that is such a good slogan, because they are meeting that challenge today at this amalgamated institution. They are doing a good job. There are some nay sayers, but

[ Page 7125 ]

there always will be, Mr. Speaker, and I guess that's what makes the world go around.

I'm thankful, Mr. Speaker, that I've had the chance to stand up here and quote some of the things that people in the institutions have talked about, that the students have talked about.

[5:00]

MR. WILLIAMS: Great speech, John.

MR. REYNOLDS: And I thank the member for Vancouver East for saying: "A great speech." I think it was, myself, too. It was certainly better, Mr. Speaker, for the interjections that he made. I'm always thankful that he's there to give me some things to talk about. He's such an inspiring force, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to making a speech in the Legislature, and I guess it's about the only thing that he inspires.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for the opportunity, and I would close by saying I certainly support Bill 72.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I rise to speak in support of Bill 72, the amalgamation of the Pacific Vocational Institute and the B.C. Institute of Technology. As I understand the history of these two institutions, they were born at practically the same time, located as neighbours to each other, born for approximately the same reasons, and yet assumed a character or personality of their own. One intended to be more vocational and the other, of course, to be of more of a technical nature. As the years progressed, the need for the kind of instruction offered at these two institutes changed somewhat. It used to be that if you were graduating from high school, you had selected, sometimes at the ninth and more often about the tenth grade, one of two courses of action for your life. You were either an academic or you went into what they called the commercial programs in those days. There was a distinct need for a vocational school where you could prepare yourself for a job.

When I graduated, I happened to graduate on what was then called the university entrance program. Vocational schools — or technical schools, for that matter — were not of great interest to me. I was going to follow a different course of action. As a matter of fact, in those early years pre-med was to be my course. I only have the equivalent of first year of university in that particular program. My interests were redirected and of course I studied theology, which was not being offered at the institute that I had chosen, so I moved to Saskatchewan to study that course.

But the need for vocational and technical training was predominant. A good number of my friends enrolled in those early years of these two institutes, to follow a vocational course. As time progressed and as the curriculum in high schools changed, and greater preparation was made long before high school graduation for a job as such, the individual need for these two institutes became less distinguishable. They essentially were doing the same task — not exactly, to be sure, but more so than they were originally intended to do. It falls within the realm of reason, I think, to understand that eventually the purposes of these two institutes would align themselves almost exactly and hence likely belong together. And that's the purpose of Bill 72.

But the advantage of doing something like this is twofold. It's not just a matter of making a larger, more prominent institution at the present location. The two sister institutions are virtually on each other's campus. They can make a single more prominent institution out of the two, and perhaps follow the technical line of education, leaving the place that is left vacant — the vocational — to a still different kind of institution that we have in the province, the community college. The community college was intended to take up the slack that was left by people who graduated early; in other words they left school in the tenth grade or the eleventh grade. They graduated early, and a little later on in life determined that they would like to finish at least their early education, high school graduation.

It was a continuing education program that demonstrated a need. It was that need that was sought to be filled by the creation of the community colleges. But as time has progressed, even the need for that kind of instruction has also changed. The community colleges now, to a greater extent, are wishing to adopt or achieve or acquire a personality of their own. Not so much that every college should be the same — Camosun should not be a reprint of Kwantlen, which is not even functioning, and Fraser Valley College should not be a reprint of Douglas, but rather each college should have an opportunity to adopt, to achieve, to acquire a personality or a character of its own.

I notice that when Pacific Vocational and BCIT were first thinking in terms of amalgamation, they saw certain courses that were being taught which ought perhaps better be taught in one of the community colleges. Agricultural programs were identified, and two of them were transferred even before the amalgamation has taken place; two of the agricultural courses have been transferred to Fraser Valley College.

For those of you who are not closely acquainted with Fraser Valley College, it is a two-campus college. We have a campus in Abbotsford, and we have a campus in Chilliwack. In transferring the courses from this amalgamation to the college curriculum, it gave an opportunity to allow even a dual-campus college to have a singular identification for each campus. There is no question about it, the Abbotsford campus has a tendency toward the instruction in the arts. The Chilliwack campus clearly has an early and easily identifiable characteristic in that it teaches agricultural courses. Those courses are first begun in the high schools. Our high schools teach agricultural courses. Our community is an agricultural community. The development of anything in our community is either directly or indirectly related to our primary industry, and it's agriculture. It is the most natural place in the province for a college that has an identifiable agricultural nature. As a result, in the wisdom of the board of the Fraser Valley College, these courses were transferred not only to Fraser Valley College, but to the Fraser Valley College east campus. All of this was made possible by an amalgamation such as is talked about in Bill 72.

I have only identified one benefit to one community of this kind of amalgamation. I have identified it because it happens to be the one that I am the most aware of. But I am sure that each of the other colleges in turn, had their members taken the time to refer to this advantage, would have had an opportunity to identify in which way this amalgamation is going to be of benefit to the college in their particular community through the transfer of credit, the transfer of courses.

I support this bill. I support it because it is going to give an opportunity for a greater concentration of technological study to be made available in one location. We are talking on

[ Page 7126 ]

an increasing basis about high tech. High tech is not necessarily something that is the subject of a curriculum at the University of British Columbia. High tech falls very naturally into a learning institution described by this amalgamation. As a result, with the new emphasis on high tech in every sphere, including the one I am interested in, agriculture.... With high technology being the focus of the purpose of a lot of our learning institutions, I can see a real need for the kind of institution that is going to be the result of this amalgamation. I am thankful to the minister that on an increasing basis he is lending credibility to those institutions that we have in the community, our community colleges, and allowing each of us to have an identification of our own. Wouldn't it be surprising if there would be enough of a shift in courses so that a college somewhere, perhaps even in Chilliwack, could be identified as an agricultural college?

I want to thank you for your kind attention, Mr. Speaker. You've been great. Thank you very much.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this legislation, even though knowing that I'm in the opposition I'm supposed to oppose it on principle.

MR. REID: No, no, no. Good things you can support.

MR. LEA: I don't think it's all good and I don't think it's all bad, but then not much in life is. If there is some understanding on the government side that we're going to be facing a new economic world, then that's a step in the right direction. I guess I should add that it's been some time coming; however, better late than never.

Now there are those who are going to oppose this bill. They're going to oppose the whole idea. Whenever an idea comes forward, what you can do with it is you can say, "I'm going to look for all the reasons that it won't work," and then make your decision based on those reasons. With any program, any idea, if all you're looking for are the reasons it won't work, you'll find them. They will be within any program, any idea; they're always there. However, I think that with this legislation we're taking a small step in the right direction, and therefore I'll give it my support.

The one thing I would like to emphasize during this debate — because this debate is about training people for a new economic world — is that we'd better understand that that new economic world is coming whether we like it or whether we don't. Whether we're prepared to deal with it, though, is a matter of choice by this Legislature and by this government. Up until now what I've seen is a sort of hide-your-head-in-the-sand attitude, and hope that this new economy that is coming on us fast and furiously isn't going to happen. I still hear people talking about: "If we could only get more major investment into the old industries, we'd be creating new wealth and new jobs." If the government has come to the conclusion, as I have, that new money into those industries could perhaps create new wealth — and probably will — but will not create new jobs, then we are taking a step in the right direction. If we're starting to train people to take a look at the new kinds of jobs that are going to come out of a new economy, then we have to agree that it's the right direction to go in. However, you can't have it both ways, and that's what's been happening: people talking out of one side of their mouth and the other side of their mouth.

I'll give you an example. In the House the other day the Leader of the Opposition got up and criticized the government by saying: "Here's a number of areas where there has been unemployment created."

AN HON. MEMBER: Unemployment created?

MR. LEA: Unemployment created by the government.

Now if you'll take a look at one of the examples that he cited at that time, it was the grain elevator in Prince Rupert. And he's right: there have been 100 jobs lost with the new grain elevator. But that does not preclude the fact that we needed the new grain elevator. We had to have the new grain elevator so we could move our grain from inland to tidewater to the international market in a more efficient way. We had to be a competitive economy. So we have a new grain elevator; it cost $500 million. The new grain elevator employs 25 people. The old, more inefficient grain elevator employed 125 people.

Every time you make an investment in the infrastructure or in the old industries of forestry, mining and fishing, you are going to create unemployment; that's one of the things that we have to understand. What we have to address ourselves to is: what are we going to do with the people that these new technologies and new investments...? What are we going to do with those people who were thrown out of work because of it? That's what we have to put our minds to.

[5:15]

Now I don't blame the government for new technologies. I'm not going to be a Luddite and say, "Let's keep the old technologies so we can keep employment," because that's a slow way to commit suicide. But if we're going to start addressing those people who are unemployed or underemployed because of these new changes in technology and because of this new economy, then we're starting to grapple with the problem.

But I have to tell you that I am absolutely sick and tired of hearing politicians run around this province talking about investment in the old industries as a job creator. That's not going to happen. There are other things that we have to address if we're going to bring this new economy into being. We're going to have to address the problem we had with the banks and other financial institutions. There is no point in looking for people to invest in new industries and in new businesses if they can't get the money to do it. When you go to a bank in Canada, don't go there looking for risk capital, because they don't do that unless they're going to risk it in a foreign country, not here with the business people in British Columbia or Canada. In fact, when you go to a bank, what you're dealing with is a bureaucrat within the banking system and someone who has never had anything to do with business. If you can't prove that your house is paid for and you have ten times the collateral you need for the loan, you're not going to get it. You can't go to a bank in this country and get money on a good idea, good business practice, a lot of experience, good management and a good marketing plan. You're not going to get money. So if we're serious about bringing this new economy on, it's not only job training that we have to look at; we have to look at a means of getting capital with new ideas. I don't see that being addressed. I don't even hear it being discussed.

Money for new ideas — capital. The other thing we have to start talking about is the fact that 95 percent of the capital

[ Page 7127 ]

goods in this province are owned by 5 percent of the population. We have to start talking about how we make a transfer of those capital goods to ordinary Canadians and ordinary British Columbians. We have to start talking not only about social democracy but about economic democracy. That's what we have to do. We have to start taking a look at people like Louis Kelso, out of San Francisco, who has had a number of successful operations in the United States, where you're transferring from the few — in capital goods ownership — to the many. If we don't start taking a look at that, then we're going to have a few people getting very, very rich, and a lot of people getting very, very poor.

We have to take a look at new and innovative ways, other than the old welfare state, to bring people into the system. Basically what we've had in this country, and in this province, are three ideologies. We've had the ideology of the left, the ideology of the right and what has become an ideology of the centre, which is the welfare state. And all three are out of date. None of them will address the problems we have today. They may have been answers for problems we had yesterday, but not the answers to the problems we have today.

I don't know of any Messiah, though, that I could follow, because no one has the answers. We're entering uncharted waters. We don't know where we're going. All we know is we're going there very quickly. The changes are taking place, and we don't have a handle on them. People are very suspicious about every institution in society, and well they should be. Those institutions were not designed for today; they were designed for yesterday. Institutions come out of social contracts, both formal and informal. And the institutions we have today came out of social contracts from yesterday's economy and yesterday's social make-up.

So a step in the right direction this bill takes us in. But unless we start addressing ourselves to all the peripheral issues that we have to face, then this institution, even though a step in the right direction, will not take us into the charted waters in which we want to be. It won't take us in that direction. It means that those of us in this House, and those of us who live in this province and in this country, are going to have to examine not only our ideas but our values and our attitudes. It's hard for all of us to change, but both sides of the House are going to have to change. We represent a lot of people out there, and a lot of them are changing. A lot of them are going through a transformation in their own personal lives. There is a revolution going on. It's a revolution of individuals and those individual minds that is going on out there. I'm awfully afraid that we who belong to this institution are like other institutions: we don't like to change. But we're going to have to.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have two choices: we can hang onto the old and commit suicide slowly, or we can change, suffer some pain, some insecurity as we build a new economic order in this province and in this country. But it's not going to be easy. It means that we're going to have to do a number of things. Some of the old ideas....

I wish the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) were here. We can't out of the one side of our mouth talk about free trade, which I'm in favour of, and out of the other side of our mouth talk about maintaining the supply-management marketing boards we have in agriculture in this province.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: We can't, out of the one side of our mouth, talk about free trade, and keep in place the regulations surrounding transportation. We have to take a look at the Motor Carrier Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about booze?

MR. LEA: And booze. That minister knows that has been one of my pet peeves for a long time. Do you know what every one of those things do — the Liquor Control Board, the Motor Carrier Commission and the marketing boards? They protect the vested interests in society. That's what they do.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: The reason I moved is because I think.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LEA: I'm not always coming up with the right conclusions, but I do think.

There's no point in government cabinet ministers applauding while they go to their offices tomorrow morning and administer the marketing boards and the liquor control board and the Motor Carrier Commission. If you want change, you had better act. Do away with them. You know who the liquor control board protects, and you know that they pay dearly for that. They back political parties for that, and it is going to take courage to say to those people who have backed you over the years and given money over the years: "It's going to change."

Mr. Speaker, the marketing boards in this country are probably costing the consumers 30 percent to 40 percent more than they need to pay for those commodities that they are purchasing. The liquor control board — now there's a beauty. I can show you letters from the ministry on the liquor control board that would turn a free enterpriser's stomach.

In Prince Rupert a guy wanted to open up a cabaret.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We've had fairly free-wheeling debate, but we're on Bill 72. Relate it, please, to Bill 72.

MR. LEA: It all ties in, because we're talking about a new economic order and an institute to deal with that new economic order. There's no reason to have the institute if we're not going to help the new economic order come in.

I remember when I was in cabinet and some small guy in Surrey would see some place for himself in the transportation industry. He had the money and he had the idea to put a truck in there and start competing with the big guys. The Motor Carrier Commission would say no, and then the guy would appeal to cabinet. In would come this small guy from Surrey, sometimes with a lawyer, sometimes by himself, and who would come in with Canadian Freightways? Every damn lawyer you could think of — a battery of lawyers. I said to them one time: "I can't figure out who the socialist is here, me or Canadian Freightways." But it's true.

Now if the government is really serious about this piece of legislation, then they'd better be serious about some other things. I end with those questions. When are you going to

[ Page 7128 ]

deal with the agricultural marketing boards and supply-management ones? When are you going to deal with the liquor control board? Because if you are not going to do away with it, then I want to see some other control boards. I want to see a furniture control board. I want to see an automobile control board. I want to see all the control boards or none.

But if the government is really serious about free trade, then they'd better start dealing with all of those issues, or the people who are graduating from this new institute will have no place to work anyway. Because if you don't start dealing with those institutions that I have been talking about and others, then the new economy is not going to happen. I am going to vote for the legislation, but unless you make changes in marketing boards, liquor control boards, the Motor Carrier Commission and all of those regulatory bodies, then the people who graduate from this place are not going to have any job to go to. So think about the others too.

MR. MICHAEL: I rise to support this bill. I think that a lot of good things are going to come out of the merging of these two institutions. I think we can look forward to a great deal of saving in administration. I understand that the saving will be in the neighbourhood of $2 million a year in administration, and that will allow the ministry to put that much additional capital into the classroom. Mr. Speaker, when you think of the elimination of 50 or 60 people in administration, it will certainly leave the ministry in a very good position to place more money where it should be, in the classroom.

As a past president of a school board in my constituency of Shuswap, I can tell you that I worked long and hard trying to shave dollars off administration, away from frills, to put it into the classroom, because that's where the teaching takes place: between the teacher and the kids in that classroom. So there's where the dollars should be spent.

I think by focusing all of our attention on one major institution such as will be done with this merger, we will have better planning and better coordination, and we will be able to look forward to an even wider diversification of courses in that area of education.

I was pleased to have had the opportunity, along with several of my caucus members, to tour the University of British Columbia about two or three weeks ago. It was very interesting indeed, walking through that institution, looking at the various faculties, having a very good discussion with the leaders of that university. We found out during the discussion period that indeed the University of British Columbia is right up there with the two other best universities in the Dominion of Canada, namely McGill and the University of Toronto, as a research university in our province.

It was very interesting to me in discussions with the people at the university that when they got right down to brass tacks, they had to admit that the province of British Columbia was treating that university fairly well, certainly in line with the other two major research universities, namely Toronto and McGill. I found that quite enlightening, and it certainly is interesting in getting to the nitty grits and the facts on education spending, as compared to what you read in some of the press and indeed see on television and in the media about how bad things are in the province.

[5:30]

When you get right down to brass tacks they are not all that bad. Certainly we would like to see more money go into all levels of education in the province of British Columbia. But in looking the education scene over right now I find that the objective of an 18.3-to-1 pupil-teacher ratio, as set down by the Minister of Education, has been met. We're back to the 1980-81 level, and it doesn't appear to me that the children in the education system are being treated too badly right now. I think the Minister of Education has done a very good job in things such as this merger, bringing down the costs of government and permitting more dollars to be spent in the meaningful areas of the field of education throughout our province.

I listened to the past speaker, the minister from Prince Rupert, who has left the chamber, and was interested in some of the things he had to say about job creation, industry, development and the way the economy is going. I suppose we all have our different views on what should happen and what can happen in the province in the way of job creation. But it's very interesting to note, looking at some of the statistics, what is happening in British Columbia.

A very interesting statistic is the number of new businesses incorporated in British Columbia in the year 1982. This will give you a bit of insight into the general trend line in British Columbia, what's happening, and why these training programs are going to be necessary to meet the demand in the labour market in future years. In 1982 there were 7,084 new businesses incorporated in the province of British Columbia. In 1983 that total increased to 8,953. And, Mr. Speaker, looking at the 1984 results: even more dramatic. The trend line continues to grow. In 1984 there were a total of 9,338 new businesses created in the province of British Columbia. The interesting statistic, in checking with the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, is the figures for the first five months of 1985: some 6,505 new incorporations, an increase of 46.5 percent over the same period in 1982.

Mr. Speaker, I think in looking at what's happening in British Columbia — looking at the programs of this government, things are happening, the trend line is growing, jobs are being created.

We talk about jobs in British Columbia, and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) made some very good points. He talked about the new grain elevator in Prince Rupert: it used to have 125 employees; now with mechanization and automation it's down to 25 employees. Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Rupert would also know that similar things have happened in the forest products industry. The forest products industry has lost somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 to 25,000 in the last three or four years.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Prince Rupert's remarks, he talked about automation and technology and what it's doing to the industry. We've lost a lot of jobs in the mining industry. But the interesting thing is that today in British Columbia the Canadian bureau of statistics facts speak for themselves: there are 34,000 more people working in British Columbia today than there were 12 months ago.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We are on Bill 72.

MR. MICHAEL: I understand that, Mr. Speaker, I'm just pointing out that with the way the new businesses are being incorporated, with the growth of the private sector and things that are happening in British Columbia, we need this type of legislation to merge these colleges so that we can get the necessary trained people to fill the demand there is going to be on the market for skilled personnel.

One of the previous members was talking about things not happening in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I could speak

[ Page 7129 ]

for a half hour here on that. I have lists and lists of brand new jobs that are happening in British Columbia. The Canaspen Manufacturing plant in Prince George, which happens to be the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. Heinrich's) constituency, just announced a chopstick-manufacturing plant with 75 new jobs. B. C. Lottery Corporation is going to put in their own printing plant in Kamloops with 75 new jobs and lots of capital to be spent there.

I drove through Kamloops the other day and saw this Moly-Cop Canada factory well on stream. They're doing all the groundwork already. They're going to be manufacturing steel grinding balls in Kamloops within the next year or so — 81 new jobs, Mr. Speaker. Ocelot Industries is going to spend $80 million on 200 construction jobs. There's a lot of demand for the kind of skilled students that are going to be put out of these types of institutions.

Look at some more new factories. Scana Industries, a wood-manufacturing Ikea supplier in Prince George — another 75 new jobs. Moli Energy — lithium battery manufacturer in Maple Ridge — 230 new jobs. There are pages and pages of things like this: Cooper Yachts; Pantry Shelf Products in Salmon Arm — rice and cereal cake manufacturer; Norpine Manufacturing, modular fences in Prince George — 16 new jobs there; Three Buoys House Boat Builders in Kelowna — 125 new jobs. There are lots of things happening throughout the province of British Columbia in many, many other areas, Mr. Speaker.

Things are on the move in British Columbia, and they're on the move because the government has done the things it had to do: it has the infrastructure in place; it has the partnership agreement with the municipalities; and we have a little bit of cooperation from the federal government. We have the ERDA agreement signed. We're continuing our road program. We're continuing with natural gas distribution lines throughout the province. In my constituency $6.3 million is being spent in putting in natural gas extension lines all through the communities of Chase, Sorrento, Blind Bay, Gleneden and Silver Creek. Good things are happening throughout the province, Mr. Speaker. The continuing expansion of our hydro infrastructure — all those kinds of things are being done by the provincial government to lay the groundwork for the necessary job creation projects that this government and the private sector are going to be working in partnership on to make things happen in the coming months and the coming years.

MR. HOWARD: We've listened very attentively to the last four or five government-supporter speakers and have heard them talk about what should be the fundamental question we're discussing in this Legislature at the moment. We heard them talk about jobs, jobs, jobs. The only thing they know about jobs, Mr. Speaker — that whole crowd over there — is the last two letters of the word. That's all they know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Minister of Education closes debate on Bill 72.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I never thought for one moment that a bill like this would encourage so much debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got nothing else to do.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There's lots to do, my friend, and here's a good start.

I would like to spend a few moments on what has happened. There were some questions, believe it or not, of a serious nature which did come up. I think, perhaps, there should be a response to those.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One of the items that came up involving the matter of the Essential Service Disputes Act and the elimination of the unilateral right by the faculty association of BCIT.... They had an opportunity to opt for that unilaterally. I think that anybody reviewing the merger, recognizing that there are two faculty associations, two sets of support staff.... The support staff comes under the Labour Code. They bargain just like everybody does, and the faculty from PVI do the same. Now we can't have it both ways. The general view is that people ought to have the right, as they do in most public institutions — or all, for that matter — to bargain collectively, with both the up sides and the down sides. You cannot have within a merged plant somebody who could unilaterally elect for binding arbitration, which in effect is going to cause a great deal of difficulty for the other three groups. That's what happened.

As far as the faculty association at BCIT are concerned, if they wish to enter into some form of agreement with the board for the utilization of arbitration, so be it. But I tell you, it's going to be fair; it's going to be both parties coming to that agreement, and not through a legislative directive that one party has the right unilaterally to do this, as opposed to the other.

I was well aware of the concerns that would be expressed by the faculty association, but on balance a decision had to be made. In fairness to the merger, I think everybody ought to be treated the same; and I think it will work out quite well.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) raised the issue of expropriation. That section in Bill 72 is identical to what is found in the College and Institute Act now. As a matter of fact, when it comes to expropriation, there is a provision in that section which makes specific reference: "...unless the Act expressly applies to that land." So if there's going to be an expropriation of land held by a postsecondary institution, it's going to be appended to a particular bill, and we can discuss it in this chamber.

I think there's a safety net in here, and I believe that the educational institutions are entitled to it. As a matter of fact, the wisdom of this House, long before we came here.... I'm not sure who the author of the College and Institute Act was. It was some time ago.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Nineteen seventy-seven. You just got out of that nicely, didn't you? You were wondering.... I saw you holding your breath, Madam Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, then, if you want to take authorship for that particular bill....

[ Page 7130 ]

MS. BROWN: I'm not holding my breath. He's not telling the truth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, please. I'll have to ask the member to withdraw. That is unparliamentary.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my seat; I wasn't saying anything.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But the interjection was heard, hon. member. A simple....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, if the member for Burnaby-Edmonds would be so kind as to withdraw the comment that the Chair heard, in parliamentary courtesy.

MS. BROWN: Sure. Just to interject a little life into this very dull afternoon. I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I hate to interrupt, but I did hear it.

[5:45]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Another matter came up on the technical side, and it involved the borrowing capacities given to the merged institutes. That particular provision exists under the College and Institute Act, and there is no reason why they shouldn't have the same opportunity with the merger.

Another item came up involving successor rights. We know very well that a merger, an amalgamation or a sale doesn't make any difference as far as successor rights are concerned, and my recollection of the Labour Code of British Columbia is that that's well covered.

There was one interesting point that came up. As a matter of fact, I think it came from the member who is yawning, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, but it was a very good question.

AN HON. MEMBER: A vicious attack.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I apologize for that vicious attack.

The question was with respect to continuity. I'd like to read you a couple of quotations from an opinion we obtained from a firm which gave us considerable assistance in drafting the bill. One of the concerns was this:

"More importantly, 'this type of merger which we are using' is in keeping with the method of amalgamation found in most modem corporation statutes in Canada, including the British Columbia Company Act, the Alberta Business Corporations Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Ontario Business Corporations Act. This method, simply put, involves a continuation of the two corporations (Pacific Vocational Institute and the British Columbia Institute of Technology) as one corporation under the name 'British Columbia Institute of Technology.' Neither of the existing corporations is dissolved, and there is merely a continuation of the two corporations as one corporation.

"The legal concept of the continuation of two corporations as one corporation has been the subject of judicial approbation. We refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. Black and Decker Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1974), 43 Dominion Law Reports (3d), 393, and particularly at page 400" — this is very interesting, because it gives a perfect analogy — "the reference to the analogies of a river formed by the confluence of two streams or the creation of a single rope through the intertwining of strands."

I think that really should be a full answer, and the concerns which the member had should now be put to rest.

MR. WILLIAMS: Nicely read. Nice job.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Of course it was read. I wanted to be accurate and I thought that when we were quoting the Supreme Court of Canada it would be a good idea to have the direct quote, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps if the member for North Okanagan.... Where does he come from? I want to know where he comes from. I made a slip, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Why not? I'm not too concerned about it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm really concerned about the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), who makes reference to BCIT as being a dumb operation. I can't believe that a comment like that would be made in here. I can't believe it. Anyway, it was said, and I think we're perhaps.... I hope he had his tongue in his cheek when he made references like that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm not.

On the reorganization side, a number of these questions came up from....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I wish my colleague from.... Where is it? Where are you from?

The reorganization: the real thrust of it all was to make the administration a little more streamlined. I think there will be a saving of probably between $1.5 million and $1.8 million. Admittedly there are 50 to 60 jobs which, under the reorganization plan, will become non-existent. All of those people who are employed have the opportunity under the reorganization plan to apply, and I'm sure most of them will be successful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: There are a number of items on here, but the members are getting restless and I think perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I was a touch incoherent a little while ago. Perhaps maybe I should take advantage of not making another error in pronunciation, and move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page 7131 ]

Bill 72, Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the consolidated financial statements to the British Columbia Railway, published in accordance with the Financial Information Act, chapter 1, line 1.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the sixty-fourth annual report, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1985, of the Liquor Distribution Branch.

Hon. Mr. Gardom. moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:52 p.m.