[ Page 1027 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Downie Street Sawmills Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 1027

Ministry of Forests small business program. Mrs. Boone –– 1028

Mr. Kempf

Privatization of ambulance service. Mrs. Boone –– 1028

Student summer employment. Ms. A. Hagen –– 1028

British Columbia Summer Games. Mr. Barnes –– 1029

Sale of West Kootenay Power and Light Co. Ltd. Mr. Clark –– 1029

Private Members' Statements

Unemployment. Mr. Harcourt –– 1029

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Industrial milk production. Mr. Peterson –– 1031

Mr. Rose

Casino gambling in B.C. Mr. Sihota –– 1033

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Reform of the Senate. Mr. Loenen –– 1035

Mr. D'Arcy

Teaching Profession Act (Bill 20). Committee stage –– 1037

Mr. Jones

Mr. Clark

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Mrs. Boone

Appendix –– 1046

The House met at 10:10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On behalf of His Honour the Speaker, I would like to introduce Her Worship Shirley Henry, the mayor of Pemberton. I wish the House to bid her welcome.

MS. CAMPBELL: In the House today we have two visitors from the University of British Columbia: Miss Caroline Rigg, who is the coordinator of external affairs for the Alma Mater Society, and Mr. Simon Seshadri, who is a student member of the board of governors. Would the House join me in making them welcome this morning.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's a great pleasure for me to have as a guest in the House today and to introduce to you Mr. and Mrs. Miyatake from the Sony Foundation in Japan, together with Dennis Okada from Camosun College. Would you please bid them welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement and apologize to the House for the manner in which I answered a question yesterday, put to me by the opposition House Leader. I answered the question truthfully yesterday in that I don't recall making the statement, but it has been brought to my attention that I did make such a statement. Therefore I apologize for misleading the House, and I apologize to anyone who finds the statement offensive.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, it saddens me to say this, because apologies are seldom easy, but we on this side of the House view this matter very seriously.

Basically, I believe there are really two issues at stake. One is the misleading of the House, and a blatant attempt to cover the "poor white trash" remark with a categorical denial, which obviously failed, or else we wouldn't be receiving the minister's statement today. The other issue is that "poor white trash," I believe, reflects a contemptuous attitude towards the problems and concerns of decent people which I'm afraid runs right through this government.

Perhaps the minister's insensitivity to the unemployed stems from an upbringing which has shielded him from the misery and despair of those condemned to poverty in perpetuity, and to dismiss the unskilled and unschooled as "trash" is to dismiss living and breathing human beings as non-persons.

I might accept the minister's apology because of our personal relationship, but will British Columbians do so? Mr. Minister, there are two cases in which you've had memory lapses — one in a conflict of interest case and one in a case that is before us now. Perhaps it's time to go.

[10:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister offered a categorical apology. Political reference and argument outside of that from the opposition is unacceptable.

Oral Questions

DOWNIE STREET SAWMILLS LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). In the campaign last October the Premier indicated that the government would do everything it could to get Downie Street Sawmills Ltd. reopened in Revelstoke. Could the minister confirm that that is still a policy of government?

HON. MR. PARKER: Thank you to the member for Vancouver East for the question. The intention of this ministry and this government is to assist Revelstoke with establishing a viable forest industry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there are now 100 unemployed workers who would like to get back to work at Downie Street Sawmills. They've indicated they would take changes in their wage structure and everything else if that could be achieved. The IWA has agreed, and there is an industrialist prepared to reopen on that basis and has negotiated with Federated Co-operatives Ltd., the owners. Is the minister contemplating that proposal in a serious way, or has the minister dismissed that proposal?

HON. MR. PARKER: The matter is under review. I've been in touch with Mr. Neil Menard of the IWA of that local and had discussions with him. The likelihood of any sort of a transfer to the industrialist whom the member for Vancouver East alludes to is unlikely. However, there are alternatives, and we are entertaining all the alternatives.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister then confirm that he is separating the cutting rights from that mill?

HON. MR. PARKER: The entire matter is under review at this time.

MR. WILLIAMS: The lower levels of the ministry indicated a green light with respect to reopening Downie Street Sawmills and providing every encouragement. It's clear, then, that something has happened at the higher levels of the ministry and that new directives are there in terms of employment in the Revelstoke community. Is that the case?

HON. MR. PARKER: For the House's benefit, this ministry is very much concerned with the well-being of the community of Revelstoke and its environs, and we are reviewing the situation in Revelstoke with a view to working with not only the laid-off members of the IWA and Downie Street Sawmills, but the entire community. The whole matter is under review, and when a decision is made this House will be apprised of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: A group of Social Credit bagmen who supported the Minister of Transportation and Highways has formed a consortium to take over those timber rights. Can the minister advise the House as to whether or not they will receive favoured treatment?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is out of order.

[ Page 1028 ]

MINISTRY OF FORESTS
SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

MRS. BOONE: My question is to the Minister of Forests. A Prince George report released April 24 shows that over the next 20 years, Dunkley Lumber plans to allocate only 7 percent of its annual allowable cut to the small business enterprise program. Other licences in the area show similar proposed percentages, yet the ministry has previously stated that its goal is to allocate 25 percent of the provincial annual allowable cut to the small business program. Is it now ministry policy that 7 percent is an acceptable allocation to the small business program?

HON. MR. PARKER: The small business program has been stated in the past as a matter of record: that the objective ultimately would be 25 percent of the provincial allowable cut. We haven't made any policy statement otherwise that I am aware of.

MRS. BOONE: Can the minister tell the House what plans or what efforts his ministry is making to assure the small business people that they do in fact get 25 percent of the allowable cut?

HON. MR. PARKER: The small business enterprise program will continue to be a major part of the forest policy of this ministry. As far as guarantees go, I don't know of any guarantees in this life, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the minister is in favour of giving the small guy a larger opportunity in the forest industry of this province, and that's good. But I have a supplementary question. If the minister is serious and truly has a place in his heart for the small logger and trucker in this province, has he decided, when giving his government's blessing to the Fletcher Challenge-BCFP merger, which makes a new multinational corporation that's the largest forest company in this province, how much of their annual allowable cut will be directed to the small business enterprise program?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I think the matter of merger is conjecture at this time. When it is a solid proposal, this ministry will consider it accordingly.

PRIVATIZATION OF AMBULANCE SERVICE

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health on privatization of ambulances. Recent reports indicate that the excellent ambulance service in B.C. Is one of the targets for privatization. Can the minister assure British Columbians that no review or negotiations are underway regarding the sale of our ambulance service?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any assurance that there isn't a review underway in all ministries.

MRS. BOONE: Can the minister tell us if a review is underway and if negotiations are taking place at this time to sell the ambulance service?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you that, because it falls under another ministry.

STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. On Tuesday the minister announced funding for this summer's student employment program. Given that the number of students unemployed last year — in what was a reasonably good year — was 20 percent and that there are predictions for unemployment to go as high as 30 percent this year, and given that the federal government has increased its contributions to Challenge '87, how can the minister justify his decision to keep provincial funding at the same level as last year, which will in fact produce 10 percent fewer jobs for students than last year?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, the total contribution and it is not a student employment program; it is a youth employment program — is $29 million this year, which is $19 million from the federal government and $10 million from our government.

This program seems to be working very well. I realize that it may not address the needs of every individual out there, but we are trying to make sure that it addresses as many individuals as possible. From what I have seen in my travels around the province meeting youth from every area, they seem very keen on getting out there and not only getting jobs through the Challenge '87 program but getting jobs on their own that are available by an industry in other areas of the province. I see young people being very creative and very aggressive in seeking these jobs.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Minister, the new student loan requirements for this year stipulate that those students who can't find jobs — which may be a considerable number in spite of your optimism — will be required to perform compulsory volunteer work. Has the minister yet decided on guidelines for what kind of work is acceptable under this volunteer program? Who will decide and what protection will there be to prevent students or young people from doing work as volunteers for which they really ought to be paid?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, there is no compulsion for them to either work or do volunteer work under that program. If they wish to get government assistance for their education, the government is saying that they have to work or do volunteer work, but if they don't want to work or volunteer, they don't have to take the assistance.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could the minister please advise this House what guidelines are in place for what will be accepted as volunteer work? Could he advise the House about what protection there will be for students who may be doing volunteer work for which they should be paid?

HON. S. HAGEN: The guidelines are being worked on right now by my ministry. When they are ready, I will mail them to the member.

MS. A. HAGEN: Has the minister scheduled a meeting with the Canadian federation of university students to review their prediction that student unemployment this year may rise as high as 30 percent? If he has not, could he explain to the House why not?

[ Page 1029 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: I might remind the hon. member that the Canadian Federation of Students is only one of the student groups in this province and, in fact, does not represent the majority of students. However, I have met with them on many occasions. I might remind the hon. member for New Westminster that the incoming president of the Canadian Federation of Students was a member of the committee that drew up the guidelines for the student financial assistance program. As a matter of fact, I value his input a great deal. At any rate, I am pleased to meet with any group of students, as I have done in the province over the last five months. The last time I met with the Canadian Federation of Students executive was about three weeks ago. The matter was not raised at that time. I would be pleased to meet with them at any time.

BRITISH COLUMBIA SUMMER GAMES

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism, in his role of being responsible for the British Columbia Summer and Winter Games. As the House knows, the Summer Games have become very popular and well-known for their community-building capacity. However, there is some concern that the minister has been contemplating restricting the participation from all comers, all ages, to perhaps ages 15 and 16 –– I would like the minister to indicate whether or not there is any validity to those concerns.

Secondly, has the minister received any complaints from the board of the Surrey games, which are coming up in July, with respect to a shortfall on funding? There has been some difficulty with paying salaries and merchants; as you could appreciate, there has been some embarrassment with respect to that. Could the minister clarify those points?

HON. MR. REID: The answer to the first question is that there is no change in the policy being contemplated for the age structure of participants in the Summer and Winter Games. I'm not sure where that came from, but there is no contemplated change.

The second question is to do with funding for the Summer Games in Delta and a concern they have for meeting their commitments to do with some of their obligations. We have given the assurance to the board of directors of the Summer Games in Delta — it's in Delta this year — that providing they meet the criteria of the budget which they have submitted to the ministry for approval, their commitments will be met. Anything ongoing beyond the submitted budget will not be met by the provincial government.

SALE OF WEST KOOTENAY
POWER AND LIGHT CO. LTD.

MR. CLARK: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. On April 20, the International Union of Operating Engineers' pension fund administrators sent a letter to the government requesting the opportunity to review the books of West Kootenay Power and Light and submit a bid, before the Utilities Commission allows the sale of the company to a non-Canadian company. To date the union has not received a response. Could the minister tell the House what his position is? Has he decided to do what he can to allow the Operating Engineers' pension plan to make a meaningful bid in this matter?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I have replied to the Operating Engineers and welcomed what in effect is a backup bid. If, for reasons which the Utilities Commission would outline — and, I stress, if — the takeover by UtiliCorp is turned down, then these other bids are certainly welcome.

Private Members' Statements

UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement about unemployment, as the focus of this week is to concentrate and reflect on the tragedy of an economy that is not productively utilizing all the talents we have, and the results on an individual basis.

It's important for us not to consider just the unemployment statistics. Sometimes as political leaders we see the statistics go up or down and regard it like a baseball game, instead of the tragedy of hundreds of thousands of people and their families. I would like to have us reflect — those of us who are fortunate enough to be fully and gainfully employed — on the plight of many British Columbians who are not. Even though the unemployment figures have gone down from 14-some-odd to about 13 percent — a common occurrence about this time of the year — we should not be complacent about the chronic double-digit unemployment that we have in this province, particularly in the areas outside of the lower mainland and Victoria and among certain segments of the population.

I bring to mind the fact that in the 15-to-24 age group, among males there's a 24 percent unemployment rate. What a terrible waste of young people!

[10:30]

In the regions outside of Vancouver and Victoria, there's almost a 15 percent unemployment rate in the West Kootenays, about 15 percent in Okanagan South and about 17.6 in Kamloops — indeed, that's where a huge amount of the social welfare and housing budget is being spent by the minister who is the MLA for that area. In the Prince George and the northern interior area it is 16.8 percent. Among native people — for example, the Atlin reserve — there is almost 80 percent unemployment. I think we should realize that this is a chronic problem, and it's a serious problem for a number of British Columbians and their families — almost half a million. That's a huge number which doesn't show up in just the bald figures. We should contemplate that other regions are doing much better. For example, in Ontario the unemployment rate has been reduced to 6.7 percent; in Manitoba the unemployment rate is 8.4 percent. So we can do much better, and it is being done better elsewhere.

The disappointment of members of the opposition is that in the throne speech and in the budget speech there was no mention of job creation; there was no focus on job creation. We as a caucus said, well ahead of time, that we were not going to get involved in ambush politics. We were going to lay out, before the session started, what we thought the priority was, and we did that. We met as a caucus. We said that the priority is to deal with this chronic double-digit unemployment, to put together a bipartisan committee, a task force of this House, to do as we did after we had gone through a very serious, huge change in this country with the Second World War and the Depression. In 1943-44 we put together a post-war reconstruction task force that had such notable MLAs as the future Premier, W.A.C. Bennett — almost

[ Page 1030 ]

Premier except for a preferential ballot and a few other things like that; Harold Winch; Tilly Rolston; Dorothy Steeves, the Minister of Education at the time. As a Legislature we worked for our people, to have jobs for the veterans who were coming back after the war. My father's company, when he got out as a lieutenant-commander in the navy, made sure that his life insurance brokerage job was there for our family, but many other British Columbians didn't have that same sort of opportunity to come back to.

We said that we should deal with employment and job creation in that way, and we were turned down, We were turned down in the throne speech. We were turned down in the budget. We were turned down in our request for cooperation, which was a disappointment to us. What has happened instead is a diversion, a distraction, with this very savage anti-labour legislation that is now before this House. So it's an even bigger tragedy in this province, because instead of bringing stability, job creation, investment to have these people go back to work, to have British Columbians gainfully employed, to have their spirits restored and their family life made healthier, they are languishing, They are languishing in a state of unemployment.

I want to talk about this not in a statistical sense, as I said before, in this week where we think about the tragedy of unemployment, but in the human sense. There are some very important facts to remember about unemployment. First of all, I'd like to refer to a book called Out of Work, where in 1977 Cy Gonick showed that about 56 percent more people are unofficially unemployed than the official employment statistics. In British Columbia, where almost 200,000 people are unemployed, that would add another 100,000 people; that's 300,000 British Columbians. These unofficial statistics are people who have given up looking for work.

I want to talk about the young people I've met as I've gone around the province: the young person I met in Vernon — I talked about him in my speech about the budget — who took training in an auto mechanics course, and then the dealership in Vernon that he was going to work in went out of business. He then went back and took a heavy-duty mechanics course, and the bottom fell out of our construction industry. He went to Calgary and invested a thousand dollars, on top of the $12,000 he'd already put into these courses, in a program, in some material, in some work boots, in order to work in the oil patch — and look what happened to the oil patch. That young person is getting very discouraged. Those are the people we're talking about, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's important for us to ponder the economic, social and moral consequences of unemployment, and I will conclude by quoting from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who, I think, put the moral dilemma very clearly. I quote from their statement of 1983:

"Unemployment rather than inflation should be recognized as a number one problem. The fact that 1.5 million people are jobless constitutes a serious moral as well as economic crisis in this country. By creating conditions for permanent unemployment, an increasingly large segment of the population is threatened with the loss of human dignity. The present economic crisis reveals the deepening moral disorder in the values and priorities of our society."

Mr. Speaker, we have to do better for the 500,000 people and their families in this province who are unemployed.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am pleased to respond to the Leader of the Opposition. He concentrates on the figures of unemployment. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is very real in terms of human beings and those whom we all serve in this House.

I want to tell you that the Ministry of Economic Development and I addressed this through the ministry, not in terms of labour figures but.... The Ministry of Economic Development is addressing in a very real way the problems of unemployment. The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) is not in the House today to respond to this, but I am delighted to do so in terms of my responsibility.

I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not put out an economic initiative this morning which would see the solution to those problems that he mentioned. But let me ask you this: have we heard in this House any support for the bilateral trade negotiations which we are now addressing with the United States of America? The largest two-way trade in the world is done between our two countries. We haven't heard from that opposition leader, nor that opposition party, where they stand on this marketplace of 270 million people, where the access to the U. S. through British Columbia by the Pacific Rim countries will further enhance our Pacific Rim trade.

Now I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to find solutions, and I congratulate him for that, because he will put a new tone on the opposition benches in that regard. I look forward to his cooperation in terms of enhancing our Pacific Rim trade as well as our trade with the best customer we have in this nation; that is, with the United States bilateral trade talks. Let me say that the pre-trade talks are a number one priority for enhancing employment and will be settled, hopefully, by October of this year. We will call on the opposition to help us in that regard; we will call on them to stand up to be counted on that initiative.

One of the most important things that we do have in our economic plan is the Pacific Centre for Trade, Commerce and Travel –– I know that everyone knows that our strongest and fastest trade links are with the Pacific Rim and our Pacific trading partners. We also know that British Columbia, with Vancouver as a key hub, is the principal Canadian gateway to the Pacific. Expo 86 established us in this province with a new and favourable profile for international visibility, and I can tell you that the Pacific Centre for Trade, Commerce and Travel will bring us the kind of support that we need to create new international investment jobs.

A memorandum of agreement has been signed with the federal administration. There is $6 million put up between us to make sure that between now and the fall we will have action behind that plan. And it isn't a bricks and mortar thing. It's an integrated strategy built upon a series of interrelated initiatives in transportation, tourism, manufacturing and financial and trading services, the like of which has never been done in this province. It will be an exciting initiative with which to go into the new era and the new economy,

We are concentrating on the kinds of things which the Leader of the Opposition should have talked about, and that is the industries that will give us value added, and will create new jobs and a diversification of our economy. We are in an international marketplace.

[ Page 1031 ]

It was interesting that in relation to job creation, the Leader of the Opposition talked about labour legislation. Let me tell you, we send a signal to the world that this is going to be a safe place for their risked dollars, a safe place for t investment.... 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes, the opposition can cry out, but I can tell you that when people like those who are seated in our gallery, who have come and brought investment dollars to this province and created jobs and looked to our province as a place where they will bring more investment and will create more investment.... I have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they look at the labour climate in a very important way. That's why this labour legislation is so important.

So we have a tremendous capability to create the jobs that the Leader of the Opposition wishes, and I look forward to working with all members of this House, because it is not a partisan commitment. Nor should it be.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I think that if our idea of economic development is a vice boat going between Vancouver and Victoria, we are indeed in trouble. And if the minister was in the House when our caucus was discussing the throne speech and the budget speech, we were overflowing with ideas for job creation that we were prepared to share with the government on a task force on job creation. We said to the Premier that we were prepared, if he didn't want to set up more bureaucracy, with a legislative task force — that's the first time I've ever heard us as politicians being called bureaucrats, being called bureaucracy; I thought we were here as the elected leaders of this province.

[10:45]

We said that we were prepared to set up a task force. When that was turned down by the Premier we said: "Let's use your existing committees, which we're sure are there to work in good faith and in a cooperative way." We said that we are prepared to work to utilize two of the committees. We even suggested the two committees, and we had our caucus members all ready to serve. The Minister of Economic Development turned down that proposal; the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) turned down that proposal; the Premier turned down that proposal.

So then, because they wouldn't sit down and cooperate and consult and work with us, we said through the Legislature: "You want some job creation ideas? Here they are. Forestry is our megaproject. Let's invest some of that windfall money that's coming from the softwood lumber tariff back into trees, back into silviculture, back into proper nurseries, back into having the 20,000 to 30,000 young British Columbians I just talked about here employed in the forests being proud tree farmers." And our shadow forest minister has laid out in some detail what those ideas would be — how we could employ thousands and thousands of British Columbians throughout this province, particularly in the high unemployment areas in the Kootenays and Prince George and the north, in replanting our forests and getting more value out of the logs that we cut down.

We put forward specific proposals that the Minister of Economic Development wasn't listening to at that time and isn't listening to now, because she doesn't want to hear positive ideas. She's got her mind made up with her own clichés and won't listen to good ideas. That was one thing we put forward. We said let's invest in our education system, Mr. Speaker, let's invest in our young people and not in some of these programs that have been put together that are supposed o be creating jobs but that aren't.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member his time is complete.

MR. HARCOURF: Yes, but I have many more things to say about job creation. And I would be only too pleased to send the Hansard to the minister to read so she can understand what job creation is all about, Mr. Speaker.

INDUSTRIAL MILK PRODUCTION

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll try to stay within my time limit.

I'd like to make a statement on the industrial milk production in B.C. By way of definition, our British Columbia dairy farmers produce two types of milk for marketing. There's fresh fluid milk which is produced for drinking. Fortunately British Columbia is currently 100 percent self-sufficient in fluid milk. The second type is industrial milk. It's used to manufacture non-fluid products such as butter, cheese, yogurt and cottage cheese.

Non-fluid products or industrial milk are regulated by federal regulations according to national need. The real crux of the problem with British Columbia is that we are allowed to produce 3.7 percent of the country's industrial milk, but yet we've got about 12 percent of the total population. By comparison, Quebec and Ontario are allowed not only to produce enough milk for their own needs but also to produce industrial milk for export.

Another point is that 70 percent of all B.C. dairy products, excluding fresh milk, come from outside the province. By way of example of the problem we have, Scardillo Cheese Ltd. of Burnaby states that their company could double its sales from $12 million a year to $24 million a year if it could get enough industrial milk to produce cheese. Unfortunately, under the current quotas allowed, they cannot get the milk. B.C. milk producers could easily fill this demand, but under current regulation are forbidden to do so. These facts are costing B.C. Jobs in dairy farming, industrial milk processing and sales, and of course the many support industries associated with agriculture.

Before I carry on, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I fully and totally support the concept of supply management in the agricultural sector.

MR. CLARK: What about free trade?

MR. PETERSON: Just wait a minute.

I will give you some reasons why. First of all, because it eliminates cyclical and unpredictable price fluctuations.

Number two, it sets prices at a level that ensures our dairy farmers a fair return for their work and investments.

Number three, it protects farmers from dumping by other countries with competing products that are highly subsidized. For example, the overproduction of milk in 1985 in the U.S.A. was equal to the total demand in Canada. Think what would happen to Canada's dairy industry if they were allowed to dump that product here.

[ Page 1032 ]

Number four, it allows farmers to generate the capital required to improve their productivity. A good example of that is the amazing improvement that Canadian dairy farmers have made with the holstein-friesian cow. That cow is now world-renowned. In fact, right out of Langley we've got a company by the name of Emtech, and they export embryos to Russia, China and worldwide. That is a spinoff benefit from the ability of our dairy farmers to improve their productivity. Everybody benefits from it.

So I will continue to support supply management until somebody can come up with a better formula. In all fairness, we have made some progress. In January 1985, all provinces except B.C. were required to take a 1 percent cut in their quota. As a result, we have gone from 20 percent self-sufficiency in non-fluid dairy products to 30 percent self-sufficiency. But that is simply not good enough. Our objective must be at least 100 percent, with some hope also of exporting some of that product.

This government is not standing idly by. On April 28, our Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) announced that the B.C. government will conduct a study of B. C.'s position within the national milk marketing plan for the production of industrial milk. Our Premier said that the system as it operates today is too inflexible, and it doesn't allow enough scope for B.C.'s dairy industry to develop new markets or new products according to demand. If I can quote, he also said:

"This is another example of B.C. finding itself unnecessarily restricted by the way in which federal national policies are being implemented. I would like to see a national system that allows the development of sound policies within the B.C. dairy system which will build on the current one-half billion dollar annual contribution this industry makes to the B.C. economy. The benefits are felt by every British Columbian."

Our Minister of Agriculture said the reason B.C. wants a larger share of MSQ — which is the market share quota for industrial milk — is to give B.C. producers a chance to supply B.C. processors with more milk and help them take advantage of the new opportunities in B.C. and in external markets. He went on to say:

"We see significant new market opportunities and product development opportunities, especially in the export area, and we can't fill those needs because of the characteristics of the current system. We are facing situations where we are supplying boxes and labels, but without the ingredients. We have the capability but not the authority to produce."

Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse this initiative, and I ask that all members of this Legislative Assembly do the same. The value of the national program is substantial, and it is to the benefit of all to make changes from within it if at all possible. We should strive for that.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his speech and to tell him that we on this side of the House show equal concern and have a record of showing equal concern for the health of the agricultural industry and the dairy industry in particular in British Columbia as well as Canada. I think the record will show that under the ministry of the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) there were a number of initiatives brought in, including the farm assurance programs that extend to many commodities — including milk. While the hon. member for Nanaimo was usually told at farm meetings that he was the best Minister of Agriculture B.C. ever had, we wonder why that isn't reflected in some of the electoral support we get on the farms. I would suggest....

HON. MR. VEITCH: What you see is not what you get.

MR. ROSE: Yes, right. I would suggest that there are certain contradictions in what the second member for Langley has said, however. As I recall from when I was on a Natural Products Marketing Act committee and toured Canada — I guess around '72 — every province wants to seek self-sufficiency in everything, including Newfoundland in eggs, And to seek self-sufficiency and at the same time seek export markets into other provinces or beyond our jurisdictions seems to me a bit of a contradiction. It's very difficult to have those things happen both at the same time. Either have one or the other, because if we want to export to other provinces, then we would have to be available for importing as well.

So we've got problems that way, and I think they're going to be further compounded if we move into free trade in agricultural products with the United States — and there's no assurance that we won't — because the U.S. surplus in milk alone is more than our Canada-wide production. So there is considerable risk for the dairy producer. I notice the member for Central Fraser Valley listening there. I know he's an avid free-trader, but in spite of that fact he believes in free enterprise. He's a very enthusiastic member of the Fraser Valley Milk Producers' Co-op. There again, there are interesting contradictions that run through some of our activities. I didn't say that to embarrass him, just to amuse him a bit. Perhaps I did both. I hope not.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't develop into another case of Ottawa-bashing, because the second member for Langley says: "Well, if they would only give us our rights. This is an example of national programs failing to meet the needs of British Columbia." Let me remind him of a few things. The government — your government, agreed to a 4 percent quota effective 1985. Nobody else did that; nobody else forced this government to agree to that. The Milk Board is set up by your government to make these arrangements, so if you wish to change the arrangements, perhaps you might want to change the nature of the Milk Board. That means legislation. So I think that is another possibility. If the government is unsuccessful in renegotiating its particular stance in relation to market-sharing, then it has the option that it took in 1983 to opt out. I notice that it opted out and then hopped back in again, so obviously opting out didn't solve the problems.

Sure, we need a larger market share; of course we do. It's extremely important that we do have opportunities for a healthy agricultural economy. But industrial milk and the use of it is declining. Since '73 there's been a 20-percent increase in milk production — maybe not in British Columbia, because we do have supply management here, but other provinces have taken a cut during this period as well. Quebec is down 7 percent, Ontario is down 15 percent and Saskatchewan is down 35 percent. Now B.C. has a commitment, I'm told, not to serve a one-year opt-out notice before June 30, 1988, so we're stuck at least until 1988, according to our plan. The study the minister announced is going to take

[ Page 1033 ]

three months, and when B.C. entered the plan, because of supply management and other factors, our production was actually less than we could use — we couldn't produce enough to supply our demands, not for industrial milk. It has since grown, so it requires some adjustment. But I agree that we can now comfortably meet our production quotas.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker, just a little bit of history. In 1970 or thereabouts, of a $130 million subsidy we got $1 million. We need far more than that; we need a bigger quota too. I agree with that.

MR. PETERSON: First of all, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Coquitlam-Moody, I'd really like to thank you very much for the support of you and your caucus. That's very gratifying.

I must take you to task on a couple of points you brought up. You indicated a contradiction. I don't feel there's a contradiction there. Perhaps I didn't state my case properly, or perhaps because it's Friday, getting near the end of the week, the hon. member didn't hear me correctly — I'm not sure. However, what I said — what I meant, anyway — was that we should strive first for self-sufficiency. I think that should be our primary objective. And then, second, we should try to develop markets for export. Export doesn't necessarily have to be to other provinces. It could be out of this country. We love those Yankee dollars here. I've got no problem with that whatsoever.

You brought up the free-trade issue. Well, I think this government's policy on that is very clear. I'm quite sure the hon. member realizes that. The policy is that the integrity of the supply management system must be maintained. In fact, the federal government's bargaining agenda says that the supply management system is not negotiable. So hopefully, you know, that status quo will remain; and I feel it will, because it's very important to us.

You talked about the 1985 agreement. We made some major headway there. It's impossible to get the total objective at one time, but we increased our ability to produce our industrial milk by 10 percent as a result of that. That's progress; that's headway. I see nothing wrong with that. If we continue doing that, I think the powers that be should be congratulated.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member again for his support. I've got great faith in our Minister of Agriculture. He is doing a wonderful job for us. I wish him all the luck in this new thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, I might just read the rules for these statements, because I noticed that the minister wanted to stand up and I didn't want to cut him off unfairly, or have him think he was being cut off. The rules are very plain. The proponent has a maximum of seven minutes, any other members have a maximum of five minutes and the proponent in reply has a maximum of three minutes. The rules do not permit any changes to that. That's why I couldn't recognize the minister — the five minutes have been used up by the opposition House Leader.

CASINO GAMBLING IN B.C.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's my view that to date this government's statements on gambling have been riddled with inconsistencies and half-truths. It's also my submission that this government has privately decided that it wants to get into gambling for profit at the expense of charities. I want to outline why it is that I've come to that conclusion.

The provincial government has been justifying its venture into ferry-boat gambling by saying it's an experiment. The essence of its public position was best expressed by the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) on January 15, 1987, when he said — and I quote from the Times-Colonist: "Gambling will not be extended to destination resorts until there has been a very good evaluation of how it works on the ships." The question that flows naturally from that is: what does the on-water experience tell us about on-land gambling?

We know, for example, that in the first four years they had gambling in Atlantic City, crime increased by 171 percent. It increased in such areas as purse-snatching, burglary, B and E and holding up local grocery stores. What does on-water, on ferry gambling tell us about how the police can control breaking and entering, purse-snatching and hold-ups of local groceries? In other words, the experience on water tells us nothing about on-land problems in gambling.

We know, for example, that gambling invites drugs, prostitution and pimps. What does the on-water, on-ferry experience tell one about how to prevent drugs, prostitution and pimps from infiltrating the casinos? Whether they're publicly or privately operated, this element always shows up outside casinos. What does the on-water experience tell police about how they can deal with the infiltration of Mafia and other criminal elements into on-land casino operations?

The point is that to use the experience on the ferries, on water, as a forerunner of on-land casino operations is totally illogical. It makes no sense at all. The essence of the government's position, hence, is therefore quite illogical. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the reason why the government is interested in doing the on-water experiment is because it wants to justify bringing in on-land-casino operations through the back door. They can point to the on-water experience and say that it went quite well without really dealing with the real problems. To use that as the basis is a little bit like trying to do a chemistry experiment in a physics lab. It just doesn't make any sense to transpose the results from one to the other.

MR. BARNES: It's a false analogy.

MR. SIHOTA: Exactly. The Attorney-General has said repeatedly: "Trust us. We do not intend to bring on-land gambling into this province, particularly for-profit gambling." Why should we trust the Attorney-General? One simply has to review some of the comments that this government has been making in the last three or four months; the review of those comments brings into question the motivations of the government.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

For example, on January 15, 1987, Madam Speaker, the Attorney-General said that if the public were to appraise what it thinks of gaming, it would have to have a longer experience than a one-hour cruise to Seattle. Yet the Attorney-General is using as the barometer to support on-land gambling the very thing he said he would not use: the experience on the Marguerite and the Vancouver Island Princess. On January 15 he said he wasn't going to do that, and now he's doing that.

[ Page 1034 ]

On January 23 the Premier said: "No Dice to Ferry Casinos." We now have casinos on the Vancouver Island Princess and the Princess Marguerite. On January 17, 1987, the Premier said that charities would get the revenue from the Marguerite and the Vancouver Island Princess. Yesterday the government confirmed that profits from casino operations on those two boats would go to offset the operations of those two boats. This morning on CBC radio, when being asked to justify the position, the Attorney-General said: "The Princess Marguerite is a charity."

Is every Crown corporation — B. C. Transit, B. C. Rail, B.C. Ferries — deemed to be a charity in the government's point of view, and hence eligible for casino operations? The government's position has been riddled with illogical inconsistencies that are half-truths, and they just don't make any sense. Why? They're trying to mask from the public their true intentions, which is to move into profit gambling at the expense of charities.

I say that for three basic, reasons. Firstly, because it has a problem with its lotteries. The revenue from the lotteries does not equal the demand for lottery funds, which is because of the legacy of the Expo debt. The government is looking for other alternatives.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, as a matter of government public policy, the Social Credit government has decided to go into casino gambling. Why else would it spend $400,000 to update the boats before calling into play a commission that is then to make decisions as to whether or not we should have gambling? It expended the money first and then set up the commission second. It put the cart before the horse.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, this government has made a commitment to its friends in the crime-infested casino industries. Why else would the Golden Nugget Casino operation in Vancouver expend a quarter of a million dollars to expand its operations into Vancouver if there wasn't a private commitment? I think it's evident that the government is indeed moving towards private sector casino operations.

I notice that my time has run out, but I want to say that the bottom line of this is that when you have on-line casinos, you invite crime. A Solicitor-General's study said that virtually every study undertaken in the United States, Britain, Australia and elsewhere pointed out that casino gaming, whether illegal or legal, encourages organized criminal activity. Is that what this government wants to encourage in this province?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll reply to the Hon. member as the acting Attorney-General. I'm unencumbered with the lack of a law degree so I don't know about the crime relating to the ferries — the purse-snatching, drugs, prostitutes, pimps and all those things. Did you suppose, Hon. member, they were all going to pay their way on the Princess Marguerite and sail along to do some purse- snatching?

MR. SIHOTA: That wasn't my point, and you know it.

MR. VEITCH: They would have to swim ashore. You're completely inconsistent in your approach to this thing.

The Hon. member is a lawyer, and he does understand this. He talks about public and private gaming casinos and so forth, and I'm sure the Hon. member understands that under the Criminal Code of Canada, only governments can operate lotteries, and only governments can operate gaming of this kind in Canada. So again, your argument is completely specious.

What we're doing on the Princess Marguerite is allowing individuals — and most of these people are from the United States of America — to come up to Canada and spend some good American dollars, Hon. member, and such money that they might leave elsewhere. I don't see anything wrong with it.

We have a Gaming Commission in British Columbia, made up of very fine, outstanding British Columbians, who will be studying this whole business of gaming and gambling in British Columbia. I think it's the appropriate way to go. They'll be looking at this, and I think that some of the examples and information that can be gained from such areas as the Princess Marguerite will be beneficial to them. It is a controlled environment as far as gambling is concerned. You can't have it much more controlled than you would out on the sea, floating around, with all these purse-snatchers and pimps and prostitutes you're talking about, who are going to be running around out there.

MR. BARNES: Tell us about the commission.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The commission will have the opportunity, Mr. Second Member.... I remember when you were the first member; you're going downhill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't think there'll be any clergy on the commission — no gambling priests; no liquor vicars.

At any rate, I believe that the Gaming Commission will have an opportunity to study, in a very controlled environment, the effects of gambling in British Columbia. I don't think you could find a better way of doing it.

The Hon. member mentioned the Princess Marguerite. He knows full well that the Princess Marguerite was poorly financed at the outset. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), as I understand it, borrowed the money from a credit union or something to buy it in the first place. It was very poorly financed.

MR. SIHOTA: What's that got to do with my position?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll get on, if you'll listen for a minute — lawyers ought to listen as well as talk.

The Marguerite does lose money. It doesn't make any money, but it's a catalyst for tourism.

MR. SIHOTA: Is it a charity?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's a catalyst for tourism. If you want to close down the Marguerite.... Are you saying we ought to close it down? You ought to stand up and say it.

MR. SIHOTA: You wanted to do that.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The Marguerite is beneficial. If we can find ways of paying off the debt on that thing, and if we can find ways of covering operating costs, I think you ought to applaud that.

[11:15]

You talked about Expo and the legacy that Expo left behind. Well, I tell you, Hon. member, very shortly I'll be

[ Page 1035 ]

tabling in this House the Expo legacy situation, and you'll find out that the legacy from Expo was probably $200 million worth of economic development in small communities beyond Vancouver. That was brought about by the money we were able to send out from the Expo legacy. If you're against that, you'd better go out in the boondocks and tell those people out there that you don't like the Expo legacy, and that they should send that money back.

I remember the former Premier for a merciful 1,200 days saying in this House that they were going to bring in a little bit of fun here, and they were going to have a little bit of a lottery. I don't think he envisaged what was going to happen in lotteries: the money that used to go to the fish Sweepstakes and the Army and Navy, and all that, came here. Hon. member, if you're talking about the crime-infested gaming industry, I wonder if you would include bingo and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society in that.

MR. SIHOTA: It's unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that the Attorney-General chose not to come for this debate, to duck it. It's also unfortunate that the member did not come prepared to deal with these matters.

The point is that I don't think there are going to be pimps and prostitutes on the ferries; what I'm saying to you, Mr. Minister, is: don't use the on-water experience as a justification for on-land casino operations, because there's no nexus between the two. That's the point, and you missed it.

The second point is about charities. On January 23 of this year the Premier said that all revenue from ferry-boat gambling would go to charity. Today the Attorney-General said: "Yes, but the Princess Marguerite is now a charity." It's a charity. I'm not saying,"Get rid of it." I'm saying,"Run it." We know who introduced that idea. We know what it means to the economy of this area. But look, why is the government now beginning to say that Crown corporations, Crown entities, will be able to use those profits? Is that not moving away from a policy that said that charities ought to receive the benefits of gaming operations? Clearly it is.

The minister says: "We don't want to lose those good American dollars; we want those Yankee bucks to come up here." But does the minister realize that every dollar stuck into a slot machine on the Princess Marguerite is a dollar taken away from a business person in Victoria? The minister points out to the commission.... It's one thing to have a commission; it's another thing to follow it up with good strong enforcement. Let's take a look at the track record of the government to date.

The government passed regulations that 50 percent of the gross revenues from gaming operations had to go to charities. In fact, according to the government's own statistics in the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary, only 17 percent of the gross revenues went to charities in 1986. In the first half of 1987 it was 31 percent, not 50 percent, because this government failed to properly regulate and enforce its own guidelines. And do you know why it failed? People within your own ministry, Mr. Minister, will tell you that you have only 11 people to enforce regulations with respect to gaming. The first operation that ran this year under the new guidelines which the Attorney-General brought down on April 1 conducted its operations in Vancouver. The casino, which was full for two nights, raised a profit of $300 for the charity. That's indicative of what this government is doing: it is there simply to pad the wallets of the casino operators and is not doing any justice to the charities of this province, who desperately need this money because of this government's inability to fund them under other sources of revenue.

REFORM OF THE SENATE

MR. LOENEN: First, Madam Speaker, Canadians of every political persuasion from coast to coast are universally in agreement that we need Senate reform, and we need it desperately. We're all agreed that the Senate is useless, inefficient and an absolute joke. Secondly, Canadians from coast to coast recognize and acknowledge that there is grave economic disparity between central Canada — Quebec, Ontario, particularly Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa — and the rest of Canada — the west, the Atlantic regions and the Territories. Former Premier W.A.C. Bennett used to characterize the west as a goblet to be drained, and this is still true today, perhaps more so than ever. I would also suggest that the kind of economic disparity that exists in Canada is increasingly more severe.

The second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) addressed this House on March 27 and made some points that are pertinent to this. I want to refer to that, because that was an excellent statement which should not be forgotten, which should not simply collect dust. In particular, he very graphically illustrated the problem that we're faced with by saying that B.C. has fewer federal ridings than the city of Toronto all by itself. In brief he made the following points: that if we are going to grapple with economic disparity in this country, we have to recognize that increasingly we rely on international trade, communications, transportation and banking, and that all four of these areas are federal jurisdictions.

If this country is indeed to be a viable economic competitor and trading partner in the years ahead within the context of the developments that we see taking place in the world, we need to address the fact that these four areas which are so very central to economic development are controlled solely by people in Toronto and Montreal. This economic disparity will increasingly place a strain on confederation. When we talk about having to increase our taxes here in B.C., when we talk about our deficit, when we talk about the 13 percent unemployment here in B.C., we ought to recognize that if B.C. were to get its fair share of confederation, those problems would simply not exist.

So there are two areas that I think most Canadians are agreed on: that we need Senate reform, and that there is such a thing as economic disparity. I believe deeply and passionately that if we solve the first problem of Senate reform, we will in effect start to solve that second problem of economic disparity.

The NDP and others have advocated that we should abolish the Senate. I think that's a dumb idea. We can use this mechanism and turn it to our advantage. In fact, we should solve that problem and make a virtue out of necessity. Now is the time for persistent and concerted effort, and I think I want to address this, particularly in view of the accord that was reached at Meech Lake. I know that people such as Turner and Broadbent have suggested that this accord will kill all efforts at Senate reform. I don't agree with that; not at all.

I think the Meech Lake accord extended greater powers to the provinces. It made a step in the right direction by including the provinces in the appointments to the Senate. It established a very important principle of equality among the provinces. It said to Quebec, in effect: "If you want veto

[ Page 1036 ]

powers, we'll give it to everybody, and not just to you." I believe that this is the time for us to build on that kind of momentum, and that we should make it our number one concern to push for and to get agreement on Senate reform.

I was encouraged that yesterday's Sun reported the Prime Minister as saying in Lethbridge: "The federal government will offer the provinces a detailed proposal for Senate reform in meetings scheduled for 1988." This was stated by Prime Minister Mulroney in Lethbridge the day before. I am gladdened by that, and I think we ought to capitalize on these promises and this greater involvement that we see for the provinces arriving out of the Meech Lake accord.

Now is the time. We do have a solution, and I want to refer in particular to the triple-E senate proposal. I think it's eminently sound. It's the sort of thing that will not only, as I said, bring about that long-sought Senate reform, but will also address that second problem of economic disparity between the various regions. The triple-E proposal calls for an elected Senate rather than simply an appointed Senate; a Senate that is equally representative of all our provinces; and a Senate that, above all, is effective, in terms of having a veto power over the various bills that come through the Commons.

I would like all members of this House to continually push for the Senate reform that is talked about so much lately. We ought to support this fully, because it and it alone can solve some of our economic problems that I outlined earlier.

MR. D'ARCY: I am delighted to hear the second member for Richmond's proposals on Senate reform, and I am going to be, I hope, equally delighted to know what my own position is.

The fact is that the Senate, over the history of Canada, has been a colossal and overwhelming waste of taxpayers' dollars. If there ever were a hundred or so valid candidates for privatization, I would think it's the salaries and benefits accorded the senators in Canada. I do not want, as the member for Richmond did, to attack any of those individuals personally. I think they may indeed be well-meaning. But the fact is that even when senators from western Canada were assigned some political power by the Trudeau regime, we all know — particularly those from British Columbia — it did not do the west any good. The fact is, even when constitutionally the Senate has no power, that when certain Liberal senators from western Canada were assigned political power by being brought into the Trudeau cabinet, they still had literally no influence.

I think that people are misleading themselves, with great respect, Madam Speaker, to the member for Richmond and all those who think that the triple-E Senate is somehow going to equalize problems in Canada. The problem in Canada is that the two major political parties, the Liberals and the Tories, march to the drummers from southern Ontario and southern Quebec. They not only don't pay any attention to their own elected members from Atlantic Canada or from western Canada — I'm referring to the Mulroney government and all of the Liberal governments before them — they don't pay any attention to their own elected members even from central Canada, and I'm speaking of northern Ontario and northern Quebec.

[11:30]

They're only concerned with the interests of the Windsor to Quebec City corridor. That is the problem in Canada today, and that's not going to be resolved by a triple-E senate.

Does the member for Richmond, in good faith, think that giving the four provinces of Atlantic Canada, with fewer people collectively than the province of Alberta...? Does he really believe that giving them the same veto power as the entire four western provinces, Northwest Territories and Yukon combined is going to affect anything in Canada? It is simply going to be another large cost.

Also, Madam Speaker, let's put it in context of that government over there, or any government in British Columbia or any other province. Would that government over there voluntarily set up an upper chamber and give up powers to that chamber? I doubt it, Madam Speaker. And will any government in Ottawa voluntarily — if they're in their right minds — set up an upper chamber and give up powers to that chamber?

The solution in Canada is not continuing to spend money on a Senate as we have known it, but to have politicians and political parties who are truly responsible to all the regions and all the individuals in Canada in a fair way — not only fair to the regions of Canada, but in both the short- and the long-term interests of the economy, jobs and the quality of life. The sooner we have politicians of all parties — and I include the national New Democratic Party — who understand that they've got to get away from this centralized interest in the Windsor-Quebec corridor and thinking what's good for that is good for all of Canada.... The sooner that happens the better, and a stronger Canadian federation we will have.

MR. LOENEN: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Rossland-Trail. In effect he restated the problem, and he did a good job of that. We're all agreed in that, and that is what I've been saying all along; we're all agreed that the Senate is a joke.

He restated the problem, but I don't think he understood what the triple-E senate concept entails. In fact, he didn't understand it at all. The triple-E has three E's in it, and the third one says that it must be effective. Making the Senate effective means that the Senate would have veto power over any bills coming its way. What that means, in my belief, is that it would make the Senate discussions and debates far more interesting than anything that happens in the House of Commons. Should a bill be sent back, rejected by the Senate, it would not mean the downfall of a government, but neither would it mean that a bill that is unacceptable to the people of Canada would become law. Because there is no party discipline, and because no government would fall should a motion fail, you can have debate in that forum that centres on the merits of the proposals before us, rather than centering on making political points, as so often happens here as well as in the House of Commons.

I think the idea has a lot of merit, and I hope that the member for Rossland-Trail, as well as his party, would study the proposal before they reject it out of hand.

The U. S. has a system that works, whereby the smaller states and the less-populated areas do have a measure of representation. The Bundesrat of West Germany equally has that mechanism built into the system to allow the provinces the outlying areas — a more equal share in nationhood.

The member tells us that the Commons will not voluntarily give up any of its powers, but I tell you that unless we recognize the strains that the economic disparity places on our nationhood, there will come a time when the people of this nation will demand Senate reform in order to effect greater economic equality. We ought to recognize that if we

[ Page 1037 ]

want to preserve Canada as a nation and as a Confederation, we ought to address this problem, and not simply suggest that somehow this won't work. It does work in other places. The need is great, and we ought to make it work.

Talking about a fair share for just B.C., the Leader of the Opposition talked this morning about economic development and how we ought to instigate all kinds of programs of economic development. We're doing that. But the greatest barrier for us is the fact that we don't receive a fair share out of confederation. We ought to work at that, and that would be a greater stimulus for economic development both now and in the future than any other measures that we could undertake.

MR. D'ARCY: Do I get to speak again, or is that it?

MADAM SPEAKER: No, I'm sorry.

MR. D'ARCY: Then it's game over. Have a good weekend.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Speaker, I call committee on Bill 20.

TEACHING PROFESSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. JONES: I wonder if I could ask the minister a small question on the very first part. Although I think it is clearly defined here, could the minister elaborate a little more on the definition of "members?"

HON. MR. BRUMMET: "Member" means a member of the college. That is, whenever the term "member" is used in this act, it is a member of, as defined later, the College of Teachers.

MR. JONES: The reason I ask, Mr. Chairman, is because I think we have some difficulty in dealing with this legislation, and particularly as it pertains to the amendments coming forth piecemeal. The minister mentioned in his response that these matters will be defined later. I know the minister is in a rush to put forward this legislation, but one of the main features of this legislation, the concept of the closed shop — that is, compulsory membership in the college — has been omitted. In the minister's release yesterday, talking about membership, he suggested that a teacher hold membership in the college in order to teach in British Columbia public schools, and that that idea would remain.

I can't find that anywhere in the legislation, and I think it is central to the legislation. I wonder if this is just another example of sloppy legislation, of proceeding too quickly. It seems to me that when a central feature is missing, it's a disservice to this House; that in order for the opposition and the government to debate this properly, we need to have an idea of what is meant here. So I wonder if the minister could answer whether or not he knows if those kinds of things will be coming further, or is this just another example of sloppy legislation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I was going to take these sections one at a time. In section 3 of this legislation there is a fairly clear definition of "membership" which says exactly who shall be eligible for membership in the college. I don't know what more can be said, other than that those are the people who are going to be eligible. Subsequent sections in the act say the requirements of members and that sort of thing; now to go back and say that members will teach.... I think in a later section of the act it says that in order to teach in British Columbia, a person shall be required to be a member of the college when they teach. It also means that other people who are not teaching as such can be members of the college. So we're getting to that.

I'm not quite sure what the member's point is, other than to try to make some point here that this is sloppy legislation, because we say: "members will be as defined in this act."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, I would like at this juncture to remind all hon. members that there will probably be a great deal of discussion, and each section of this bill will be very carefully canvassed by all of those people who feel they have something to contribute. Therefore I would like everyone to be well aware that the Chair, as we proceed with this bill, will insist in the best possible way that we stick to our rule of relevancy.

MR. JONES: I would like to try to clarify for the minister my point with respect to amendments, and it really was on amendments. I would apologize to the minister if it is somewhere else in the legislation, if a major feature that I think has been omitted is in fact in the legislation. I would appreciate the minister clarifying that for me.

My point is that we are in a difficult position here because of the piecemeal approach that amendments are being proposed — in that central features like the compulsory membership in the college, the closed-shop aspect, have been omitted. I would like to ask the minister, and I think the minister would like to respond.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But hon. member, we are dealing with section 1, which.... From what I see, the heading is "interpretation." Are you dealing with interpretation?

MR. G. HANSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The point being made by the member for Burnaby North is that we all understand that in committee stage we go through the sections in seriatum, but it appears that an initial section is contradicted by a later amendment that has been proposed in this House. That is the dilemma that that member is facing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I understand what the member has said. Would the minister like to respond to the question placed by the member for Burnaby North?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I had given the member for Burnaby North a list of a description of which sections were to be amended. All that I have said is that it is not piecemeal. We put in the amendments to sections 1 to 41 now, and we said that the others would come in as a package. I did give him an indication of which sections were being considered.

[ Page 1038 ]

All that is happening is that the drafting, to make sure, and the cross-checking are being done. That's why the second group is not in. But if the member would like to refer to section 75 and the notes that I gave him which said that section 75 is not up for amendment, then I think he will probably have his answer.

MR. CLARK: I just have a very brief question. Where it says "board," if the government decides to abolish the school board and replace it with a trustee, as they did in Vancouver and Cowichan.... If that happens in the future, does "board" mean the individual trustee, or how does that work? Does this apply to a trustee?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: All that I can say is that as defined in this section, a board means the board of school trustees in a district. If, by resignation of the board or some other reason, there is another structure put in to replace the board, that structure then takes on all of the duties and powers of a board. So it applies to boards and the others. What you are proposing is this rare instance that may or may not happen.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, we are still faced with this problem, that in section 1 of the bill, the interpretation section, where the various key elements of the bill are defined, it says: "'Member' means a member of the college."

[11:45]

Our understanding is that the minister has indicated that compulsory membership is a feature of this legislation; that there is no ability to teach outside of membership in the College. In other words, if you are going to teach in the public school system in this province, you will be a member of the college. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, as I have tried to indicate, that is covered in a subsequent section, and all that is here is that wherever the act.... Whatever sections are agreed to and passed in the future, wherever the term "member" is used in this legislation, it refers to a member of the college, and the eligibility is spelled out. So that's all that says, that wherever the term "member" is used in the legislation, it means a member of the college. All the terms and conditions of that membership are spelled out in subsequent legislation or subsequent sections.

MR. G. HANSON: Okay, we are proceeding. So everyone is a member of the college who wants to teach in British Columbia, and the college issues a certificate of qualification to enable a person to teach. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how long we're going to get hung up on this definition. What the members are now discussing are other sections, as to what applies to a member, what conditions are attached to a member and that sort of thing. Those are in subsequent sections. Here it simply says that a member is a member of the college, so that we don't have to say throughout the legislation "member of the college." In the public schools act there was a definition of "teacher," and then whenever it referred to "teacher" we did not put all the terms and conditions whenever we used the word.

In other words, what you're discussing will be coming up in subsequent sections. This is simply, if I may reiterate, that where this legislation uses the term "member," in this legislation it means a member of the college, not member in any other sense.

MR. G. HANSON: It's very important that we understand clearly, because it appears to us — and we'd certainly appreciate the minister's explanation — that the member, being a member of the college, and the college issuing certificates of qualification to teach in the public school system, which would be a compulsory or obligatory feature of the college, is contradicted in the subsequent amendments which you've tabled in this House.

I'll draw your attention to section 24, which states under section 24(c) of the amendments: "by adding the following subsection: (3. 1) The fact that a member (a) resigns from the college, (b) ceases to be a member of the college for failure to pay fees, or (c) fails to renew his membership in the college does not have the effect of canceling the member's certificate of qualification" — presumably in the college; therefore that person can teach.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Section 24.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're on section 1.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the House Leader doesn't seem to understand that when you put a series of contradictory amendments in the same bill.... We're discussing under section 1 the definition and interpretation of "member." The minister says that membership in the college is compulsory and that the college will issue certificates of qualification to enable an individual to teach in this system, yet a subsequent amendment clause here contradicts what the minister is telling us under section 1. So we would like an answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I fully realize the Chair is not allowed to enter into the debate, but can I suggest to the hon. member that this problem can be overcome when we come to the particular amendment that he refers to from the point of view that the amendment itself need not necessarily be received, and therefore we would be dealing with the item as it was originally intended.

MR. G. HANSON: So it's an amendment off in the future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's correct.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I think the confusion in the relationship to section 24 is unfortunate, but perhaps we can cover it this way. A person does not have to be a member of the college in British Columbia in order to hold a valid teaching certificate, but he has to be a member of the college in order to teach in British Columbia.

For instance, I could use my own example. I still maintain and hold a valid teaching certificate in British Columbia, but because I am not teaching I am not required to be a member of the B.C. Teachers' Federation. So you have to separate those two.

Inadvertently, the reason for the amendment — which we will be discussing when we come to it — is that it was not

[ Page 1039 ]

clear to some people that if a person, for instance, withdrew from teaching for four years, the retention of the teaching certificate was not synonymous with the membership in the college. If they withdraw, they can withdraw from the college. It's only the requirement that when they teach, they must maintain college membership; that's when it becomes compulsory. If you recognize that basic principle that that's why the amendment to section 24 was.... If I leave teaching for ten years, once the college has said I have a teaching certificate in British Columbia, stopping teaching for a couple of years does not cancel my certificate; I'm still a qualified teacher. But if I want to go back to teaching, then I must be a member of the college.

MR. G. HANSON: Will the minister explain: if a person holds a certificate of qualification, does that allow him or her to teach?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That means that the person has a teaching certificate. At some point somebody said and accepted that this is a certificate that says you are a qualified teacher.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. JONES: Section 2, Mr. Chairman, is on the establishment of the college as a corporation, and I think it's a central feature of the legislation. The minister spoke on this yesterday, and I enjoyed his speech. I think it was a good speech. For the most part it was logical and sequential, from the minister's perspective, until he got to this part dealing with the college. Then I think it took a great leap of faith and logic to achieve this. The opposition is opposed in principle to this bill; we're certainly opposed to section 2. I don't want to repeat all the arguments that we made in principle, but I would like to ask the minister some questions with respect to this section.

In his speech yesterday, rather than his previous statements that the college would restore professionalism, he said that we would be incorporating, as in section 2, in order that the teachers of the province take professional control. I would like to ask the minister what he meant by "professional control."

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to somehow relate that to section 2.

MR. JONES: I'll help the minister. Section 2 deals with the establishment of this corporation called the College of Teachers. The minister, in his speech yesterday, suggested that the establishment of the College of Teachers would give teachers of the province "professional control." I'd like to ask the minister what he meant by that statement as it relates to section 2. How does this college do that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think that is covered in a lot of subsequent sections. In section 2 it simply says that the College of Teachers, which is their professional organization, has the powers and rights to do such things as enter into agreements, rent space, hire staff, those sorts of things. That is what I'm told legally is what those kinds of clauses mean: that the College of Teachers has the right to act like somebody signing a document or somebody agreeing to a lease. This has nothing to do with control. And that power that is granted here is to the College of Teachers, not to anyone else.

MR. JONES: I was merely asking the minister to clarify his statement of yesterday as it pertains to the establishment of the College of Teachers. I'm still unclear — and perhaps the minister doesn't wish to answer, and certainly that's his privilege — on how the college is going to create for teachers professional control.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That is covered in the sections that refer to the fact that they will be issuing and setting the standards and qualifications, will be actually issuing the certificates, and if they issue the certificates will have the power, where warranted, to withdraw the certificates. They will be able, under some sections, to engage in professional activities to improve the teacher, and that sort of thing. That's why I don't see the connection here under section 2. I could see it under some of the other sections where the discussion on professional control.... This simply says that where the college exists it has the right to sign documents and to do things like anybody else. And the control of what they do and what they sign is of course under the control of the teachers. So this is simply giving the right to the college to act on behalf of members. Professional control comes up in later sections.

MR. JONES: I take it, in response, that the new aspect of professional control that the minister refers to is in the area of issuing certificates. I will take that as an answer to that question.

Could I ask the minister: prior to the proposal to establish this College of Teachers as a corporation, had the minister considered other jurisdictions in this country and had he taken a look at those jurisdictions in which those provinces decided that such a college was not necessary?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think we're getting into the second reading debate all over again. We're talking about section 2 here, and I'd like to respond to any questions you may have on section 2 at this point. We've had the philosophical debate, and I think that probably in other sections where it's opportune you'll see that you'll do it again. But I don't think it's appropriate in this section.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm looking at section 2, and basically what it says is that it has all the powers and capacities of a natural person, hence a corporation. I was wondering if the minister could tell us what those powers are.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I mentioned a few of them. That member, being a trained legal person, I think knows the interpretation of this phrase. If you are now asking me to make a comprehensive list of what is included in the natural powers of a person of full capacity, I have to wonder why that question even comes up from that member.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess I'll be a little more succinct. Does it then allow, or is there intended an exclusion on, matters of liability?

[ Page 1040 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The advice I have is that the answer is no.

MR. JONES: This is quite a change in legislation, particularly education legislation. Formerly, those powers granted to a body within education legislation were prescribed, and certainly that body could not perform any acts or have any powers that were not prescribed in that act. This legislation allows this body to do all kinds of things. It certainly opens up the opportunity for the college.

[12:00]

I would like to ask the minister: is there anything within the legislation that isn't already prescribed which the minister can foresee the college performing? Is there anything that the college needs to do that isn't in the act? It seems to me that any of the powers that the college needs are already prescribed in the act, and I don't know why.... The minister, I think broke with tradition in introducing the fact that this college would have the powers and capacity of a natural person of full capacity.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I understand this, this is the same type of statement that's in any act where there is a corporation. The college, in order to function, has the powers of a corporation, and these are the powers granted to any corporation. What the college may or may not do, as prescribed by its members, is covered in subsequent actions. This simply says that if its members say,"We would like you to rent office space," this gives the corporation the power to sign a lease — that type of thing.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the minister's point, but I think he has to realize that he is granting sweeping powers to this college. For example, it seems to me possible that under this legislation the College of Teachers could set up a teacher training institute of its own. I don't know whether this kind of thing is envisioned by the minister.

I would like to raise as well a statement by the minister yesterday in regard to his attitude towards legislation. It seems to me that we have to be very precise. What we're doing here is going to affect the lives of 30,000 employees in the school system — perhaps many, many more — and I don't think we want to pass legislation that is ambiguous or confusing. I think it has to be very clear: not just what the minister believes it to be, but also what the language of the legislation says. As critic, I don't have access to a lot of legal assistance, but certainly the minister does. When the minister says that it really doesn't matter whether it says rules here or bylaws there, I see that as a real problem. For example, I believe it was recently decided by the Supreme Court that the right to association did not mean the right to strike, even though the minister of the day, when introducing the legislation, implied that it did mean the right to strike.

So I think we have to be very careful in what we're doing here; very careful in the language, very precise in the language. I'm concerned, when we put in suggestions of the power and capacity of a natural person of full capacity, that the minister have some idea of the kinds of things that a college might be allowed to do when this legislation is passed. Can the minister suggest any others? Would he support the idea that the College of Teachers set up its own teacher-training institution, for example?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If the member uses that particular example, it's not for me to decide or to support. Remember that what the college will be doing will be decided by its elected representatives. In other words, the College of Teachers constitutes all of the teachers who have membership in the college; they will decide what the college will do. There's not some strange power that I have to then.... The college is not my vehicle. The college is the vehicle of the teachers, and this section gives them the capacity to act when their members instruct them to act.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I would like to just step back a minute and ask.... It may sound very simple, but as I understand it, an entity often incorporates for the purpose mainly of being able to own property. In other words, most of the other activities that an entity like this might undertake are perfectly easy to do, except for this. I look at this and I wonder if that was in mind. I also look at this entity as one for which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can make regulations, and I wish you would clarify why we would go so far with this council as to suggest that it incorporate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member should be reminded that the first part of her question is completely relevant, but the latter part is not. However, if the minister would like to respond....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose one of the difficulties is trying to determine the direction or purpose of this line of questioning. The College of Teachers is a body being formed by this legislation. It is to be run by the elected representatives; the "College" is all of its members. They then have an administrative council, and this section simply says that when their members give them the direction to do something, they can then take action. There is nothing even implicit in here that the minister can order the college to do something. The College of Teachers is instructed by its members, and they have to have the capacity to carry out those instructions.

Whether it has anything to do with property ownership or anything of that nature will be determined by the members. Whether they own or rent office space is not going to be decided by the minister or anyone else. That will be decided by the membership or their elected representatives,

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister why the government wanted to establish this corporation when the functions of this corporation are really a duplication of services that the boards of this province perform. The BCTF performs disciplinary functions; the government currently performs certification functions; faculties of education, the BCTF and the government perform professional development functions. So I'm asking the minister why, given all these existing bodies that perform the functions of the college, the minister wanted to establish this corporation under section 2.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I believe we canvassed that for two weeks in second reading. All that this section says is that when the college is established, this gives it the power to carry out the functions given to it by its members. I know you're anxious to get back to second reading debate, but this section.... Philosophically, you're asking why we are establishing a college. That was dealt with in second reading.

[ Page 1041 ]

MR. JONES: In response, I can only say that there has never been a previous opportunity to ask these direct questions. These are not rhetorical questions. I would be interested in an answer for the record. I can only take from the minister's answer that this government is quite prepared to proceed with duplication of its existing services at great expense to the teachers of the province.

Could I ask as well, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is also interested in the kinds of inefficiencies created by such a corporation? The costs of such a college are certainly going to be great. Does the minister support all these additional costs? For example, the members of the college we dealt with yesterday, the College of Dental Surgeons, pay something like $1,200 a year in fees; but most of the work done by that college, I understand, is done by volunteers. So a College of Teachers with many more members, who I presume would not hire volunteers to perform their functions, would certainly be much more expensive. In addition to the duplication of services in the creation of this corporation, which I see as a large bureaucracy, does the minister also support the tremendously increased cost to the teachers of this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, it's hard to relate this to.... If the member would read subsequent sections in the act, neither the council, the executive, the minister nor anyone can set the fees that the college will assess to its own members. They are for operating costs, and that has to go to the total membership through their annual general meeting. That's the only body that can approve those membership fees.

If that member has a crystal ball that says that these people are going to create an inefficient bureaucracy, I won't accept that.. First of all, I believe they are more competent than that, and it will be what they establish, not what the government or anyone else establishes. I know the member used the phrase: "Government is establishing a huge bureaucracy here." I can't accept that, because we're not going to be hiring for the college. We're not going to be deciding what they do or setting the fees. They are going to be doing that.

So how that again is related to section 2 — a College of Teachers which subsequently is confirmed that will be run by the elected representatives of the teachers themselves, and those people have to approve any fee structure.... If I may once again say it, all this section does is enable the college to carry out the instructions given to it by its members.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister and his government have to accept the responsibility for establishing this corporation. This corporation will be a bureaucracy. The size of it will be determined, of course. I'm sure the minister, in proposing this legislation, has looked at other colleges — and I quoted one of them — and the kinds of costs and bureaucracies that are established there. The minister has to at least accept responsibility for the establishment of the bureaucracy and accept some responsibility for the size of that bureaucracy.

I would like to ask the minister as well, in relation to the College of Dental Surgeons that had their bill approved yesterday in the process.... My understanding was that it was a long process of consultation and cooperation; a process that, when completed, the dental surgeons will be very happy with, certainly not one that imposed anything on them. I'm wondering how the minister can justify for this single group, when we've seen many colleges and organizations that have not had this kind of process, have not had structures imposed upon them against their will.... I think it is clear in the minister's mind that it is against the teachers' will in this province. So in establishing this corporation under section 2, I would like the minister to explain why there is such a different approach to this legislation as compared with others.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I appreciate how very difficult this is, but I must point out that the principles of this bill were approved with the approval of second reading, and the member is discussing principles. What we should be discussing here are the words of the individual sections as we deal with them. If maybe you had some other question or could rephrase that last question.... It really wasn't relevant, hon. member.

MR. JONES: Certainly section 2 is the main section, because it establishes the college, which is the main part of the bill. I won't try to rephrase that question; I'll try another one.

The minister, in establishing this college and this corporation, in section 2 has stated — and this is what I referred to as a "leap of faith" earlier — that it was necessary for the establishment of this college to separate the functions of professional development and economic matters from the B. C. Teachers' Federation. I would point out to the minister that it's my understanding that the dental college we approved yesterday contradicted that. That body negotiates fees as well as looking after the in-service education and professional development of that college.

[12:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member. The House, when they approved this bill at second reading, decided to have this college, and so really what you're saying about what happened in the case of the dental college is irrelevant.

MR. JONES: I'm going to carry on, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps, because I thought section 2 was a very broad section, these are broad questions, and if the minister chooses not to answer them, or you choose to rule them out of order, I'll certainly accept that.

In considering this legislation, did the minister envisage the difficulty that would be created by the reaction of the teachers in this province, and could he not have considered a more reasonable process that would have...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, I think the committee has been most kind to the member, and I realize that he is new in debate and new to the committee process, but the standing orders are clear. On page 13 standing order 43 says that repetition and irrelevance in debate is not accepted. By virtue of passing second reading in the Legislative Assembly, we have approved the principle of the bill. We are now in committee stage on section 2. We are certainly agreeable to allowing full and unfettered debate; however, it must be relevant to the section before us.

It appears to me that the member has not read the bill. He is asking questions that are answered in subsequent sections. He should be cognizant of the bill and also the amendments that we have placed on the order paper. But the operative words in section 2 are: "establishing a corporation." That's

[ Page 1042 ]

all section 2 does. It indicates that the college is established as a corporation with the powers and capacities of a natural person. That is the relevant language. Those are the operative phrases in section 2, and debate must be confined to those operative words. Otherwise the government will have to consider other methods.

MR. G. HANSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. It's a bit much when the House Leader for the government chastises the opposition when they're trying to get answers to questions in committee stage. Let's just remind the House how fast this has all occurred. Yesterday, when we concluded second reading, rather than the normal process in this House where amendments are put on the order paper to give interested parties some time to digest the significance of those amendments and then subsequently the committee stage resumes, this government, in its undue haste, called committee stage with not all the amendments before this House. So it is a bit much to chastise the opposition when they're trying to get answers to legitimate concerns raised in this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to thank both the government House Leader and the first member for Victoria for what they have said. I'm sure everybody in the House appreciates their wisdom. But I would just like, in a few words, to tell you what section 61(2) of our standing orders says. It says: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." Having said that, shall section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

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

On the amendment.

MR. JONES: Could I have the minister explain the amendment to the House, Please?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, the legislation as drafted said "at the date of coming into force of this act." Subsequently there was concern about the appointment. As long as the interim council could have been appointed on recommendation by the Teachers' Federation, then when the act came into force was not as significant a factor about the membership, because some of that could have been determined later. Now that we are going the election route, it became very important that the eligibility of members be determined before the election can be held. So that is why we have changed it.

The act, as you know, comes into force from now until January, and some of it by proclamation. We could not proceed with the election without having the eligibility of members. So that is why when this section comes into force.... You now have the definition of a member, and the election can proceed by the process which is later explained.

MR. ROSE: I wanted to ask the minister if the amendments to subsections (a) and (b) permit the minister to proclaim the act but not this section.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I think part of this legislation, which will be determined in subsequent sections, comes into force when it passes through this House; part of it comes into force when it is later proclaimed. All that this says is that this section is in effect when this section is passed; that the eligibility of members, which this deals with, doesn't have to wait for full proclamation of every subsequent clause, some of which will have to await proclamation. So that's all this says.

MR. ROSE: So I assume then from the minister that the answer is yes, this section could follow proclamation of other portions of the act, and therefore it would be possible to proclaim the remainder of the act and to leave this section which defines membership out. I think the minister has told me yes. If he would nod or something, or say no, it would be very helpful to me, but I couldn't follow that sort of discursive exposition that he just gave us.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Neither could I really follow the member's question. When it says here that this membership in the college shall consist of, etc. and that that happens when this section comes into force.... Presumably when the act passes in the Legislature, this section comes into force. It does not need to await, then, proclamation of cabinet. So I don't see any way that the rest of the act could be proclaimed and this section could be left dangling. No, the minute this goes through the Legislature, this section is enforced to provide for the eligibility of membership, and then any other.... The total act, if you like, may not be in force until every section is proclaimed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Got it?

MR. ROSE: I thought I understood it clearly until his last sentence, and that's where I'm having the difficulties. Touché, though, on your response to my.... I congratulate you for that. But what I was hoping for was that the amendment to this section would permit that membership and subsequent arrangements with membership — who they are, what their qualifications need to be, etc.; all those things associated with it — might well be left until after the proclamation of the act, which would leave out the section and allow room for further thought, negotiation, consultations and all the rest of it that might be entailed in somehow allowing this to be proclaimed after the remainder of the act was proclaimed. And that's really all I'm saying: will this section come into force at the time the act is proclaimed? Is the answer yes or no? Or can this section be delayed until after the proclamation of the act? That's my question.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, it's not the legislation that has me confused; it's the question. For instance, the first place where this amendment takes place is: "all persons employed by a board as superintendents of schools or assistant superintendents of schools at the date of coming into force of this section." That means that from the time this comes into force, these members are eligible members of the council. I'm trying to determine what the question is — that by passing this amendment, when it comes into force, somehow or other when the act comes into force this won't happen. Is that your question?

MR. ROSE: It may not happen.

[ Page 1043 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't see how it possibly can. When the act comes into force, this section comes into force with it; it couldn't be left dangling.

MR. ROSE: I'm not trying to be obtuse and I know the minister is not trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to be as intelligent as is possible on a Friday, which isn't very. "All persons who at the date of coming into force of this Act," is what it was originally. You've amended that to say "coming into force of this section," which almost implies to me, as a slow learner, that the section and the act may not come into force simultaneously. I'm asking you whether it is the intention, or whether it is possible under this wording, for the force of the act and the force of the section to come in, to be proclaimed, at different times. Do you understand it now?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Could I perhaps answer in this way: that some sections of this act do not come into force until January 1988, but when the act comes into force, is proclaimed.... Maybe it's my use of the word "proclaimed" and the definition; I'll have to ask my legal advisers. But basically, because some sections of the act don't come into force until January 1988, this says that this section comes into force like now, when the bill comes into force.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would mind repeating the answer?

Amendment approved.

On section 3 as amended.

MR. JONES: I would like to ask the minister how many members this new College of Teachers will have under the provisions of this section?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I certainly can't give the member that number. It is when someone adds up this eligibility list that that will be determined, as specified in section 3.

MR. JONES: I assume then from the minister's answer that the Ministry of Education does not have a list of members eligible for the college.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I think that is a rather unfair assumption. The ministry has access to the list of all those who have teaching certificates of qualification. They can get a list of that. They do have a list of all persons employed by a board of superintendents or assistant superintendents. What they don't have a list of is all persons admitted to membership by the council, and there are specific requirements that the council has to meet to admit members.

[12:30]

MR. JONES: I am just concerned that the way this section is structured captures a large group of people, and I am just wondering how the membership is going to be determined. I am sure it is going to be a very difficult thing for the college to determine. I imagine there are many people with certificates who have died recently, and I don't know how the college will keep track of that. How did the minister have any idea of the numbers? This gets back to my earlier question on the size of this bureaucracy.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We get into these phrases "has no idea" or "does the minister know the numbers?" If you want to guess, we can probably give you a guess. But if you want the exact number, no, I can't give you that until all of these persons are determined by the college to be members.

MR. JONES: What would be a ballpark figure?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We know that the actual teaching force in British Columbia is around 27,000 — plus the people who have teaching certificates but are not teaching, plus those who are not now members but have standard B.C. teaching certificates. That would put it, I guess, at somewhere between 30,000 and 35,000.

MR. JONES: I would like to ask the minister a short question. Will the initial membership of the college include teachers in independent schools, those working in universities and colleges, retired teachers and teachers working in non-educational jobs?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As per section 3(l)(a), it will include all persons who hold valid and subsisting certificates of qualification issued under the School Act — that means teaching certificates.

MR. JONES: I think the minister indicated that the number would be quite large. I wonder if he could advise how the college might communicate with this unwieldy number.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, it just seems almost logical to me that once a person is on the college membership list.... If they want to send out a note to every member, they will be able to communicate with these people. Is the member perhaps suggesting: how are they going to communicate with the people who are not members? It would be just by, I guess, public notices and things of that nature. There are various means of two-way communication between any organization and its members. I think the question was: how are they going to communicate with this unwieldy list? When the list is pulled together, they have a list to communicate with.

MR. JONES: I guess that around my last few questions was the point that we've defined a group of people and more or less captured their eligibility. It seems to me, then, that the responsibility is on the college to communicate with these people. The other way of doing it, of course, would have been to have people who wanted to be members of the college apply to the college, rather than being captured this way. That was why I was asking the question about communication.

Could I ask the minister why the special provision for membership in the college for superintendents and assistant superintendents, and in particular, those who don't hold teaching certificates? I'm confused as to the necessity of this. I assume that superintendents of schools are teachers with very special qualifications and would become members of the college by virtue of holding a certificate.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The inclusion of superintendents and assistant superintendents is because they are considered to be professional educators, and the college is to include all professional educators working in the school system in British Columbia. I don't know of any superintendents

[ Page 1044 ]

or assistant superintendents who do not hold valid teaching certificates. I would imagine that if those exist, as the process unfolds and their membership is determined by holding qualified certificates, the college will determine whether they are members or not.

MR. JONES: Again on the same section, if the minister isn't aware of any superintendents that are not eligible, it poses the question: why would the minister include such a section? I wonder what kind of qualifications the minister would see as appropriate for a superintendent of schools other than holding a valid teaching certificate. Are there other qualifications?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: As I understand it, all of these people hired as superintendents or district superintendents have to be eligible for a teaching certificate. Whether they actually have applied or not.... I don't know; I can't imagine too many of them not holding this certificate. But they have to have met the requirements of eligibility for that. So in that respect it makes them professional educators, and that was the intent here: that all professional educators would be included in the college. Like administrators, teachers, supervisors or whatever, they are professional educators and are required to be eligible for a teaching certificate. I suppose the college can subsequently put them on the list or off the list, according to whether they agree to the qualification.

What we have is an interim; we did not want the college to have to go through the process of going and evaluating everyone's past training and everyone's past this, that or the other thing to determine. These are the people who now hold certificates and are now qualified; therefore they are in. Later on, that could be refined by their bylaws.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I was happy with the minister's response, but that's not what the language of the legislation says. It leaves it wide open for the kinds of qualifications that a superintendent can have, and the college is forced to admit them, as I see it.

Could I also ask the minister a question with respect to superintendents and assistant superintendents, who have, as agents of the boards, powers in the matters of hiring, supervision, evaluation, transfer and firing of teachers? Certainly it gives them certain responsibilities in that regard. Does the minister still see it as appropriate that they be included in the college, which also has disciplinary functions, so they have as members...? I know the minister was concerned about conflict-of-interest kinds of things for teachers in their union and professional interest. Doesn't the same kind of thing hold for superintendents who have disciplinary powers in their roles as superintendents and also have potential disciplinary powers as members of the council, or certainly as members of the college?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the member is asking, because there is no connection between the two roles, as he is suggesting.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could explain my question more clearly. The superintendents, in their role as senior managers of school boards, have the right to discipline members of the college who are employed by that board. As members of the college, in another avenue, they have a second opportunity to discipline perhaps those same members.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think the member must be taking sort of a pretty convoluted or complex scenario. There are 75 superintendents in British Columbia. There will be some 30,000-plus members electing their representatives, so first of all, to have any function as part of the council, the superintendent would have to get elected by those people. Presumably, if those people feel enough confidence to elect a superintendent as their representative for that zone to the council, then that puts them on the council. But I don't see that there would be a whole bunch of superintendents on the council. I can't even envision that. The council itself would appoint its committees that deal with qualifications. So you have to take a pretty devious route to make even any connection there.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue this matter of the membership of superintendents and assistant superintendents a little further.

I appreciate the comments of the minister that it is indeed unlikely that a superintendent from a zone would be elected as a member of council. There are 75 superintendents in the province and however many more assistant superintendents. So in fact their direct role is unlikely to occur in that council.

However, a number of years ago we moved to superintendents being employed as the servants of the board. Prior to that time, they had been civil servants and hired by boards, sometimes directly through the decision of the ministry and sometimes in consultation with the ministry. Does the minister see some conflict here that may concern superintendents and assistant superintendents in their roles as the chief executive officers of boards and then — however titular — in the college of education? Could the minister comment about these two seemingly contradictory kinds of responsibilities on the part of superintendents?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not see any conflict by providing equal rights to any member of the college, who may be one of 27,000 or 35,000, or who may be one of the 20 on the council. But to say that certain people who are members shall be excluded from any voting rights, from being allowed to run as a nominee or anything of that nature.... We are talking about fairness here, and if they are members, then they have the same rights and responsibilities as any other member.

MS. A. HAGEN: Has the minister had some consultation with superintendents and assistant superintendents and their organization around their perception of this role? Has there been some opportunity for him to consult with them around their role as members of the college of education?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't understand, Mr. Chairman. The question was: have we consulted? We've consulted with all of the interested parties.

MS. A. HAGEN: Have the members of the superintendents' bodies expressed any concerns, and have they in fact had some opportunity to have input into this particular section of the act, as has been afforded to the B.C. Teachers' Federation and to trustees, who are the employers of superintendents, as a significant body in the province? Have they had

[ Page 1045 ]

some opportunity to have input into their membership in the College of Teachers?

[12:45]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is yes.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to move back to the discussion of the membership of the college in the context of the amendment that we have just passed. It's my understanding, Mr. Minister, that the intent of this amendment was to create no delay or difficulty in the election of the first college, as a result of a subsequent amendment that I presume is the amendment we will be looking at in section 5. I want to clarify with the minister what I presume is going to be a voting list for the first college when, by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the election of that first college will go forward, and that is to happen at some unspecified date in 1988. Whose responsibility will it be to establish the membership by virtue of the people holding valid and subsisting certificates at that time? Could the minister please advise us about this status of membership as we proceed to some implementation of the College of Teachers through election?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose the best thing I could do is suggest that the member read the amendments to section 9, the addition of 9.1, which clearly establish it. We had to come up with a process in which the voting list could be fairly, properly and accurately determined, and section 9.1 spells that out.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I will acknowledge that I have not yet had an opportunity to read that clause with care.

I may be repeating a question that my colleague from Burnaby North asked, and if it is a repetition I apologize, but I didn't hear the answer clearly in my own cognizance. Could the minister clarify again for us the status of people who may be teaching in other sectors of the province, besides in the public school system, as it pertains to membership in this college? Presumably most of those people will be in the independent school system that comes under funding from the ministry, but we may very well have teachers qualified in a whole range of teaching situations. I'd like to be a little more clear about that broader scope of membership.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The membership is as broad as this: those who hold a valid B.C. teaching certificate are eligible. Which school they teach in is not the deciding factor. In other words, many people in the independent school system, particularly in the group 2 schools, where they follow the B. C. curriculum, hold valid B. C. teaching certificates, so they are all eligible. There is a proviso for anybody, public or independent school system — that a person may subsequently withdraw from membership in the college. The rider, of course, is that if he exercises that right and withdraws from membership in the college, then he cannot teach in the public school system in British Columbia without renewing membership.

MS. A. HAGEN: One further question on that matter of membership. A person's certificate remains valid, according to other sections of the act, even if he does resign from the college. It's only in the public school sector that his right to teach would be affected. Am I clear on that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I thought this is what I was saying: that the certificate would remain valid. If they want to teach in the public school system in British Columbia, they must also be a member of the college.

MS. A. HAGEN: Just going back to the superintendents and assistant superintendents of the province: hypothetically, if a superintendent or an assistant superintendent chose to resign from the college, that person would still hold a valid teaching certificate in the province. Would that in any way affect the eligibility of that superintendent or assistant superintendent to hold his or her office as the chief executive officer, as the superintendent, for his board? Most boards request — require — that a superintendent hold a valid teaching certificate in the province. That's the first qualification you'll see in most ads for that position. If a superintendent should not be a member of the college, either presently as a superintendent of the board or potentially in terms of applying for a position, does that in any way affect that person's eligibility to be a superintendent employed by a board in this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, if a particular superintendent needs to be a member of the college to function in the public school system in British Columbia, he needs to be eligible for a B. C. teaching certificate. So I think that gives you your answer, doesn't it? If the superintendent or assistant superintendent says,"I don't want to be a member of the college," then in effect he's saying: "And with it goes my right to operate in the public school system in British Columbia."

MS. A. HAGEN: Then I would assume, Mr. Minister, that any person employed in any educational role in the public school system, from superintendents on down, must be a member of the college.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's covered in section 75, and I have given indication and assurance that we are not amending section 75 when we get to it.

MRS. BOONE: I think I understood the minister to say that those teachers who are teaching in the independent schools may be members of the college. Is that correct, that a teacher who is in an independent school system may be a member of the college?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If they hold a valid B. C. teaching certificate, they may be members of the college.

MRS. BOONE: As members of the college, teachers in the independent school system would then be able to vote on disciplinary measures relating to teachers in the public school system. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. They could get themselves elected to the council, and then have all the rights of any other member of the college.

MRS. BOONE: Does the minister believe that this is fair and just?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The short answer is certainly. The college will he dealing with professional qualification

[ Page 1046 ]

standards and teachers....  It comes into the competence factor only when a board has submitted that. The college council decides through an inquiry that the incompetence the board has dealt with is of such a gross nature that the college, as a professional organization, may say that the certificate should be lifted, that this member doesn't belong in the profession.

MRS. BOONE: Will the teachers who are in the college...? Will the college be making...? Maybe I am missing this, but I don't believe that the college will have disciplinary powers over teachers in the independent school system. Am I correct in that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The college will have disciplinary powers over each and every one of its members. If members are members of the college because they hold a valid B.C. teaching certificate, then the college has disciplinary powers over them, whether they are in the independent school system or the public school system.

MRS. BOONE: But all teachers in the independent school system do not necessarily become members of the college. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That is correct.

Section 3 as amended approved on division.

On section 4.

MRS. BOONE: In this, the powers of the college in setting standards are wide. Are there any examples of such wide-ranging powers in any similar body in any other Canadian jurisdiction?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, this is really giving to the college because they will now be setting qualification and certification standards, and that sort of thing that the minister now holds. This is turning over to the college many of these functions that the minister now holds. I'm trying to think of anything in there that is of such a nature that it causes a concern to the member.

MRS. BOONE: Is a reference to the public interest standard in the act governing other professions? What is so different about the teaching profession that such a clause would be thought to be necessary? There is a reference in there to the public interest.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I suppose by removing the reference to public interest, I would have to accept, or somehow acknowledge, that the education system in this province has absolutely nothing to do with the public interest. I would have considerable difficulty doing that. I'm not trying to be facetious here. The section says: "It is the object of the college to establish, having regard to the public interest, standards for the education...." Gross misconduct, or things of that nature, are certainly of a public interest nature. But their primary functions are: "...standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of its members and applicants for membership and consistent with that object to encourage the professional interest of its members in those matters." There is a public interest factor there. It's acknowledged.

MR. ROSE: In view of the late hour, Mr. Chairman, ) l wonder if I could move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Once again, I'll wish all members a very, very happy weekend.

MR. G. HANSON: Are we sitting next Wednesday?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I will advise the House that the Legislative Assembly, either in committee or in the House stage, will be sitting on Wednesday next.

MR. ROSE: I would like leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: The apparent stranger in the House sitting behind us is a member of the Legislature of Saskatchewan. His name is Myron Kowalsky. I'd like the House to welcome him.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

20 The Hon. A. J. Brummet to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 20) intituled Teaching Profession Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 3, in the proposed subsection (1) (a) and (b) by deleting "coming into force of this Act" and substituting "coming into force of this section".