[ Page 7241 ]

CONTENTS

An Act to Rebuild the British Columbia Economy Through a "Jobs First" Employment Strategy (Bill M225). Mr. Skelly

Introduction and first reading –– 7241

Oral Questions

Hospital user fees. Mrs. Dailly –– 7241

Omineca Enterprises Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 7242

Log exports. Mrs. Wallace –– 7243

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 7243

Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Report

Third reading –– 7244

Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 34). Report

Third reading –– 7244

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 55). Report

Third reading –– 7244

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 68). Hon. Mr. Segarty.

Committee stage –– 7244

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Rose

Third reading

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

Committee stage –– 7252

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Third reading

Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 71). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Committee stage –– 7253

Third reading

Equity Investment Plan Act (Bill 73). Second reading

Mr. Mitchell –– 7253

Mr. Lauk –– 7255

Mr. Cocke –– 7256

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7257

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill PR402). Mr. Parks.

Committee stage –– 7258

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Third reading

An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College (Bill PR403). Mrs. Johnston.

Committee stage –– 7259

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgama-

tion Act (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Heinrich. Committee stage –– 7260

Mr. Rose

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading

Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 34). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Committee stage –– 7262

Mr. Lauk

Third reading

Equity Investment Plan Act (Bill 73). Hon. Mr. Curtis. Committee s. 7262

Mr. Lank

Third reading

Royal assent to bills –– 7263

Appendix –– 7264

MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1985

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. PARKS: Yesterday, today and tomorrow a group of fine British Columbians are meeting with us in Victoria; they are the constituency secretaries from throughout the province. It's my pleasure to introduce them to the House today.

From Victoria, Mrs. Donna Eraut; Prince George South, Mrs. Laurie Atkins; Burnaby-Willingdon, Janet Bayer; Columbia River, Peg Beaton and Melody Zdanovich; South Peace River, Bonnie Beil; Saanich and the Islands, Penny Boone and Edna Sargent; Atlin, Anne Crawley; West Vancouver–Howe Sound, Shirley Anderson; Cariboo, Jean Closson and Lily Mower; Okanagan South, Jan Duncan; Comox, Patrick Fraser; Point Grey, David Jacobs; Dewdney, Jill Jamieson; Nanaimo, Neva Kisling; Boundary-Similkameen, Joan Konfederak; Kootenay, Judy Koopmans; New Westminster, Judy Matheson and Marilyn Cassady; Cowichan-Malahat, Charlie Boas; Richmond, Helen Mytko; Surrey, Marguerite Leach; Shuswap-Revelstoke, Edith Rizzie; Chilliwack, Beth Stobbe; Oak Bay, Lynda Dickie and Elizabeth Lacey; North Vancouver–Seymour, Betty Water; and Central Fraser Valley, Angela Zenzen.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have a member from Social Credit Party headquarters, Ella Hembroff, and a member from the Expo 86 volunteer bureau here in Victoria, Jane Thomson. I'd ask the House to make them all very welcome.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask members of the Legislature to join me in welcoming our newest candidate for Vancouver East, Glen Clark, who is sitting in the gallery today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on his first visit to our evergreen playground, I would like to bid a special welcome to His Excellency Valerio Brigante Colonna Angelini, who is the ambassador of Italy. He is accompanied by Dr. Damiano Spinola, who is the counsellor for social and labour affairs in Ottawa, and also by our good friend Mr. Giulio Terzi di Sant'Agata, the consul-general in Vancouver, and by Mrs. Yolanda McKimmie. A warm welcome to you all.

MR. LEA: I would like to add my voice of welcome to the secretaries, regardless of which party they work for. We know they are underpaid and overworked. I know they will agree with that.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming two Fort Nelson residents today, John Peterson and Roy Peterson, who are in the lumber business in Fort Nelson.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we are also very fortunate in having in the galleries this afternoon Mr. Qu Ru from China. Mr. Qu has been in Canada since August on a Canada-wide tour. He is renowned in China as a master calligrapher and painter, and in addition — I think this will be of interest to the members — he has gained a worldwide reputation for his miniature carvings, which include a carving of an entire poem on a piece of ivory no larger than a grain of rice. We might bear that in mind when we make some speeches in here.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REBUILD THE BRITISH
COLUMBIA ECONOMY THROUGH A "JOBS
FIRST" EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Skelly, Bill M225, An Act to Rebuild the British Columbia Economy Through a "Jobs First" Employment Strategy, introduced and read a first time.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am allowed a short period of time to explain the bill. In spite of the laughter of the members opposite at our concern for employment generation in the province of British Columbia, I want to outline for you the purpose of this bill, which is to focus the attention of this Legislature on critically high levels of unemployment in this province of British Columbia and on the stimulative measures which can be taken to address the problem.

The bill proposes to make jobs the number one priority of this province and to stimulate the provincial economy in such a way as to raise the level of job creation to at least 50,000 new jobs a year for three years. Mr. Speaker, that goal has been reached. It was reached in two of the three years of New Democratic Party government in the province, and it was reached in three of the ten years under Social Credit. So it is an achievable goal.

Included in the bill are measures to encourage new employment in virtually every region and every community of the province, as well as in every sector of the economy led by construction, forestry and energy.

We are using the vehicle of a private member's bill to focus the debate on this issue because in our opinion the government has failed to bring in any initiatives in this session of the Legislature which would create or promote employment in the province of British Columbia.

We would hope that the government members will take a careful look at this piece of legislation. If they have any opposition to specific sections of the legislation, then we would hope that they would present some positive proposals for change and some positive alternatives, rather than dealing with this legislation as Negative Nellies. So we would hope to have universal support for this legislation, and hope to have an opportunity to debate it at the first possible opportunity the Legislature has.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL USER FEES

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Health. The federal government has returned, in the last few months, money to both Saskatchewan and Manitoba because they have banned extra billing. Now as B.C. has now lost approximately $47 million — over $2.3 million per

[ Page 7242 ]

month — because they have refused to ban hospital user fees, has the minister now decided to ban hospital user fees in British Columbia?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, he is continuing to be stubborn and obstinate on this matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. DAILLY: The people of British Columbia are the ones who are suffering because of that attitude. Is the minister aware — and this is a supplemental to that question — that plus having to have user fees imposed upon our citizens, plus the fact that they've all been imposed with a health surtax of 8 percent, that because of all these impositions the people of British Columbia are probably having to be responsible for more health taxes than anywhere else in Canada? Because of this, I want to ask the minister: is he also aware that on top of all this the Vancouver General Hospital has recently sent out a letter to people who have just returned from having surgery or any other form of care in the hospital, asking them to contribute money to that hospital? On top of all these other things, we now have people being asked to contribute through charity for our hospitals. Is the minister aware that that is being done in B.C.?

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would presume that if the member is speaking of that, it is probably the Vancouver General Hospital Foundation which has been soliciting funding over quite a number of years, as do other hospital foundations. I'm not aware that the Vancouver General Hospital is soliciting, but I would not be surprised if their foundation is soliciting funds, which they have been for some time, as are many other hospitals in the province by way of their foundations. That could be what you're speaking of.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm referring to the research institute, to which they've been asked to contribute funds.

To follow up on this whole matter, it seems to me that the people of British Columbia are now finding that this government is trying to turn our hospitals into being financed through charity. We are going to lose the universality of medicare if this government continues to impose this kind of financing on our hospitals. So I'm asking the minister: in view of all this, will he at least give consideration to removing the user fees from our hospitals? Or are we waiting for just before the next election?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the member for Burnaby North is not suggesting that within our society individual citizens cannot and should not be encouraged to assist hospitals in attempting to improve their facilities by way of soliciting funds from either friends of the hospital or those who have benefited at some point or time from the hospital; because if the member is saying that, then the member is offending many of the people who are responsible for hospital foundations.

Most recently the Mount St. Joseph Hospital in Vancouver has launched a campaign to raise funds for some specific reasons. They would like to see certain modifications and acquisition of some equipment in their hospital. Several other hospitals in the province have raised funds over the years for acquisition of certain equipment. The Variety Club of British Columbia has raised about $7 million for acquisition of certain equipment, specifically for the Children's Hospital. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to acknowledge the great success of Timmy's Christmas Telethon. which on the weekend raised in excess of $3 million to assist handicapped children in B.C. I hope the member isn't suggesting that there's no room in our system, in our society, for individual citizens to offer a contribution. I don't know why the word "charity" has a bad connotation according to that member, but I see nothing wrong with citizens wishing to acknowledge their appreciation of a system by offering some form of contribution, if they can afford it, to assist other people who may not be able to.

Mr. Speaker, the user fees in British Columbia have been part of our system....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, Vancouver City Savings Credit Union.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the user fee has been part of our hospital program since the very beginning. It does not impose a hardship on citizens. On the very rare occasion where it may, other arrangements are made. It is not our intent at this time to discontinue the user fees in our system.

The money that the member referred to is presumably in an account in Ottawa, At least we hope it's in an account in Ottawa.

MRS. DAILLY: In referring to the letter, does the minister consider that sending such a letter to someone who's just at home recovering from surgery is not an attempt to lay a guilt trip on that patient?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would think that a person who has successfully undergone surgery at one of our major hospitals, and probably is somewhat relieved that his problem may have been corrected or improved, would not necessarily feel imposed upon if he received such a letter. However, if the member wishes to direct me to contact the Vancouver General Hospital and order them to cease sending such letters, then I wish she would make that point clear.

OMINECA ENTERPRISES LTD.

MR. LEA: I know that the Premier is familiar with the Fort Nelson company called Omineca Enterprises Ltd. and that he's aware that there's been a long-standing dispute between Omineca and the Ministry of Forests and other government agencies. I know that that has been brought to the Premier's attention. In fact, a board appointed by the government under the Forest Act found that the government had illegally taken timber licences away from Omineca, and that board ordered that those licences be returned. Over a period of years, a number of government agencies in the ministries.... It is obvious in going over the files that those agencies and government ministries have been the biggest contributing factors to Omineca's going bankrupt in the forest industry.

[ Page 7243 ]

Has the Premier recommended to cabinet that a commission be appointed under the Inquiry Act so that an impartial justice can take place, away from government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: But the Premier is aware of Omineca and the long-standing dispute between that company and different agencies and ministries of government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have received letters, I believe, and representation personally, I believe, some time ago from the owners of the company.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Premier whether he would be willing to take time out in his schedule to meet with the principals of Omineca. When the Premier does go over the evidence in detail, I think he will agree with me that the biggest contributing factor to that company going broke was a mishmash of errors and mismanagement. I'm not laying the blame on any political motivation, just mismanagement of government and how government can act in its big bureaucracies against the little guy. Would the Premier undertake, if I could call his office, to at least set two hours aside, because it's a complicated issue and would take that long for the Premier to understand the kind of injustice that has happened?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member expressing a concern for the members he introduced earlier. I will undertake to get a report from my Forests minister on the issue and review the matter with him.

MR. LEA: I don't think it would do much good to get a report from the Forests ministry, because I don't think the report would be able to satisfy the questions that are being asked, I'd much prefer to see people from the Forests ministry and the Forests minister eyeball to eyeball with these people in front of the Premier so the truth can be gotten at. I've seen the report. There was a court case....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly question period is beginning to digress totally from the intent of question period, which is to ask a specific question of a specific minister. We must narrow our questions and not resort to addresses at this particular time.

MR. LEA: I appreciate the Speaker's advice, and I admit that I've been going a little close to the line.

MR. SPEAKER: Close?

MR. LEA: But if you have to go a little close to the line to get justice for British Columbians in this province, you'd better be prepared to do it. I believe this company is in bad shape; they've been driven bankrupt by government. I'm asking the Premier if he would personally intervene, not just take the word of the officials in that ministry, because you're not going to get the straight goods. Quite frankly, I don't think you'll get the straight goods from the minister either.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member has drawn a conclusion. Obviously I can agree with him on one thing philosophically, and that is to look after the little guy in British Columbia — for those who do have a problem with bureaucracy.

I do not agree. He has made a number of assumptions that obviously may not be correct. I will deal with the minister, as I do have confidence in my Minister of Forests as a colleague and one who has served the people of this province well.

LOG EXPORTS

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forests, who, as is his wont, is not in his place. So I'm going to address it to his number one stand-in, who is, according to the words I have, the Attorney-General, who I'm sure knows all about forestry.

Some time ago the Minister of Forests announced that he was going to take some steps to control log exports, effective the end of this year. He has now moved that date back. Why has this government decided to expand and extend log exports at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll take the question as notice for the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Human Resources, who is not in her seat, but I'm wondering whether her aide, the member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), is qualified to respond to this question. Or should I just hold it until tomorrow? What do you think?

MR. SPEAKER: You can't ask me, hon. member. You must either pose or not pose the question,

MS. BROWN: I think I'll hold it.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade and Investment was responsible for carrying out the northeast coal project…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: …and for getting the hole in the wrong place — and for helping to add to a worldwide surplus with respect to coal, which has impacted the southeast part of the province desperately. There have been cutbacks in employment of 1,000 people in the southeast part of the province. In view of the fact that the southeast has taken the brunt of that decision and the northeast is running at 107 percent of contract vs. 50 percent in the southeast, does the Minister of Trade not think it would be reasonable to share the distribution of pain with respect to cutbacks in the province so that there is fuller employment in the Kootenays of British Columbia as a result of his adding to the surplus?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the member for Vancouver East has finally been unmuzzled by his leader, but he's still flushing the same old toilet — northeast versus southeast. The member seems to forget that there were three new mines in Canada — in the southeast and in Alberta — brought on at the same time that there were two new mines brought in in the northeast. He doesn't realize that there were mines brought on in Australia and indeed mines

[ Page 7244 ]

brought on in Russia. But like the rest of his party over there and like his leader, he would far sooner see the jobs go to Australia or to Russia or to South Africa or to some other country than to British Columbia. So I say he's just flushing the same old information.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it should not be necessary for the Chair to constantly remind members that we have a rule for question period, and that rule is that question period is to seek information, not to bring information to the floor; nor is it an opportunity for short speeches. It is an opportunity for a short preamble followed by a question. The Chair has been most lenient in allowing members an opportunity to prepare their questions with the proper verbiage ahead of them. However, clearly the Chair will be forced to take direct action if members do not somehow or other address the rules that bind us in question period.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

Bill 33 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call report on Bill 34.

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

Bill 34 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 55, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

Bill 55 read a third time and passed.

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

WORKERS COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Ree in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, Section I deals with the increase in the maximum wage that a worker can insure. I recognize that the members over there — the ministers and other odds and sods — are busy, so I will just take my time and wait until they settle down a bit. I'll press on in due course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the House come to order and the member continue.

MR. COCKE: This first section deals with the increase of maximum insurable wages. Now I contend that an increase in maximum insurable wages is a valiant offer. But it is also a bit deceptive, because what we are doing here is turning over the responsibility for seeing to it that claims are met to people who don't want to pay claims. I would have confidence in a section such as this were I to see that the Workers' Compensation Board was at all sympathetic to the claims of B.C. workers. I earlier brought it to the minister's attention not only that claims adjudication is tough but also that, when a claim is turned down and two years later, when the person is absolutely flat broke and on welfare, that claim finally gets to a board of appeal, and the appeal board reverses the original adjudication, then that is turned down by the Compensation Board. So what is the good of a $40,000 maximum if in fact you don't collect!

Too many people in this province are hurting badly right now by virtue of the irresponsible, cold, rough, tough attitude of the Workers' Compensation Board. I just ask the committee, on behalf of the people we represent: how long are we going to put up with an absolutely arbitrary Workers' Compensation Board in this province? It's all very well for the minister to come in to this House and say: "Look what we're doing. We're giving them an increase in their workers' compensation." Marvellous, isn't it, Mr. Member from Little Mountain?

MR. MOWAT: It's a help.

MR. COCKE: Sure it's a help to those lucky enough to get by the adjudication. That's not the kind of luck we need. The kind of luck we need is justice of adjudication at the Workers' Compensation Board. We are not getting justice of adjudication now.

Mr. Chairman, let the minister get up and tell us that there are going to be some new changes of real assistance to those people. Appointing a bunch more chairpersons for your boards of appeal isn't going to do that much good. So far we haven't seen any rectification to speak of in terms of the time people have to wait. What we need here is a minister who will stand up and make the Workers' Compensation Board reflect fair play in British Columbia. While bringing in adhesive plasters like this looks great on the surface, it doesn't do the job that must be done in workers' compensation in this province.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That whisper of "not true" from an MLA who's looking after his or her responsibility.... They know perfectly well that it is absolutely true. I can't be the only person that has been loaded right up to the neck with workers' compensation problems. Every member of this Legislature that is responsible is, of course, receiving the same kind of complaint — day after day and horror story after horror story — that I'm receiving.

So the $40,000 in and of itself is only one aspect of this. The real problem....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, debate in committee should be strictly relevant to the section. Debate elsewhere may be appropriate in second reading but not in committee. Would the member be relevant to section 1, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the relevancy is as follows: the $40,000 maximum reflects whether or not.... That says that there's access to a claim. I say there is not the proper

[ Page 7245 ]

access to that claim, and it's specifically relevant to this section, not any other section. This is the relevant section of this bill. Mr. Chairman, what's the point in us having a debate in committee if, in fact, we can't bring the relevancies forward? That's precisely what I'm doing here. The minister knows it, and everyone else knows it, Mr. Chairman.

This is an opportunity for the minister to reply directly to questions vis-à-vis Section 1 of this bill. What are we doing here? Give that minister an opportunity to answer these questions. Mr. Chairman, that's precisely what I'm doing now. I'll sit and let the minister answer my question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 1 pass?

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Chairman. Obviously the minister is not observing a responsible position with respect to answering questions around this particular section. The minister has the responsibility provided by the Legislature, provided by cabinet, to be the minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board. He, better than anybody, knows the travesty that's being wrought. He, better than anybody, knows that people are not being given fair play, so his $40,000 section is irrelevant to the great number of people out there who are being unfairly dealt with by this adjudication.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Well, I'm in a bit of difficulty because I understood that the principle of the section was to be dealt with. The debate would be limited to the principle, but if it's the Chair's wish, I will respond to the member's question as I did in second reading of the bill. I am open to the direction of the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not direct, hon. minister. The rule set by the members of this House is that debate should be relevant to the section, and the minister will conduct debate accordingly.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Following your judgment, then, Mr. Chairman, I can only debate with you the principle of the section. I would have to agree that the debate with respect to the appeal process isn't relevant to the section. So I'm tied by the House rules, and I don't want to offend the House rules or the members of the assembly.

MR. COCKE: Ducking and dodging isn't going to change anything; wimping out on a particularly important argument isn't going to change anything. The minister is dodging his responsibility to debate the really practical aspect of this. He has raised the maximum limit. Having raised the maximum limit, what is the point if people don't have access to their claim? That's as relevant to this.... I mean, after all, what are we doing? We're not playing some child's game in this committee. What we're doing here is discussing whether or not people have access to that $40,000; otherwise, Mr. Chairman, what's the point of it all?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, to the member for New Westminster, 95 percent of all of the appeals made to the Workers' Compensation Board are dealt with and processed automatically. So it doesn't at all involve the adjudication process that one has to go through to have his case reviewed. This section of the bill doesn't deal with that, but 96 percent or 95 percent of all of the applicants who make application to the Workers' Compensation Board are approved and adjudicated automatically.

MR. COCKE: I'm so excited about that; I just can't tell you how marvellous that is. The fact of the matter is that 95 percent of the claims to the Workers' Compensation Board are not claims of great significance. The long-term claims are the ones that are hurting here. Certainly there are claims that the Workers' Compensation Board responds to very quickly. A person breaks a finger and is back at work within a week or two, etc. We all know that there are short-term.... The claims of magnitude are the ones responded to negatively by the Workers' Compensation Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. COCKE: Not true! What the blazes does that member know about anything!

HON. MR. SEGARTY: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, 95 percent of those who make application for workers' compensation are approved automatically. The rest go before the boards of review, and of the ones that the boards of review deal with and approve, only 3 percent then are referred to the commissioners for further discussion. So the appeal process does provide access to all individuals.

I explained to the member in second reading the other day how the appeal process was being cleaned up, and I hope to have that in place by the end of December, with a report on my desk from my staff on the interviews that they've conducted around the province with regard to personnel by December 11. The regulations governing the boards of review are being discussed between the parties of interest and my deputy minister in the hope that the parties of interest will agree with the regulations governing the boards of review. In my belief, if the parties of interest agree on those regulations, they will have respect for the regulations when they're in place, and that will enable the parties to have fair, decent and even-handed treatment by the Workers' Compensation Board with respect to a review of their claim.

[2:45]

MR. GABELMANN: I would like to he able to congratulate the minister for bringing in a change of this kind, which is positive in and of itself. Unfortunately, in the climate of today that's not possible to do, because this is tinkering with the biggest cancer in our province's society that I can remember. The state of the Workers' Compensation Board is so bad that I, as an MLA.... I'm sure if every MLA were honest he would tell you that wherever you go in this province, meeting with workers who are involved directly or indirectly with compensation, all they can talk about is the problems they've had with the Workers' Compensation Board. Claims are submitted and it's up to two years before the first adjudication is finished, in some cases. Then it's another two years before a board of review is finished. These people in some cases are living on welfare for the first years of their claim.

What we should have in this province is not a section I bringing up a level so that workers can get a maximum $30,000 a year; what we should have is a full public inquiry into the rot that exists at the Workers' Compensation Board. That's what's required. We don't need these kinds of piecemeal amendments. The amendment is well and good by itself, but we've got a major crisis out there. There is no other

[ Page 7246 ]

institution of government that is so badly and so deliberately misrun as that institution. There is only one concern over there, and that is to maximize the benefits that can be made to employers. There is no concern about the accident rate. There is no concern about looking after injured workers. There is only a concern about reducing the amount of money people have to pay on their assessment. Mr. Chairman, that has got to stop.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, the Chairman is certainly very lenient, but I don't think that that member has yet referred to the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair earlier pointed out that debate in committee should be relevant to the section. The Chair has allowed a certain leeway for members to develop an argument. The member did make reference to the section, hon. minister, indicating he considered it preferable. But if the member for North Island would contain his debate to section 1, please.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm just warming up.

Section1I has a provision which in effect — the numbers are different because it's a 75 percent rule — brings workers up to $30,000. Workers earning $40,000 a year can get $30,000. That's what the section requires. But has the minister directed the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board at the same time to increase the assessment level? I'm not sure of the terminology that's used inside the board for this particular figure, but employers are assessed at $26,000-some-odd for their employees, no matter whether the employee is making that $40,000 that we're referring to in this section. Has the minister directed the chairman of the board to fix up that particular problem? It's a problem that hurts those small employers who are paying on the full payroll, as opposed to the big employers like perhaps Cominco and some of the major employers who are not paying on full payroll because they're limited to $26,000-and-some-odd per worker. Has that change also gone in, accompanying this change?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: That would be subject to a policy announcement by the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board.

MR. GABELMANN: When will that happen, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Whenever the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board feels that it's a priority. I won't give the Workers' Compensation Board chairman direction in that area.

MR. GABELMANN: So what the minister is telling us, Mr. Chairman — because as he sees it he has jurisdiction over this particular set of dollars and the chairman has jurisdiction over another set of numbers — is that he's going to bring in this one change, and he doesn't really know whether the chairman of the board is going to bring in the other change which should accompany this change. As far as I'm concerned, we should hold this up until the chairman brings in that change, because why should those employers who are paying on payrolls that average more than $26,000 a year get off scot-free, while the smaller employers who have payrolls averaging a lesser number of dollars pay more in proportion? Why are we bringing in this section before that change is made? Doesn't it go together? Isn't that obvious?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that that is subject to a policy decision of the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, section 2 is amending section 73(1) of the Workers Compensation Act. We had a bit of a discussion during second reading on this section. All of us recognize and all of us have memory of the arbitrary possibilities and the arbitrary — sometimes — use of the power of the commissioner of the Workers' Compensation Board. We remember the arbitrary penalty of $1,500 minimum for transgression of hygiene and safety regulations. I asked the minister before, and I want him to really clarify this: will this kind of an amendment then take away the necessity for that arbitrary situation? The reason I ask that is because can you imagine a firm such as Cominco being fined $1,500 and, as I used in an example, a firm with seven employees being fined $1,500? The percentage is so obvious. One would be hurt and one wouldn't even feel it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The offence doesn't matter?

MR. COCKE: There's a minister of the Crown saying: "And the offence doesn't matter, eh?" The offence of Cominco, for an example, is pretty major in this province. The offence of a corner drycleaner may be an offence, but you're going to drive him into the ground with this kind of an arbitrary attitude. That's all. Fair is fair.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The amendment does give more flexibility to the Workers' Compensation Board in assessing penalties of that nature to large employers and small employers.

The purpose of the section is, though, to force compliance with industrial health and safety standards, and not necessarily to make the Workers' Compensation Board rich. I would hope that they would be able to use the section in that area to try to get compliance to regulations. Many of the industrial health and safety people in many of the large industries across the province would argue that it was cheaper to pay the fine or the assessment that was levied by the Workers' Compensation Board for non-compliance than it was to comply with the regulations. I hope that this will give the Workers' Compensation Board more flexibility in getting compliance to regulatory standards.

MR. GABELMANN: When I first saw the amendments the other day, my first thought was that this was going to be the experience-rating question. Then on looking closer I realized it wasn't, and it was simply a change in the way the levies operate. I don't really understand why this is needed. A percentage could be 1 percent; it could be 80 percent; it could be 7,000 percent. It can be any number of dollars that is deemed appropriate by the commissioners of the board. Maybe I'm thick and just don't understand why it is that this

[ Page 7247 ]

particular wording was required. It seemed to me that the percentage approach was one that would have allowed the board to do what it wants to do anyway. I'll quit for a moment while I get the answer.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the lawyers would argue that 1 percent means something less than 100 percent. What this does is give the board more flexibility in assessing penalties for non-compliance.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it's not just lawyers who would argue that 1 percent is less than 100 percent. The fact is that a percentage could be any amount. It's not limited to less than 100 percent or more than1I percent or any number. Athletes, all the time, are doing 110 percent of their ability; we hear that every day. So what's wrong with a percentage? You can levy any percentage you desire. Why the change?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the section says that they'll now be able to assess for non-compliance of regulations. An employer will be able to be assessed more than their last year's total assessment. It may be beyond the amount that they were paying the previous year, depending on the violation of the regulation.

MR. GABELMANN: One of us is very thick, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not going to say which. If your assessment last year was $110,000, and the board decides to give you a 200 percent penalty, you're going to have to pay $220,000. I don't understand what the minister's trying to say. However, maybe it's me. Maybe I'm not understanding.

I want to make a couple of other points about this section, Mr. Chairman. It deals with the whole question of how health and safety regulations are going to be practised and adhered to on the job site — because if they're not, penalties are going to be assessed in this new manner. I think we should understand that when penalties of this kind are imposed, unless they are accompanied by some very significant administration on the part of the board, we are going to have countless walking wounded around this province. It will be, more than ever, in the employer's best advantage to insist — or to encourage, at least — that workers stay on the job even though they're sitting in the lunchroom or the coffee shop or whatever, not working, while their broken arm mends, because the board isn't interested in having its experience rating increased. They will inevitably have both the experience rating, which is coming in tomorrow.... The chairman of the board, I understand, is going to make that announcement tomorrow: that experience rating, at the request of the Employers' Council, is going to come in tomorrow despite the fact that most people active in the whole issue of compensation are very nervous about experience rating because it will lead to walking wounded. We're going to have a double whammy of encouragement to employers to encourage their workers not to report their compensation claims. Instead of being off for a couple of weeks on compensation, the employer will let them be off a couple of weeks but pretending to be working so their experience rating doesn't go up, because it will be far more damaging to the particular employer under an experience rating system, and then with this on top of it.

We're walking into some very dangerous territory here, Mr. Chairman. It's why I said at the outset that these kinds of changes, without a full inquiry, without the full participation of everybody involved in this issue.... To make piecemeal changes is potentially — and I think in this particular section, more than potentially — a very real threat to the existing kind of compensation system that we have. We're going to see more walking wounded than we have ever seen before in this province with those changes.

The whole question of this section is very much connected to the regulations, too. If the regulations are loose, like the proposed ones that couldn't be brought in because the former minister didn't get his amendments last spring, but that are sitting out there — and the employers have been assured that they're going to get it.... Those regulations very much impact on this particular section. So what's going to happen? Is it true, as representatives of the board say, that, in fact, the sections relating to farmworkers are not going to be brought in, and that the sections are not going to be introduced for discussion, as the act still requires, but that the sections that have been drafted and have been sitting there for some months now — despite denials by the chairman of the board, by Mr. Greer and by others — and that were prepared by the employers for the employers, are now going to go out for discussion minus the farmworkers sections? What's going to happen to this kind of section, Mr. Chairman, when the regulations won't be very tough anymore? What employer is going to worry about that? And if there are accidents on the job, to avoid excessive — in his mind — premiums, because of experience rating, he's going to encourage injured workers to continue to work and to continue on the payroll.

[3:00]

More than anything else, Mr. Chairman, this section symbolizes for me why we should not bring in changes to the compensation act piecemeal. There is a major crisis out there. What's happening on the board is eating away at health and safety in this province. It's damaging people's lives. And the minister brings in piecemeal changes — this one in particular, which I don't think is even needed. At the same time the whole system is changing so that workplace health and safety will not be valued, and will not need to be valued by employers. There will be an increase in walking wounded. When a worker does stay on the job for a couple of weeks with some injury, instead of reporting to the Compensation Board, and then has a repetition of that injury sometime later.... If he aggravates that injury off the job and is forced to go to the Compensation Board, there will be no work history. Because he was encouraged to be one of the walking wounded, the board will say: "Well, we've never had the initial report. It has nothing to do with us."

Whatever happens to these amendments — pass or fail doesn't matter. If the minister is interested in doing something about compensation in this province, he will urge the government to pass an order-in-council setting up a royal commission with full powers of inquiry over this rotting stench over there on the mainland.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I have a tough time responding and staying within the parameters set out for debate in committee stage with respect to the changes in section 2. But just to help the member, who I don't think was here the other day when we were discussing second reading of the bill, accidents are down in British Columbia by 21 percent; and that's a credit to the individuals who volunteer their time in industrial plants across British Columbia to make the workplace a safe place for all participants. I don't find many people walking wounded around the plants. In fact, I know

[ Page 7248 ]

those industrial health and safety committees wouldn't tolerate too many people walking wounded around the plants. I put more faith and confidence in them and their ability to supervise their plants than in many of the critics of the workers' compensation system and individuals who sit in the top bureaucracy of trade unions and companies — and, indeed, in the workers' compensation system itself.

For the member's information on regulations, in 1983, and before that, there was discussion with respect to regulatory change, and on October 14, 1983, representatives of the British Columbia Federation of Labour walked out of meetings being held with the Workers' Compensation Board and the employer community in protest against a proposed regulation. I have no difficulty with that. But all of those things took place prior to Walter Flesher becoming chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. In fact, those regulations were going through the benefit of public hearings when he became chairman of the board.

The worry out in the community was that they would be put into place and carry the full force of law, because there were the public hearings. There has been no amendment brought to this House by me to change the Workers Compensation Act to eliminate the public hearing process. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of bringing any amendment to this House that would eliminate the public hearing process with respect to regulations. However, you've got to know that when I became minister I did discuss those regulations with the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board; and because of the fear out in the community with respect to those regulations, I asked the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board to commit them to the incinerator — which he did. We received some criticism for that from some labour representatives, who complained that many of them put in many hours of hard work in the development of those regulations. Nevertheless, there was fear in the community that the Workers' Compensation Board would proceed with those regulations because they did have the benefit of public hearings. When I became minister, the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board committed those regulations to the incinerator, even though they had the benefit of public hearings.

I have said time and time again, and I give my word to the Chair and to all hon. members in this House, that no amendment will be brought to this House that will eliminate the public hearing process. But I have asked that draft copies of the regulations be now sent out to industrial health and safety committees across British Columbia. They will be discussed by the individuals who sit on those industrial health and safety committees, who have to work with them on a day-today basis, to get their input, to have them discuss the draft with their colleagues in the workplace, and to forward them back through their various union locals and employer communities to the Workers' Compensation Board for drafting, and then to be sent out to public hearings at that time. The community will have a full opportunity to debate and discuss all aspects of those regulations. The area that is particularly sensitive to the community at the plant level is the area dealing with pesticides, chemical use, and a number of other areas that are new today because of changing technology and a whole variety of things; your ability to keep up with those changes is limited.

But that's the area that's of concern to the industrial health and safety committees. I made them a commitment, and I honour that commitment to them, that they will have full opportunity to sit down, discuss those changes, make suggestions where there are none, and improve on them where possible. That's the only way that we'll be able to develop those regulatory changes. It's my belief that the process will take a long time, but by doing so British Columbia will have the best industrial health and safety standards in all of Canada because they will have been developed by individuals who have hands-on experience in the workplace on a day-to-day basis, and not by some bureaucrat in the Workers' Compensation Board or by some representative of a major union or employer group who hasn't seen the inside of a plant for the past five to ten years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If members keep their debate relevant to the section, the replies might also be relevant to the section.

MR. GABELMANN: When these regulations are mailed out, and I gather that it's going to be either Christmas Eve or before....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Before Christmas or after, the member says; yes, before the turn of the century or later. When they are mailed out, as I understand they are going to be, will regulations No. 5 and No. 6, as they are called, be included in that mail-out? No. 5 is pesticide; No. 6 is agriculture.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Again, Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with the section, but if I can answer the hon. member, the proposal is to send out all regulations that are in draft form today.

MR. GABELMANN: All, I assume, includes 5 and 6. In that event, after this public process takes place, will all of those regulations, as amended and agreed to by this public process, then be implemented as regulations to the act?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The process, as I understand it, is that they will go out to the communities of interest for discussion; they'll be forwarded back to Workers' Compensation to be put in draft form again and forwarded out then to public hearing; and after they have received the benefit of public hearing, they can be put in place by the Workers' Compensation Board. I said earlier on that I wasn't going to bring an amendment into the House that would take away the authority of the Workers' Compensation Board to make its own regulations after they have received the benefit of public hearings.

MR. GABELMANN: I understand that and I applaud the member for that.

According to Country Life, following a meeting between the minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), WCB commissioner Hall and the member, unnamed, of the Attorney-General's staff, the Federation of Agriculture representatives won assurances that guidelines would be published, not regulations. Is that now no longer government policy?

[ Page 7249 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: If you're talking about government policy or Workers' Compensation policy, they are two different things.

MR. GABELMANN: In that event, I'm not able at this point to ask Mr. Flesher his opinion, but I can ask the Minister of Labour his. Is it government policy that these draft regulations, once approved following the public process, will in fact be regulations?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I understood I answered that question a little while ago when I said that the process was that the regulations, now in draft form, will go out to the parties of interest for discussion; they will be returned to the Workers' Compensation Board, redrafted and forwarded out then for public hearing and discussion. Once that takes place, the Workers' Compensation Board has the authority under the act to impose those regulations, because the act requires it.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me try again, Mr. Chairman. Does that mean that sections 5 and 6, if they meet a mixed reaction when presented to the community interest groups, may well be pulled out of this set of regulations? Is that a possibility? Or will in fact this entire set of regulations — hopefully in some perhaps amended form — be enacted as regulation by the WCB?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: The process is open to the parties of interest to make amendments to the draft regulations as they're distributed. They have to work out their areas of difficulty, and there may be many. But their ability to work out all of those areas of difficulty and to meet consensus on all of those areas, or on the majority of them.... I would hope on all of them, because by sitting down together and working out a consensus you strengthen the bonds of relationship and better understanding between both parties. Once they have achieved consensus, I would hope the Workers' Compensation Board would proceed according to the act.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: The consensus may not be achievable in one or two areas. It's possible, therefore, that some workers in this province will be working for employers who do not wish to have regulations, and therefore the board will say that no regulations will be imposed in those sectors. Is that a possible conclusion of the process the minister talks of?

[3:15]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, our ability to get along with each other in 1985, and to reach consensus in many areas, will be the key to our success in the future. I would hope that we wouldn't hold up a whole package of regulations where we have met consensus — not put them into regulatory form where we have met consensus. Our ability to continue to work in the areas of difficulty will be keyed to our success or failure in the future.

I don't know what they will do, but I intend, in the spring, to conduct a series of industrial health and safety workshops across the province because I have a special interest in that area and because, as a former member of the IWA and an individual who spent many years in the plants across the province, I understand the process very well. The support we can give to those industrial health and safety committees across the province will be key. I would hope that developing consensus in many areas of regulation reform will strengthen the bargaining process and many other areas of relationship between the two groups. That's the process I would like to see developed. I know there is a genuine interest on the part of both parties to achieve consensus and to recognize that their ability to get along with each other will be key to success in the future.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully, and I think I now understand government policy; that is, that if the employers in a particular sector do not wish there to be regulations, there will not be regulations.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm talking about a specific situation which the minister knows full well. The minister has given assurances to the agricultural industry that they will not have to have regulations, according to government policy. The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour, at the meeting, together with Mr. Hall from the board, said that guidelines are government policy, not regulations. So why are we going through this sham process of sending out draft regulations when in fact it's government policy, as reported by the Federation of Agriculture — government and WCB policy, I might add....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Have you talked to your family lately?

MR. GABELMANN: Yes, and my family supports me on this issue. I've had this consistent position since.... When we were government we went around this province asking farmworkers what their views were on this issue, and we got a consensus then too. That's just straying a little bit.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! One at a time. The minister will come to order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: What we have is a section amending section 73, which is the levies. The levies can apply based on regulations and other things. What we've got is a situation where government policy — and not denied by the minister; I welcome him to deny my assertion that it's government policy that guidelines instead of regulations be applied in the agricultural industry. I welcome him to deny that. This was in October. He may now have a new policy in December. I would welcome him to deny that the October statements are government policy — that regulations will not apply, but guidelines will in that particular sector. And if it's still government policy, as it was six weeks ago, then why are these regulations being sent out when government policy is clear that they won't be regulations, they'll be guidelines?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the Workers' Compensation Board has the authority, once all of the public discussion has taken place, to impose the regulations across the board. As I told the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) the other day, this Minister of Labour will not have a

[ Page 7250 ]

deal in his drawer for one group or another anywhere in British Columbia. He will treat all British Columbians in a fair, open and even-handed way. I will not open the drawer and have a deal for the agricultural community, nor will I have a deal for the B.C. Federation of Labour, nor will I have a deal for their affiliates. That's the way it's going to work. I will not change that process or the public hearing process or anything else for one group or another in British Columbia. That's the role that I intend to play.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, we're making some progress. The minister described an even-handed policy for all groups. May I ask him if that means that all workers, no matter where they work, will be treated equally under the Workers Compensation Act?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, the act speaks for itself. I have no intention of making any amendments to the Workers Compensation Act with respect to the public hearing process.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Island — and once again the committee is reminded that we're dealing with "flexibility in...additional assessments on employers with poor safety records." That is the specific intent of this section.

MR. GABELMANN: I recognize that, Mr. Chairman, and I'm looking at section 73 of the act, subsection (1)(c), which I think makes this debate in order.

Mr. Chairman, the minister was.... Well, he got warmed up and the Irish temper got going; he started to give us an answer, and then on the next one he backed off again. He says the act speaks for itself. The act speaking for itself right now does not treat workers equitably in this province. Not all workers are covered in the same way. Not all workers have regulations in their place of employment. That's what I'm asking for. I'm asking that when these draft regulations go out for discussion and come in, all of the various sections contained within are going to be — once the full process has happened — part of the regulations for health and safety in all workplaces in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2…?

MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 2, the member for North Island.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the minister can't just nod his head. I can't go out and say to the people that when I asked that question the minister nodded his head. I need it in Hansard.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: It must be my Irish accent or something today, but what I said earlier on was — and I say it again — that the regulations will go out to the parties of interest for discussion. They will come back in to the Workers' Compensation Board, be redrafted and be sent back out in draft form for public hearing. The reason some groups in our society today are not covered by workers' compensation is because those regulations or whatever you choose to call them haven't had the benefit of public hearings. Once they've had the benefit of public hearings they will be put in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Further, the committee is reminded that the debate on section 2 specifically deals with the amendment as we see it printed in the section before us and does not include and cannot include references to subsections (a), (b) or (c), but to the paragraph following, which is clearly stated in the bill that we are debating at this point.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given us assurance that all things are going to be fair: the assessment proposition and so on and so forth. I contend that there is a group that has been given an assurance that no assessment will be made, and that is the farmworkers of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, let me read to the minister, and let him deny if he will, the following. This was an article by Carol M. Gore on Country Life magazine's front page, following the discussion on the set of regulations: "Following that announcement, in a series of meetings with Labour Minister Terry Segarty, Agriculture and Food Minister Harvey Schroeder, WCB commissioner Hall and a member of the Attorney-General's staff, BCFA representatives won assurances that guidelines would be published, not regulations." Does the minister deny that? Otherwise the whole thing is....

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, the guidelines are already published. There's been an education program in place for two and a half years, and they're already covered under the act. What we're talking about is imposing or working out regulations dealing with the farm community.

MR. COCKE: It says "not regulations."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! At this point, hon. members, even the minister has been allowed too much latitude. Clearly now we must address the section before us, which deals specifically with greater flexibility in imposing additional assessments on employers with poor safety records. That is all we can do at this point. The section is quite clear, the explanatory notes are quite clear, and so are section 73(1) and the amended paragraphs quite clear, if the members wish to look at either the act we're amending or the section that does amend that act.

MR. GABELMANN: I acknowledge that there appears to be some straying in terms of the specific element in the amendment. But there isn't, because if workers don't have regulations in place as mentioned under 73(1)(c) of the act, the effect of this penalty section changes entirely. So we've got to discuss this question.

The minister is reminding me of Allan MacEachen — a Scotsman and an Irishman, both good at saying lots but saying nothing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not discussing section 73(1)(a), (b) or (c). We are discussing a following paragraph in section 73(1) of the act that is being amended. To that following paragraph please, and the amendment that is before us in the bill.

[ Page 7251 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I am talking about the penalties that could be applied in a particular situation as defined by this section and as amended by the bill in front of us. That's what we are talking about.

There is a significant impact for literally thousands of workers in this province who want to know the answer to the question. We haven't yet had an answer. Is the statement of October that guidelines will be in place government policy, or is the policy that regulations of some kind following the various processes that need to go through the government policy? Regulations in each of these cases. Will sections 5 and 6 of the draft regulations in fact reappear as regulations at the appropriate time?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think you have been very generous with the member for North Island. You have pointed out to him repeatedly that he is out of order and that the section he is referring to in the act is not the section under discussion in the amendment. I think you have been most generous with your time, and the member repeatedly insists upon following that line of argument. I don't know what the Chair may do, but the member appears to be out of order and apparently will pay no attention to your ruling.

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a remedy, hon. members, but I am sure the member for North Island can relate his remarks specifically to the amendment in front of us in Bill 68, which does not deal with regulations but rather with deleting one clause and substituting another clause.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it is 3:30. We could have had this finished at 3 o'clock if the minister would give us a straight answer.

MR. MITCHELL: I really wasn't going to get into this debate until the minister opened up a very serious issue that is facing a lot of workers out in the workforce, when he mentioned the herbicide and pesticide problem. I am dealing with that section amending the regulations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no section amending regulations, hon. member.

MR. MITCHELL: Setting up the installation of the regulations the minister referred to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That section is not amended, nor is it in the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: Okay, the assessments. It alters the assessments that are indirectly affected by the type of claims allowed, and if you are going to juggle the assessments to any employer, you have to cover.... The assessments are there to cover the compensation given to the worker on the job. That is the section I am referring to, part of section 2, dealing with the assessments.

One of the big problems when you are setting up the regulations that you keep referring to, the process of them going out to the various people involved.... It is important that there should be some thought in what proposed regulations go out.

One of the big problems that I have found in dealing with the compensation board is what they recognize as being ailments based on the use of herbicides. One of the issues right now is: what is a justifiable ailment of misuse of such things as 2, 4-D, 2, 4, 5-T, commonly called Agent Orange, which was used heavily by B.C. Hydro and some of the forest companies? It was misused by those who were using it. It is very much the same as your asbestos problems: you don't realize the damage it has done to the worker until years later. Now I know many of the veterans that came back from Vietnam managed to get a $500 million or $700 million settlement from Dow Chemical out of court.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order. Attempting to follow the member's debate with respect to an amendment of "an additional assessment determined by the board and may collect the additional assessment," he is now speaking about something that involves people of another country, few of whom were covered by the Workers' Compensation Board. It would appear that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is speaking about something entirely different — barely within the same universe — to that which is under discussion here. I've tried to follow his connection between his earlier debate. I have absolutely no idea what point he is trying to make, other than to consume time. Perhaps you could point out whether he is in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order stated by the minister is correct. We are dealing specifically with a section that deletes one clause and substitutes another. Therefore debate along the lines and intent of the clause stating "an additional assessment determined by the board and may collect the additional assessment" would be in order, but nothing else can be permitted under our rules of debate. The Chair will have to instruct members who don't wish to follow that standing order to take their place. We have a clear section in front of us, and only debate on that section and its intent will be allowed in committee. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues on section 2.

MR. MITCHELL: On that point of order, I was shocked that the Minister of Health could not see the connection between the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and the use of that same product on the workers in B.C.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: Getting away from that, the Minister of Health knows more than I do that the danger there....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One moment. The minister will withdraw the reference to another hon. member. The minister will stand in his place and withdraw. The Minister of Health is recognized.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I will withdraw.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you have just instructed that member to stay in order with respect to this amendment. He stands in his place and immediately, once again, is absolutely out of order. Mr. Chairman, it is not the position of a member to instruct the Chair, but if I can offer advice, perhaps he should be told to either be in order or just simply take his place.

[ Page 7252 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The point of order is well taken. Once again, I will remind all members in committee that we are dealing with a clause which deals with additional assessments as determined by the board and nothing else. Can we stick to that section? The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues on section 2, Bill 68.

MR. MITCHELL: Through you to the minister, if the minister would listen to what I said, I was on the point of order that he brought up. I was referring to that. I was not trying to be out of order, Your Honour; all I was trying to do was refer to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we speak to the section.

MR. MITCHELL: That's what I was hoping to get back to.

All I want, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister.... As I said, I haven't been privy to the leaked documents with all the new regulations that he referred to. I'm not getting out of order; he referred to them. All I'm asking is that he look at those regulations and make sure that when he circulates them to all the people who are going to be involved, that there is something dealing with the danger of herbicides and the type of qualifications needed to come under that particular area.

Right now, the Minister of Labour is getting away from it, because the Minister of Health has to pick up the costs, and that's all I'm trying to get through. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'd just like to clarify what the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was really asking. The clause, as I understand it, deals with more hazardous occupations. I suppose what he is asking is: in terms of occupations, such as B.C. Rail and B.C. Hydro, that regularly employ hazardous chemicals, would these firms — and what others would — fall under the occupations requiring a higher assessment? Because of the possible dangers in a longitudinal theme — retired people getting cancer — what occupations does the minister have in mind?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, any company in British Columbia that's in violation of regulations that are currently in place.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Does that mean that those firms that defy the regulations pay higher fees to poison? Is that what you are saying?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Only a member of the New Democratic Party would play games with the lives of individual British Columbians, the disabled and the handicapped. To make such a statement is totally erroneous. What I said earlier on was that any company in violation of industrial health and safety standards would be assessed — maybe double last year's assessment — and that the object of the exercise was not to collect the fine but to force compliance to regulations, with worker health and safety being the concern of every individual in this province and not just the members of the New Democratic Party.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 68, Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

TRAVEL AGENTS AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 69; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. LAUK: I didn't quite get, from the minister's public statements on the question of the travel assurance fund, why the cabinet would be allowed to set different amounts to be paid into it. Could he give a brief explanation of why this section is necessary?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, it allows us to adjust the amount of the assessment per $1,000 of business transacted, and it also recognizes different classifications of people in the business, such as the travel agents themselves and the travel wholesalers.

Concern is primarily about where most of the problem occurs. Up until this point there hasn't been any differential with regard to the amount of assessment, and by watching where the problems occur, the heavier assessment may fall on that class of person — i. e., a travel wholesaler as opposed to a travel agent. So it gives us flexibility.

MR. LAUK: Some members of the industry are expressing concern that this allows the cabinet to discriminate against them without guidelines. I wonder whether or not guidelines should not be set out in the act and why the decision was made for such guidelines not to be set out in the act.

Their fear is that they will be discriminated against on grounds other than the grounds that they just fall into a class of operator in the industry, when in fact they themselves under ordinary insurance situations would not be penalized if they had a good record, for example. How does the minister answer those concerns?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the fund, as the member knows, is a pool of funds which has been created through assessment of travel agents, tour operators and travel wholesalers to insure themselves against a possible disaster. As the member knows, in insurance you can create classes or pools of funds related to how great the risk is. In the past we have found, although the assessment is the same for all, that

[ Page 7253 ]

most of the problem that we have today with the travel assurance fund is created by tour operators who get into difficulty, so it may well be that we would be able to prescribe a different type of insurance premium, if you will, for that particular class.

I can tell the member that the travel agents' association is in agreement with this type of approach. I have had meetings with them; and also under this amendment — which we deal with in another section, Mr. Chairman — there will be an industry council which will have input into any changes in regulations prior to their being made. So we have involved the industry itself, and we are trying to create a system which is fair to all, as opposed to being unfair.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has referred to the danger of very arbitrary rulings under this act. I know that for suspensions and stuff you have an appeal to the Commercial Appeals. You look at section 6, and it sounds perfectly innocuous, but some have to have their statements audited and some can be unaudited. So what's the difference in cost between those two — a thousand bucks in a year? There's a big difference. You insist that travel agents D and E submit audited statements. In effect, you've fined them $1,000, $1,500, without any kind of guidelines. I agree with what's been suggested here: that you're taking a real rush at this industry with this kind of power in the hands of a registrar. It may be that he'll look at a firm and say: "We like this one; they've made contributions; they're friendly; we trust them." They know somebody and they don't have to have an audited statement, but somebody else does. There's no appeal over that. It's an example of arbitrary government power.

I'd like to hear what the minister says. What will the guidelines be?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, under the present legislation regulations, any travel agent who does more than $5 million worth of business has to file an audited statement. Anything under that doesn't have to. What we're attempting, recognizing that we do have a problem with regard to the viability of the travel assurance fund, is that we must have some advance notice of when problems are going to occur. We want to prevent them from occurring, as opposed to picking up the pieces after.

[3:45]

I can appreciate what the member says about this tremendous power the registrar may have, but where the registrar is concerned about the activity of a small or medium-sized agency — maybe not one that's reached the $5 million figure in volume — he can require an audit in order to prevent a serious problem developing, thereby protecting the travel agents' and travel wholesalers' investment in their fund. Again I refer the member to a later section, which we have identified: an industry council that will give guidance, assistance, input to the registrar in general terms, recognizing that if he is getting "too powerful" in his decisions, they always have access to my office and my registrar, who is a public servant. Of course, we'll have to justify the reasons why he's called for an audit, but I can assure the members that this piece of legislation is primarily one that deals with prevention as opposed to dealing with a cure — in other words, paying out travelers who have been stranded somewhere because of the failure of a travel tour operator or a travel agent.

Section 6 approved on division.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, once again this allows the cabinet to exempt persons from the regulations — to exempt a class of persons from all or part of this act. It's a very broad power, and when the Legislature grants such powers, the guidelines for the granting of such an exemption should be set out in the statute. I'm going to oppose this on division.

Section 10 approved on division.

Section 11 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 69, Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 71, Mr. Speaker.

CAPITAL COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 71; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 71, Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 73.

EQUITY INVESTMENT PLAN ACT

(continued)

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to read this bill, as I managed to do over the weekend. I often wonder

[ Page 7254 ]

who the legislative counsel who put it together was and the reason for it. When you go through it, it appears that the bill was thrown together very quickly. It has 11 references to regulations which the Legislative Assembly will never see. This is hidden away in the seventh section of the bill. We have eight references to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which may prescribe conditions and circumstances under this act.

What we're looking at here is $100 million of taxpayers' money that is going to be invested in the stock market. I really don't think that the $100 million is well protected or that it will create what the minister hopes it will create. I don't say that...because the minister didn't give an explanation when he opened up second reading. I have to take the record of this government in their last attempt to allow the residents of British Columbia to learn a lesson in investment. I think we have to look at the record of BCRIC. That was highly touted by this government and by the media. It raised in the neighbourhood of $700 million of taxpayers' money from every level of the community. We were all led to believe that this $700 million was going to be invested in corporations that were going to create new jobs, stimulate the economy and broaden the base of employment. I think we all know the horrible result. That $700 million did set up a corporation, and certain jobs were created within that corporation which, when I go through their annual reports, I see are well paid. But the jobs it was designed to stimulate, the new industry it was designed to create, never took place. The bulk of it was used to buy coal mines in the southeast. That never created one new job, nor did it discover one new tonne of coal. Those jobs were already in place. Those resources were already known and discovered. That $700 million went to inflate the price of the stock of that particular company. It was bought up, and that money was taken down across the line by Mr. Kaiser. That was $700 million of British Columbia investment that came about in a very interesting way, and a lot of people believed in what was promoted.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

This is what I'm afraid is going to happen in this particular piece of legislation. It will be promoted, and there will be that gimmick. If you put $10,000 in it, you're going to have a tax-free $2,500 in your hot little hands. It's very much like the lotteries. You have a carrot, and that carrot is $2,500. That scares me, Mr. Speaker. I can see that what will happen is what happened with BCRIC. A lot of people will be encouraged — I think the word is "encouraged" — to invest in the stock market. They're going to have instant wealth, and that instant wealth will be in the $2,500 they get back with their first $10,000. What will a lot of them do? I remember 1980 when BCRIC was in the headlines everywhere. I talked to the head of my credit union, Roger Lutz, who I always considered to be a fair administrator of a credit union up until at that point. Now I look back. I took his advice. He said that as an MLA — and my particular investments were in the credit union — that I was qualified for the maximum amount of shares. I could have borrowed the $30,000, and I could have gone out and bought the 6,000 shares. He was all set up to write up the loan; and I would only have to pay it back. Now I'd still be paying back that $30,000 for the 6,000 shares that I would have bought at $6. Now, if I were lucky, I'd get $3 a share for them.

Those are the types of methods that are used to draw a lot of money — the wrong way — out of our economy. It's important that we realize that right now in British Columbia we do have a lot of money sitting in the banks, the trust companies and the credit unions.

Last spring, when we met with the B.C. Central Credit Union, they advised us that between $35 billion and $37 billion was being squirrelled away into the bank and was just sitting there. Where is that money coming from? I think this is the important part that we have to understand: where is that money coming from? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that that money is coming from the 70 percent of the people who are working in British Columbia. Seventy percent who normally work are using that money to keep our internal economy in operation.

What is happening out in the communities — and I say this very wisely — is that every one of those 70 percent is still working. They can look around at their neighbours and their friends. They have seen school teachers laid off, engineers laid off, architects laid off and public servants with many years of service instantly dismissed. What has happened, Mr. Speaker, because of this government's so-called restraint policy? They have built up a fear out in our community.

What is happening, Mr. Speaker, is that so many of these people don't want to be caught in the same position as the people who I know. University-trained people who held important positions thought that with their education and with their job choices that they had security in our community, and all of a sudden they were out of work. They couldn't make the mortgage payments that they thought they could when they committed themselves to making those loans. They thought they could maintain a lifestyle that they had been led to believe they were entitled to. I think that until this government, instead of playing games and putting together a piece of legislation that, to me, appears to be very hurriedly put together, with a lot of sections dealing with rules and regulations that no one will ever see.... It is not going to do what we must do in B.C. — that is, to create jobs and to encourage investment in a manner that is not going to have all the bad connotations that the stock market has and is not going to fall in the footsteps of BCRIC, which raised $700 million, and didn't do what the people who put that money up were hoping for.

The little investor of British Columbia wants B.C. to prosper. They want the investment; they want the jobs; they want the security that they don't have right now. They have fear. They have fear in every level. It's not the little guy, who is traditionally out of work.... . but the fear right now is at every level of the middle class — if you want to call it that, for want of a better word.

[4:00]

It was interesting when I was listening to the minister reviewing what happened in Quebec when they had a similar plan. Who did they find as the biggest users of that particular plan? Sixty-five percent of them had $100,000 a year income. I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but not too many of my constituents have an average income of $100,000 a year. Now 65 percent of those who are involved in it are from that income, 30 percent are from the $50,000 to $100,000 income, 20 percent are from the $40,000 to $50,000 bracket and 9 percent are from the $30,000 to $40,000 bracket. That is the bracket most back-bench MLAs find: themselves in. The only thing I find interesting.... I thought I had all these figures written down, and I couldn't really understand

[ Page 7255 ]

how he came to them, because when I added them up they came to 134 percent. But I guess that would be the way the present minister gets us into debt all the time. When he puts figures in his budget he has overruns. I hope that when he closes debate he explains what he meant by saying 134 percent of the people use that particular program. But I did check the figures I had with the Blues, and that was the figure that we came up with.

I think it is important that we realize that we do live in a mixed economy, and that if the taxpayers are going to be asked to put up $100 million, they get a return on that investment that is going to be beneficial to British Columbia. I really can't see that this bill is going to accomplish it. It is not going to accomplish getting those people who have the $35 billion to $37 billion hidden away in their bank accounts, to do what they normally would have done if there had been some feeling of faith and security in the economy. A lot of that money was the money that was used to build a new sundeck on their home, to build a summer cottage, to build a rec room, to buy a second car. That was the money that would have been invested in the internal economy that keeps British Columbia moving ahead.

But because of the fear that this government has pushed on the people, those who have the money are not building the recreation cottage; they are not putting the sundeck on their house. They are not hiring people locally. That has to take place. We have to create jobs. We have to get money into circulation, and we have to build. To do that we have to build some faith and some hope into the community.

When I go through this bill, I don't think it will do it. When I read the Blues, the explanation given by the Minister of Finance, I don't have any real feeling that I can go out to those who make up the majority of my riding, who are having trouble making their mortgage payments today, when maybe only one of them in the family is working.... Or worst of all, they have used all their savings, have used all their UIC and are now faced with losing their home. Not too many have $10,000 to invest in this. They want to get to work. They want to be able to create an income to pay their fair share of taxes. They don't want another scam whereby we're going to all go into the lotteries of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, and we're all going to put up $10,000, and we're all going to have an instant $2,500 to stuff in our pockets. They're not interested in that, Mr. Speaker. They're interested in working. They're interested in sitting down with this government and with their trade unions and the business leaders of this province. If we have $100 million we can create some long-term meaningful jobs. The 65 percent of the people that the minister referred to who have $100,000 incomes don't need that extra $2,500. They're going to play the stock markets because they are experts on playing the stock markets. They know the system. But I don't want to see another situation like BCRIC, where money was taken out of the community and blown. I don't want to see this money go into building a corporation for corporate takeovers.

We all know what happened in B.C. when Noranda Mines decided they wanted to take over Mac and Blo. What did they do? By dealing in the stock markets, they ran the value of stock from $35 to $60 to $65, and what happened? They took over Mac and Blo. They haven't created one new job; they haven't built one new plywood plant; they haven't found one new tree growing that is ready to be harvested. But a vast debt was loaded onto that company, a vast debt that was used for corporate takeovers. It was not used and invested in a manner that would create new jobs, new industry, or that would broaden the base of our economy in British Columbia.

I don't think this bill will do anything else but become a political scam that will be touted throughout the province on Social Credit election pamphlets or on TV with taxpayers' money, encouraging them to get rich and to have an instant $2,500 in their pockets, which will not do what is needed: that is, create jobs. As my colleague says, how many welfare people will be investing their $10,000 when you realize that their wages, benefits, were indexed, shut off, frozen, in 1981? There's not going to be too many of those. And not too many MLAs are going to fall into that 9 percent who will be putting their money in. The people it is designed to help — the $100,000 a year income and up — understand the system. They know where to invest it. But let's not try to sell something that is not going to do what we want. A lot of people will be burned, like they were in BCRIC. A lot of people out there did borrow $5,000 and $10,000. Maybe they didn't qualify like I did for $30,000, but they are still paying that loan for $3 stock which they paid $6 for. Now that we have a little change people will be buying $3 stock or $10 stock....

This is a game; that's what bothers us. No one knows what particular stock or what type of stock will be available. It will be at the whim of the government. Everyone will have that fear: how are they going to make that decision? There's nothing in the legislation that says that any of the money or any of the stock has to create jobs. All it says that it will create is $2,500, and if the stock goes down, the province of British Columbia will lose half of their investment. If it goes up they don't get any of the profits. But there's nothing in there about the type of jobs, the type of industries, the type of investment.

What we need in British Columbia is a solid plan of investment so that we know where we're going to go. We can't continue to go from one megaproject to cover one disaster to another megaproject that covers another disaster. You don't make your economic planning based on short-term, four-year elections. We don't want to have gimmicks that we sell for elections. We must have investments that are going to create some security, some hope, not only for those who are working but for the young ones going to school who need an education and must go ahead. Unless we bring in legislation that covers that type of long-term development, B.C. is going to have another large amount of money taken out of the economy to make a few rich; but it won't do what we need to have done in B.C., and that's to create work.

So I would like to say formally that I'm going to vote against this piece of legislation because I don't think it will do the job that is needed.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm opposed to this bill on the following grounds. One, it is a pathetic attempt to recoup from the disastrous taxation policies of the federal government. Secondly, it's a completely dictatorial and unwarranted interference in the free-enterprise system; I'll explain that in a minute. The bill is badly drafted and reveals a complete lack of understanding of why the province of British Columbia has not been able to attract increasing amounts of investment capital into our economy.

The problem is attracting capital out of the savings accounts of British Columbians throughout the province to increase or to maximize these amounts of capital investment in new job-creating projects. The Leader of the Opposition has told the House and the public of British Columbia for the past year and a half that there is well over $40 billion in

[ Page 7256 ]

savings in British Columbia. While new capital investment in this province has been cut off, the economy has staggered to its knees, and in desperation this government, in an election year, brings about a totally hopeless, inoperable and disastrous scheme.

[4:15]

This bill is too late. Any effectiveness has been destroyed by the Conservative government's myopic destruction of the tax write-off provisions for investments in the stock markets of Canada, and this impossible idea of a $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption, which is totally unrealistic and does not reflect an understanding of the capital investment markets of this country. They have destroyed and repealed the provisions that during a time of recession allowed for some attraction of capital even in British Columbia under this Social Credit government: that is to say, the tax write-off provisions for losses on the stock market. The Conservative government destroyed that. This incentive program, which was announced in skeleton form by the Premier last year, would have been complementary had it not been for that disastrous step taken by the federal government. It's now obviously a token gesture by the Social Credit government for election purposes. It simply won't work.

The bill is very badly drafted. The power that this government is asking this Legislature to just hand over to the cabinet is immense. The power handed to this cabinet to structure the corporate lives of British Columbia companies, and even Canadian companies operating within British Columbia, is absolutely staggering. There may be some very poor-sighted individuals in the corporate boardrooms of British Columbia who do not see the dangers here, but it is the most awesome transfer of power this Legislature has ever been asked to make. This government can totally manipulate the corporate decisions of companies in British Columbia in every aspect of boardroom decisions. Shareholders and boards of directors will be shackled to the investment decisions of the cabinet, and not by their own decision; they cannot opt out of the investment equity plan. Any shareholder who wishes to buy on the open market, in all of our law in our system, must be free to do so, and must be free to apply under the equity investment plan, because it must apply to all citizens of British Columbia. But they are at the whim of the investment judgment of the Social Credit cabinet. Under this bill, if it becomes law, the government will be able to dictate what companies can and cannot do.

This is the government that brought you BCRIC. This government was warned by the Leader of the Opposition and the previous Leader of the Opposition, and by members of the opposition from as long ago as 1979, to be careful of large government investments, because in the 1980s you won't have enough money to provide the proper services of health and education to the citizens of British Columbia. They ignored those warnings and proceeded to make massive further investments in hydro, railway and northeast coal. They proceeded to encourage the most dubious high-tech investments, which was a further bilking of the federal taxpayer. And that, by the way, is one of the reasons why the Premier abjectly failed in dealing with the Prime Minister recently with respect to increased transfer payments to British Columbia. These disasters encouraged by the Social Credit government are a full warning of what kind of investment judgments the cabinet of this province will make and dictate to the corporations of British Columbia.

The offence provisions and the provisions of this bill requiring individual corporations and their directors to repay amounts under the fund and face criminal penalties, not to mention one year in prison, are unconstitutional and again reveal a complete lack of understanding of the laws of Canada. To have a penalty of one year is running dangerously close to criminal law, and to impose these penalties without guilty knowledge on the part of individual corporations and their directors is repugnant to the sense of fair play and justice that has historically been a part of Canada.

The corporation may or may not encourage its investors to use this fund. How are they then held responsible for curtailing their own investment decisions to conform with the government's dictates? How can the government ask boards of directors, without a decision of the board, without an intention on the part of the company, on behalf of the rest of the shareholders…? But they must conform to this act and the dictates of the government if investors decide to apply to use this fund. If this is not the intention of this bill, the fund again becomes useless. I think it is anyway.

This bill is an absolute disaster, and it's being.... I would have hoped that it not be introduced at all, but I hope that if it's passed it will be completely ignored by the government and not proclaimed. I invite the government to use it as an election gimmick, but please don't proclaim it, because it is a total disaster. It is unworkable. I invite the government to take the $100 million, hire their own broker, invest in the corporations of their choice, and leave the public out of it. Let the public not be duped once again by this flimflam organization. Leave them alone. They've got high mortgages. A lot of them are unemployed. They're making less money than they've ever made. Don't suck them in once again with the Alabamian flimflam trap. This is BCRIC revisited, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Michael in the chair.]

I'm suggesting that this is the most cynical bill ever introduced in this House, and if they're serious, it's the most serious attempt at transferring total power to the cabinet, expansively controlling the corporate and investment decisions of the so-called free marketplace. Wouldn't you know it: it comes from the right-wing, so-called free enterprise government.

This is so strictured that I can't see any way in which a new share issue would not be hobbled by the restrictions in this act. The government is trying to protect its $2,500 so badly that it's using an atomic bomb to do it. I can't understand why anybody would be bothered with this thing. It's totally useless. If anybody investing in the stock market needs $2,500, I can tell the world right now they shouldn't be investing in the stock market. They don't need it. They could vary their investment with a variety of new issues. Still, if you're investing in new issues and you haven't got the wherewithal, so that you have to worry about receiving a subsidy of $2,500, forget it. You're probably not even going to get it anyway.

I think all members should carefully reflect on the passage of this bill. I certainly am opposed.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I concur with most everything my colleague for Vancouver Centre said, with possibly the exception of the fact that I don't feel that this is an election gimmick. Even a government as stupid as this one could

[ Page 7257 ]

hardly use a bill like this as an election gimmick. It is a bill that is virtually placing all the power in the cabinet. It's really an enabling bill, full of.... There are at least two or three major sections of this bill that provide them the opportunity to regulate.

One of the big problems that we have when we stand in this House is that debating is almost a will-o'-the-wisp with this government. A government that continually brings in enabling legislation, which is not definitive in any way, shape or form.... The only thing that's definitive about this is the $2,500 and the time and so on. But as far as the expanse of this bill, we're really debating something that is in the government's hands — as you do with any piece of enabling legislation. A piece of legislation that doesn't tell us what we're debating, really, is just not sufficient; it's just not something that we should be having before us in this Legislature.

I looked at the news release in the first place and I have, of course, heard the Premier talk about the marketplace, heard him talk about what people should do vis-à-vis learning what happens in the stock market; and I always have to remember that he gave us the best lesson of all. He said that people in British Columbia will learn; they will be investors.

MR. ROSE: People's capitalism.

MR. COCKE: That's right. People's capitalism — they would be investors in British Columbia, they would learn, they would understand the marketplace; and what did the people of British Columbia learn? I tend to agree with my colleague that it's not so much what the people are going to learn on this one; it's that the people that are involved with corporations that are public companies will qualify for this particular help. I have one concern, also, about the way they may use this help, converting equity into a means of paying back loans as opposed to creating more jobs as opposed to creating some energy in the marketplace.

I have very little to say, because I have listened to my colleagues and felt that they've said it. My colleague from Nanaimo said it all the first day, or a good deal of it; and others have certainly added to it. I just feel, Mr. Speaker, that this bill leaves much to be desired; it provides the government with an opportunity to move in any way they see fit. In saying that, with this government's track record, I would think that everybody should be getting a little bit worried.

Let's hear what the Minister of Finance has to say with respect to replying. We don't see this bill as doing one bit of good for the economy of British Columbia in terms of creating jobs, in terms of getting people back to work. It's a token gesture and one that wields so much power that I think that it's not worth the effort. Very few people are going to find this advantageous. I believe that this bill should have been well thought out instead of being brought in here as a great gesture. We've had a short session — a few days; nine, ten days — and what have we done? This is their answer to us when we said create a job or two. Show us where this is going to create a job or two. That's what we felt we were being brought back here for — to discuss something of consequence, something of substance, something where the government is showing they really have a desire to get this province back to work, this government that put the people in this province on the dole. Now, as a dying gesture in this particular session of the Legislature, they come up with a bill like this.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is inadequate. It's not going to do the job. Show us where the work is, other than for maybe two or three bureaucrats that are going to be provided with the responsibility of overseeing whatever the cabinet decides is going to be the substance of this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would think, pursuant to standing orders, no one else stood to speak; therefore I close the debate on second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the several speakers from the opposite side who have taken varied views of Bill 73. I want to respond to some of the points that were raised by those members. I may miss some, but we will have the opportunity in committee.

First of all, I want to restate my belief — the belief that I had, actually, when the Premier took the Canada equity plan to the first ministers' conference in February. My belief then and my belief now insofar as the British Columbia bill is concerned is that it will further stimulate the economy and that it will indeed create more employment. Because I would offend the rules, I won't recite the very positive indicators that we already see at this point in 1985. The Equity Investment Plan will impart further momentum to the B.C. economy by encouraging investment and creating jobs.

The other day the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) posed two specific questions, and — recognizing his unavoidable absence today — I would like to respond to those. He asked first: what will happen if a participating investor leaves the province? Mr. Speaker, in that event the investor will no longer be eligible to earn additional incentives. In other words, the investor has left the province, but so long as his shares remain in trust with an approved administrator in B.C. — and I would refer interested members to the definition of what an administrator is in the investment context of this bill — he will not be required to repay the incentive until he sells the shares or the plan terminates. Putting it another way, that investor may well leave the province, but the shares he or she has purchased under this act will not leave the province. They will remain in B.C.

The member for Nanaimo also asked if the federal government was prepared to accept this plan. Well, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of courtesy, just at the time of introduction of the bill last week, I spoke with the Hon. Barbara McDougall, Minister of State for Finance, to tell her that the bill was at that moment about to come into the House. But I can answer the member and other interested members that this is a British Columbia plan. It has no federal participation. It is not a tax program. It is a provincial government incentive program, and therefore federal approval is not a consideration.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who is not in his seat at the moment but may well be listening elsewhere in the House, made an error in his calculation, and I respond kindly to that. The percentage of investors in various tax brackets in the Quebec stock savings plan would not reach 100 percent. He simply added the percentages, but that was not what I said. We don't have printed Blues — at least, I don't have them available — but on page 20 of the Blues for Friday morning, towards the bottom of the page, I simply described the tax brackets. It was stated as this: "…taxpayers participating is as follows: $100,000 and up taxable income, 65 percent." What I was attempting to say

[ Page 7258 ]

there, and it reads correctly, is that of those in a particular tax bracket, a certain percentage of investors participated. That is the Quebec plan. So for his information, it is not a question of adding all those percentages up and reaching 100.

Mr. Speaker, I don't share the pessimism that has been enunciated today — and the other morning, but particularly this afternoon — by members opposite. I believe that many British Columbians, and not just the wealthiest British Columbians, will, as they learn more about the Equity Investment Plan, whether they are new participants in the Vancouver Stock Exchange or in issues trading there, whether they have had experience before or not, become interested in this plan, and they will take advantage of it.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange has its supporters and it has its detractors. It is not the perfect exchange. Mr. Speaker, I don't know of any stock exchange that is absolutely perfect, that does not have difficulties from time to time. But I must say that I took some exception to a few of the negative remarks about the Vancouver Stock Exchange from members opposite. I've been quite clear in my intention not to direct but rather to protect; and that's the key point, the key difference, between the interpretation placed on this legislation by members of the official opposition and indeed by what is intended and what I spoke of the other day.

I've been very clear in the intention to vigorously apply strict regulations to ensure that the companies that gain access to the program are operating concerns, not simply vehicles for promoters and speculators — and that's a very important point. These companies will be examined in that context and in that context only, because we are not bringing this legislation forward simply because there is a sign on a door on Howe Street suggesting that somewhere there is something in which an investment should be made. Rigorous inspection will be on that basis, and that will occur.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I state clearly, as I did earlier, that the government, or the registrar, will be endorsing the program but will not be endorsing the quality of the eligible issues. After all, the decision, first of all, to participate or not, rests with the individual. The decision with respect to one of a series of companies will also rest with the individual. By putting this plan in place, the government — in the statute, as well as in the regulations — is not, and I repeat "not," endorsing any approved issuer. That's really what the marketplace is all about, Mr. Speaker — the market and the marketplace. And I find that completely, absolutely, in tune with the philosophy which this government has, and which it has enunciated and acted on for now some nearly ten years.

I want to thank the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) — "thank" may not be the correct term. But I was appreciative of his remarks the other day, when he indicated that he sees the opportunity, through this program, to generate more activity in British Columbia. I listened very carefully to what he had to say, as well as what others across the aisle had to say. I also noted one or two cautions which the member for Prince Rupert offered.

Mr. Speaker, when this passes committee and is given royal assent, we expect investors to continue to exercise their judgment in all aspects of the plan. One of the major advantages of the program, Mr. Speaker, is that it will be open to corporations in virtually every industry in the province. I fully expect that investors will be presented with a broad selection of investment opportunities from which to choose, under the plan. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to committee debate, when that occurs.

I want to just conclude by saying that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) again referred to regulations that no one will ever see. Well, I invite members of this House, I invite interested British Columbians, to give me their views with respect to what the regulations should or should not include; I invite that, and I shall continue to invite that. And I shall heed the comments which are offered by members of this House, regardless of their political affiliation, and by interested British Columbians. The regulations will require considerable care, for the reasons which I identified in opening debate, as well as in these last few minutes.

This bill will achieve many objectives, which this government has already proved are working. This is another important piece of the road to recovery, about which we have all spoken. It will encourage British Columbians to invest in the economy by buying equity shares. And it has a side benefit as well: it will further strengthen the importance and the stature of Vancouver — I speak of it in the greater Vancouver sense — as an international financial centre. There can be no doubt about that. This, I've pointed out, is also in support of this government's long-standing objective to that end. We continue to work on that. And I can tell members that as recently as just six or seven days ago I had a most productive and useful meeting in that regard — but I stray from Bill 73 just slightly.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Equity Investment Plan will help to recapitalize firms that do business in all parts of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the criticism which I've heard today, I'm pleased to have been able to introduce this bill. A lot of work remains. But it will be good for the people of British Columbia, for those who choose to participate — and let there be no misunderstanding about that — for those who choose to take advantage of that which is offered in the Equity Investment Plan Act. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 73.

Motion approved on division.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to defer the motion to commit to later today.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill PR402.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER CHARTER

The House in committee on Bill PR402; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I'd like to advise the committee that there are two versions of Bill PR402 in the book, but the one that we will be debating has on the cover "An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter As Amended in the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services." So this is to advise all members to make sure that they have the appropriate bill in front of them as they're debating it. If that's acceptable, we will proceed.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

[ Page 7259 ]

MR. ROSE: I don't have very much to say on this, Mr. Chairman. However, I've been waiting for about two hours this afternoon to say what I have to say, so I don't think I've abused the time of the House at all.

Just let me say to you that the Vancouver city council suggested certain kinds of amendments to cover certain classes of people which go beyond our B.C. Human Rights Act. I see no reason that that couldn't prevail. However, government members in the committee felt that it would be wise to delete some of these classes, in their own wisdom. In that way I feel that the rights of certain classes of people have been diminished to the point where they are not the same classes that were put forward by the Vancouver city council.

So just on the general principle of extending rights, I see no reason why a particular council couldn't extend rights beyond an act of this Legislature. But I'm not prepared to filibuster this matter. In the wisdom of the committee and the government members, the amendment passed, and I will be supporting this amendment on division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will point out for the record that the member for Coquitlam-Moody has said "on division." However, we still have the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam to speak to section 5.

MR. PARKS: I think it should be noted, just for the record at the very least, that the present charter has a clause with respect to discrimination which only covers race, creed and colour. This amendment extends that fully so that it's consistent with the provincial human rights legislation. I think that's a great step, from the perspective of consistency, in our legislation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I just want to take this opportunity of congratulating the committee on its wisdom in rewriting that particular section, and removing what I consider the extension of a right beyond where a right should be extended and what I consider offensive words.

Section 5 approved on a division.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

Preambles approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR402, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR403, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT RESPECTING PACIFIC BIBLE COLLEGE

The House in committee on Bill PR403; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The government does not object to the amendment.

MR. ROSE: I understand that the effect of the amendment is to remove the retroactivity of the taxes of some $53,000 owed by the college to schools and hospitals and GVRD grants. I'd like the member to confirm that henceforth the college will have certain tax privileges along the lines suggested in the amendment and outlined further down on section 2; but in the meantime the money that has been paid — presumably owed — which was to be given back to the college, has now been removed, and some $50,000-plus will be paid. Thus the citizens of Surrey will not be subsidizing this institution by that amount for years gone by — henceforth they will, but not in the past.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, this does remove reference to the retroactivity. It was my understanding that the committee requested definitive explanations on the exemptions, and that is the purpose of this amendment. It is to spell it out very clearly. You're correct in your assumption that the back taxes will not he picked up by the citizens and taxpayers of Surrey. They will be picked up by the college in whatever way they can find the money.

I want to tell you that we've heard a great deal about the lack of necessity for this session, but as far as the Pacific Bible College is concerned this is the most important piece of legislation that this House is dealing with, and I would hope that we can complete it forthwith without any further delays.

MR. ROSE: I'd just like to say, without prolonging anything here, that my concern about this piece of legislation is that it is an act of this Legislature. It commits future Surrey councils to the forgiveness of certain taxes amounting to thousands of dollars over forthcoming years. So if a future Surrey council decides it will not necessarily support this kind of combination of park, church and school any longer, it is committed by an act of this Legislature, which is a higher legislative body. I think that I would have preferred it to be done on an annual basis rather than to have something in perpetuity.

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 7260 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill PR403, An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MRS. JOHNSTON: With leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill PR403, An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 72, Mr. Speaker.

PACIFIC VOCATIONAL INSTITUTE AND
BRITISH COLUMBIA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY AMALGAMATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 72; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. ROSE: I was absent last Monday afternoon when the second-reading filibuster by government members on this bill took place. I wish I could have participated in it, because I would have preferred to speak in a general debate rather than in this one, although amalgamation and continuation under section 2 is pretty broad, as I think you would agree with me, Your Honour. I don't intend to speak very long. I'd just like to say, though, that the amalgamation of the two institutes is a fact. It's been a fact now for almost six months, and therefore all we're doing is merely bringing the legislation into focus with reality. So it's a bit like closing the barn door after the horses have been removed, and several horses were removed. Some of the heads of administration were removed. I am not surprised at that, because I think there were questions about confidence by the staff and the administration — something that appeared about 17 different times.

Despite the fact that there has been considerable job loss, or possible job loss — and I have the numbers here, but I don't want to go into them and bore you with them — it can be argued, I suppose, that it avoids unnecessary duplication. I think that the two colleges merging has been generally very well received by the staff and the students. What we can do here is wish them continued success, and I think there is no doubt in my mind that I would lend my support to this particular bill.

[5:00]

I am concerned about colleges in general, and various policies associated with them. There is no denying that, but I don't think this is the place to debate that. The place is during estimates or in second reading, which I missed. However, I would like to talk about a couple of other things that concern some people. Here is an example of a merger. We've seen the erosion of the word "community" in "community college" over the past three years. That is regrettable to many people. It may not be to the minister, but it is to many people. This example here is of a merger born, I think, out of desperation. Again, I could go into some sort of detail on that, but this is not the time or place for that. I would like to get reassurance from the minister that this isn't one step in the direction of merging perhaps four lower mainland colleges which were once considered community colleges. That kind of reassurance will go a long way. I think there are all kinds of euphemisms we can use to cover this — rationalization, avoiding duplication — but a lot of people are really concerned. The minister has got all kinds of powers now under Bills 19 and 20 to abolish or establish courses, create specialties in some areas and delete them in others. No one is arguing that he hasn't got this power. But I think we really are concerned about that particular matter of a possible future merger of the four, so that the communities of Vancouver, the North Shore and New Westminster — I must be speaking too long; I just melted the ice on the ceiling — can look forward to having their own institutions, even though they have limited powers to control them.

One final thing. We are concerned about access, because for the first time in the last perhaps ten years enrolment of students in these colleges has fallen — not much, but it has fallen. That means there is less access than there was. If enrolment has fallen, that means they get less funding. It isn't because they have no greater need than they had before; but a combination of poor economic times and the raising of fees caused enrolment to suffer. It is not enough to just give a loan remission because of excellent scholarship, even if the colleges were the major recipients of this. We spent $22 million on student grants in this province the last year we had them. So over the past three years the students have lost nearly $50 million. It is not enough to give them back $4.5 million in loan remissions. Don't expect great gratitude for that.

Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to go on any further. I support the bill. Students do, the staff does, and I think the new administration has received very high marks. So I am pleased to say that I and my party take pleasure in voting for this piece of legislation.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I think that by the rules of the House I am not permitted to go into some of the detail that I would like to, because that was in second reading. Trying to keep it just to this particular section, with respect to the merger, I used an analogy which was given to me by the counsel who acts on behalf of the merged plant. I will just refer the member to it so that he doesn't have to be concerned about it. In a Supreme Court of Canada decision one of the judges said.... The reference is to the analogy of a river formed by the confluence of two streams or the creation of a single rope through an intertwining of strands. It was important. The legal support for it is found in a number of acts in various provinces of Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know, the member for Vancouver Centre drops in, and you sometimes wonder.... He gets his day's pay, and he wants everybody to see him.

[ Page 7261 ]

With respect to the merger, I appreciate the comments made by the member, because there is in fact a great deal of support for it. What is important is that the support came from faculty, support staff and students. That is critical. We have to recognize why the merger took place. The merger took place because there were two plants side by side. One needed all the space it could get, the other had a lot of vacancies within it. I don't want to get into the personalities, or what else was involved.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, I don't want to. What we did on it was, I think, the right thing.

I think I would leave it at that, save and except one thing. The member made reference to other potential mergers. I have to tell you, in all candour, that I do not know of any other mergers involved. The only discussion — and I didn't raise it — came to me from outside and involved some thought about Capilano College with one of the other colleges in the Vancouver area. I have not advocated that and I have no intention of pursuing it, but I have to be clear on this: that initiative did not come from my office at all. I just leave well enough alone, with all due respect to the member for Vancouver Centre, who has dropped in. You'll get paid today, Mr. Member. We've all seen you here and we'll accordingly report to the Clerk.

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, there's no question at all that the merger was welcome for all kinds of reasons, including those hinted at by the minister, which I won't talk about either. I've got just a couple of things that I'd like the minister to clarify.

In May of this year, the parliamentary secretary to the minister had a meeting with the....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Another section? Well, I have a problem. I have two issues I want to talk about; both, I think, can fall under section 2. The bits and pieces of them fall under various other sections. I would like to do it under section 2, and then we'll be through with it. I'll be very brief.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. Until I hear what you say, I have no opinion anyway. Please proceed.

MR. GABELMANN: Right. I'll do it very quickly anyway.

In May of this year the minister's parliamentary secretary said to the staff at the two institutes that there would be no labour implications as a result of the merger, yet as I read it there is clearly a very significant labour implication: that is, that the right of choice of interest arbitration has been taken away from the unions involved at the college. I wonder how the minister can justify the promise of the parliamentary secretary that no labour relations implications would take place, and then a major one does take place. Secondly, would he give us his view as to why the Essential Service Disputes Act is a better mechanism in this institute than the interest arbitration provision open to the employees?

That's the first issue. The second issue — and I'll do them both at once — also relates to the comment of the parliamentary secretary about no labour implications. People who are transferred to other institutions are not able to take their banked sick time with them. They appear to be small questions in terms of this legislation, but for the employees involved this second issue is very important. And in terms of industrial relations I think the first question is quite significant too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister may wish to respond to the essential service question under section 5, where it appears.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I will respond under this section in the interests of time, because I gather there is a certain amount of flexibility.

On the second item which the member for North Island has raised — the fact that banked time is not transferable — this is the first time it has ever been raised with me. I do not recall that issue ever coming up. I will give the undertaking to make an inquiry and find out exactly what has happened. What concerns me is this: you'd have to know where the transfer is taking place. Is it taking place with somebody who is on the faculty of BCIT, or is it coming from the support staff of PVI/BCIT or the faculty of PVI? If, as the member is nodding his head, it would appear to be from the faculty of BCIT, then I'll have a look into that and see what the problem is.

The other issue, though, is the one that seems to have generated some concern. I can tell you this: I do not know of any undertaking whatsoever that was given. When I talked to my parliamentary secretary about this there was, I gather, some discussion, but I am advised that at no time was any undertaking given. To explain why this section was important, support staff of both BCIT and PVI come under the Labour Code of British Columbia. The faculty of PVI come under the Labour Code of British Columbia; the faculty at BCIT really do not. They had a provision where arbitration could be unilaterally injected. I was then faced with a bit of a dilemma, and the dilemma was that if all the other groups are going to come under the Labour Code, it will cause a great deal of difficulty to shave off one category and say it does not. I take the position that either you believe in the importance of collective bargaining or you legislate it out. I prefer the former, and allow it to move on that basis. That does not preclude what the faculty association can do if they so wish, but it seems to me that unilateral election of compulsory arbitration is a touch unfair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I was in here some time listening to you, my colleague, and I was hoping that I'd get an opportunity for just a couple of minutes.

I think it was a touch unfair, and so a decision had to be made. It was as clear as that. I don't think that any difficulties will come to pass on the item.

With respect to the latter item, I will follow that one through.

MR. GABELMANN: On that latter item, two years ago the psychiatric nurses were moved out of BCIT, I believe, and they were unable to take their banked sick time with them. That's been an outstanding issue for two years. Now, as I understand it, 18 PVI staff are going to VVI and 12 PVI staff are going to Douglas. Apparently the same situation arises:

[ Page 7262 ]

they're not able to take their banked sick leave with them. That seems to me to be something that could easily be resolved if the minister would took at it.

Sections 2 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix. ]

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 72, Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 72, Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On behalf of my colleague the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), by leave I move that the proceedings for the third reading of Bill 34 be null and void and that the bill be recommitted in respect of section 10 thereof.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on section 10 of Bill 34.

FAMILY LAW REFORM AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 34; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 10.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment to section 10: deleting section 22(2) as amended and substituting section 22(1) as amended. The reason is to correct a numbering difficulty. It says 22(2), whereas it should read 22(1).

[5:15]

MR. LAUK: I can't believe the incompetence and the ineptitude of this government — the sloppiness in draftsmanship, the lack of attention to detail. These people are governing this province, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 34, Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 34, Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 73, with leave.

Leave granted.

EQUITY INVESTMENT PLAN ACT

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I was not happy to hear the Minister of Finance respond, in closing second reading debate, to our concerns about this section. The Minister of Finance has missed our point. It's not just a question of whether the cabinet can make a decision about what shares they would prefer to have as subsidies under this fund. The whole question is cabinet control over private corporations' decision-making, and where they should invest and what they should do with their money. If I invest in a company, I want that board to feel free that if they want to invest money in a subsidiary to enhance our investment, to enhance our supply, to have market penetration in another jurisdiction.... This is a restrictive bill. It's an unwarranted interference in the free enterprise system, and I think the government is making a serious mistake.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved on division.

[ Page 7263 ]

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 73, Equity Investment Plan Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is approaching the premises. Could we have a short recess?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Hon. members, I am informed that it could be approximately 15 minutes. I will ring the bells to bring members back to the chamber.

The House took recess at 5:21 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:35 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act

Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985

Family Law Reform Amendments Act, 1985

Securities Act

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1985

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985

Notaries Amendment Act, 1985

Society Amendment Act, 1985

Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985

Court Order Enforcement Amendment Act, 1985

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 1), 1985

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985

Municipal Amendment Act, 1985

Motor Fuel Tax Act

Real Estate Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985

Foreign Arbitral Awards Act

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985

Travel Agents Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1985

Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985

Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act

Equity Investment Plan Act

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter

An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, perhaps introduction is not the correct word, but thanks. I know that all members would like to express their gratitude to the Pages and the staff and everyone who has worked so hard in this assembly over the year, and to wish each and every one of them a very, very joyous and happy holiday season, and a very happy, healthy and rewarding 1986.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, we're certainly pleased to join with the government to thank all of the staff involved in the buildings and all of the staff involved with the Legislative Assembly, and wish all members the very best for Christmas and the New Year.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the third session of the thirty-third parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time and date. In the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

On the motion.

MR. COCKE: Speaking to the motion before us, I think that they're putting shackles on the Speaker, and I'm just so very saddened by that.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

[ Page 7264 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

BILL 72

The Hon. J. H. Heinrich to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 72) intituled Pacific Vocational Institute and British Columbia Institute of Technology Amalgamation Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 12 (b), by renumbering the proposed section 8 (6) as section 8 (5. 1).

BILL Pr 403

Mrs. Johnston to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. Pr 403) intituled An Act Respecting Pacific Bible College to amend as follows:

SECTION 20, by deleting section 20, and substituting the following:

Property Tax Exemption

20. (1) In this section "improvements" and "land" have the same meaning as they have in the Assessment Act.

(2) In respect of land and improvements owned or ]eased by the College and occupied by it and used by it for educational purposes, the College is exempt from payment of real property taxes under the following Acts:

(a) Assessment Authority Act;

(b) British Columbia Transit Act;

(c) Education (Interim) Finance Act;

(d) Hospital District Act;

(e) Library Act;

(f) Local Services Act;

(g) Municipal Act;

(h) Municipal Finance Authority Act;

(i) Park (Regional) Act;

(j) Taxation (Rural Area) Act;