[ Page 7999 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Feasibility study on new steel production plant. Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 7999

Mr. Gabelmann

Tab' ling Documents –– 8000

Oral Questions

Water pollution by pulp mills. Mr. Cashore –– 8000

Knight Street Pub investigation. Mr. Sihota –– 8001

Dawson Creek contractors' dispute with Louisiana-Pacific Corp.

Mr. Miller –– 8001

Treaty 8 tree-farm licence application. Mr. Miller –– 8001

Vancouver property taxes. Mrs. McCarthy –– 8002

Hiring of women by B.C. Transit. Hon. Mrs. Johnston replies to question –– 8003

School Act (Bill 67). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8003

Ms. A. Hagen –– 8006

Royal assent to bills –– 8010

School Act (Bill 67). Second reading

Ms. A. Hagen –– 8011

Mr. Harcourt –– 8012

On the amendment

Mr. Jones –– 8016

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 8019

Ms. A. Hagen –– 8021

Mr. Rabbitt –– 8023

Mr. G. Janssen –– 8024

Hon. Mr. Vant –– 8025

Hon. S.D. Smith –– 8025

Mr. Rose –– 8027

Mr. B.R. Smith –– 8028

Mr. Bruce –– 8028

Ms. Smallwood –– 8028

Mr. Jacobsen –– 8029

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Nechako and Northeast,

Responsible for Native Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber)

On vote 58: minister's office –– 8030

Mr. Guno

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Miller

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Financial Institutions Act (Bill 51). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) I –– 8046

Mr. Clark

Third reading

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The House will, of course, note with regret the passing of the Hon. Howard Green, a native British Columbian who also had a distinguished military record and for some 28 years represented British Columbia in the House of Commons. He was Minister of External Affairs in the Diefenbaker government. He was widely respected. He was a great gentleman, and he was a great human being.

He did a lot for the province. He was always concerned about issues great and small. I know that each of us who has had some experience with Howard or known of his record with respect to the province and national politics will regret his passing. I know, Mr. Speaker, that all members will want his family to receive our condolences.

MR. D'ARCY: I would like to add to what the minister has just said by saying that Howard Green was not only a great parliamentarian and a great Canadian, but he also was a very fine gentleman. I had cause to know him because while his political career was not associated directly with the West Kootenays, he in fact was a native of Kaslo on Kootenay Lake. He's a loss for all of Canada.

MR. ROSE: I'll just add briefly to the condolences on behalf of my party and me. I didn't know Howard Green personally, although we had a twenty-fifth anniversary for Tommy Douglas in public service — or was it 30? — in 1965, a big banquet in the Show Mart building in Vancouver attended by some 1,900 people. Invitations went out across Canada to all political parties, colleagues, the Premier of this province and all the rest.

The only prominent politician to show up for this reunion was Howard Green, and he was welcomed, in spite of the fact that he was a very prominent Conservative. As a matter of fact, he was welcomed because he was a very prominent Conservative. I didn't know Howard Green personally, but I did talk with his brother Rowland in Kelowna. The member from central Okanagan will recall him. He also made a great contribution, although perhaps he was not as prominent as his brother Howard.

Mr. Speaker, it is always sad to witness the passing of a great Canadian. We also send our condolences and share our sympathy with his family.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I never knew Howard Green either, but I was greatly influenced by him, because he represented my riding until his defeat in the 1963 federal election. The way he influenced me and my family was by his courage in speaking out against the acceptance of nuclear weapons in Canada, on which he joined the former prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, and he displayed tremendous courage in standing up to another country on that. It is something that always impressed me about him. I greatly regret that I never met him, and I would like to add my own condolences to his family.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery, in the precincts and in their meetings with many MLAs today members of the BCTF executive and representatives from the many districts throughout the province. I understand there are some 70 representatives here today, so it would be rather difficult to name them all on the record. We welcome their continuing and keen interest in the educational policies and directions in this province, and I would like the House to join me in making them very welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: I also want to join in welcoming the representatives from the BCTF here today. They have had a well-organized day, which has given them an opportunity to meet with many members of this House as part of their ongoing consultation and dialogue on the development of school policy and legislation. That initiative has been the hallmark of the last year, and I think their presence here today is testimony to the need for it to continue as we begin to debate the School Act today.

HON. S. HAGEN: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I welcome some friends from the United States here today. I'd like to acknowledge them at this time: Pastor John and Margaret Hopp from Cornelius, Oregon, celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary; Marybelle Faux from Garden Grove, California; Adaline Fackler from Fresno, California; Pete Hopp from Edmonds, Washington; James Hopp from Portland, Oregon; Don and Florence Siefert from Gigg Harbor, Washington. They are here with two friends that I went to university with a few years ago: Roberta and Serena Moore from Washington, D.C. Would the House please join me in bidding them welcome.

MS. MARZARI: In keeping with the theme of education and concerns about the education bill, there are representatives here today from the VSTA — Vancouver Secondary Teachers' Association. They have been meeting with us to discuss the bill. They are Don Briard, Don Reader, Frances Worledge, Sheila Pither and John Church, who also works in our constituency office in Point Grey. Would the House make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

FEASIBILITY STUDY ON NEW
STEEL PRODUCTION PLANT

HON. MR. VEITCH: I rise to make a ministerial statement. On April 12 I told this House that the China Steel Corp. of Taiwan had approached me with a proposal to build an integrated steel mill in British Columbia — a capital investment of $4 billion that could lead to the creation of thousands of direct jobs

[ Page 8000 ]

and a new market for British Columbia coal and set the stage for a new era of economic diversification in this province.

[2:15]

I also spoke of the caution with which this government would approach the China Steel proposal because of environmental concerns historically associated with the steel industry. This government is firmly committed to the concept of sustainable development, and we will not allow any project of this kind to proceed, no matter how attractive it may appear economically, if it does not also meet our environmental objectives.

As a first step in evaluating this proposal, I said we will assembly a team of the finest minds in engineering and environmental science and go in person to visit the world's most modern steel mills, talk with the environmental experts of those companies and talk with the environmental officials and governments that regulate those industries.

In taking this step I was joined by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). His ministry and mine have been full partners in this investigation, and although I am making this statement to the House, I am speaking for both the Minister of Environment and myself.

The environmental survey team was led by D. Keith Brimacombe, director of the Centre for Metallurgical Process Engineering at the University of British Columbia, and also included Dr. George Pling, professor of mining and mineral process engineering at the University of British Columbia and coordinator of applied research for the Mining Association of B.C., Mr. Saul Rothman, a retired mining executive with experience in building and operating mill operations, and Dr. Paul West, director of the environmental studies program at the University of Victoria.

The team was also assisted by senior federal and provincial environmental experts. Those officials also support the recommendations of the report. The team visited steel mills in Canada, Korea and Japan as well as China Steel mills in Taiwan. My colleague the Minister of Environment and I accompanied the team in the study of one Japanese and two Korean steel mills.

The team presented the report to cabinet this morning. Cabinet has instructed me to table this report to the House, which I will now do. I will also be releasing copies of the report to the press and to the public.

Briefly, the report concludes: "...available air- and water-emission control technology and modern solid waste management practices justify proceeding with prefeasibility studies of the establishment of an integrated iron and steel production facility in British Columbia."

Cabinet has accepted the recommendation of the survey team that it would be appropriate to proceed to prefeasibility studies. These studies will include environmental and engineering studies at potential sites. Cabinet has further instructed me to negotiate an agreement with China Steel to conduct these prefeasibility studies.

I am pleased and excited to be able to report that substantial progress has been made with this project. I will continue to keep the House informed as this very important opportunity develops.

MR. GABELMANN: First of all, let me say thank you to the minister for providing a copy of his statement in advance. It's a courtesy that's very much appreciated by members on this side of the House.

When the minister made his announcement on April 12, I welcomed the pre-prefeasibility study. And today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition caucus, I welcome the prefeasibility study.

There is some rhetoric in the statement about the need to be environmentally cautious or careful. I just want to say to the minister that we not only echo those concerns and those cautions but want to say that those issues should be treated with the utmost of care — with care often not taken heretofore in industrial development in North America. This is a particularly difficult kind of venture environmentally, so that caution is to be taken and to be taken very carefully indeed.

No mention is made in the statement, Mr. Speaker, about the need to consult with people who would be affected by such a development. I trust that at this stage of the discussions and studies some discussion will take place with people whose lives could very much be affected by such a development, should it ever happen in British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the financial statements and auditor's report for the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority for the year ended March 31, 1989.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services for the year ended March 31, 1988.

Oral Questions

WATER POLLUTION BY PULP MILLS

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Minister of Environment, Mr. Speaker. Data provided by the minister's department in June 1988 showed that 17 out of 21 pulp mills in the province were out of compliance with the standards set out in their water pollution permits. Similar data provided by your department in May 1989 showed that 17 out of 21 mills were still out of compliance. Does the minister not agree that this data shows that nearly every pulp mill in the province has failed to comply with existing water pollution standards for several years?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, the member really has a problem. He says "17 out of 21 pulp mills, " and there aren't 21 pulp mills in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, so I suspect the member has the wrong information again.

[ Page 8001 ]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is playing with numbers.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: He is playing with numbers, and he's not recognizing the fact of the situation with the paper mills. When I asked the minister yesterday to confirm that nearly every pulp mill in the province is out of compliance — let him try to deal with that: nearly every pulp mill in the province is out of compliance — he called my allegation incorrect. To allay the perception that his answer yesterday was misleading, is he now willing to admit that he was incorrect in what he said yesterday?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I didn't answer those questions yesterday; it was the day before. We have some serious problems over there.

Secondly, given that the member really has the numbers and mostly everything else wrong, I'll just have to take that question on notice, attempt to understand what he's trying to get at and respond later. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam with a new question.

MR. CASHORE: A new question, Mr. Speaker. A minister who can't even figure out what day it is can hardly criticize me for my factual information.

To correct a problem you've helped to cause, you must come clean and recognize your failures. How can the public have any faith in the minister's new standards if he lacks the political will to enforce existing standards?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Existing and new standards will be enforced, Mr. Speaker.

KNIGHT STREET PUB INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Minister of Labour. On May 24, 1988, being questioned on the Knight Street Pub and being asked how Mr. Giordano got on the list, the minister said at the time and I quote: "I don't know how he got on the list."

In light of the statement which the minister provided to the House, is he now prepared to concede that at the time he knew exactly how Mr. Giordano got on the list?

HON. L. HANSON: The question certainly is repetitious, and I fail to understand the emergency nature of it. But if the member opposite is truly interested in the information and not the media coverage, I would refer him to Hansard and the various reports that have come out.

MR. SIHOTA: There's a conflict between the report that he gave to the House, statements in Hansard, and the statements that he gave on May 24, 1988 to the press. Can the minister explain why it is that what he said on May 24, 1988 differs from what he said in the House?

DAWSON CREEK CONTRACTORS' DISPUTE
WITH LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP.

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Forests. I'm advised that 70 independent contractors in the Dawson Creek area have been told by Louisiana-Pacific that because they formed an association to try to improve prices, Louisiana-Pacific will no longer accept wood from these Independent contractors. Would the minister advise what his office has done with respect to this situation?

HON. MR. PARKER: We don't get involved in agreements between business partners.

MR. MILLER: This provincial government got involved to the extent that they provided Louisiana-Pacific with a $25 million interest-free loan, plus other major concessions. We now have a situation where a major North American forest company is blackmailing the independent contractors in this region. Does the minister not feel, given the previous support of this government for this corporation, that he could use his influence to persuade this corporation not to blackmail the independent contractors in this province?

HON. MR. PARKER: There was a distinct possibility of that oriented strand board plant going to another jurisdiction, and there was a little bidding war on the day.

MR. MILLER: He didn't agree with that.

HON. MR. PARKER: He wasn't the Premier at the time. That was a different jurisdiction, wasn't it?

The loan provided to the organization was a low-interest loan, and it's been repaid. The opportunities in the northeast are substantial because of the aspen utilization that the plant brought forward. We now find that the aspen in the area is no longer a weed species, that we no longer have to provide assistance to farmers for land-clearing. They have the opportunity to crop the aspen timber and sell it to Louisiana-Pacific.

As far as their dealings with their contractors are concerned, that's a business relationship between Louisiana-Pacific and their contractors. I'm sure if there is anything illegal about what they're doing, there is proper redress in the courts of the land.

TREATY 8 TREE-FARM LICENCE
APPLICATION

MR. MILLER: Perhaps your colleague from South Peace River might view it differently, Mr. Minister of Forests.

A new question to the minister. The federal Minister of Indian Affairs had written to the minister advising him of the legal position of the Treaty 8

[ Page 8002 ]

bands in the Mackenzie region as it relates to the application for a tree-farm licence. The minister has rejected the letter and characterized it as playing silly games. Can the minister advise why he refuses to recognize the legitimate rights of the Treaty 8 bands in regard to this matter?

HON. MR. PARKER: If Mr. Cadieux would like to discuss native land claims in British Columbia, we'd be most happy to have those discussions with him. By the terms of Confederation, natives and native issues are the responsibility of the federal government, and successive British Columbia governments have adopted that stand. It is quite clear in the terms of Confederation. Nobody has had an argument with it since 1871, apart from the native groups.

As long as the federal government is prepared to take the leadership in settling native issues, we'd be happy to discuss it. Until we see that leadership and until we have those kinds of discussions, we will proceed with the mandate of this ministry and other ministries under the terms of Confederation and the laws of the land.

[2:30]

MR. MILLER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Premier has said, I suppose as a criticism of his own government, that Indians are forgotten people They've been forgotten by this government. They have a recognized treaty right to the land, unlike areas where natives have not negotiated title. The courts have clearly established that right and the responsibility of government to satisfy the court rulings. Does the minister not think that it should be considered prior to the Crown granting the proprietary right of a private corporation to acquire the proprietary interest in that land? Don't you think, Mr. Minister, that should be satisfied first?

HON. MR. PARKER: There is no proprietary right established that I am aware of, and I would like to defer the matter of native affairs to my colleague, the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: First of all, the question of Treaty 8 as it applies to the McLeod Lake band is a proposition put forward by the McLeod Lake band that they are entitled to treaty rights under Treaty 8 As a matter of fact, the band did not decide until 1982, Madam Member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), that they wanted to apply for treaty rights under Treaty 8.

Up until 1982, they considered making a comprehensive land claim, and in 1982 the decision of the band was to apply for rights under Treaty 8. They have been discussing that question with the federal Department of Indian Affairs, which, at the end of the day, will decide whether or not the McLeod Lake band and the area that they occupy is part of the traditional Treaty 8 territory. There is a question of watersheds. It is a question that the federal government will have to resolve, whether or not they want to recognize the McLeod Lake area being laid out as part of the Treaty 8 area in 1899.

That aside, there have been 20 or 30 agreements with native bands with forestry tenures, and we continue to have a keen interest in establishing forestry tenures for native groups. I am not certain of the issue with regard to Mr. Cadieux, but certainly he has any number of issues on his plate, and I am a bit surprised that he would want to be involved in forest tenure in British Columbia.

VANCOUVER PROPERTY TAXES

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Property taxpayers in the city of Vancouver are facing a crisis situation in commercial properties. There is a possibility, according to letters that I will deliver to you today, that many small businesses will have to close their doors due to outrageous, unconscionable increases of 100, 200 and even 300 percent this year over last year. My question to the minister is: will he, if approached by the city of Vancouver, examine the possibility of a rollback to not more than 25 percent — or, I would hope, lower; I feel 25 percent is very extravagant — or lower increases for this year for those commercial property owners and tenants whose tax notices exceed that figure?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's certainly encouraging to note that at least members of this House understand one of the rules of the House, which is that question period should be used for timely and urgent matters. It's refreshing to note that this matter is timely and is urgent and indeed has attracted a wide degree of interest in the member's riding in Vancouver.

As a consequence of that, we have been looking at the issue that is being discussed. The fact of the matter is that there was a large meeting in the last few days on this subject, and I understand there's another one to be planned this evening on the same subject: that is to say, the rise of commercial property taxes in certain neighbourhoods in the city of Vancouver.

This situation, in our judgment, is not much different than the situation that the city reacted to relevant to residential property tax increases, and therefore our government does believe the city should have the ability to deal with these anomalies as they arise. The city, as the House will remember, did ask us to provide them with enabling legislation that would enable them to cap increases where property tax increases for residential properties were over a certain figure. As a consequence of that request, the House obliged and we did pass that enabling legislation.

It does seem that the hon. member's question is pertinent and relevant and certainly has much merit in terms of the suggestion that a similar approach might be taken for commercial properties. I have seen some documentation which supports the fact that some commercial properties have had increases of

[ Page 8003 ]

well over 1,000 percent in this one year. So the issue is timely and urgent, and as a consequence of the member raising the point, I will assure her that I will meet with the leaders of the group. I will also discuss it with the mayor and with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) to see what this government might do to indicate its sensitivity to the urgency of the issue and its financial impact on many small businesses in selected neighbourhoods of Vancouver. It's worthy of examination, and I thank the member for the question.

HIRING OF WOMEN BY B.C. TRANSIT

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I rise to respond to a question put to the ministry yesterday, June 27, by the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) with regard to an affirmative action program at B.C. Transit.

B.C. Transit does not have a formal affirmative action program, but I am advised that it is their practice to give women and minorities equal consideration. With regard to the trainability tests, they are conducted as part of the process to select the best possible transit operator trainees. All train abilities are conducted on a small 3500 or 36-foot-long diesel bus.

Since transit operators sometimes have to manoeuvre the retrievers, which are the 70-pound springs — this is what the member referred to as the heavy trolley wires — slightly built men as well as most women will be asked to pull the retriever ropes to ensure that they have the strength to handle this part of the job. They are never given gloves or towels to protect their hands, and are told: "If you can't hold them, let go."

Trainabilities are done on a set route for everyone. If the instructor is unsure after the set route, they go on an extended route to give them a chance to improve. I would like to tell the hon. first member for Point Grey that we have been invited — and possibly the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey would like to join me — to a trainability test so that we can both see firsthand exactly how the process is carried out. I would be pleased to make those arrangements.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Before we proceed to House business, in response to numerous requests and intense pressure from both sides of the House and pursuant to standing orders, I am advising the House that tomorrow we will sit from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. It will be a normal Thursday with no private members' statements and no question period.

I call second reading of Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

SCHOOL ACT

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is with great pride that open second reading debate on the School Act — with great pride and little attention, obviously, but I'm working on it.

This bill will provide the foundation for our education system to take us into the twenty-first century. I know that every member of the House shares my conviction that education holds the key to our future. Education is a necessary investment in our twin goals of a healthy society and a prosperous, sustainable economy.

I am indeed a very fortunate individual. By historic circumstances it is my privilege to present this bill to the House.

Many of the members here today are aware of my background and may understand my pleasure in introducing this bill, but let me say that whatever personal pleasure I feel is certainly overshadowed by the opportunity which we all have to ensure quality education for our present and future students. This bill provides us with an opportunity to ensure that British Columbia has a high-quality and relevant school system. In fact, it offers us the chance to become leaders in the world of education.

Over the past ten years it has become increasingly obvious to all of us that our school system, which worked well for us in the past, needs to change for the future. It became obvious that we needed a major review of our education system. In response to this need, in 1987 my government initiated the Sullivan Royal Commission on Education. The commission's mandate was to clearly identify what social and economic changes had occurred and to suggest means for ensuring that our schools would be able to respond appropriately. The Sullivan royal commission conducted 16 months of intensive study.

All of us in British Columbia owe a tremendous debt to Barry Sullivan for the comprehensive and insightful report produced by the commission. My one regret is that Barry Sullivan cannot be with us to share the results of his endeavours, but his family does maintain a continuing interest.

The study found that our system was basically sound but there were areas where improvement and change was necessary. In its report, entitled "A Legacy for Learners," the commission recommended in clear and incisive terms that we must refocus our attention on the learner and that we need to develop more flexibility in responding to individual, needs and changing demands.

My tour last fall confirmed the report's findings. There are many innovative programs in our schools now. Our schools are staffed with committed teachers and administrators, and they're doing a great job. Teachers and administrators told me that we need to try new techniques. They want greater flexibility to do what they do best: teach children. Parents and community leaders told me that schools are vital to the future, but that schools also have to find new methods of responding to students' needs.

On January 27 this year I announced the government's response to the Sullivan report. That response was developed through months of intensive discussion and debate by the Provincial Education Policy Advisory Committee. That announcement launched us on a program to prepare our education system to meet the needs of the twenty-first century. Virtually

[ Page 8004 ]

every major recommendation made in the Sullivan report has been acted upon. The new policy directions announced in January flow directly from the Sullivan commission report, and we have backed our decision with a significant commitment of funding: in total, some $2.9 billion over ten years.

The highlights of the January announcement include: a clear direction for the system; the development of a new curriculum from the first year of primary through grade 12; recognition of the key role played by teachers in the education system; a program to improve the participation and graduation rate of native Indian students— and it will be developed; and the establishment of greater coordination between social service ministries in the delivery of services to children.

Accompanying those announcements was a firm commitment to consultation. Barry Sullivan said it was vital, and it is a process in which I believe and to which I am committed. We established the consultation process immediately. The Provincial Education Policy Advisory Committee was instrumental in helping me establish the package I took to cabinet.

At the same time, it was also announced that a new School Act would be enacted to enable these new directions. The changes recommended by Barry Sullivan and confirmed by the Education Policy Advisory Committee simply cannot be accomplished under the existing legislation.

Before I outline the details of this bill, I would like to share with the House some thoughts on the sort of education system we will need in the future — perhaps call it a vision for education. This is a vision that has been developed during my 26 years as a teacher, principal and district staff member, focused over the past two and a half years as a Minister of Education, and tempered during the past ten months of activity.

I believe we have an education system second to none. Our teachers are competent and dedicated. There is abundant proof that the majority of our children receive a good education. But I believe that our schools can be better. I believe that our children deserve the best schools we can provide and the best possible preparation for the future.

The conditions in which most of us grew up — the conditions which shaped our current education system — are now vastly changed. Anyone who attempts to keep abreast of current affairs is aware of the ever-increasing base of information and knowledge. The world is shrinking in both time and distance. Anyone over 30 years of age who goes into a classroom today— particularly In the lower mainland — cannot avoid the fact that our community has a more diverse mix of cultures and languages than 20 years ago.

[2:45]

I'm sure that all of us are well aware, in either our own families or close circle of friends, of the increased numbers of children who don't enjoy the benefits of two full-time parents, let alone the extended families that were prevalent not too many years ago. Anyone who has sought work, recruited employees or watched their sons or daughters seek employment in the last few years knows firsthand the changes in the economy and the labour market. We can't avoid those changes, nor can we roll them back. They present us with a significant challenge that we must address, and they present us with wonderful opportunities.

There's no question in my mind that the increased cultural diversity and structural changes in our economy have significant implications for our education system. Our elementary and secondary school systems have to assume the responsibility of laying the foundation for us, as a society, to respond to these changes. We have to ensure that our children have the skills necessary to achieve their potential.

Our children need to be creative and capable of ongoing learning to cope with change. They must have an international perspective and an understanding of other languages and cultures. We must ensure that all young people have better problem-solving and critical-thinking skills. We have to find ways of reaching our present dropouts. The system is simply failing to meet the needs of that one-third of our students who leave the system before they attain high-school graduation. There are few opportunities now for those young adults, and there will be fewer in the future.

What do we need to meet this challenge? What will a successful education system look like? First, I believe we must have a clear statement of what our education system is expected to achieve. That is why we created a mandate statement for the system. This mandate statement consists of four parts and begins with a mission for the system: "The purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy."

We have developed a description of an educated citizen: One who is thoughtful, able to learn and to think critically, and who can communicate information from a broad knowledge base. One who is creative, flexible, self-motivated, and who has a positive self-image. One who is capable of making independent decisions. One who is skilled and can contribute to society generally, including the world of work. One who is productive, who can gain satisfaction through achievement, and who can strive for physical well-being. One who is cooperative, principled and respectful of others regardless of differences. One who is aware of the rights and prepared to exercise the responsibilities of an individual within the family, the community, Canada and the world.

A set of goals and attributes has been identified. The primary goal of the school system is intellectual development in a tradition that schools share with the family and the community, the goal of human and social development and the goal of career development. The attributes which we wish our school system to display are accessibility, relevance, equity, quality and accountability.

[ Page 8005 ]

The fourth component of the mandate statement is a description of the roles, rights and responsibilities of each of the stakeholders. These stakeholders, of course, do include students, parents, teachers, district staff, the ministry and the community.

This mandate was developed through the Education Policy Advisory Committee and has been endorsed by this government.

Secondly, we see a curriculum that is focused on the learner rather than on our present subject focus, grade-stamped curriculum. We need to identify the specific learning outcomes we expect for our students, but we also need to move away from always specifying the textbook they have to read or the country they have to study. We will concentrate more on taking our students from where they are when they enter our class to where their potential will take them, rather than prescribing a preordained set of hoops through which they must jump. We will instill in our students the love of learning and the ability to learn lifelong.

Thirdly, we see a teaching force that reflects the ideal of facilitating learning rather than the delivery of pre-packaged teaching modules which our students are expected to ingest. From what teachers are doing and telling me, I believe they want this. Our teaching force will enhance its already highly professional standards. Our teachers will truly be models of the lifelong learners we hope our children will become. In essence, we will provide the teachers with greater flexibility in the classroom to do what they do best: to help the children learn.

Fourthly, we will have a comprehensive but easily understood process for evaluating the system's progress. We will be able to accurately identify our strengths and weaknesses in order that we may continue to improve our performance. This evaluation process will ensure that parents or the community will receive a clear, jargon-free answer when they ask questions regarding performance or how their tax dollars are spent.

Who will benefit most from this education system? I would say all of us. Our children will receive the type of education they both need and deserve. This includes not only the average student but also those students whom the present system serves less well than it should: our challenged learner and our best and brightest. Teachers will have the type of classroom autonomy that all professionals desire. They will have responsibilities, but they will also have more control over the day-to-day learning experience of our students, and so will our students.

Parents and the public will have a greater sense of confidence in our schools. They will have a sense of ownership and commitment to our overall direction and a willingness to provide the necessary resources As a community, we will be ensuring that our children will possess the necessary skills and attitudes to maintain a healthy society, in all that implies, and a prosperous economy. Can we achieve this vision? I believe very strongly that we can, because I saw it emerging as I traveled across the province and visited many schools. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this vision enjoys support on both sides of this House.

I was able to hear some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition to trustees at the recent annual general meeting, and I was pleased to hear his positive approach to education. I recognize that it's not typical for a minister to look to the opposition for support, but what is at stake here is too important to be caught up in partisan politics. Our children's education has to be ensured, and all of us here have a responsibility to participate in that process.

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about a new School Act for 20 years. It has long been recognized on both sides of the House that the existing act is outdated. I believe that previous attempts to update the current act failed because there was a lack of vision and a lack of consensus among the major stakeholders. We now have that clear vision, and it is embodied in the mandate statement. We now have a consensus and a positive working relationship among the stakeholders. This is evident from the work of the Education Policy Advisory Committee. If we are to embrace the legacy for learners which Barry Sullivan created for us, and if we are to achieve our vision for education, it is imperative that we have a new School Act. We can delay no longer.

The bill which I presented to the House was not hastily thrown together, nor was it created behind closed doors. My ministry staff and legislative counsel have spent countless hours preparing it for the House. The bill has been thoroughly reviewed, vetted and commented on by the Education Policy Advisory Committee and directly by others— and certainly indirectly through the representation on that committee. In terms of the intensive time and energy invested and the participation of all stakeholders, this bill rivals the preparation of any legislation which has been brought before this House.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is broad and enabling in nature to maximize its flexibility. A new School Act will have to be flexible In order to respond to the rapid and significant changes we all expect in both our society and our economy. We know that we cannot predict those changes, nor can we predict specific futures for which we ought to prepare our children. But we can ensure that the new School Act has the inherent flexibility to ensure its ongoing relevance as we move into the twenty-first century.

Let me review some of the features of this bill, which I believe make it so very important. First, the bill focuses on learners and their parents. It provides a definition of an educational program that is learner centred. Secondly, it establishes the rights of pupils and parents to consultation regarding individual education programs. It clarifies the educational entitlement of all children— and I say "all children" — of school age. It guarantees the learner and the parents access to individual student records. It establishes the right of pupils and parents to appeal actions of a school or district to the local school board. Also the bill, for the first time, deals with the issue of home schooling. The right of every child to

[ Page 8006 ]

have access to and receive a quality education will be ensured.

Consultation among the various stakeholders will be formalized at all levels within the system. A parent advisory council will be established at the school level, and the education advisory council will be established at the provincial level. The bill will enhance local autonomy and thus ensure that the unique needs of the local community are met, but it will also ensure that appropriate levels of accountability are provided.

The conflict of interest issue is dealt with. The key responsibility of the government and the minister in providing overall leadership and setting overall direction for the school system is identified. The bill is also written in non-gender-specific language, which is in keeping with the new policy directions announced last January.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is as sound as it is important. I believe that this bill provides us an opportunity to enact the most forward-looking School Act in Canada. We have a significant challenge ahead of us. The bill can provide the solid legislative foundation needed to meet this challenge.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We have to retain our focus on our overall objective: the best possible education for our children. We have to work together towards this objective. The stakeholders, through their participation on the Education Policy Advisory Committee, have demonstrated their willingness to work together. The people of British Columbia owe a debt of gratitude to all who have dedicated so much time and effort to bring us to this point. Again, I do want to extend a special commendation to the people in my ministry.

Mr. Speaker, we have the vision, the direction, the consensus among the stakeholders and the commitment from my government. Credit must also be given to the Premier and my colleagues in cabinet and in caucus for establishing the royal commission, for supporting the open-consultation process, for committing to the policy directions and for backing it all with long-term funding commitments. Certainly to all those on the legislative committees who have really accomplished the impossible in drafting this legislation, I want to thank them and recognize their many hours.

Now we need a new School Act. I invite all members of this House to join the process of ensuring that our education system is prepared for the twentyfirst century by supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include a short quotation which goes as follows: "By respecting the initiative of concerned parents and democratically elected trustees and by working together with our eye fixed firmly on the future, we can give our children the tools to adapt and flourish in our changing world." This quotation from the Leader of the Opposition would indicate their support for what we have set out to achieve. However, I have just learned that I may have been wrong in that assumption. I understand the Leader of the Opposition has given formal notice to ask this House not to proceed with this bill. It came as somewhat of a surprise at the last moment.

Every member of this House knows that a new School Act is necessary, and they know why it is necessary, and they know of my commitment to our school system. It's my sincere hope that the overall opportunity will not be overshadowed by partisan or particular interests. Interpretations and applications can be dealt with through the continuing consultative process. Hopefully, the energy and joint efforts of all the stakeholders can focus on getting on with the job before us, which includes assuring public and taxpayer support.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the job, the challenge and the exciting opportunity to serve the best interests of our students and our society.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's with a considerable amount of pride and excitement that I enter into this debate today, because, as the minister noted, it is an historic day in this House. It's the first time we have had a completely new School Act, or an almost completely new School Act, in over 30 years, and it is the fulfilment of a promise that I know is decades old.

It's interesting, too, as I look around the House, that the New Democrats are in the majority in the House this afternoon, and I think that that is a testament to the importance that our MLAs place on the debate that is about to take place this afternoon.

[3:00]

I want to speak first of all just very briefly about the process to which the minister referred in his introductory comments, and to commend that process. I think that this particular act, in the way in which it has been developed, is probably unique in recent memory, at any rate. It comes from a royal commission; it comes from an extensive policy development; it comes from consultation; it comes from the involvement of many people.

It's in that context that I want to place my initial comments this afternoon, because except for a very short brief, which I made on behalf of our caucus to the minister about some of our concerns about this bill, it is the first time that we on this side of the House have had any opportunity to discuss the statute. That may be a different situation for members on the government benches, but we certainly welcome this opportunity, and consider that what happens over the next few days of debate in connection with the School Act is a an ongoing consultation. In the spirit in which the minister spoke about the development of points of view and consensus and the resolving of conflict that may occur around certain perspectives on that bill, we are today a part of that process as well. Any suggestions and amendments that we make are made in the spirit of making this act a better act.

I want to note to the minister that I say that with humility, because I recognize that a tremendous amount of work has gone into the development of this act, on his own part, on behalf of his staff, and

[ Page 8007 ]

with the others who have worked on the various drafts. So I want to acknowledge, in speaking of that ongoing improvement, that it is in the context of that excellent work that has taken place.

The minister spoke extensively this afternoon about his vision. I think all of us, when we come to talk about education in this kind of important time, do have a vision. But as much as possible today I want to frame my comments in the context of the act, which is the structure or the vehicle by which this vision can be achieved. Therefore we need to look very carefully at what it says, what it appears to say and what the minister intends it to say, so that we can understand it. That's our role here as we debate this piece of legislation.

The minister notes that it is an enabling bill. As a new MLA, one of the things I learned is that there are enabling bills, there are prescriptive bills and then there are some other kinds as well. But this provides flexibility. It provides rights and responsibilities to various people who have responsibility for education in our schools, in our school districts and at the ministry level, and who are concerned about the schools because this is where their children get one of their most important rights of citizenship — their education.

However, an enabling bill also has limits. There are ways in which powers may in fact be constrained or directed in a hierarchical way, and one of the things I want to look at today is how this act has been developed around that enabling principle and where we may have concerns about the principles that are there about the empowerment of people to do the things that the minister has stated he believes in.

We need a good act. We need it as one of the most important memorials we can give to Mr. Barry Sullivan and to the many people who worked with him to produce the foundation for a review of education. There were two or three points that Mr. Sullivan made that I want to make again as a part of my vision as we begin the discussion of this legislation. He said that we want to focus attention on the importance of schooling as a vital provincial resource, the importance of youngsters who attend British Columbia schools, the importance of the teachers who work with them daily and the importance of the parents in many organizations in helping to shape the character of schooling.

If at all possible today, I want to try to represent those views as we begin to debate the act — again, with humility — because every one of those groups has a stake in what we are talking about today. Mr. Sullivan said the stake is that we want a better educational future for our children and we want to develop the structures, processes and avenues of communication which enable us to work together cooperatively through consensus and through conflict resolution.

This act is our tool at this time. Does it contribute, then, to a better education, and does it provide the framework for all those people to work with confidence in the stability, fidelity and integrity of the system? Those are some of the benchmarks that we will look at as we follow through on Mr. Sullivan's last recommendation — a new school act.

Let me begin to speak to the substance of the act — and I should note, Mr. Speaker, that I am the designated speaker in this debate. In the time that I have, I want to deal with a number of issues — not all, because it is a big act. It has something in the order of 230 clauses, a lot of which are very comprehensive.

Let me begin with the preamble. I don't want to pre-empt the comments that are going to be made by the Leader of the Opposition in a few moments, but I think that in framing our debate today it is important to begin with that very important statement, which is really a statement of the goals of education.

The minister made reference to his mandate for the school system, which is the basis for the act, and he noted the development of the potential of each child and the development of the skills and attributes for a good, sustainable economy. What he didn't mention, which is a very important part of the mandate statement, is the comment in the second paragraph about the educated citizen, that as we progress toward the goal of educating a citizen, we have two specific ideals that we want to try to inculcate and to have available through the experiences of children in the school system. We want educated citizens who accept the tolerant and multifaceted nature of Canadian society and who are motivated to participate actively in our democratic institutions.

Regrettably, in the preamble, the statement of purpose, there is no mention of educating our students to participate in a democratic society, and I think it's a lack, a serious flaw, a serious weakness. The Leader of the Opposition will be addressing that issue in an amendment which is put forward in the spirit of which I spoke at the beginning of my remarks: in the spirit of improving and enhancing the faithfulness of this document to the Sullivan commission and to the minister's own mandate statement.

Let me take just a moment to look at another area of the act, which I am not going to discuss very much this afternoon. I want to just, if you like, get it to one side. The one area of the act for which there has been no revision or very modest revisions within the section deals with finance. I want to put on the record this afternoon the disappointment that that particular change has not yet been accomplished.

Certainly Mr. Sullivan and the royal commission spoke about the needs for transforming our taxing and funding formula, to improve it. They spoke of the deficiencies in funding for education and some of their suggestions for those improvements.

During the estimates I had the opportunity to debate back and forth with the minister his commitment to the goal of those changes being in place by 1990-91, for the next school year and the next school tax year. I think that is vitally important, because one of the things I'm going to be noting in my comments this afternoon is that there is within this act, I believe, some potential for the expansion of the mandate of schools. That's something we need to

[ Page 8008 ]

canvass to understand more carefully. But if there is indeed to be an expanded mandate, then funding and finance become even more critical.

Now to get to some of the specifics of the bill that I want to deal with. This bill, as I've said, deals with every child in the system, and although it is the public school act, it provides the framework for the entitlement of every child aged five to 19 within a district to an education. That's a very important point for us to note and keep in mind, because we are talking about children of varying potentials: children who have abilities and potential depending on their intellectual and physical capacities, any handicaps they may bring with them to the school system and the social capital they have, coming from the economy and the community in which they live. This child who comes into the system, then, this child who comes to school, is in every sense unique and the product of both the things with which he or she was born and the community in which he or she has grown up.

I want to make a very important commitment on behalf of all of my colleagues today to that public school system and to the necessity of that system for the fulfilment of our democratic and economic ideals and for the empowerment of our citizens. We believe that commitment is best manifested through the public schools, through a system that has the capacity and the potential to provide a challenging and stimulating education for our students.

In speaking to the needs of all learners, then, as we examine this act, one of the things we need to do is to ensure that the educational programs defined for students are indeed ones that deal with their potential — not just with the abilities they bring to school, but to the potential that is there and that may not have been tapped. That's part of a vision that we believe to be consistent with the creative and decision-making child who is given the opportunity to develop to his or her fullest potential.

I want to note also that we believe that schools should be places for adult learners. There is a very brief reference in the act to that; it empowers school districts to provide programs for adult learners. But as we look at what the minister said about the changing society in which people grow up — the fact that many of our young people are going out to get jobs often to keep bread on the table of their family, because of circumstances that may or may not relate to their educational aspirations — we need to make that school a resource that is available to anyone who lives in that community and wants to have an education, which we normally think of as for K to 12

I want to pay tribute — and I will a couple of times today — to my own school district in New Westminster, School District 40, which has had that particular approach to our secondary school and has done a great deal to draw back into the system school-leavers, people who have dropped out, to provide them with opportunities for vocational, career and academic education.

This act also, for the first time, requires every child to be registered somewhere in a school, and it recognizes for the first time something that we call home schooling, where parents choose to be responsible for the education of their children. Choice is an important value for parents; the public school being a means for parents to have a variety of choices available is also an important value. I would hope that our school system will develop the kind of variety and flexibility that will encourage all parents to have their children participate in schools where they have the advantage of the full range of programs: social, intellectual, academic and physical.

[3:15]

But some parents are educating their children at home, and we believe that it is a good move to have those children registered. We will, when we come to debate this particular issue, be making strong representation that those registrations should be in the public schools and that we really need very clear guidelines around home schooling, one of which is the right for children to have some choice about whether they will be schooled at home or in schools.

I have a real concern that as children grow in their knowledge of their educational needs they will have a choice in that matter. That choice, in my mind, could very well be a choice to be at school, even though parents might have a choice that the children are educated at home.

Let me take a few moments to look at Part 2 of the act, "Students and Parents," and agree with the minister that these new sections are, I believe, a significant asset to the act. Within these clauses there are opportunities for improvement that would make for a more democratic structure rather than a supplicant structure.

It is well and good for parents to have access to certain rights, but I believe that parents are very important partners in the education of their children. After all, we do educate our children for the first five years, and I think a lot of us do a pretty good job of that. I think a lot of the children who come into the school system come in with the results of dedicated work on the part of parents.

I think parents need to be partners, and the School Act should have the kinds of clauses that don't have them as supplicants but as partners. The act goes some way toward that — not all the way, not as strongly as I would like it — and I want to give the minister and the drafters credit for what has happened in that regard.

I want to say a little bit more about students, however, because students also are seen as underlings to some extent still in this act. They have been given in the act the right to participate in planning their education program, and that I think is an excellent clause. But it is interesting that as far as rules of conduct are concerned, those still come down from on high. Those still are the kinds of strictures that are made by what youngsters would call "authority figures."

My younger son used to wear a button quite frequently that simply said "Challenge Authority, " and it seems to me that one of the things that we

[ Page 8009 ]

should be looking at in a democratic education system...

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: A lot of us probably did wear that button.

... is the right of students to have, if you like, some say in the statutory role, in the kinds of rules of conduct by which they are governed in the school, which is the first opportunity, institutionally, they have to find out how a democracy functions.

The more that school can reflect on the democracy, the more it can enhance decision-making, the kind of choices, ways in which people deal with conflict and the way in which responsibility is encouraged. The more students have the opportunity to participate in an active way, the better our education system is going to be, and the better our students are going to respond to the system that they work in.

There is also within this act a procedure for appeals. It goes some way, but I believe it doesn't go far enough. The minister has emphasized over and over again that he has followed the recommendations of the royal commission in almost every area. The royal commission recommended very specifically that there be some third party means of resolving any disputes over appeals, and that is not in the present act.

It could be provided through proclaiming, I believe, the ombuds section that deals with questions relating to school districts or, more simply, in addition to proclaiming that clause of the Ombudsman Act it could be an addition to this act. I think in putting into place an appeal, it's important that there be conflict resolution if the parties are unable to come to an agreement. This gives the final power to the board which has, of course, an interest— as has the parent — in the subject for the appeal.

What I am doing in the early part of the act is talking about those structures that relate to parents and students and their relationships with the school I want to move now into another area of similar processes of consultation and involvement — to the Education Policy Advisory Committee, which I'm pleased to note the minister has mandated. The first draft of the act, I recall, did make it something where the minister "may appoint"; the clause now says the minister "shall appoint" an Education Advisory Council. In my view, this is one of the most fundamental tools to achieving the goal that Mr. Sullivan spoke of: the goal of a cooperative, consultative, problem-solving vehicle that involves the major players, if you like, within the system.

I'm pleased too that that clause states that it will be representative. If I understand the clause correctly, it means that established groups in the educational community who are to be involved in the Education Advisory Council will be able to choose their own representatives and to deal with the issues in a truly representative way. That is again an improvement on an earlier draft and a very important aspect of the council's functioning.

I am disappointed that the clause does not name the people or the organizations and constituencies that will be involved. However, I can understand that perhaps that is something that has not yet been attended to in its entirety. I do believe it will be important for the makeup of that group to be enshrined in the act at some time. I believe it needs to be there in statute.

Now I want to talk about a missing link, an aspect of the bill that I can't find anywhere — any kind of presentiments at all. It is an adjunct of the Education Advisory Council, and it was the next recommendation that the Sullivan commission made after it recommended that there should be an advisory council. They called for a provincial curriculum committee as a standing committee that would, through the Education Advisory Council, deal with matters that affect curriculum development, implementation and evaluation and that would have subcommittees in specialty areas.

I believe that that particular structure should be mandated in the act as well. It's a vital part of actually having in place a provincially based advisory body that deals with what goes on in schools with the curriculum available to children. In this act, these consultative structures are extremely important. I see them as a means of providing a check and balance against the possibility of this act having a very major centralist thrust within its enabling capacity. I spoke earlier about the fact that the act may be enabling but it also can be very hierarchical, depending on how the minister decides to exercise the very extensive powers that he has in the act.

I will return on one or two occasions to the missing link, as I call it, the curriculum advisory council as a tool, both the solid support arm of the Education Advisory Council and the means by which the players can deal with those issues that relate to the fundamental things that happen in a classroom.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

In this bill, over and over again, we run into a phrase, "subject to the orders of the minister," or we find reference to the fact that a clause will be interpreted "subject to the regulations." I said at the beginning, when I looked at this act, that it is an act that in fact gives us a story that has very deep foundations and very broad kinds of powers. In order to understand this structure that is going to help us transform and enable our school system to work well, we need to understand those powers. They are so extensive that one could call them Orwellian. I say that in the sense that they cover so many areas that the minister could prescribe many aspects of the education system.

I don't want to suggest that that is the minister's intent, but we are dealing with an act that we must understand as we look at its principles and debate its various clauses. We need to understand whether those powers are necessary in a system that is a co-managed system, with 75 school districts and 75 district staffs in the — the minister will know the

[ Page 8010 ]

number; what is it? — 1,500 schools of the province who daily make important decisions around how that school system is going to function and how children are going to in fact be able to access an education.

Clearly some of the powers are constitutional, traditional and reasonable, but there are powers that are being questioned and have been questioned from a pedagogical sense, from a locus-of-control sense, and I think it's important for us to really look at these very carefully as we go through the act.

For example, during the estimates we had an extensive discussion around the issue of evaluation assessment. The minister referred to it again in his comments today. There's a lot of concern about the nature of the assessment, because this minister is going to prescribe the fundamental nature of assessment. This minister is going to tell a school board when he wants those school districts to be involved in comparative evaluations— not evaluations of the individual child, but comparative evaluations. This minister has the power then to use that information. We can use those powers in a constructive way or we can use them in a way that destabilizes the system, erodes trust and has the wrong things driving the system, not the goals of the minister, which are to work with the individual learner and to have assessment and evaluation— the tools by which we diagnose where that learner is, what he or she needs next in the way of learning — and then to get on with the next step.

[3:30]

Even in the home-schooling issue, where the superintendent has the power to deal with any child who isn't registered and is home schooled, the minister in fact is the person who has the power, according to the act, to tell the superintendent how he or she will deal with that.

A second area of concern that I want to speak to comes, I believe, out of the intention to have a broader scope of activities and educational opportunity available to students in grade 11 and grade 12. It is a clause that gives to school districts, subject again to the minister's orders, the power to contract out managerial services and to purchase educational services. In the act there's absolutely nothing to frame that power, and the only connection back to the school district is that those services will be under the direction of somebody who is registered by the College of Teachers. It could be the superintendent, the assistant-superintendent, an administrative officer or a teacher.

I'm very concerned about that kind of clause, and I want to go back again to the curriculum advisory council issue, because if we had a publicly based, broadly mandated committee with power to ask for the necessary planning, then we would be able to know something about what was planned. But this particular clause, as it stands, is one that I believe has the potential to privatize the school system. I would note that at one point there was some suggestion that the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen) would be actually involved in licensing some of these services. Heavens, Mr. Minister. Spare us. The Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training has one person licensing 400-odd private schools, none of which then has any accountability back to any public body.

I note that there is a request that I break in my presentation for the attendance of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, and I will now take my place and resume after that event.

MR. SPEAKER: I advise hon. members that the Administrator is in the precincts and will be here very shortly.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Municipal Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Supreme Court Act

Court Rules Act

Small Claims Act justice Reform Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 1989

Personal Property Security Act

Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Agriculture Protection Act

Employee Investment Act

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1989

Environment Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

Pension (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, 1989

New Westminster Redevelopment Act, 1989

Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989

Health Professions Amendment Act, 1989

Seniors Advisory Council Act

Cemetery and Funeral Services Act

Farming and Fishing Industries Development Act

Assessment Amendment Act, 1989

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1989

Credit Union Incorporation Act

Seminary of Christ the King Amendment Act, 1989

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

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Supply Act (No. 2), 1989

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Administrator retired from the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster continues on Bill 67.

[ Page 8011 ]

SCHOOL ACT

(continued)

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I note there are a number of interesting bills that have just received royal assent. I know some people in my community will be pleased to hear about one of them.

When the Administrator was announced, I was speaking about the issue of boards — subject to the orders of the minister — having the power to contract out managerial and education services. If my memory serves me correctly, since I did stop in mid-section, I was referring to the very great discretionary power that leaves with the minister, and the need for the check and balance through the curriculum advisory council, with very clear roles that involve all of the stakeholders in any efforts to broaden the education system.

I want to be on the record that I'm supportive of the kinds of initiatives that will enable students to receive, past their junior secondary grades, a diversity of education. I say that not specifically but generally. I think we haven't yet had the debate on what that education should be in the curriculum. The minister has some documents out for discussion, and I know there is work going on.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The whole business of accountability to the public system, with a well-trained, professional workforce of teachers and support staff that work with them, is fundamental to our system. We can't have an act that is not clear and concise about any powers that would change that system. It's inconsistent entirely with what the royal commission was suggesting. I again want to emphasize that the royal commission, as I understand it, saw the curriculum advisory council as the real workhorse of expanding and enriching the opportunities for children to have a wide range of educational opportunities. So we want very much to have that breadth available, with a clear mandate that speaks, as the recommendation notes, to the issues of development, implementation and evaluation in the hands of, not the minister or the board, but all of the stakeholders.

The act also includes a clause that was drawn to our attention by the teachers, and I want to take time to mention it today. It's clause 18 on teachers' assistants. Subsection (1) says: "A board may employ persons other than teachers to assist teachers in carrying out their responsibilities and duties under this Act and the regulations." Subsection (2) then notes: "Persons employed under subsection (1) shall work under the general supervision of a teacher or administrative officer." That particular clause is a rather strange one, because in clause 15 of  the act the board has total power to employ and to be responsible for "the management of those persons that the board considers necessary for the conduct of its operations." So the board has the powers it needs to employ a wide range of people. Indeed, all of us know that every school board does that with teacher aides, interveners, people who are involved with clerical support. The range is wide and broad.

There is a real concern here — and I want to identify that concern because it's one that we on this side of the House would share — that there is some intent with this clause to deal with the potential of not having enough teachers in the future and that we may have assistants who deal with the roles and responsibilities of our highly dedicated and important professional staff within the school system. If that's the case, then the inclusion of that particular clause in this act is, I think, ill advised. If there is to be a change in the way in which education services are conceived by the ministry to be delivered, if such a change is being planned by the ministry.... I think it's inconsistent with everything that we've seen around discussion, consultation and dealing with the issue to have such a clause come into the act and not have some clear idea of how such persons are going to participate in the education process. It may tie In, too, with the contracting-out issue; I don't know. But those matters are ones that we want to address.

[3:45]

We want a school system that is well supported. We want a school system with professionals who have the resources to do the jobs they need to do. We know this means there will be, in classrooms and in schools, people who provide support to teachers. But we believe that any changes in the present system, which is working very well — and which is the subject of collective agreements, something that Mr. Sullivan acknowledged was the appropriate way to deal with such issues — should be changes that are clearly discussed; and they should, I think, stay with the board and with the collective bargaining system.

Those are some of the issues — not all of the issues — that we will want to examine much more extensively when we come to clause-by-clause debate and about which we may want to present some amendments.

To go back to my earlier comment, this act does give to the minister a very large number of discretionary powers. For instance, just to name one clause, which is the jurisdiction of the minister, it notes that the minister may make orders for the purpose of carrying out his powers and duties, and lists something in the order of a dozen or more such powers. In dealing with the power and the capacity of the board, there is extensive reference to "subject to the orders of the minister." Boards are subject to the orders of the minister about who uses board facilities and how they evaluate and recognize educational activities; subject to the orders of the minister, they may cause an educational assessment to be made of students or groups of students. The suggestion there is that the minister has the power to determine those activities. The contention I am making today is that those seem to be very broad discretionary powers, and ones that cause us concern.

We now have the act in its final form after three drafts. It is an act that I believe must be based on trust, and it must have a commitment to bring stability into the system. It is an act whose mandate

[ Page 8012 ]

should be broadened to represent our commitment to a democratic education.

The act should be the vehicle through which the roles and responsibilities of students and parents are as strong as possible. The advisory committee is supported by a curriculum advisory committee. What happens to our children happens at the local school and district level, and any of the initiatives that are part of this act are, and are seen to be, in that locus. That is where the energy and the resources for the education of our children come from, that's where the creativity comes from and that's where the new initiatives come from. When you talk to people who work in the field and who speak passionately about what they are doing in their districts, they know what their children need in those districts, and they are prepared to put their very considerable time, energy and professional expertise into that, and to work within that community.

If this act empowers and enables that process to be strengthened, then as we say when we finish third reading, it is "an act." If, however, there are within the act concerns about hierarchical discretionary powers, a failure to consult or an overriding of the rightful responsibilities that can and should exist at the local level, then we would be concerned.

The intent of my comments this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is to flag some of those issues. Other colleagues will be joining me in the second reading debate, and we look forward to both that debate and the clause-by-clause debate. Also, we look forward to some amendments in the spirit of improving this bill so that it is indeed an act that brings the greatest possible degree of stability, trust and cooperation to the system, and is therefore faithful to the aspirations not only of the royal commission but of the minister, the ministry staff and the many people who have worked so hard in bringing it forward.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know that I have a number of kudos that I would like to offer the Legislature, and one addition.

The kudos are, first of all, that we do have a new school act after 30 years. To bring forward this new act is indeed a major effort and accomplishment. To all those involved — the minister, his staff, the educational community, parents and the many hundreds of citizens who have come forward because of the importance they place on the future of our province and the education of our young people — I offer congratulations from our caucus and our party.

Secondly, congratulations to....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: Which I have said, Mr. Speaker, through you to the House Leader. I don't know if he caught it the first time. He usually listens very intently to what's happening in the Legislature. I did get to that in my first remark, and I will get to it further, in case the House Leader misses it a second time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I would also like to congratulate those who participated in the Sullivan commission, and in particular the late Barry Sullivan, who I knew as a very fine, able member of the legal profession and a fine human being. I congratulate the other members of that commission. We would have liked to see a broader commission. We would have liked to see the matter of school finances considered, but the minister has said that it will come forward over the next year.

The third congratulation is for the consultation process that occurred. It was very wide; a substantial number of people came forward. I think the minister and his officials found the members of the Education Policy Advisory Committee, in particular, to be very hard-working, capable and skilled in the advice that they offered to him and to the people of British Columbia.

Fourth, the minister introduced two drafts. There were comments on those two new draft school act bills, and we were able to make some comments, as were other people in British Columbia.

Fifth, I would like to specifically pay a compliment to the Minister of Education, whose commitment, sincerity and dedication for almost, as he said, 30 years, comes through very clearly, and I think he deserves our congratulations.

As well, we have a number of members of our caucus who have been educational leaders, chairpersons of their school boards and vice-chairpersons of their school boards: our previous critic for education, the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones); our present critic for education, the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen); and our member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), who was the vice-chair of her school board. So we come with a great deal of interest and experience in education in our caucus. I think that it shows in the amount of interest we take and in our commitment to the importance of education for our young people. Of course, I was speaking of the last decade, but a few decades ago, the hon. member from Port Moody was, as I recall, In the early days of our school system, a member of a school board; so he was probably there under the old act when it first came in, or prior to the act 30 years ago.

Those are the kudos that I would like to offer. You'll hear further discussions about some of the aspects of the act that our very able critic on education has offered, about centralization, contracting-out and other concerns that we would like to ask the minister about.

As I said, I have an addition, because the final act is incomplete. The addition is the need to explicitly recognize the education of young people to be active citizens. If you read the preamble of Bill 67, it basically states three of the four purposes of our educational system, but it misses the fourth. I'll read it, because I think it's a very important point of debate between our party and the Social Credit Party. The preamble reads: "Whereas the purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable learners

[ Page 8013 ]

to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy...." It then goes on in the interpretation section to reiterate under "educational program" those three purposes.

I think that this shows a difference between the philosophy of Social Credit and not just New Democrats but many British Columbia citizens and the Sullivan commission, which makes explicit reference to what I've just talked about. I'd like to make the position of the New Democratic Party quite clear on which educational principles should be in a school act. I'll read out a statement from our 1985 convention, which gives the policy of the New Democratic Party on educational principles.

"Therefore be it resolved that the New Democratic Party of British Columbia adopt the following principles as the basis of its policy for public education.

"l. The purpose of the public education system is to promote the practice of freedom. The system must accomplish this through: (a) empowering all people to deal critically and creatively with their lives and the social and economic order, and (b) assisting them to discover how to participate in the transformation of their society and world. The purpose of public education is not just to integrate the younger generation into the logic of the existing social system and into conformity with it.

"2. Public education is an essential means by which a society expresses its commitment to equality, to fairness and to justice for all: (a) public education is both a necessary element in the political life of a democratic society and an investment in its economic development; (b) every resident should have, as a matter of right, equal and full access to free and secular public education; (c) positive action must be taken to guarantee such access to students with special needs, to women, to ethnic minorities and to members of the first nations. People of all ages should have lifelong access to educational programs for the sake of the continued good health of our democracy, for the reasons of economic survival and in order to encourage personal growth and development.

[4:00]

"3. More specifically this implies: (a) that public schools, colleges and universities should prepare all students for unrestricted political and economic participation in society, regardless of age, gender, ethnic origin or economic circumstances; (b) that the structure of educational programs reflects an appropriate balance of general or liberal education and vocational and/or professional training; and (c) that the public schools should provide diversity and choice of programs to reflect our pluralistic society.

"4. The major objectives of the curriculum of a public education at every stage of a pupil's life should include: (a) a strong sense of the interests and rights of all other human beings, recognizing them as equals in our democratic society; (b) a commitment to human rights and social justice; (c) a strong sense of the interdependence of human communities; (d) a commitment to planning for environmental responsibility; (e) a commitment to the use of resources for peaceful purposes.

"To these ends we should: (1) practise democracy in school and classroom; (2) teach the ability to reason well, to make reliable inferences, to be critical of evidence, to tell good arguments from bad" — particularly if you are going to be members of this Legislature — "and to speak and to write such arguments in clear and persuasive language; (3) ensure the full development of aesthetic and cultural potential; (4) provide clear understanding of the socioeconomic structure and of political arrangements in our society; (5) strive to assess the social and cultural changes likely to be caused by technological developments, and to suggest how to cope with those changes; and (6) learning conditions in public education institutions should be adequate to provide diverse experiences of education that encourage and sustain the intellectual, creative, social and physical development of all students."

Those are the educational principles that we bring to bear when we look at the School Act. But as I said, it's not just New Democrats that believe in the addition that I am suggesting to the School Act, so that our young people are able to be fully participating democratic citizens.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are people other than New Democratic included?

MR. HARCOURT: Fully participating democratic citizens — and hopefully New Democrat citizens, because we wouldn't want to subject them to you.

We have the Sullivan commission, which is the government's own royal commission, supporting the proposal that I've just put out, and that is the moral and civic development of our young people as well as the cultivation of the mind, preparation for vocational life and individual development. This is after many hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money were invested in the Sullivan commission. Many citizens were heard from. The citizens of British Columbia's wisdom was synthesized into the Sullivan report. To summarize section 4.C.3 on page 70 of that royal commission report, which reads "Moral and Civic Development, " the third educational purpose of schools has to do with moral and civic development."

The Sullivan commission recognizes that this is a task that is shared with a number of social institutions, including the family, religious organizations and various civic agencies, and that schools have to be involved. I will quote the commission. It says:

"From the commission's perspective, moral development and preparation for civic life constitute particularly important educational ends. Young people at school today are forced to consider many difficult moral issues, and their consideration of such issues is made even more problematic by the diversity in social values that marks the society in which they live. They must learn to answer for themselves; for the future generation they represent, an array of ethical questions must be faced in the realms of social relations, school, technology and medicine. Through education, they begin to learn how individuals can reason clearly about vexing moral issues and choices, and what it means to act in morally responsible ways consistent with such reasons and choices."

"Furthermore, it is through social studies, history and other courses at school that youngsters learn something about the nature of the democratic system

[ Page 8014 ]

of government we enjoy. Here they learn that governments such as our own do not work well unless citizens recognize and act on their civic obligations to their communities. The preservation of democratic principles and institutions requires participation by citizens in community, regional and provincial affairs. If participation in provincial life is based entirely on self-interest, we put at risk some of the most cherished qualities of democratic government."

It is not just New Democrats and the Sullivan commission; it's the many citizens throughout British Columbia who made representations to the Sullivan commission and, I'm sure, to the minister along the way.

As well, the minister has received a brief dated May 8 from our education critic, the MLA for New Westminster, which reviews the first two drafts of the new School Act and says: "We would propose the addition of the following phrase: 'to participate fully in a democratic society.'" So the mandate statement would read: "...the purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to participate fully in a democratic society and to contribute to a prosperous and sustainable economy." This is an addition that we have put forward consistently. We do it because we think it's important for our democratic society and for the young people who are coming forward in our democratic society to be the leaders of tomorrow and to be in this Legislature; to be on our school boards, our city councils and our regional districts; and to be in our Parliament and in the many democratic institutions in our province.

We believe it's even more important today than ever. If you go back to the long struggle human society has had to build a democratic society.... For example, I was just reading through the very fine book on democracy by Patrick Watson. If you look at the Greek state, which flowered for a brief period, in which everybody participated in the decisions to go to war or not, participated directly in trials, perfected the jury trial system and a whole series of initiatives and democratic rights that we have now in our society.... If you look at the work, effort, responsibilities and obligations the Greeks first twigged to for a small number of people in that Greek society — not the slaves, not those who weren't considered full citizens, not women.... If you look at the struggle by the Greeks just to create that democratic society and at how that was integrated into their educational activities, you can see that indeed it's been a long one.

The evolution through the American and French Revolutions — it is the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution this year — the evolution of Canadian democracy, and how we've painfully increased our democratic rights, first of all, for the right to vote.... It has been a major struggle, and it's important for our young people to understand that democracy requires a tremendous amount of personal commitment, sacrifice and knowledge, and that they live as democratic citizens every day.

Whether it is our young people understanding the struggle of non-moneyed and -titled men to be able to vote, to be able to be members of legislatures and parliaments; the struggle of women to be able to vote and to be members of legislatures, parliaments and elected bodies; the struggle of our native people and our minority communities to get the right to vote, to belong to professional associations and to be fully participating citizens; the right of workers in a democratic society to make decisions about how they re represented in major economic decisions and bout whether or not to form trade unions — that's a very important part of the educational system in a democratic society. It's very important for our young people to know that tradition and that struggle of humanity to become free and democratic citizens, living in a society with all the imperfections of a democracy.

As I said at the beginning, it's becoming increasingly more important, because we are indeed on Spaceship Earth, facing nuclear destruction. Three-quarters of the world is suffering poverty every day, and millions of children and other people are dying because of the injustices in the world. Environmental destruction could threaten the whole planet. I think for our young people to understand how they can participate in the solutions to those huge. challenges and problems in a democratic, participatory way as critical, free-thinking citizens of our democracy is absolutely essential.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HARCOURT: I was taking the minister at his word that we were bringing this forward in an attempt to bring about a better educational system for our young people. I think the school system should have a fourth purpose. I believe that very deeply, not just as an individual citizen in this democracy but as a leader of one of the great political movements in this democracy of ours: the New Democratic Party. I am very proud of the fact that we democratically put together these positions.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Everybody needs a great movement.

MR. HARCOURT: I hope that's recorded in Hansard, because the member from Kamloops has that ability to instantly lower the level of debate down to his level — and we will be lowering the boom on him in the next provincial election, I can tell you.

Interjections.

[ Page 8015 ]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, we listened to the minister without interruption, and we will listen to the minister of post-secondary education without interruption.

We believe that this is an important initiative and we believe that it would be an even better initiative if you would accept our addition, because we believe it goes to the very heart of why we are here in the Legislature and why we believe in democracy. If the government doesn't think it's important, or doesn't believe that it's an important part of our educational system, so be it. That will make it very clear.

There aren't just the planetary challenges that our young people face and that I have outlined. I didn't go into detail, and I didn't indulge in rhetoric about it; I just said these are the challenges that our young people have nightmares about. These are the challenges that our young people struggle with in their own lives, and they are going to inherit these very difficult challenges of nuclear destruction, the poverty of people, and annihilating our environment. I think it's important they be able to struggle with those at as early an age as possible in a healthy, critical, democratic way.

[4:15]

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have some special challenges in British Columbia to reach a just settlement with our aboriginal people, and we should talk about that in our educational system. We should deal with some of the tensions that exist in British Columbia around new people coming into our province, a province of immigrants, how all of us are immigrants who have adjusted to this society, how we can lessen those tensions and how we can increase our society's ability to accommodate new people coming and adjusting to it. I think that should be part of our school system, to decrease racism and to increase the tolerance of our multicultural community. I think we need to have our young people understand and live equality for men and women, and that should be part of what they have a chance to talk about.

I think young people being sensitized to the main-streaming that has occurred for people with disabilities is a very great challenge for everybody — and the lack of resources in the schools for those main-streamed people.

HON. MR. REID: We're leading the way.

MR. HARCOURT: You are leading the way with the lowest funding for those disabled students.

I think that young people being sensitized to other citizens who have a disability and learning to deal with that in the school and in the classroom is a very important part of becoming a democratic citizen.

What I am saying is that we do need more active citizens. We do need a fourth purpose added to this bill. In the bill the minister has implied the need for more active citizens, because there is reference to parent advisory councils, district advisory councils and educational advisory councils. What we would like to see in there is an explicit purpose related to the moral and civic development of our young people, as the Sullivan commission and many citizens throughout British Columbia requested.

Mr. Speaker, as our critic on education has said, we put forward this amendment in the hope that the minister and the government will accept it as part of the purposes of education in British Columbia, and that the government will agree to amend the School Act.

I will read out that amendment. It's in Orders of the Day, No. 95, and it reads as follows:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 67) intituled School Act be amended by striking out all the words after the word 'That' and substituting the following: this House declines to proceed with this Bill for the reason that it fails to accomplish a principal goal of the British Columbia school system, namely: To enable learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to participate fully in a democratic society.'"

We bring this forward, Mr. Speaker, because it is one of only two ways that we can bring forward an amendment to the bill. The other way is a hoist; we didn't want to do that. We wanted to facilitate the debate on this bill, and we put it forward in that spirit.

I hope the minister will accept this amendment so that it can be the complete school act that we would all like to see.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I've read the Leader of the Opposition's motion several times, and I feel that it's ambiguous. It is, I think, trying to be an amendment; but I also think, because of the wording — "that this House declines to proceed with this bill" — that it is a thinly disguised hoist motion. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the motion cannot be two things; the Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. With all due respect, it is either an amendment and he leaves out the words "declines to proceed, " or he reveals his true intent, which I believe is to move a hoist motion because he is fundamentally opposed to this bill.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, we consulted not only authorities but also the Clerks' office extensively about this matter. In the original suggestion we were going to add to the motion, but we were informed that on a reasoned amendment one cannot add to a motion. That would clearly be out of order, and the only way we could proceed was through these means and at this stage. Clearly, if the minister approves of this motion he could bring it forward himself as an amendment or during committee stage, but at this time it was the only means, other than a hoist, by which we could achieve our ends; that is, really an addition to the goals of education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On the same point of order, I don't know whether my ability to read the English language escapes me, but the active part of what is printed before me is "that this House declines to proceed with this bill," and then there's some rationale for it. Then I'm asked by the opposition

[ Page 8016 ]

House Leader if the minister approves of this motion. If I approve of this motion that the House decline to proceed with this bill....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Does anybody else see this? Can't anybody else read? The active part of this clause says: "that this House declines to proceed with this bill...." After all of the nice things, that member now wants to kill the bill.

MR. ROSE: On the point of order, perhaps I can offer the refined Minister of Education a little clarification and, I hope, unemotional, Intelligent comment. This has to do with the principle of the bill. We don't like the principle of the bill, of a bill that does not....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Please don't be in such a rush to quote me out of context. just wait for it. You'll get to it sooner or later. I'll do it very slowly so that it can sink in, and you'll have lots of spaces to put in your little ripostes that are supposed to be funny but aren't.

What we want to do, in terms of the principle of the bill.... The principle of any bill that leaves out this very important democratic goal of education is an unacceptable principle to us. If the minister is sensitive to these concerns — and we have a limited way of expressing these concerns procedurally — he will make certain that this oversight on his part and that of his great ministry will be included in the bill at a later stage. We can move it in here, but we can't move it any other way as far as the principle of the bill is concerned.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't want to belabour it, but since the opposition House Leader got up twice on the same point, I just want to reiterate my point. I have no objection to the Leader of the Opposition moving a reasoned amendment — it's parliamentary practice — or to the Leader of the Opposition moving a hoist motion. But to me, Mr. Speaker, this purports to be both: that the House decline to proceed with the bill and then proceed to an amendment. So I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that the Leader of the Opposition decide which one he wants — an amendment or a hoist motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank hon. members for their input. If both the House Leaders would like to refer to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, eighteenth edition, page 488, 1 will just read a very short section — not the whole thing — on a reasoned amendment: "It must be borne in mind, however, that the amendment, if agreed to, does not necessarily arrest the progress of the bill, the second reading of which may be moved on another occasion." In effect, this is a reasoned amendment, and although there may be some debate as to the language in the amendment, I see the amendment as being in order, and the debate will continue on the amendment.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to make a very brief introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Following on my leader's remarks concerning the responsibilities of people in a democratic society, it seems very appropriate to introduce to this House a member who, I think, exemplifies some of the qualities we expect and admire within a democratic society. I'm referring to the former Attorney-General of this province, who one year ago today did the honourable thing and decided to move his seat in the Legislature. I would ask the House to acknowledge him, please.

MR. JONES: I rise to second this amendment which I hope the minister, on reflection, considers a friendly one, because that is the spirit in which the amendment is put forward.

The Minister of Education and I have spent many hours across this chamber. I am a partisan and he is a partisan, but there are times in this chamber when I think we can step back from those narrow partisan perspectives and look at legislation in terms of perfecting it or attempting to perfect it and put it in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

It is not unusual in this chamber for the opposition to support a bill that the government brings forward. That happened a couple of times on division last night, when actually nobody divided — everybody was on the same side. It is in this spirit that we bring forward this amendment, and I think I would be remiss if on this important occasion— the second reading of this important bill — I did not take time to add to the compliments and commendations to the minister, the government and all those who participated in the process that led to us debating this bill today.

Clearly the whole process, going back to the establishment of the Sullivan royal commission, to that commission getting off to a slow start but picking up momentum and finally receiving wide support throughout this province, with many people participating in an exercise in itself of participatory democracy.... All those processes leading up to the commission report and the very hard work of the minister and his ministry staff and all the consultations that followed that led to the drafts and eventually to the bill that we see before us today are an important exercise in democracy. Why we're bringing forward this amendment is because it is so complementary to the whole process that has gone on before, and so I would.... The minister has accused me on many occasions of being parsimonious with my praise, so for all those — including the minister and the government — who participated in this process, the process was exemplary in terms of participatory democracy and deserves the commendation of all British Columbians.

[ Page 8017 ]

Again, it is in that spirit that the minister is challenged to look seriously at this amendment, which is not a hoist motion. I hope he listened carefully to the ruling of the Speaker. This was the only way that we could bring an amendment before the House that would add to the preamble and make it more reflective of the kind of preamble that we —on both sides of the House, I think — want for the School Act in British Columbia.

It is a friendly amendment, and I hope it is viewed as a positive suggestion, a positive amendment that can be incorporated. We would not be setting any historical precedents here today by having this amendment approved by both sides of the House. We could go on to debate the bill, which has many fine sections in it, particularly those that followed closely the recommendations of the Sullivan commission. We would like to see at the beginning of the bill a slightly broader statement of goals for the education system in the province.

[4:30]

I think that the bill itself is also truly in the spirit of our amendment, which is suggesting that one of the purposes of the British Columbia school system is to enable learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to participate in a fully democratic society. Surely there can be no disagreement with the substance of the amendment. Members of the Legislature understand probably better than most the importance of our democratic system in this province, and how important it is as a major goal of the school system.

The bill itself talks about many aspects of our democratic system. It talks about access, participation; it talks about freedom of information; it talks about elected officers of parent advisory committees In fact, some 10 percent of the 230 sections of the bill deal with elections of school trustees. Clearly, in education in this province we have a very democratic process by which school trustees are elected at the local level to represent the constituents in their school districts, to try and bring the educational needs of that area to the children in the school system.

[Mr. Rabbitt In the chair.]

The Ministry of Education in October 1987 made a presentation to the Sullivan royal commission, and that presentation itself talked about four broad goals for our educational system. It says:

"There are four broad goals which, over time, have been identified for education: (1) intellectual development — to acquire basic learning skills and bodies of knowledge; (2) social development — to develop a sense of social responsibility and respect for others; (3) human development — to develop a sense of self-worth and personal initiative; and (4) vocational development — to attain career and occupational objectives."

In the preamble that we have before us, very clearly (1) and (4) are stressed, but I see numbers (2 and (3) of those four goals as having been left out. And I think it's sad. When we focus on intellectual development and vocational development and leave out the important areas of social development and human development, I think it's a serious omission.

I hope that we are stepping back from a partisan approach that we lapsed into a few minutes ago, when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, and that members opposite can have a serious look at this amendment. It would be an improvement. It's an improvement that I think all in this House can agree with.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that after those four goals were presented on behalf of the Ministry of Education to the Sullivan royal commission, the commission itself, in its report, came up with four broad purposes for the schools of our province: cultivation of the mind, preparation for vocational life, individual development and, finally, moral and civic development. Again, in the preamble being presented in this bill, I see very clearly (2) and (3), the preparation for vocational life and individual development, and cultivation of the mind is there as well. But clearly the fourth recommendation of Sullivan in terms of school purposes, moral and civic development, has just been left out. It's not a serious omission, but I think we would make this a much better bill if we recognized that omission and added to it as part of this debate; and the bill will not be hoisted....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Which is the fourth one?

MR. JONES: The fourth one, according to Sullivan, is moral and civic development, one of the major goals of education. And that is essentially what we have before us. What we have before us is recognizing that the school system has as one of its purposes the need to enable learners to acquire knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to participate in a fully democratic society. I don't know how you read something partisan into that — it's not. It was there in Sullivan. It was there in the ministry's own submission to the royal commission. This isn't exactly the words, but it's not a partisan amendment. It's not intended to be anything of that nature.

If we read what is there in the preamble, when we read it narrowly.... I preface that, because a narrow interpretation of what we have there as a preamble would be that we merely have as the purpose of our education system in this province a commitment to individual development in relation to the needs of a healthy and prosperous economy. The school system, surely, is far more than that.

I don't know whether members opposite consider the preamble important, but I think it is important. It's an important bill. It's going to be an important act that governs the schools of this province. I think we can just do a better job on the preamble.

I'm pleased that the minister and his colleagues are looking closely at this amendment now and reading it. I hope they don't see any great dilemma, any great partisan nature, in this amendment. Often when the opposition brings amendments to this House they are partisan in nature, and they have a

[ Page 8018 ]

partisan purpose. This is not one of those occasions.

This is not....

Interjections.

MR. JONES: Have a look at the orders of the day. I doubt the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) has read the orders of the day. Have a look at the wording of the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: I thought we had a ruling from the Chair that indicated that was the only way by which the opposition could bring forward an amendment to the preamble of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Forget about that part. If this amendment is accepted, we proceed with second reading of the bill. My colleagues are anxious to get on with second reading.

One of the things I think we all enjoy in this Legislature is having classes of students visit. Of all the introductions made in this Legislature, I think the ones the members enjoy most are when we have classes of schoolchildren come to see the Legislature in action. When this happens, the Premier smiles broadly, the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) gets a happy twinkle in his eye, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) smiles and the Solicitor General (Hon. Mr. Ree) wakes up. No, I withdraw that. That was unkind and unfair, and I withdraw that.

It's important that members of this legislative chamber recognize that when those children come, they are welcome and we're happy to see them in the seat of our democratic system in this province. We're happy to have them see the debate, although sometimes it's embarrassing to have them see it. But at the same time, it's important that they appreciate the democratic process in action.

We also are pleased to see them because we know that on their tours here they get some appreciation of the history of democratic life in this province, a history of the building and a history of British Columbia. When they come and we all welcome them warmly, it's because we recognize what's embodied in this amendment: that it is important for them to appreciate the knowledge and skills required to participate fully in a democratic society. It's clear that they need knowledge. They need the kind of knowledge that I think members in this chamber have. They need to understand the concepts of self-government and representative democracy.

I enjoy hearing the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). I kid him about being neither fish nor fowl, but he is the only member in this chamber without a party. Although he's often political, and rightly so, he's non-partisan, and I think he views the idea in the sense that he does not represent a particular party.

He views his role here as we all do, but I think it comes out stronger in his statements as representing his constituents. I think representative democracy is reflected well when that member speaks in this chamber. It's one of those aspects of knowledge that our young people need. It's an important part of our school system, and it will be there whether or not we approve this amendment. It is an important part of the knowledge they need.

They need to know about majority rule, and they need to know what we in the opposition feel sometimes: the tyranny of the majority, in terms of de Tocqueville's theory. They need to know de Tocqueville.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Yes, it was de Tocqueville. They need to know about equality before the law, Mr. Former Attorney-General. They need to know about equality of political rights, and I think we're all learning something, in terms of electoral boundaries, the Fisher commission and the McLachlin decision, about that equality of political rights.

They need to know about equality of economic and social opportunity and equality of economic condition. We had a group of women here yesterday that I think brought that to bear to the opposition and, I expect, to the government. They were concerned about the minimum wage and about pay equity for women in this province. That is the kind of knowledge that our young people need.

They need to understand elections, our democratic traditions and the free expression of ideas. I know Mr. Speaker is very concerned about the free expression of ideas in this chamber, and our young people need to know about that as well.

They need to know about the importance of the opposition. Often in this chamber the members opposite don't appreciate that they govern, they have power, they tax and they determine people's lives in this province only under the scrutiny of the opposition and the much-maligned fourth estate. Often we don't like the message, but we all recognize the important contribution that both the opposition and the fourth estate make to our democratic system. So that is some of the knowledge that individuals in our school system need to have. They need to understand and appreciate the importance of diversity, and something that we need in this House: to disagree without being disagreeable.

But that is merely some of the knowledge. More important than that knowledge of democracy is the part of our amendment that talks about skills and attitudes. The idea that we have with this amendment, that suggests that young people acquire the skills and attitudes to participate fully in a democratic society, is completely consistent with, I think, the thrust that the minister wants in education and that Sullivan wanted in education: that our young people need, very clearly, a capacity for evaluating and utilizing knowledge, in order to consider public issues from a broad perspective; to develop — and the minister uses this word often, and I think it's a

[ Page 8019 ]

very important one — critical thinking and problem solving skills that come to bear from members of the Legislature and particularly from members of the government side; to be able to weigh alternative solutions, to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information, to determine the excellent from the second-rate, to determine the authentic from the phony and to be able to understand the implications of the solutions that they suggest to problems.

[4:45]

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Greek society, and these concerns go back as far as Greek society. Plato and Aristotle were deeply concerned about the relationship between education, democracy and government and very concerned with the notion that individuals become better citizens through our democratic process.

We know that in China the students in Tiananmen Square were deeply concerned. I think it would be naive of us to think that their understanding of democracy was identical to ours; their views of democracy were clearly important to them — so important, in fact, that many demonstrated and even died for their unique Chinese version of democratic principles. Clearly students in that country would be most supportive of this kind of amendment that the opposition is making today. Those who gave their lives were making a testimony to their commitment to democratic principles. I think we've seen moves in various parts of this planet towards more participation by people.

The alternative to the kind of thing we're suggesting and the narrow focus of that preamble and what we're left with implies almost that we have learned but passive technicians as a populace. I don't think anybody wants to read that kind of interpretation into the preamble of our School Act for the province of British Columbia. We want to see our people as more than servants of our economic system. We want to see them instead as being knowledgeable and active participants in the process of democracy in this province. In fact, our democracy can only function effectively with citizens who are critical thinkers rational thinkers, and who have the skills, knowledge and attitudes that they can learn through our school system to participate fully in the system that brought us here to this Legislature.

Trudeau, in 1968, as part of the federal election campaign and as part of the "just society" movement, popularized the phrase "participatory democracy."Although I don't believe he did a great deal with that concept, it was clearly a most popular concept, a concept that people bought into. It was a concept of empowering people. I would hope that in the preamble to the School Act we would have such a statement that would suggest, in our democratic traditions, that we would want to empower people.

With this amendment to the preamble of this bill, challenge the minister. I reiterate: it's not a partisan position that we're taking. I know that all members of this House care deeply about our democratic system, care deeply about our public school system. So I urge support to the minister and to members opposite to be consistent with the kind of statement that the Ministry of Education put into the Sullivan royal commission, to be consistent with the kind of statement that Mr. Sullivan himself suggested for the goals of education and to be consistent with those principles that I think we all accept in this House and that all in this province accept and incorporate: that the concept of our young people developing skills to participate fully in our democratic system be Included in the preamble to Bill 67.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, on the amendment — because I will, I hope, have an opportunity in this session to make closing remarks on the bill Itself. The recommendation, first of all, that the NDP, the socialists, are proposing absolutely undermines the intent of the Sullivan report, and I have to believe it's not accidental, with all of the care and attention that they've put into that.

The Sullivan report, the royal commission report, focused heavily on the individual learner, on the individual learning process and all of that. You will notice in their amendment that while they have put in something else, they have taken out "to develop their individual potential." So as far as I'm concerned, what they have deliberately put in here is the mechanism by which state control of education will be paramount. That amendment has nothing to do with the right of the student to develop individual potential; it simply says so that they can be taught the knowledge, skills, etc., to function in a democratic society. By whose decision? By the state decision of what knowledge and skills they must have. To accept this amendment in the way it exists.... It would seem to me that it absolutely kills the intent of the Sullivan report which said, among many other things, to focus on the learner, the individual rights of that pupil and the parent and their right to an education — not what is determined by the state; that is socialism.

Mr. Speaker, I may sound upset about this, and it's because I am. Many people have worked on trying to make the mandate statement, the mission statement, in its simplest, most readable, most understandable form. A healthy society includes all of the aspects of democracy; it includes all of the aspects of what the members on the other side have so glowingly talked about. But disguised behind all that glowing rhetoric is the killing of the intent of the Sullivan report in the preamble here; in other words, the right of individuals.

I don't know about the technicalities, because there seem to be experts on the technicalities, but it seems to me this motion, in effect, says that we decline to discuss it unless we accept the NDP wording. They have taken out the words "individual potential." So in other words...

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a hoist motion.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: ... it's a hoist motion. And it's a blackmail motion, as far as I'm concerned. If we do not accept the exact wording that they have put in

[ Page 8020 ]

the preamble, "To enable learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to participate fully in a democratic society," then the active part of this amendment kicks in, "This House declines to proceed with this Bill," and if we proceed with the bill, presumably, it would be on the condition of their statement. I feel very strongly about that.

There must have been other ways for them to make the suggestion for change. Now they say technically they couldn't, at this point in the debate, inject that, but there certainly were other ways. If you look at what's behind what has been going on here....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm speaking on the amendment.

MRS. BOONE: A point of order. The minister keeps quoting the amendment incorrectly. I'd like to correct him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the member raise her point of order.

MRS. BOONE: The point of order is that he is incorrect in quoting the amendment. The amendment, as stated, merely takes out, "to contribute to a healthy society and a prosperous and sustainable economy," and replaces that with, "to enable learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to participate fully in a democratic society." It does not eliminate anything, nor does it anywhere eliminate the "individual potential" or any of those things. The minister is misquoting the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: just to clarify It for all members here, I shall read the amendment. The amendment reads:

"That the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 67) intituled School Act be amended by striking out all the words after the word 'That' and substituting the following:

"'this House declines to proceed with this Bill for the reason that it fails to accomplish a principal goal of the British Columbia school system, namely: To enable learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to participate fully in a democratic society.'"

That is the amendment that we are discussing at the present time.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the minister is speaking clearly to the amendment. What the NDP is talking about are socialist systems, and what the bill alludes to is people. They've left the people out of the whole thing. What they're looking at are systems. The minister has got it dead on; he's speaking clearly to the intent of this amendment.

HON. MR BRUMMET: It would seem that what this amendment implies is that if you leave in their individual rights and if you don't use our wording instead of the wording that was developed by a lot of discussion at the Education Advisory Council.... Not complete agreement, but a lot of discussion of that by a lot of people. It's gone through cabinet; it's gone through caucus; it's gone through a lot of discussion. Now we are to scrap all of that consultation process because the socialists have a better idea.

If I read that amendment correctly — "that this House declines to proceed with this Bill" — it seems that "unless you do it our way and our wording," for the sake of the wording they are willing to put this bill aside. I guess that's the intent, and that is why I see it as a hoist motion.

I can't accept the amendment, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons given. I can't understand why the amendment came in. Maybe I should be able to understand why there is great emphasis on the word "democratic." They like it because it's part of their party name. Maybe that can happen. In our statement we have tried to simplify it so that the terms in here are all-encompassing. A healthy society, we take for granted on this side, is a democratic society. We don't have on our side of the House, or in our party, that people must get the approval of the provincial party in order to run for a municipal office. We don't put those restrictions. We are democratic.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

When our people want to speak on a point of view, they don't get instructions that unless you follow the party line, you're going to get kicked out of the party. That's a democratic system? No wonder they want it spelled out about the word "democratic." I suppose in a democratic society such as they envision, with state control, sleazy letters like the ones they sent out to the students' council would be acceptable. That's what you want to include? You know the letter that was sent out, maligning the Social Credit Party. Those are the democratic rights that you want....

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Minister of Education if he would be good enough to clarify for the House where he sees in the preamble the word "that." Obviously there has been an error someplace. He says our motion begins by striking out everything that follows the word "that." There is no such word. Let's be specific.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, as the Chair recalls, the word "that" is not in the preamble; it is in the motion for second reading. I thought the member was rising on a point of order.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We had to do some searching, and of course I was busy all morning. Then I find out that the Leader of the Opposition, the opposite side that has talked about moving on in education and so on.... I read "that the House declines to proceed with this Bill, " and some rationale and that sort of thing. Then I look, and everything after the word "that" in the motion for second reading,

[ Page 8021 ]

which.... As many people will verify here, I had to look up what the reference was there. There is suggested wording when the minister gets up and moves second reading.

I'll put this in quotation marks so that we don't get a vote here, because I am speaking on the amendment. I would love to trick you into this one, but I won't. The statement is: "I move that the bill be now read a second time." The only reference I can get in all of your clever manipulations and machinations is that it must refer to that. If you don't believe there is a word "that".... I haven't made that motion yet, so technically you can't even make this amendment because there is no "that" before us to discuss at this point. So I would be glad if you would like to withdraw the amendment.

[5:00]

Let me conclude my comments on the amendment. We'll leave that to the technical experts to sort out. I am confused enough. Now I have helped you.

I really don't understand what this is, other than an attempt to get away from the discussion of the bill I suppose I should be flattered, because they don't seem to have much to attack in the bill, so we're going to deal with the whole issue of the new directions in education on the basis that we didn't use their suggested wording. That, to me, is frivolous, if nothing else. On that basis alone it would be ludicrous for me to accept the amendment. I leave other members to judge for themselves.

The other thing it clearly does — and I am supposed to assume that it was done innocently; but they say they worked this out with great care — is eliminate the basic intent of the Sullivan report, which focuses on the rights of the individual, the opportunity for the individual to develop his or her individual potential. I have to assume that from the fact that in their rewording they have taken out the words "individual potential." So the learning, I have to assume, is to be under socialism, state-controlled. At the same time they talk about all of the things in the act they would like to see in individual potential, they take out the very basis that Sullivan said we should proceed on. I can't accept that.

MR. BARNES: That's just a fabrication.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The amendment? You better believe it's a fabrication.

MR. BARNES: A fabrication on your part.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know how long the debate on the amendment is going to go on, but it seems that it's to prevent discussion of the act, which I've heard is supposed to have some good parts, some educational parts in it. Now we are arguing the partisanship of wording — what they want; their way or no way. I don't know how long debate on the amendment is going to go on, but surely at this point we cannot ignore all of the work that went in, all of the input and discussion on wording the preamble to try to keep it simple and all-encompassing and readable for all people concerned. I can't understand this blackmail threat that it be worded this way or the whole act goes down the tube; neither can I accept it.

We take for granted that "democratic" is included in the preamble. It's all-encompassing. The mandate statement that goes with much of the act spells out the democratic rights of students, teachers, parents, the public, the minister and all the parties concerned. It spells out those democratic rights, and here you say: "Unless you put our phrasing in the preamble, the act must not proceed."

I could not for one minute vote for that amendment. I am in favour of democracy, but not the kind of abuse we see here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the member for New Westminster, I might mention something to all members. When you sit here in a detached kind of way, you get some different impressions of what is going on on the floor of the House.

The bill before us has been committed to second reading, and during second reading we deal with the principle of the bill. An amendment was brought forward, and the amendment is quite in order. But I think it most important for all hon. members to understand that a bill cannot be amended in second reading. Amendments to bills come in committee stage — as all members know, but I thought it might have slipped everyone's mind. I just remind you that we are dealing with this amendment to second reading of the bill.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think that has helped to frame some clarification. I must confess, as a person who was also involved in dealing with the amendment and the process, that it was a difficult process. I think that all of us had difficulty dealing with it.

I am going to speak very briefly on what I hope will be a clarification of the intent of this process, which will enable us to continue with a reasoned amendment and a reasoned debate, hopefully to be concluded fairly expeditiously. Let us look at the particular clause. It is the preamble of this bill, and it does — I think everyone would agree — contain the goals of education, the purpose of education. That preamble is repeated in the bill under "Interpretation," and therefore forms a thread for what our education programs will be.

Normally we would have dealt with the preamble as we started our debate in committee. But when we checked with the Clerks and the rules of this House, we found out that we would have debated the whole bill before we were able to deal with the preamble. We would have dealt with every section, when we wanted to propose a fundamental principle change. We were advised that the only way we could bring this forward — and it has been ruled in order, Mr. Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) — was in dealing with the principle at this time. The only way we could bring It forward was to deal with a suspension for the time being of the debate on second reading.

[ Page 8022 ]

The issue, members of the House, is to deal with a principled amendment to the preamble, and I would like to read into the record the intended language. If there has been any misunderstanding, I think it comes out of this rather arcane rule by which we have had to deal with this matter, but the intent was to deal with a very important principle that I think is being sullied and distorted by members from the other side of the House. I am sorry to hear that. It was an honourable amendment, and it is an honourable issue, and I think that is the reason why it is an honourable amendment and an honourable issue. It will, In fact, be decided by the vote of this House when the question is called on the amendment.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Socialist trick.

MS. A. HAGEN: For the Attorney-General, the chief lawmaker of the province, to be heckling while I am dealing with this I find quite offensive.

Let me read, so it is clear what the amendment would entail if it were incorporated into the preamble. If there is any question about how it has come forward, I can appreciate that because of the rather unusual language in which we were required to couch it. Let me read for the record what the preamble would say. I am speaking to the amendment....

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This member is going to unwarranted lengths to confound the unwary in this place, and I am telling her that there is no way — and you have already said it — that you can amend a bill in second reading. She is proceeding on to say that if ifs and ands were pots and pans, something else would happen.

She is saying how they would like to amend this bill, and you very clearly pointed out to them in your instructions that they cannot amend a bill in second reading. She is going to unwarranted lengths to try to do that.

I would ask that she come back and speak to the amendment here, which is simply, for some reason or other, to hoist this bill, so the people, the students and the teachers in British Columbia can't have the protection and the benefits of this very excellent piece of legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: just before anyone else speaks, let's run through this once again. The question is that bill 67 be read a second time now. The amendment deletes all of the words after "that the bill be read a second time now." As I said before, we cannot amend a bill at this stage, so the amendment that has been brought forward — the reasoned amendment that we are dealing with — is not in effect an amendment to amend the bill, because we can't amend the bill, except in committee stage.

Having said that, does anyone else want to rise on that point of order?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You mentioned that the question before us is, "that the bill be read a second time now." I don't believe that is posed until I make my closing comments, so I don't even think that is before us at this time. I remember the House Leader saying "second reading." That implicitly means that the bill be read a second time now, but I thought that the motion closing debate by the minister is when he says that the bill be read a second time now.

I introduced second reading; the House leader called for it. Now I don't know if implicit in that is the motion that we are amending; otherwise we aren't even there yet to have anything to amend.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill has been committed for second reading; there is no question about that. The question that the bill be read a second time now will undoubtedly follow the minister's closing of the debate, but we are dealing with this motion in second reading. Now we are dealing with a reasoned amendment to the motion, but we cannot amend the bill through the process of dealing with this amendment.

HON. S.D. SMITH: On the point of order raised by the Minister of Regional Development (Mr. Veitch), the member is seeking to import into debate on this reasoned amendment what in law we would call a motion to adjourn sine die, which means to hoist this to an indeterminate date. That's what it means.

Nevertheless, that aside, Mr. Speaker, what the member is seeking to do is to explain why she would have preferred to have used a different procedure. She is going back and saying: "Here's what I really meant." Well, Mr. Speaker, we in this House are presumed to have knowledge of the rules, and when we take a particular course of action which has been taken here, we are obliged to follow the rules that the course of action imports.

The members opposite have chosen to use the vehicle of a reasoned amendment. That means that the debate is restricted to matters that are associated with a reasoned amendment. All other matters are out of order. Her preference, her wish list, her desire to have done it another way is interesting, Mr. Speaker, but it is entirely irrelevant. I would ask you to bring that member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the discourse we've had from all learned members has been enlightening to all of us. On that basis, I would ask the member for New Westminster to continue.

MS. A. HAGEN: We are in second reading of this bill. Let me put it this way so I can be very precise: we began the day with second reading of the bill. The Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment to the bill. That amendment is....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not an amendment to the bill.

MS. A. HAGEN: We moved a reasoned amendment. Is that correct?

[ Page 8023 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the motion.

MS. A. HAGEN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the advice of the Speaker in this particular matter. I have every desire, as I have often said to my favourite Speaker In the chair, to be in order. I do respect the effort that we have....

[5:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I like it.

MS. A. HAGEN: I do respect our efforts, in fact, to have a reasoned debate. My intent is to have a reasoned debate. I would just like to note for the benefit of the members that when the Leader of the Opposition spoke to this matter he noted that the wording of the "whereas, " which we have noted is not in the present act, would be as follows: "Whereas the purpose of the British Columbia school system is to enable learners to develop their individual potential and to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes needed to contribute to a democratic society and a prosperous and sustainable economy." That is, in fact, the reason why we have taken some time in debating the principle of the bill this afternoon: to address that issue, because the principle of the bill fundamentally deals with the matter of the purposes of the act.

The means by which this matter could come to us today is, in fact, a means by which we say this is a sufficiently important matter that we should not proceed with the bill until we have dealt with this matter. If debate continues now, we will continue to address that issue of the principle of the bill, and I trust that that will continue the tenor of the debate that we were having until some motives were impugned that were never intended and are not at all consistent with the amendment to second reading which we have brought forward.

MR. RABBITT: I rise today to speak against the amendment, because I can tell my colleagues in the House that the amendment does not deal with education; It deals with procedure. What we're really talking about is a hoist, and it's nothing less. This is politics and nothing less. This is partisan politics, nothing less. It's a hoist motion.

I believe there is some validity in the point of order that the Minister of Education made. That point of order was that his motion is actually not on the floor. But because the opposition did so believe that they wanted to address this at the front end of the bill, procedurally, they put their argument forward here. Who am I to challenge those gowned gentlemen with their years of wisdom, because procedure in this House has been developed over hundreds of years.

The question is: is it now that we consider the bill that's before us? Is it now that we consider it, or is it never? The amendment says: "Never."

We had both the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition critic speak, and the opposition critic referred to some of the debate in this House in the past as being an embarrassment. You know, it's strange, Mr. Speaker, that that critic did not understand the motion that he stood up and spoke on. I rather doubt that the opposition leader really understood the procedural part of that motion.

MR. SIHOTA: Is this in order?

MR. RABBITT: I'm probably the only speaker in here who has been speaking to this point in order.

As you've pointed out, Mr. Speaker, to all the members of this House, this is not an amendment to the preamble. As the member across the floor says: "It is a hoist; nothing more, nothing less." The only thing is that a hoist motion usually has a six-month time-frame; this is never. I think the Sullivan report is too important to put on a never-never plan, and that's what the members of the opposition are advocating. That's what this motion is telling us.

I ask you: was it intentional? The opposition House Leader said they spent many hours putting this procedural document forward before they brought it in here. They must have known what it meant. What is going on? Is this crass politics, when we're worried about the future of our education?

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, I listened to some of the points of order in my office, and it seems to me that they are valid in terms of the presentation we're hearing from the member for Yale-Lillooet.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I think "crass politics" is completely in order. This is pure, crass politics; nothing else.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not what the point of order was about. The member for Yale-Lillooet prefaced his remarks by saying that he was rising in opposition to this amendment. Therefore he knows that his speech must be on why he opposes the amendment. On that basis, I would ask him to continue.

MR. RABBITT: As I mentioned earlier, we're talking about procedure. We're not talking about education; we're talking about a procedural manoeuvre. I insist that the members of the opposition who put this forward did not understand that, and that's why I ask all members of this House to turn the amendment down. It's bad. The reason for turning it down, hon. members, is that we need the recommendations of that Sullivan commission that are going to be adopted in Bill 67.

Unfortunately, I do not have the formal education of some of the members of this House,

MR. MILLER: How about informal?

MR. RABBITT: I can agree with the member for Prince Rupert that I have probably had my share of informal education. Part of it has been right here in this chamber.

One of the things I think we all try to do as members of this House, which has hundreds of years of British parliamentary tradition, is to learn the

[ Page 8024 ]

rules of this House, because if we operate properly within the rules, then the business of the House and of this province is going to go smoothly. When we start talking about procedural debate.... That's why I have to stand behind our government House Leader when he said that he believes this to be a hoist motion. The opposition members think that because the motion is in order they can talk about the preamble.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It destroys the bill.

MR. RABBITT: The minister is absolutely correct. I ask all members of this House to look at the procedural wranglings, throw them out and throw the amendment out. It's bad for the education of this province, for the students and for the teachers. We want to bring forward the recommendations of the Sullivan commission, and through Bill 67 we can do that.

MR. G. JANSSEN: On the amendment, not on the procedural wrangle, as the member before me.... It seems he's rather upset. The Minister of Education was upset; he admitted he was confused over the process this House has taken.

The Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) said that we wanted to teach socialism in the schools. We want to teach democracy in the schools. That's what this amendment is about. It is about teaching democracy in the schools, and if that minister wants to equate socialism to democracy, I invite him to do so. Obviously the Minister of Regional Development concurs that socialism and democracy walk hand in hand through our society. That's why we must redirect the education system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Yale-Lillooet rises on a point of order.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I know that on two separate occasions you've already explained the amendment to the members of this chamber. I would ask you to possibly do it again, because some of the members do not seem to understand, and the debate is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: First of all, we have had enough points of order on this debate. I've explained how the debate should proceed, and I would expect that it will proceed in that way or else the Chair will have to ask the person speaking to take his or her seat.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I was speaking about democracy in the school system — something that I think is sorely needed, so that we perhaps get a better quality of debate in this House. We have to redirect the education system to make young adults out of students. In 1989 it is no longer acceptable to simply treat young people as products of the school system Young people must be able to adapt to an educational system and career changes throughout their lives.

Truly, today and in the future, our emerging youth will change jobs and careers four or five times during their lifetime, and they must deal critically and creatively with those changes. They will develop their own social and economic order, their own sense of democracy, not something that this House can teach them but something that they must be encouraged to develop on their own. Our youth must be ready to discover and explore the ideas of creating and transforming into a new society — a brave new world. If we do not allow our youth to develop these skills to open the doors to newness and discovery, we, as parents and as legislators, have failed with this act before us.

We must assure those whom we represent that there will be free and lifelong access to a primary, a secondary and a higher education system so that we can continue to enhance democracy.

Access must also be free and open and further encourage our students with special needs, the ethnic minorities, women and first citizens of this province so that they will become involved In democracy. We can see in this House that the minorities are not represented actively.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister for Crown Lands rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. DIRKS: On a point of order. Would you please call the member back to order. I believe we are discussing the amendment, and I don't see anything in this amendment that has anything to do with what he is talking about — free education and so on. I would draw his attention to "this House declines to proceed." Please, Mr. Speaker.

[5:30]

MR. G. JANSSEN: To the member opposite, and I read part of the motion: "To enable learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitude necessary to participate fully in a democratic society." If he doesn't understand that, I suggest perhaps he go back to school. Schools, colleges and universities must prepare students for unrestricted political and economic participation in society. This must be done so we do not become stagnated in a particular secular political atmosphere. Instead of following other nations who are formulating new policies, new economics and new social values, we will develop our own British Columbia society that reflects our own particular lifestyle, that creates our own democracy that is unique among the people we are attempting to represent here.

To accomplish this, the School Act should encourage our youth to recognize the rights of other human beings, social justice, independence of their communities and a commitment to environmental planning and the use of B.C.'s abundant resources for the peaceful purposes of democracy. Democracy must be taught In the classroom so that students can identify and dissect argument speaking clear and persuasive language to counter those that may wish to interpret democracy for their own ends only.

[ Page 8025 ]

We must ensure that our youth learn to think for themselves at the earliest possible age to raise questions that will challenge society. We have just gone through a number of changes in other nations in society — in China, in the Philippines, in Korea, in Nicaragua, in Lebanon — because those nations did not address the question of democracy in their education system. We must encourage our youth to become involved. It must be taught so that they will stand up and say: "We will develop a new society. We will move forward with new ideas to create a new world for ourselves." We will not take that laid down by our fathers and our parents, and not take that laid down by a government that has been in power for 34 of the last 37 years, which dictates the values of staying in power, rather than encouraging people to take up democracy, to involve themselves and to challenge the government. They need the necessary skills In history, English, the sciences and computer technology. I'm amazed that it is included in this bill that we will computerize the school system, but a third of those dollars will come out of the educational computers.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They must have access to information. People must have access in this bill to centralized computer information. Democracy of students has to be addressed. They must have the knowledge and the information so that they can fully participate. In this amendment we are attempting to give the government an opportunity to bring the youth into democracy to discover it, to fondle it and to dissect it — not to have a few mock legislative sessions once a year, but to actually look at alternatives to what we call democracy in today's terms. Those terms may not be relevant in tomorrow's world or indeed may not be relevant in today's terms, when I listen to some of the heckling of the members opposite.

This change must be encouraged, taught and sought after on a continuous basis. This can be started in the educational system. That's why we have this motion, because we want young people to be involved in the democratization of society and the school system. We have a party that's been in power, as I said earlier, for 34 of 37 years — half a generation. Has the youth been taught democracy? Have they been taught to challenge it in the school system? I think not.

Our youth learn history in the schools. They watch programs such as Patrick Watson's "Struggle for Democracy" on television, but they are not allowed to participate in the democracy of that school system. Perhaps if we gave them the right to vote in that school system on issues that they are affected by, they would learn something about democracy. That is what we are attempting to do. We are attempting to bring democracy into the school system. We are attempting to make our youth, our students, into young adults when they graduate, when they leave the school system, so that they are fully prepared to take on the challenges. Those challenges will be greater and greater as we progress in our society, and we must prepare our students for them.

HON. MR. VANT: I just can't help it; I just have to speak against this ridiculous amendment. The first part, to the minister's motion for second reading, says: "This House declines to proceed with this bill." If anything would kill this bill, this amendment would. That's its main purpose.

The rest of this amendment is gross plagiarism. If nothing else, it alludes to the preamble of the bill. Except for some very noteworthy omissions, such as where it leaves out "to develop their individual potential, " it says, "...will enable learners to acquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes...." This plagiarism is exactly the same; it's almost word for word.

Of course, the original preamble, which is paraphrased and used to omit what the socialists don't like to see.... I guess they would find "individual potential" offensive. They like to relate to people in collective, socialistic blobs. They like to stereotype whole groups of people, rather than focusing on the skills and abilities of particular individuals.

Then they purposely omitted the very appropriate phrase that these individuals would acquire knowledge, skills and attitudes "needed to contribute to a healthy society." I ask each member of this House: what on earth is a healthy society? In my mind, a healthy society is a democratic society. It is one in which everyone can participate in the good life. It is one which is environmentally safe. It is one where there is a balance between the powers of a centralized government and local autonomy. Of course, the socialists in the opposite corner of the House wouldn't understand what that is all about.

So I can't go along with this amended motion.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Are you against democracy?

HON. MR. VANT: No, I am not against democracy, because in your motion which alludes to the preamble of the bill it refers to a healthy society, and if a healthy society is not a democratic society, I don't know what is. I am definitely against this amendment. I'm for each individual child and their ability to learn everything they should learn.

In the principle of this bill, which you are determined to kill, I'm all for an education system in this great province of ours that is centred on the learning child.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I have listened to both sides in the debate on this amendment, and I must say that originally I looked at it with a view to possibly supporting it, because I thought that it might be doing something to improve what is otherwise good legislation. But I have become skeptical, Mr. Speaker, of the reasoning behind this, because I think that it is a bit of a sly procedural move here; I don't think it was an amendment to improve the bill at all.

MR. JONES: On a point of order. The Attorney-General clearly said that there were sly and suspi-

[ Page 8026 ]

cious motives on the part of the opposition. I want to assure the member that that was not the intention. It is also unparliamentary, and I would ask him to withdraw.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, if there is some offence that the Chair takes at those words, I obviously wouldn't use them...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdrawal

HON. S.D. SMITH: ... but the procedure that is being used here....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has asked the member to withdraw and the Chair would ask the member to withdraw the word, if it is offensive.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'd be happy to do that, but, Mr. Speaker, the procedure that has been used here is....

MR. JONES: On a point of order, the Attorney-General said he would be happy to do that. I don't consider that a withdrawal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair considers it a withdrawal.

HON. S.D. SMITH: If it wasn't as I earlier described it, then it is certainly highly confusing to members of this House.

Interjection.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Well, the member from Port Alberni says that there is no confusion. Fair enough if there is no confusion, then I have to accept that there is an intention.

The fact is that it does confuse, because the words that have been used to speak to this amendment have all spoken to matters of high principle and so on, when in fact what the amendment is is a hoist motion by another name. At least a hoist motion asks you to stand the legislation down to a date specific. This does not do that. This says that you should — as we would say in the business of law — adjourn sine die; that means a date not specific.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but for my own clarification: is this his second reading speech or is this a point of order? Because the Speaker has already ruled on the question he is addressing and found in favour of the motion. I hope that the hon Attorney-General, the highest law officer in the land, is not having a reflection on the Chair.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, had the opposition House Leader remained in the House to get a number of rulings that took place while he was out, he would know that we are not addressing second reading; we are addressing a reasoned amendment. That's the issue I am addressing. We have had a number of speeches coming from the other side which sought to address the principles of the bill rather than a reasoned amendment.

As that opposition House Leader, who claims experience in parliamentary matters, ought to know, a reasoned amendment is a device by which you attempt to set aside a piece of legislation to a date not specified. That, Mr. Speaker, seems to me to be a hoist motion without a time-limit. What that means to me is that the motivation for this amendment is to put aside the very real and important work that must be done in education in this province, coming out of the Sullivan commission, to some date which no one is prepared to stand up and define. I think it is just fundamentally wrong, and it's why I oppose this amendment.

Now you would have to ask yourself reasonably why an opposition would come forward with an amendment which does not speak to the issues that are involved in the bill at all; which speaks to the question of trying to delay it, divert it and to change its fundamental character. The amendment deliberately avoids the use of the word "individual." If there is anything that permeates and is consistent throughout the entire Sullivan report, it is the notion that we ought to devise and develop an education system which supports education and learning for the individual.

[5:45]

Mr. Speaker, we ought to get on with that very important work. This House ought not to be convinced, ought not to be persuaded and members ought not to be moved by the attempt of the opposition to delay that very important work. This amendment is not worthy of our support. I urge all hon. members in this House not to support it, because if we support their amendment to delay, to move it aside and to ensure that the people cannot get on with the important business of reforming and making our education system more progressive, then we will be injuring the children of the province of British Columbia, and we ought not to do that.

As I said when I stood up, I came to this debate with a very open mind about the intention of this amendment. But it is clear to me that the purpose of the amendment is to deny the opportunity for legislators in this province to get at the very important issues of dealing with education, to be able to reasonably debate all of the things that have been done through the leadership of this Minister of Education and to deny the tremendous consultative process that has gone on in the province of British Columbia with educators, parents and students — quite frankly, to not deal with the very important work done by the late Barry Sullivan. I want to tell you that I will not support that kind of move by the opposition, because it is not worthy of support.

When they brought it in, they caused great confusion in this House, because they all stood up and articulated some other motive. When they stood up in this House to debate this amendment, they all

[ Page 8027 ]

spoke to the principles of the bill. They talked in great, glowing terms about democracy. They talked about all of that stuff, when in fact what they were doing....

Interjections.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll tell you, my friend, why it is "stuff" to me. It's because I listened to the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) stand in this House and say: "Socialism and democracy go hand in hand." What fatuous claptrap, Mr. Member for Port Alberni! You ought to stand in Tiananmen Square and make that fancy little speech of yours about socialism and democracy going hand in hand. I want to tell you, I have never heard as arrogant and blind an adherence to dogma as that kind of description of democracy and socialism going hand in hand. That's why I said it as I did, Mr. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), because you should have stood up and put him in his place when he came forward with that kind of nonsense.

I want to say that the very important work of the Sullivan commission, which was followed by a tremendous and reasoned process of consultation and a tremendously lengthy and important discussion about education values in this province, with all people committed to trying to develop the best piece of legislation we could to deal with the issues our children want us to deal with in terms of providing a quality learning experience for them....

We on this side of the House thought, and genuinely so.... That's why I came to this debate on the amendment today with a very open mind and listened carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. We thought that the purpose of that amendment was to add something to the legislation which would improve it, enhance it and help us serve our community, our children and our schools better. It saddens me deeply to learn that the purpose of this amendment was to adjourn discussion of this very important issue to some future date that they weren't even prepared to determine.

I think it's an important question that people in this province ought to ask: why would they want to do that? Who were they serving? What special interest was being served by doing what they're doing? What special interest tail is wagging the socialist dog with this amendment is a very worthy question to ask. I hope the opposition House Leader gets up and answers what the purpose was, whose interest was being served and what special interest group was being invited to be supported or paid off by this piece of work in this House today.

MR. BLENCOE: I think the words "paid off" is way beyond the bounds — even for this member. Perhaps you could ask him to withdraw.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I learned the use of that word by listening to the opposition use it so frequently in this House. But if they consider it to be unparliamentary, then I would very happily withdraw it, because I would never want to offend this House.

I would ask the question in another way then. Which special interest group is being favoured by this decision of the NDP to bring this amendment to postpone indefinitely the work that ought to be done on this piece of legislation? What discussions have taken place between the opposition and the leadership of that special interest group with regard to this decision to bring in this amendment in a way which suggests to us and to all British Columbians —  given what the Leader of the Opposition said — that it was intended only to improve the legislation?

In fact, this amendment necessarily means that legislators could not have debated this very important work coming out of Mr. Sullivan's commission. I ask that the opposition House Leader stand up to explain those matters, because they're worthy of explanation.

I would urge all members of this House not to be moved, as I originally was, to think about supporting this and to give this amendment the back of the hand that it so richly deserves and to vote it down immediately.

MR. ROSE: I'm quite sure that 20 minutes ago we were quite prepared to have the vote on the reasoned amendment, but the clock was eaten as usual by the charming and eloquent Attorney-General who, upon entering this debate, produces his usual class act and is urged to withdraw — and usually has to withdraw — at least four or five times during any one of his speeches.

I will not now, nor do I ever intend to, respond to the ridiculous demagogic utterances of the Attorney-General. He is keeping a clipping for each of his visits to each of our ridings so that he can take them out of context and distort them.

Mr. Speaker, I call the question on the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Closure! Closure!

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you are going to rule on this. I have often heard about the rights of the minority in a situation where closure comes into place, but this is the first time that the rights of the majority have been thwarted by the House Leader of the opposition trying to do closure on a bill that they got stuck on.

MR. ROSE: Just for clarification, I discussed the matter of our last speaker being the member for Alberni with the government Whip just before we were entertained by the Attorney-General. I thought that it was the will of the government and the House. If they wish to go on, let's go. I thought the urgency was to get rid of the amendment.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before the minister comments, the member did not move a motion; he invited the question. If there is not unanimous

[ Page 8028 ]

consent to put the motion, we will go on with the debate. Are there any further speakers?

MR. B.R. SMITH: This chamber really is wafted in whimsy, I think, to heights of which we haven't seen in a long time. I am absolutely staggered to comprehend this amendment; it seems to replace health with democracy, and I thought they were synonymous.

It really is an incredible amendment, because if ever there was a bill that this side of the House loves and embraces, it's this bill. If ever there was a bill about which your constituents are here in the gallery saying, "Pass that bill," It's this one. I cannot understand It. A nice clean umbrella bill, putting all the responsibilities and all the rights and duties in clear language; the same sort of thing that the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) has advocated for years in other lives; a bill that had more consultation in it than.... I can't think of any bill in the last five years that had more consultation into it than did this one: Sullivan all over the province; the report summary update; the minister taking Sullivan all over the province and meeting with people; consultation and more consultation.

Why they would want to delay the bill for five minutes, why they would not want to pass this bill, fully escapes me, so I must assume that the resolution was drafted in error. I hope we will vote on it and get it out of the way so that we can get on to debating the bill in principle; also in committee, where there are lots of things that can be said. But I'm absolutely dumbfounded by their opposition to this. I know that contributions are going to be withdrawn. All sorts of terrible things are going to happen if that member doesn't get his troops in line and get this bill passed I mean, they're having meetings out there in your constituencies to ask you to calm down so that we can get this bill through.

I suggest we proceed with the vote, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BRUCE: I'm saddened by this amendment today in the House.

MR. JONES: Show us a tear.

MR. BRUCE: Indeed, there is a tear. I've got three children in the public school system, as I believe others here in the House have children in the public school system. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I would expect a much higher level of debate to take place in here on behalf of the opposition, who pretend from time to time to be the government of the day. In fact, I'm embarrassed at the opposition proposing such a resolution when we have gone through a tremendous process in bringing together a new School Act and good things for the province of British Columbia.

I'd just like to mention one thing. It seems to me that this amendment is nothing more than an attempt by the opposition to once again inflame the educational process in British Columbia. And through this process that we have gone through here today, and through what has been a combination of a series of hearings and the like, for the opposition to present an amendment like this to this House, with such a serious issue, is truly an embarrassment, in my mind, to the democratic process.

The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) talks about the need for democracy. Well, let us just have a view of democracy. It's strange that they would offer that, when the government of British Columbia has been involved over the past 16 months — not one month, not one week, but 16 months — in a whole series of hearings, 139 visits to the schools in 89 communities of this province, 66 assemblies in which presentations have been made, and over 2, 300 written and oral submissions in the development of this piece of legislation.

[6:00]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition stand and talk about the need for democracy and present an amendment like this, which would throw the whole thing out, after we've had countless hours and numerous submissions by all of the people of the province. I am truly embarrassed for the opposition to present such a hideous — and ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned — amendment to something that is so serious to the future of this province and the young people of the province of British Columbia.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This is an absolute outrage. We have government member after government member getting on their feet and in an extraordinarily manipulative way turning the debate from an issue that should not even have to be debated in this House — a basic principle that I would hope our society is based on....

This motion requests the insertion of a principle of democracy. What we have is a government that is more interested in procedural wrangle than they are Interested in improving a bill that has the support of many people in this House on both sides. The motion that was moved — the amendment — from the Leader of the Opposition asked the government to consider placing as one of its fundamental principles of this bill the issue of democracy — a fundamental principle that I would hope this government would embrace.

Rather than embracing, this government has chosen to make a mockery out of a simple request — a request that I think should be embraced but instead has been turned upside down. I think the members very clearly understand what they are doing when they put member after member up to talk about things that are very clearly not the intent.

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tell us the intent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I am questioning the intent of the government speakers. I am questioning why it is you have problems with this amendment, why it is you have problems including the principle of democracy. Do you have a problem with amending the bill

[ Page 8029 ]

to say very clearly, up front, that one of the fundamental principles of your education system, of the process that has been underway in this province, is to preserve, to teach the principles of democracy in our society? Why do you have a problem with that, Mr. Minister?

I think the thing that the government members don't seem to understand - and It was explained by our House Leader — is that the process in drafting....

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have a 12-year-old at home going through her last days of school. The stories she tells me about her last days at school somehow remind me of this House and how difficult it is for a member...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have never had so much difficulty speaking in this House. I think to compare it to what is happening in our school system now with all of those kids wanting to get out for summer might be a good comparison.

I think that we could get on with this legislation if members in this House would give a little bit of respect to the points that members are trying to make. The motion was — as members have said repeatedly — to recognize a fundamental principle that should be included in the school system. I would have hoped the government would have embraced it, and I'm very disappointed that any government member would choose to go to such extraordinary lengths rather than looking for opportunities to improve it in a genuine way.

MR. JACOBSEN: I would just like to say to the last speaker that no one persuaded me to get up. I wasn't asked by anyone to say anything on this bill; I'm doing it on my own accord. The only reason I'm doing it is because I think it's a very important issue I don't think the confusion that seems to be existing in the House this afternoon is just an accident. I think a lot of care went into wording this motion. Apparently the opposition took the time to go and discuss it with the Clerks, so obviously it was not something done on the spur of the moment, and there must have been an intent and purpose for it.

I hear a lot said about what this motion means. I would think that the only thing it means is what it says, and it says: "...this House declines to proceed with this Bill...." The member for Alberni (Mr. G Janssen) talks a great deal about democracy; he's been talking about democracy all afternoon and the need for us to put some provision of democracy into the School Act. But he himself is, I think, denying the process of democracy in this House, because there is no piece of legislation that I know of that has gone through more of a democratic process than this legislation that's before us today.

The amendment that has been presented by the opposition will deny the people who have participated in this democratic process the opportunity to have their wishes complied with. They met with the commissioner. They have stated what they wanted to see in the new School Act. It has been prepared with a great deal of care. It has been submitted to many people for their opinions and views. It has been well canvassed. It's a very democratic and important piece of legislation. It's an insult, I believe, to the young people in British Columbia and to the parents who want the best education for their children and have been asking for many years to have a new School Act brought in. Here it is; it's the most democratic process that you could possibly enter into, and the opposition have come out and said that this particular piece of legislation should be set aside. That means that it should not be dealt with.

Interjection.

MR. JACOBSEN: The member for Alberni keeps insisting it's against democracy. I would like to ask him: what about the democratic process? What about the democracy of the people who met with the commissioner and formulated this legislation? That's democracy. I think the opposition should be ashamed of what they presented here. They must have a motive for it; there must be a reason why it was presented. It was presented for a reason that the opposition is aware of. The member for Alberni said some things about it when he was making his address, because he talked about incorporating a lot of changes that would change the Sullivan report completely from how it was originally set out.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 19

NAYS - 30

[ Page 8030 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

[6:15]

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

MINISTER OF STATE FOR
NECHAKO AND NORTHEAST,
RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIVE AFFAIRS

On vote 58: minister's office, $279,458 (continued).

MR. GUNO: I didn't have the opportunity to respond to the minister's answer to my questions yesterday. I am glad to have the opportunity to do so, because quite frankly, I was quite disturbed at his reaction yesterday. He actually resorted to a personal attack, which I found to be insulting, because I think it casts certain aspersions on my credibility — or at least my ability to understand the plight of the aboriginal people in British Columbia.

I want to address that first, because for me it is important. I just want to quote from the Blues from part of the minister's response: "If you don't think that economic development issues, social issues, education issues and justice issues are important to native people, then, Mr. Member, you have been in Vancouver too long." I would like to suggest to the minister that this suggestion that I have become somehow out of touch with the plight of the aboriginal people is an affront. The minister does not know who I am; he does not know where I come from. Yet he presumes to say that I am out of touch. He does not know that I have a recognized place among the Nisga'a nation, that I have a hereditary name — which is Tsiidaawihl, and I will spell that for Hansard later — and that I earned that name at a feast just about four days after my election as member for Atlin.

The minister does not know that I have really gone through similar experiences of aboriginal people of my generation. I spent four years in an Indian residential school; I spent a year and a half in a TB sanatorium — a disease that decimated most of our people. I have experienced discrimination in jobs, in accommodations, in education. I have seen members of my family who have actually succumbed to the disease that afflicts many of our native people, which is alcoholism. And yet the minister suggests or presumes to say that I'm out of touch.

I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I may have lived in Vancouver, but it was only a tiny portion of my life, and I was there to attain an education, something that I think many of our people aspire to, something that I think that you as Minister Responsible for Native Affairs would understand and even encourage. At the age of 36 I went back to law school, because I thought that was one way that I could help or at least be more effective in dealing with some of the problems that not only I but the rest of my community have to deal with.

So I find it just incredibly insensitive on the part of the minister, and I think it's the kind of paternalistic attitude that is reflective of his general response and his own self-inflated sense of importance about dealing with what our native people have to deal with.

I want to move from that kind of personal level and go into some of the more definite or detailed analyses of your ministry. You say that I don't think that economic development issues, social issues, educational issues.... I want to canvass, first of all, the breakdown of your entire budget, which is something like $2,008,000. Of that, something like $560,000 is geared towards contributions and grants. The rest is for salaries, operating costs, assets acquisition. How can the minister suggest to anyone that he is launching any kind of credible program to meet the incredible problem that our people have to deal with in British Columbia with such a paltry sum of money? I really want to know. I think your Premier also wants to know: "The provincial government has not done enough to assist Indian economic development, Premier Vander Zalm said last weekend in Kelowna." This minister claims that we are doing very substantive things and the native community is satisfied, and that you're out of touch if you suggest otherwise. If anybody is out of touch with reality, it is you, Mr. Minister.

I want to canvass from the minister the breakdown of his budget. First of all, I note that in 1988 your budget for salaries was $664,724; this year it's $1,117,748. Operating costs: $377,320. As I say, only 25 percent, which is $535,000, is grants and contributions. Which part of that goes towards the — as you call them — important economic initiatives that you have launched? What has gone towards social issues and education issues? Or are you talking about other ministries' budgets? In other words, what is the breakdown of that particular amount which is allocated for grants and contributions?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: First of all, I certainly would apologize to the member opposite if he was offended by my comments yesterday. I didn't realize that the members opposite were as sensitive as they are. Perhaps as a matter of interest, the members might like to review the Blues of last evening when the second member for Vancouver addressed his remarks to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

It seems that the members feel that those kinds of comments flow this way quite nicely, but are offensive going in the other direction. If that is the case and the member was offended, I sincerely apologize. I think he's a very decent person, who works hard in this House not only for native people but for other issues that are important to him. There certainly was nothing personal in my comments.

[ Page 8031 ]

As I noted in my opening remarks, the spending of this ministry is very small. We don't have a large budget, nor are we, for the most part, a service delivery ministry. Our role is to be an advocate for native people and to work as a facilitator with other ministries, in order to deliver economic development programs through the Minister of Regional Development (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and to deliver or to assist in the delivery of education programs through one of the education ministries. Social services issues obviously would be done by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and justice issues by the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) and the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree).

Of the small budget that we do have, we provide about $300,000 in grants for drug and alcohol programs. We provide about $640,000 to support native friendship centres, and we do about $2 million through First Citizens' Fund, which I am sure the member will recognize as a board administered by a native committee made up of native business people. Also we provide about $300,000 a year for the Burns Lake Development Corporation. That represents only a very small part of the money that this government provides for various native initiatives related to native people both on and off reserves. I don't think it is a fair comparison to look at what we are doing particularly in my ministry.

[6:30]

For example, the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services will spend almost $5 million over the next three years on drug and alcohol programs for native people; about $2.5 million will go for improvements to native access to justice through the justice ministries. There is almost $3 million in new education funding through the Ministry of Education. As I mentioned yesterday, we were able to settle cut-off claims with the Ohiaht band; that $3.8 million did not come from our budget, but came directly from Treasury.

The member for Atlin would remember that we just provided $400,000 for Greenville for the diking project; that came through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. We have provided some $300,000 in the Atlin riding to Tahltan Development Corp. to enable them to form a road-building contracting company — an initiative that now has 53 native people employed on the road in to Golden Bear mine and in road contracts with the provincial government.

I think, Mr. Member, it is important to look not so much at what this ministry spends directly, but what the government of the province puts into the programs that we talked about yesterday afternoon or last night. It is therefore significant to assess the scope of what we are doing. I think there has been a substantial increase in those programs over the last two or three years.

The Premier doesn't think it's enough. Quite honestly, I don't think it is enough. We are committed to investigating new opportunities and new programs that we can be involved in. We are working toward that end, and we are succeeding. I suppose that covers most of the questions.

I would like to finish by assuring the member again that I was casting no personal aspersions. Indeed, debate in this House should go both ways. The tone of debate is set by all members of the House.

MR. GUNO: I will accept the minister's apology. As we experienced in the previous debate, sometimes the atmosphere here can get pretty heavy.

I want to continue on your claim to be the advocate for the native people. The editorial in the Times-Colonist today addressed the fact that your efforts — laudable as they may be, and in comparison to what has happened before, they may be substantial, but that's a relative term.... From zero to four is substantial. It's substantial in light of years and years of neglect, but surely you can't say that it is sufficient, and I think the Premier has pointed that out.

There seems to be a strategy to create an illusion that you provide a few things here and there, and that's going to somehow allay the fears and concerns of the aboriginal people. There have been in the last two years a number of things that cast some doubt on your ability to advance the interests of native people.

Take for instance the recent address of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) to the Pacific Alliance group. Clearly he was there trying to allay the fears of this group, which was set up solely to stonewall negotiations between the Nisga'a nation and the federal government to try to get some agreement on the allocation of the salmon resource in the Nass River watershed. They were negotiating some form of co-management, the very thing that even the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries said is a cooperative venture that he would encourage and yet at the same time in the same breath would say that our government does not recognize sitting down and negotiating.

How can you undertake a cooperative approach if you are going to start with the hard-line position of: "I'm not going to sit down and negotiate; what I'd rather do is take you to court"? That's exactly what happened when the A-G intervened in the application for an injunction to stop that very negotiation.

If you are the advocate for the native people, what did you do to try to educate or at least convince your pugnacious Attorney-General to at least try to listen to some reason and point out that it's very reasonable in a legal dispute to consider settling, to say: "Look, maybe down at the end of this litigious route we may not end up as well as we think we will"? Certainly the recent court pronouncement confirms the claims of many of the aboriginal groups who are fighting constantly against this government.

If you are an advocate — if that's your role, rather than an apologist — why are we continuing this stance of absolutely blocking out even thinking about negotiations? I understand your position in terms of your non-recognition. You've made it quite clear; in fact, you say that ad nauseam. But you've got to remember that the federal government has never ever

[ Page 8032 ]

said that it recognizes aboriginal rights. What it does say is that you have some interest that has been recognized by certain court pronouncements and we are willing to sit down and negotiate that in order to remove the air of uncertainty over the territory that you claim.

Given that there are an increasing number of litigations, causing even more uncertainty, it would be in the interests of this government to start contemplating negotiation. If you are an advocate for the interests of the native people and also for those of the rest of British Columbians, wouldn't it be incumbent on you to make a bigger effort to convince your colleagues in cabinet to change the strategy of legal harassment? I wonder if the minister can respond to that.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: There were a number of questions, some of them revolving around the relative importance of the economic activities that we've been involved in with native bands. Certainly there was very little activity; there is more now. There is an opportunity to do even more, and I would agree with that. As a matter of fact, that was my initial opening position, so we seem to be discussing it but agreeing on it.

Somehow the member indicates that no matter what we did in terms of all the responsibilities and the areas of jurisdiction that one normally looks to a provincial government for, and no matter how we were to fill that provincial government mandate, if we are unwilling to sit down and negotiate land claims, then all is for naught. We really have a question of jurisdiction and responsibility.

People come to my constituency office or to the development region office to talk to me about any number of issues — things they would like to see changed that are federal responsibilities. As much as I would like to involve myself in those responsibilities, I recognize that the federal government has areas of jurisdiction, the province has areas of jurisdiction and the municipalities and regional districts have areas of jurisdiction, and they are quite clearly laid out.

It is my opinion and the belief of my government — and all governments in British Columbia for the last hundred years plus — that native land claims are a federal issue. It is a position that this government has held and that your government quite clearly held when it was in power. As a matter of fact, I am sure you will recall a minister named Levi who went out on the steps and made quite clear to native people the position of your government as it related to land claims.

MR. LOVICK: Do you know how long ago that was?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: That was 15 or 20 years ago.

MR. LOVICK: Has nothing changed?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I was kind of waiting for an opening, I guess, or sort of poised for an opportunity to quote from an interview with the leader of the New Democratic Party in Politics and Policy, November 4, 1988. He talks about land claims at some length and sort of capsulizes it in this paragraph. He recognizes that "the financial and fiduciary responsibility rests with the federal government, but that the provincial government has to come to the table." Isn't that interesting. I am sure that this government, once the federal government accepts its financial and fiduciary responsibility, would be quite happy to come to the table. I don't know what we would be at the table for, their having recognized their responsibility, but in any event, it's interesting. I asked the Leader of the Opposition....

MR. LOVICK: Do you seriously see this as an answer to my question?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I didn't realize you had the floor.

The Leader of the Opposition, who, I suppose, represents the policy of your party, indicated in this interview that your party, were it ever to be in government, would go to the table. I then asked him by letter to outline to me the kinds of issues he would be prepared to deal with. Would they pay for land?

I wrote him quite a lengthy letter, as you might have had the opportunity to see. It is obviously a very difficult issue for him, because I wrote that letter in April. Perhaps it's just his busy schedule, but I have yet to receive a response from him. So I suspect it's very comfortable to say from that side of the House: "If the federal government accepts its financial and legal responsibilities, we would be happy to sit down at the table." I suggest that we would all be happy to sit down at the table, were that the case.

It is not the case. The federal government has not advised us of the details of land claims, and we maintain, and will continue to maintain, that the issue of comprehensive native land claims is a federal responsibility. We have gone on for many years in this province not talking about the other issues because we were hung up on land claims, and I think that was a wrong tack. I think we have shown progress by being willing — not only the provincial government, but native people also — to talk about those other issues.

Mr. Member, you can stand up and say it's all meaningless if you wish, but as I said last night, I don't think many of the native leaders in the province agree with you. The evidence of that is their willingness to sit down and talk to us about native issues. The Nisga'a Tribal Council is one of those that I would include in the list of people who are interested in improving all kinds of situations and with whom we have been able to effect a substantial amount of improvement. That was the tone of my comments last night — the ones that offended you — but it is a fact, Mr. Member. Your people, as well as many other native bands in the province, do not agree with you.

[6:45]

[ Page 8033 ]

MRS. BOONE: I told the minister yesterday that he was lucky we ended yesterday, because I have calmed down considerably since then. He offended not only my colleague but certainly me when we were talking about Ingenika, which is something that I hold very... It is a part of my riding that is very dear to me and that I have taken very close to me and have looked after as much as I can, even though it is such a long way away and requires getting in by plane. Unfortunately I don't have a government jet at my disposal, so that makes it a little more difficult to get in there. But Ingenika is something that I think has been held up, and it's an example of this government's mistreatment and probably the largest injustice done to a people.

Each time I've gone Into Ingenika it's been interesting. The last time I had it planned quite a time in advance, and the day before I went in, the then minister went in. I said: "Well, that's wonderful. If my going to Ingenika moves the minister to take action, that's great; then I think I have accomplished my point." There was action by the minister of that time, and some of those things gave the people some of the accommodation they required, some of the building supplies, and they attempted to get together on some of the wells and various things like that which are really required.

This time the trip has been planned for two months, and not alone. This trip was planned through and with the support of the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, who came along with us. It was their suggestion that we all go in together, because I suggested that our leader should come in and see this area. We had a good visit with Chief Gordon Pierre, and we were not unwelcome. You stated that you felt we would be unwelcome. We were very welcome there. Chief Gordon Pierre was very happy to show us around and show us what was taking place in his community. I must say, things had improved considerably between the time I was there before and now. The morale of the people has improved considerably. However, Mr. Minister, that's not greatly because of the action of this ministry.

Some minor changes, some movements, have taken place, The people have gotten some training through the actions of the College of New Caledonia, which they are not being funded for by this government. But it's making those people aware. It's giving them some skills. They have formed a company with Fletcher Challenge. Fletcher Challenge, the Fort Ware band and the Ingenika tribe all have shares in it. That is what has brought the economic prosperity; that is what has improved their morale. These people have gone from 100 percent unemployed to 98 percent employed. That's what the native people of this province want, Mr. Minister. They want economic prosperity that they can develop within their own community so that they can be on equal terms and be prosperous within our society. They don't want handouts from you or from DIA.

Our people want to see these land claims settled, and that is one of the prime things. You say people are coming and talking to you. Of course they're talking to you. They told you at the meeting in Prince George that they were talking to you. They said: "We are participating with the larger corporations because we want the jobs there, and we are cooperating with you as well, but we are going to talk land claims, Mr. Minister." That's what they're telling you over and over. The prime thing that the native community in this province wants is to have the land claims settled so that they can have economic prosperity along with everybody else. They can't have that unless those land claims are settled.

You're hearing that from industry too, Mr. Minister. Industry is saying: "Let's get these things settled. Let's get them out of the way, because they're causing problems with us all the time." They don't like to go out and suddenly have a road blocked. They don't like these things to occur, but it's happening. It's unfortunate, because it's the natives that are creating a problem, so there's conflict between the logging community and the native community. Really, they're both victims. We need to have these things settled so that both of those people know exactly where they're going and what is happening in their community.

You say you can't negotiate. No, you can't, but you can advocate. You can get out there and fight on their behalf, go back to Ottawa and say: "Let's get these things settled." You don't have to sit there like a rubber duck, hoping something is going to happen. Get off your butt and do something for these people. Start to move on this issue. Don't wait for it to heal. It's not going to take care of itself. We need you as an advocate. We need you back there pushing the federal government to move. You say that as an MLA you have people coming into your office, as I do -and as I'm sure Mr. Chairman does - to talk about federal issues. I don't turn those people away. I advocate on their behalf with the federal government. I advocate on their behalf with the federal government, because I believe it is my duty as the representative to support and represent my people at every level. I'm certainly not going to cop out and say it's a federal issue any more than you should.

You heard the member back here talking about residential schools. There's a wonderful book out right now — I hope you pick it up — called Stoney Creek Woman. It's written by a woman in my area, but it's about a native woman in the Omineca area. It's a tremendous book. She talks about residential schools and the life she went through, and after reading that book, I don't think there are many people who wouldn't have some understanding of some of the problems that the native population has and the things that are going on.

They talk about pickups coming into the villages and literally picking kids off the street, throwing them into the back of the pickup and taking them to residential schools. The residential schools at that time were not loving and caring places any more than a lot of boarding homes are right now. They had strict and stringent rules, where they didn't learn anything about loving and caring or about parenting.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

[ Page 8034 ]

Now these people are out in the community trying to parent, and in many cases they're not doing a very good job of it. It's not because they are inherently bad parents, but they haven't learned how to parent. They haven't learned how to deal with a lot of these things. We have tremendous problems right now, and if you are a native woman out there, you have some tremendous problems as well.

Interjections.

MRS. BOONE: I don't know what's going on with the chicken gallery over there, but there's sure a little problem going on.

Women in the native population have some tremendous problems that also need to be dealt with Sexual abuse, which of course is rampant not just in the native population but in all our population right now, is really bad in many remote areas, where they are removed and away from the support systems that some of the other communities have. Physical abuse takes place, and a lot of these things come as a result of alcoholism, which is not unfamiliar in both the white and the native cultures.

It's interesting that when we were in the correction institute in Prince George, we found that 42 percent of the inmates are native — 42 percent of the population in our jails are native.

We've got a lot to account for in this society, because we did this on our own to the native population in this province. We as the white population did this, and we have a tremendous amount to be accountable for. We've got a lot to deal with, but the number one thing that the native population out there will tell you they want is the land claims settled so that they can become independent and prosperous and not dependent upon the government, because there isn't a single one of them out there who wants that to happen.

I mentioned Ingenika. I can mention Fort Ware, because it has a tremendous number of problems, and the McLeod Lake band. My colleague has mentioned the dollars that have been spent in courts in an adversarial role because of the problems with the McLeod Lake band trying to settle their claims there — the Treaty 8 thing.

It's clear to me and it ought to be clear to you that there is a role as a minister to advocate on behalf of the natives, and that's what I would like to see you do. I've written to you on numerous occasions on this issue. I've said exactly the same thing over and over, that this is an issue that this government cannot stick its head in the ground about anymore. We've got to settle these things, and if the federal government is not going to do it, if they're reluctant to do it, then you must advocate on its behalf. You must sit down and try to make the federal government understand that these things must be negotiated and we must get some settlements. Unless that happens, the economic prosperity is not going to take place, because we're going to constantly be having problems in the economic stability in my community and certainly in the community of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf)

I'd like to hear your comments on this, Mr. Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the minister I'd like to thank the member for Prince George North for being completely in order during the whole time of that debate.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I'll try to stay in order as I answer the points raised by the member for Prince George North.

Treaty 8 and the McLeod Lake band we discussed a little in question period today — quite a different issue, as I'm sure the member recognizes, the difference between treaty entitlement and comprehensive land claims. It's an issue — there's no question about that — but again, the federal government quite clearly has a responsibility for treaties. The treaties were signed between the government of Canada and the bands. That's the fundamental difference that we don't seem to be able to.... We talk back and forth, but you don't seem to hear me, and I suppose I don't hear you, because we keep talking about the same things and never seem to come much closer to agreeing on the issue.

There are some special problems related to alcohol. There's probably no one in Canada who doesn't recognize that native people have special problems that are related to alcohol. It follows with unemployment, sexual abuse, child abuse and family violence. That's the basis for a substantial contribution from this government toward drug and alcohol services.

Again, whether the member likes it or not, there are areas of jurisdiction: on-reserve is a federal government responsibility; off-reserve is the provincial government's responsibility. We are doing, I think, a good job of providing services off-reserve to native people, whether they be treaty status or non-status. But it's our responsibility, off-reserve, to provide those services. We do a good job of it, and we will continue to do a good job of it.

[7:00]

Residential schools: far be it from me to ever stand and try to defend the actions of the churches in residential schools. It's an unhappy part of the history of Canada, and I'm sure it's one that has left a mark on any number of native people. I have yet to meet and talk at any length with people who attended those residential schools who don't have some emotional scars as a result of it; there's no question about that. It's an issue, it's a fact, it's there. They are not there any longer, so it's a question, I think, of recognizing that well-intentioned as those things were, they were obviously totally inappropriate,

At the same time, we do recognize that improved education for native people, as the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) indicated, is probably one of the most important things for the long-range self-sufficiency of native people, particularly high school and university training. Nobody is going to argue with you about that.

[ Page 8035 ]

Ingenika is an interesting situation. I am not certain when the member was there first, but if she claims to be the first one there, she must have gone considerably before she was elected to this House. She indicated that you went and then a minister followed quickly behind you. The fact of the matter is that when the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) went there some time ago, he was appalled by the conditions there. He came back and made a substantial report, and I think a very convincing report, to the government about the conditions there, and conditions started to improve, as the member recognizes. Things are not good at Ingenika, and I'm not going to suggest they are, but they have improved. It would be nice if we could just walk in and make everything better overnight, but things don't happen that quickly.

In Prince George, when we met with Chief Izony and Chief Pierre, the Premier recommitted his intention not to let negotiations with the federal government drag on and block the establishment of reserves at Ingenika and Mesilinka. I would again take an opportunity to read just a very short paragraph from a letter written by the chief negotiator for the Carrier Sekani to the office of native claims. He's writing about "Ingenika Relocation and Resettlement, " which is the title. It says:

"I am pleased to advise that they are extremely encouraged by the recent initiatives taken by both governments to resolve the outstanding relocation and resettlement issue involving their people. In these negotiations, they wish to ensure that the following issues be...fully considered."

They list five issues that they want to bring to the attention of the chief negotiator in the office of native land claims.

Things are progressing there, We are going to settle this issue of establishing a new reserve or new reserves for the Ingenika people. We're going to assist them in their desire for full employment. I couldn't agree with you more: it's the people themselves who are best able to identify the kinds of economic activities they want to be involved in. It takes that initiative, assisted by some resources and some money from this government and from the federal government, to enable them to reach their objectives. We are going to settle that situation; we're going to provide land. It appears from the information I have that the reserve will be in excess of 3,000 acres. It will be a substantial reserve for a small number of people, and it's going to be one more issue resolved. And we will continue to work on those issues where we recognize a responsibility by this government.

MR. KEMPF: It's been very interesting to sit here this evening and listen to this discussion with respect to the Indian people. I guess what I'm hearing is that the minister isn't listening.

The minister has done what so many politicians have done in the past, and it's really not what the Indian people want. He has tried to make out that the Indian people are different. He has tried to suggest that all of the responsibility for the Indian people lies in Ottawa. And he missed the point of the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) completely. The member for Prince George North wasn't saying to you and to British Columbians that they should settle the land claims. Whether you believe in the land claims or whether you don't believe in the land claims, they must be settled. They must be settled on behalf of not only the Indian people.... And I call them Indian people; and I think they take exception to being called native people. They're proud of their Indian heritage, and so they should be. But we're not asking you, Mr. Minister, and the member for Prince George North wasn't asking you, to settle the land claims.

I guess the question I have is: when have you been in Ottawa last, banging down the doors, asking on behalf of all British Columbians, not just the Indian people of British Columbia — and not just asking, but demanding on behalf of all British Columbians — that the land claims be settled, so that we can get on, particularly in the north, with the development of our natural resources? You should know about that, as a northerner. Much of that development is being held up because governments aren't paying enough attention to the Indian land claims.

You've fallen into that same trap many politicians before you have. When were you in Ottawa last, demanding — and if you're really listening to the Indian people out there, this is what they're saying — the abolition of the Department of Indian Affairs in Ottawa, which is doing nothing but eating up billions — not millions, but billions — of the Canadian taxpayers' money, over 90 percent of which is eaten up by the bureaucracy and does the Indian people of Canada absolutely no good whatsoever? When have you been in Ottawa doing that, Mr. Minister, if you're such an advocate of the Indian people, if you are listening to what the Indian people are saying?

I think that's all we're asking, What are you doing to convince Ottawa that the Indian land claim situation in British Columbia has to be resolved, that the stranglehold through the Department of Indian Affairs has to be released by Ottawa? If this province really wants to assume some responsibility on behalf of its subjects, including the Indian people — whom I consider no different; just because they came here a little earlier than I did — what is the minister doing as the advocate? Is he banging down those doors, screaming that the feds accept their responsibility in British Columbia? Is he asking the federal government to get rid of that billion dollar boondoggle called the Department of Indian Affairs that does absolutely nothing for the Indian people of Canada? What have you done to get the federal people to the table with the Indian people of the province of British Columbia? I think that's the question.

Suddenly last weekend we saw that the Premier found the Indian people again. He found them before the last election. He used them prior to the last election. He hasn't done a whole lot for and with them since. And suddenly, perhaps — perhaps not, but perhaps — because there's an election around the corner, he has suddenly found the Indian people again.

[ Page 8036 ]

MR. SERWA: Nonsense.

MR. KEMPF: I will tell you a little bit about nonsense, I heard the discussion with respect to the Ingenika people, and I listened to the snide remarks shot across the floor by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) when the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) was speaking, poking fun at the fact that the government jet....

HON. MR. PARKER: I've done more by accident than you've ever done on purpose.

MR. KEMPF: The Minister of Forests will have his chance. If he wants to speak on Indian affairs, let him get on his feet and do it, not throw snide remarks across the floor. I'd ask, Mr. Chairman, that you bring him to order.

There is a lot that minister doesn't know about the people of Fort Ware and Ingenika. One thing he doesn't know is that those people make up some of the best fire crews that have ever been hired by the B.C. Forest Service. Do you know how I know that? Because my son heads those crews. Not only that, my son has a little of that Indian blood running in his veins, so he understands the Indian people. We have lengthy discussions about the Indian people of Fort Ware and Ingenika. There Is a lot that Minister of Forests doesn't know about Indian people.

He would do well to listen to this debate, but he does the same as he does in every other debate. He chooses to talk when he should be listening.

HON. MR. PARKER: To what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There are only a few members in the House. Perhaps the Minister of Forests could save his comments....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The minister makes a lot of what the government Is doing for the Indian people. I take a look at the dollar figures in the minister's estimates, and I see that in this fiscal year $2,088,068 is budgeted for what they call Native Affairs. Included in that just slightly over $2 million is $300,000 a year for the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation and— if I heard the figures correctly — some $350,000 for the First Citizens' Fund. What does that leave? I will tell you what it leaves: less than that same minister has budgeted for his two political offices in the regions, because the budget for those is $1,421,384. So much for the government's consideration of the Indian people of British Columbia. It's lip-service — great stuff at election time, but what does it do for the Indian people of British Columbia? Big Brother government is using them once again for its political ends.

[7:15]

I don't think it's all bad, but to have Native Affairs attached as an appendage to the superministry of the state of Nechako and Northeast certainly doesn't convince me that this government has a great deal of concern for Indian people. This minister can go on and on about all of the things. I am going to ask him during these estimates what things you are doing particularly for the Indian people in my constituency. What have you done for the Indian bands in my constituency? What Indian bands have you done things for, and what things have you done for them?

We'll get to those questions. But when I hear the minister say that suddenly this province has such a great deal of concern for the Indian people of British Columbia, when they spend less in their budget for those people than they do for two political offices in the so-called state of Nechako and Northeast, I begin to wonder, Mr. Chairman — an appendage on a superministry. That's all it is: lip-service; attempting to convince the people of British Columbia that this government is suddenly going to do something for the Indian people of this province. And all I've heard you say in speaking of them this evening is that they're different; they've got an alcohol and drug problem. It's no different than the alcohol and drug problem among whites in this province. I know. I have communities with the problem among both sides. But the problem has been that politicians for so many years, not only in this province but all across this land, have used those people, not wished to help them. Again, I say, I know a little about them. I dealt with them personally for a number of years — hiring them to work for me. I know a little about the Indian people of the north and north central part of this province. And I don't think they're any different down here, no different at all.

So, Mr. Chairman, when the minister gets up and says he's doing so much for those Indian people, my question to him and his government is: are they really prepared to take on the responsibility of all of the people of British Columbia, and if they are — if that's not just smoke and mirrors — then why aren't they in Ottawa, saying that they aren't going to send any more money east to be used to promote the bureaucracy...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must inform the member that under standing orders the time has elapsed.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got a great deal more to say, and I'll have lots of time to say it.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: As far as going to Ottawa and screaming and shouting, I'll leave that to those who are better equipped for the job.

I want to tell the House that we talked to the federal government; we talked to the minister responsible for Indian Affairs. We had a series of meetings within the last few weeks in Victoria — myself, the Premier and several ministers — with Mr. Cadieux. We didn't scream at him. We didn't shout at him. We

[ Page 8037 ]

sat down and talked to him; covered any range of issues that are important to the Indian people in British Columbia. I think that probably was every bit as effective as screaming, shouting or knocking the door down, if you like.

Certainly, as I've not been an advocate of several things, I don't have any intention of being an advocate or a protector of the Department of Indian Affairs. Their history is one that I suppose we all have an opinion on. It's not something that I think behooves me to stand in this House and criticize. It's a ministry of the government of Canada. I think there are other ways that the government might deal with the kinds of mandate that that ministry has, but that's an issue that you might take up with people that you'd like to discuss it with.

The member takes offence at the word "native." I find that surprising, to say the least, particularly when I deal with groups like the United Native Nations; talk to people in the Native Brotherhood; have meetings with the Professional Native Women's Association. You should tell them, Mr. Member, that they're using the wrong name; that they might want to go out and get some stationery and change their name. But I don't think that's Important. I don't think that's the issue. I think we're picking around the edges of things.

I'm also not certain that native people around the province would agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts about whether or not Indian people are different — and that's your word, not mine. You're the one who suggests they are either different or aren't different, should be treated differently or shouldn't. But I would suggest that while you're sitting there — perhaps not this evening but sometime when you have some time — you talk to the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa), who sat on our native language heritage and culture advisory board with native elders and native leaders and spent months talking about the special kinds of things that native people have. Tell those folks that you don't want to treat them differently. I suspect that will not be particularly good news in Omineca or anywhere else in the province of British Columbia.

The member accuses me of having some problem with hearing. It must be the acoustics in the room, I think, because obviously we're having trouble hearing each other on both sides.

First of all, to talk about this budget: it is $6 million, rather than $2 million. But this is not a program delivery ministry; it is an advocacy ministry. As I said to the member for Atlin and the member for Prince George North, the important part of this province's and this government's delivery of services to native people is not what's delivered through this ministry, but what's delivered through line ministries.

Why in the world would you want to have a whole new bureaucracy to provide education to native people when you have a Ministry of Education? Why would you want to put together some kind of a structure to look at justice issues as they relate to native people when you already have an Attorney-General and a Solicitor-General? Why would you want to set up a bureaucracy to deliver a whole new range of programs?

It's interesting, when you think about it, that the member stood up and criticized the Department of Indian Affairs — DIA — as the worst thing that has ever happened to Indian people. Then in the same breath he criticizes this government for not having something similar to provide all of the services that are so badly delivered by Indian Affairs.

I'm new at this, Mr. Member, but the logic does dodge around a bit and get me a bit off-balance. I made notes, and if there are other questions that I missed, I will certainly try to answer them.

MR. GUNO: I am sure that my colleague from Omineca has more to say, but I want to follow up on some of the things the minister just said in response to him. I find that exchange rather interesting, and as an aboriginal person — I don't really like "native" either — I think that one of the things that we have to realize.... The first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) has pointed out on a number of occasions when he speaks on various native issues — or aboriginal issues or whatever — that like the rest of the Canadian mosaic, we have a diversity within our community. If there are holdovers like Native Brotherhood, it is a hangover from the period when we had to accept nomenclatures that were imposed on us. I would like to clarify that. I'm not a native; I'm a Nisga'a.

I can't seem to understand what you mean when you say you are an advocacy ministry, but let's just leave that aside.

I was there when you visited the Nisga'a Tribal Council, and they put up a very nice luncheon for you with very fine speeches, and they listened to you politely. I was there after you left and listened to the discussions. I think you may sometimes take that kind of polite, civilized reception as some kind of approval of what you are doing. I am sorry to inform you that is not the case. In fact, most of the people you visit give you that kind of reception, because part of our culture is to treat a person of your position with that kind of reception.

Make no mistake, Mr. Minister, that the most fundamental issue the aboriginal people in British Columbia have, and the one objective that they are not going to deviate from is the settlement of aboriginal title. They are pragmatic too. The Nisga'a Tribal Council, which I belong to and who are my constituents, have approached the provincial government because we have some real economic problems in the Nass Valley. The fact of the matter is that the forest resources have been systematically decimated. Thirty to 50 trucks are rolling out of the valley. We have to contend with roads that are absolutely horrendous. We have to contend with the fact that at various periods of the year we have something like 80 to 90 percent unemployment.

[7:30]

1 wanted to quote a statistic to you just to demonstrate that fact. These are socioeconomic stats

[ Page 8038 ]

on registered Indians. They are national figures and are based on the 1986 census data. I think it roughly parallels each and every community — native community, aboriginal community, Nisga'a community, wherever you want to put it. It roughly parallels their condition of life. And this applies to registered Indians; we are not even talking about what we call non-status Indians. You mentioned that I have been away in Vancouver too long. I should tell you that once in a while, just to remind myself about the condition of life of many of our people, I only have to walk down skid row and see the number of our people who are absolutely ruined.

The registered Indians who have completed at least high school are 27.5 percent; non-Indian population, 55.8 percent. The average income for the registered Indians is $9,900, as opposed to $18,200 for the non-Indian population. You can see that it doubles. Employment as a major source of income is only 50 percent for the registered Indians; for the non-Indian population, 71 percent, and that figure is, I think, conservative.

This is the important point. The only economic action going on sometimes is government transfer payments as a major source of income. For the Indian population it is 45.6 percent, as opposed to 19.4 percent for the non-Indian population. Life expectancy — interesting figures — for the male is 64; statistically, as a registered Indian, I only have a few years left. For the female it is a little longer at 72.7. For the non-Indian population, the male is 72.3 and of course the female a little longer, 80.1. And it goes on.

I think the point is made that things are desperate on reserves, and yes, of course they are going to respond to any kind of offer to alleviate that kind of condition. But it does not mean that they are going to forget the one fundamental issue that is important to all of them. And it's not, Mr. Minister, just a matter of economics, politics or constitution. It is a fundamental civil-rights issue. It boils down to having to deal with whether or not we have institutions of property, institutions of government or institutions of spirituality. Your position is to say: "We deny that. You are only part of the fauna or flora. You are just a part of the landscape." I think that is the point that this government continues to miss.

Even if we were to deal with it on a strictly legal and constitutional basis, I think that your position is still a moot point, just to put it in a very mild way. I want to read you a legal and constitutional analysis done by the Continuing Legal Education Society in April 1989. You say that your position is that there is no such thing as aboriginal title and if there were, it has been extinguished by some unilateral action by the colonial government. That is your position.

The courts in Canada, following the Marshall case in the United States, upheld that aboriginal title is vulnerable to extinguishment by this unilateral action of the sovereign. In the Calder case in the Supreme Court, the court split on whether the aboriginal title of the Nisga'a to the lands of the Nass Valley had been extinguished. Three judges ruled that the aboriginal title had been extinguished by actions of the colonial government. Three ruled otherwise; they held that aboriginal title had never been extinguished. And the seventh one ruled on a technicality, the fact that there was no fiat taken out to launch the suit against the B.C. government. So in effect there was a tie. At that time we had a Liberal government that was in a minority position and had a Prime Minister who was a constitutional lawyer, who recognized the fact that this was a very important watershed pronouncement on this very fundamental issue, and completely reversed his previous stance when he dismissed it as a historical might-have-been.

I've just given you a brief overview of the constitutional or legal precedent behind your particular stand. The important thing is that the Calder case was not presented with colonial enactments or executive acts which expressly extinguished Indian title. In other words, there was no document containing a clause that addressed that explicitly. There were a considerable number of enactments and executive acts which argued that they implied extinguishment; there was nothing in there that expressly said this particular order extinguished title.

This analysis goes on to say:

"It appears that the question of what it takes to manifest an intention to extinguish Indian title will be revisited in cases now before the courts of this province. If one were to attempt a prediction" — if we were to try and figure out the possible outcome — "one would wish to pay heed to recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada which prefer the construction of statutes affecting Indians in a manner most favourable to the Indians."

So already there are indications that your position may be on very shaky grounds, Mr. Minister.

I think you ought to review the legal opinions that you're getting from your Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith). He himself said that he had never done any court work; that he was never a barrister; that he did a lot of soliciting. I think he's a very solicitous fellow — including importuning and soliciting.

MR. MILLER: You didn't say where.

MR. GUNO: Not in a public place.

So there are other recent decisions that I want to bring to your attention which hold Indian title to be a personal property right, the implication being that it's not vulnerable to extinguishment by unilateral executive action. And the very foundation of your position is that some unilateral executive action in colonial times has completely extinguished Indian title. The courts have yet to rule on that, and every indication shows that they may rule against that.

My experience as a lawyer is brief, but I know I've settled cases on the courthouse steps. I know not only my strengths but my weaknesses. I know that you may weigh the outcome and just cut your losses. But in this case it's not cutting your losses. just take your head out of the sand and look at the opportunities rather than the negative sides of it.

The Coolican committee was struck by the Conservative government shortly after they took power in 1984 to examine the whole question of their land

[ Page 8039 ]

claims policy. Coolican in his report, which was very favourable towards negotiation rather than continuing litigation, said: "There are really two things that you consider here: (1) there is a clear obligation that exists in law, in the constitution, in politics, in international law and in just this simple moral imperative." That obligation exists not only for the federal but for the provincial government. But on the other side of the coin, he said: "There are also opportunities. It is in the interests of the non-Indian community to recognize that a vibrant Indian community would be beneficial not only to that community but to the surrounding communities."

I think that we often try to portray this whole business as some kind of a dark, sinister land grab in which every property owner's rights will be put in jeopardy. I think that's distorting the basic intent or the aspirations of the native people. If you ask and listen, they use two words: "We want a share and we want to co-exist; but most of all, we want to survive as a people. We are proud of being Nisga'a, Gitksan, Cree. We want to retain that."

I think it's legitimate for aboriginal people to say they are a distinct society or that they constitute a distinct society.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I must advise that under standing orders your time has expired. We may have some intervening business.

Just before we do, the member did refer to a matter that he said was before the courts. The Chair has no way of knowing whether the matter is before the courts, but if a matter is before the courts and that matter is brought to the Chair's attention, then of course it becomes sub judice. I don't believe that he meant it wasn't a subject we could discuss, because it has been canvassed earlier. But I would just give the members that caution.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have my colleague from Atlin continue with his statement. I look forward to that, as I do to the minister's response.

MR. GUNO: My allusion to court cases really was general, and I don't think anything that we discuss here would prejudice any current court cases. But I'll certainly be careful of that.

Just to sum up. In spite of your rather slavish adherence to this position, I think you have to constantly review it in light of recent court cases. If I were in your boots, I would be quite worried. It is a very small shift from litigation to negotiation, or at least preparing for that eventuality.

I just want to address another issue. As the member for Prince George North related, shortly before we up to Ingenika, we had the opportunity to visit the new youth containment centre in Prince George and also the correctional centre. I was impressed with the youth containment centre. It is a very efficient, computerized operation and probably the latest state of the art in terms of penology. But I was shocked at the conditions in the correctional centre. I know this is not on it; I am just leading up to a particular area here. The conditions there are even below the standards set by the United Nations.

Sometimes I have to step back to not get too emotionally involved. What was interesting was the fact, as the member for Prince George North pointed out, that something like 42 percent were of native or aboriginal descent. When you consider that we constitute something like 3 percent or 4 percent — I may be wrong there — of the population, that's an incredible indictment on our whole justice system.

[7:45]

I know that the minister has indicated that part of his role was to work with other ministries to coordinate efforts to alleviate the conditions of life in aboriginal communities. I'm just wondering what he has done to encourage the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General to pay more than lip-service to this tragic phenomenon. The Attorney-General said he was going to look into it. I think he went on a one-day trip to the Chilcotins and talked to a few people. I don't think we can seriously accept that as a serious examination of this problem, and it's a problem that exists in all parts of Canada. I think the Chilcotin happens to be the most dramatic, because we've heard of quite a few cases recently. I want to know if the minister has any comments on the points I've just made.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Well, there was a wide range of issues covered, and I hope that I can respond to all of them or at least most of them. The land claim issue obviously is one that I don't expect native people to forget or to walk away from. That has not been the point of my comments. I don't think you or I expect that the two of us could stand here and debate for half an hour this evening and settle an issue that has been ongoing for 100 years and that has taken a court case lasting years and years. So I accept the fact that this is an important issue to you, and the points you raised are obviously very much the centre of debate around the issue of land claims.

I was disappointed, quite honestly, to learn that my visits in Aiyansh with the Nisga'a people were not well received, because I came away with a feeling that while they were polite, we had made some progress. When the Nisga'a leaders came to Victoria a couple of weeks ago, and we talked about the economic development initiatives that are important to them, I thought we were talking with sincerity about what we were trying to accomplish for the Nisga'a people. I still believe that to be true, despite what you say, because indeed I was graciously received in Aiyansh, the speakers were eloquent and the member was there.

MR. BARNES: Tell us about some of the things you accomplished while you were there.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Well, we did accomplish a few things while we were there.

[ Page 8040 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps both members would address the Chair and only the member standing would speak. Thank you.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: We spoke about an issue at Greenville while we were there: a relocation project which — had the member for Vancouver Centre been present a little earlier he would have learned — resulted in a $400,000 participation by this government toward that diking project. We also talked about some forest issues on which there is some progress, and it resulted in the Nisga'a people coming here to continue those negotiations, and the Nisga'a people meeting, for the first time in their history, the Premier of the province of British Columbia. The newly elected tribal chief made us aware of that situation. We were not aware that the Premier between 1972 and 1975, the leader of the NDP, consistently refused to meet with the Nisga'a people. Those are their words, not our words. It's their sense of history, so if you argue with what I say, you argue with the statements of the political leaders in your community.

We have, as a result of that meeting with the Nisga'a people, established an economic development task force of senior deputies to deal with a very important initiative that the Nisga'a people brought to us. So I'm going to hope that the member's statements were made in debate in the attempt to make a point.

The member mentioned a couple of other issues. The justice system: legitimate, very appropriate and timely comments on problems, ones that again are not the direct responsibility of this ministry, but ones that our ministry has been involved in with the justice ministries to look at things like diversion and alternate sentencing. The government has put $2.5 million into that project this year. There will be a substantial consultation process with native communities. We expect to hold meetings in at least 20 communities around the province to talk to native leaders, Indian leaders, about the kinds of issues they feel are important. We have done some things that, while not overpowering by themselves.... With regard to the Prince George correction centre, We've helped to establish a trap line so that native youngsters who are in confinement actually have an opportunity to go out and spend some time on a trap line learning a skill, as opposed to learning the kinds of things that all young people are unfortunately exposed to in jails and other kinds of institutions.

The member started out by recognizing his pride in his heritage as a Nisga'a. That's the kind of feeling I find when I meet around the province with various tribal councils, chiefs, leaders, groups. There is a strong sense of pride in the native community, and it was reflected in the hearings and deliberations of the advisory board on language, heritage and culture as we traveled around the province and met with various groups. That was one thing that came through loud and clear. I think land claims are a part of this issue and obviously very near and dear to you, but I must say again that there are other issues. We will deal with those other issues conscientiously. We will try our level best to accomplish improvements in the areas of social services, education, justice, economic development — all of those things that you normally look to your provincial government to provide for all people in British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: It's interesting that the minister, in his very short time as the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs, seems to know more than one of our members whose heritage is with the Indian people of British Columbia. That's simply the thing I was talking about before: using a group of people for blatant political purposes. I think that came out very clearly in the minister's opening remarks when he chastised the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), the Leader of the Opposition and others for going to Ingenika, for having the audacity to go to an Indian community — an Indian community that the member for Prince George North serves in her constituency. That's the kind of political use of the Indian people that I was talking about.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Mr. Minister, I happen to know what I'm talking about. I have dealt with the Indian people for many years. Yes, they are a gentle, polite and hospitable people. But they have been used, and this is just a continuation of that. If you are really listening — you said you were listening as an advocate of the Indian people — and if you are really interested.... You don't want to break down doors and you don't want to yell, but you'd better start doing that if you intend to break down the billion dollar bureaucracy that has been set up in Ottawa for 118 years.

That's the basic problem of the Indian people in British Columbia. For far too long, governments have thought that they could look after the Indian people — look after them in a way that would serve them politically. Again, I suggest that is no different than what is happening today in British Columbia. It's got to stop.

I know the minister doesn't want to address the aboriginal title question, but that is a very serious problem too, not just to the Indian people of British Columbia but to all the people of British Columbia. You can talk all you like about economic development in your state of Nechako and Northeast, but until you, your Premier and this province convince the federal government that it is long overdue that they sit down, negotiate and resolve those Indian land claims, you are not going to get any economic development in the north at all. It's got to be done, whether you believe in it or not.

If you listen to all of the people of the northern two-thirds of this province, that's exactly what they are saying. I don't know who you are listening to with respect to the Indian people or with respect to all of the people of British Columbia when it comes to aboriginal title and economic development. Rather than giving lip-service to listening, you had better listen; you had better hear the concern.

[ Page 8041 ]

I think it says it all in your mandate. One of your mandates is "to provide ministerial, interministerial and federal-provincial coordination of service delivery." That is the problem, Mr. Chairman. Everybody wants to provide the Indian people with a service, and they do it for their own political reasons. Give the Indian people of British Columbia an opportunity to do for themselves. The reason they're in the state they are in is that over the years governments have wanted to do something for them, but instead they have done something to them. If you can't realize that, you will never be successful in the position you have.

[8:00]

One more remark. I know there are others who wish to speak on this subject, and I know the time is short because a deal has been made tonight.

If I ever heard an argument for the abolition of the so-called state system in British Columbia, I heard one from that minister tonight. He said: "Why should I do something for the Indian people in education? That's the job of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). Why should I do something for the Indian people in transportation and highways? That's the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant)." Exactly! That's the argument I make in this House day after day after day. Why do we have super ministers? Why do we have another level of government and bureaucracy when we've got line ministers? You made the best argument for the abolition of your own responsibility I ever heard in this House. But don't ever make out in this House that you're listening to the Indian people, and mouth the words you're mouthing, because they give you away, Mr. Minister, in the eyes of people who know.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Starting, I suppose, at the first, and working my way through again, as I can, the comments that were made. The member takes some offence that I would disagree with the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno). I don't think it's a question of disagreeing; I think it's a question of having different perspectives on a similar issue. I respect the member for Atlin and his knowledge, obviously, of a subject that's near and dear to him.

The member for Omineca indicates that his experience and his knowledge of native people comes from dealing with them. As I've traveled around the province, I've met a few of those folks that the member has dealt with. Indeed, they are trusting people, and often they haven't got a very good deal from those they've engaged in business with. And native Indian people do have problems with the Department of Indian Affairs. I've never suggested that it was otherwise.

One of the ways that we have tried to help them deal with those issues is to look at the issue of self-government. The Sechelt people recognized that one of the ways to get out from under the administrative thumb of the Department of Indian Affairs was to enter into self-government. The member for Atlin would also know that we've started negotiations with the Nisga'a people about self-government. We're talking to other Indian bands, other tribal groups, on a very preliminary basis. But one of the alternatives to the thumb of the Department of Indian Affairs — DIA, as it's unpopularly called — is to look at self-government. It is perhaps not the answer to all of the problems, but perhaps it's one more answer to a problem.

Indeed, the acoustics in here haven't improved much, because when I talked about the way the government of this province provides service delivery, it's through line ministries. It's through line ministries to native people. It's through line ministries to people in the development regions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Relax, Mr. Member. There's lots of time. You'll have an opportunity. Relax.

There is a great similarity between the development regions and the function of the minister of state and the function of the Minister Responsible for Native Affairs, because we're both advocates for people for which we have some responsibility. We talk to line ministries. We encourage them to deliver services to people, whether they be in the development regions or whether they be native people.

The member for Omineca speaks about states. He loves to come in here and yell about states. His face gets kind of red, and his eyes get kind of enlarged a bit, and he talks about "states, states, Mr. Member." There are no states in British Columbia; there are eight development regions. There are ministers of state in British Columbia. There are ministers of state in Ottawa. Check the title of your friend Mr. Oberle; he's Minister of State for Forestry. There's a significance to that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The member doesn't like those kinds of reminders, but in fact that's the way it is. There are no states, unless you want to travel south of the border and perhaps check on some investments. But there are eight development regions in the province. And when you travel out to your constituency, you travel into the Nechako development region — quite simple, quite straightforward. And there is a minister of state responsible for that development region. The fact of the matter is that neither in the development region nor to native communities do we undertake to deliver services. We advocate, we identify issues, and we work with other line ministers to improve the delivery of services to the people involved. I don't see any great contradiction in there being a minister of state responsible for two development regions and also responsible for native affairs.

MR. MILLER: I resent in a real way the almost paternalistic view that I hear the minister expressing about the gentle and trusting native people. I think

[ Page 8042 ]

that people are people, and to attempt to characterize races as being particular things is offensive to me, and it might be offensive to anybody no matter which race they come from. It's got nothing to do with it. In fact, my experience is that native people have absolutely no reason to be trusting.

In dealing with this essential issue of one-upmanship, I think there should be a.... Well, there was a sense of one-upmanship, I suppose, in terms of your arranging a meeting for the first time in history with the Premier. I think you recalled that. I think you threw some shots at my colleague from Atlin in terms of where he lived and somehow....

AN HON. MEMBER: He apologized.

MR. MILLER: Oh, he apologized for that. That's good.

But it's not a question of one-upmanship; it's a question of....

MR. CLARK: He didn't apologize. I'm sorry, I thought he did.

MR. MILLER: I'm getting bum information here. Pardon my language, Mr. Chairman, but I'm being distracted from all sides.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the members to give the member for Prince Rupert the courtesy of letting him speak. Please proceed.

MR. MILLER: It's something that we should all have a sense of failure about, whether it's over the statistics recited by my colleague from Atlin in terms of the relative position of native people in our society or the situations in Ingenika that have been described by people on both sides of the House. There should be a sense of failure on all our parts.

I recognize the political expediency of the argument that's thrown back with regard to this government's refusal to become involved with the land claim issue or aboriginal title issue. It's hardly an argument that there was a failure to do it by the administration of 1972-75. I recognize the argument of convenience, but it's hardly a argument for your position. We on this side, in retrospect, don't mind looking back and admitting that not everything we did in three and a half years was perfect — far from it. But there were very honest and sincere attempts to start to come to grips with that issue. You should bear in mind that at that time there was a key change in the federal position, and I think that the Premier of the day, Mr. Barrett, was proceeding along the correct lines. It wasn't a question of waiting endlessly for the federal government to assume that responsibility, because at one time the federal government — as the B.C. government today — refused to recognize the fact of aboriginal title. The then Prime Minister Trudeau did not buy that concept until sometime after 1972.

Just to illustrate in a very limited way the initiatives that were undertaken during those short three and a half years.... I don't do this out of a sense of trying to defend it, but more as an illustration of the possibilities. The Port Simpson cannery has undergone some economic difficulties, and I suspect that it will for some time, but nonetheless, in response to a very large tribal council on the north coast of British Columbia, the provincial government clearly moved and took action in terms of financing that cannery. Similarly, in terms of the Burns Lake Native Development Corporation, the agreements were put together to provide native bands in the region with a percentage ownership of a sawmill in partnership with private enterprise, and the training programs accompanied the agreement.

I think the fundamental decision to proceed on and initiate the cut-off land claims process was initiated during that term of office. You're shaking your head, Mr. Member, but if you check back, you will find that there was a specific person hired by the administration of the day. My memory is quite clear; I happened to be here. There was a specific person hired by the administration of the day, and the recommendation came from that source.

I look with some despair on the position taken by this administration, the head-in-the-sand position, as I watch, for example, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) in every public information session dealing with the TFL rollover policy, which is in tatters and has since been shelved. Nonetheless, the minister couldn't even remember what the line was and had to constantly pick up a piece of paper and read this dry recitation of what the provincial position was. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), who was quoted — and I canvassed that at some length with the minister, although I didn't ask him about that particular quote — was unable to explain the provincial government's position vis-á-vis land claims and said: "Well, it's not really my department; you'll have to ask somebody else."

You know, I was prepared right at the outset of this government's tenure in 1987, when they said they wanted to seek a new, meaningful relationship with native people in this province, to congratulate them on stating that initiative. Then I watched with some dismay the lack of follow-through. You are the third minister in — how long have we been here? — two and a half years who's been responsible for native affairs. I don't know how long your tenure will be. Maybe you'll be a little more successful than some of your predecessors, and maybe you'll do a little more than some of your predecessors. You don't have a long way to go, because they did virtually nothing.

[8:15]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I hope you'll want to enter this debate at the appropriate time and speak about the native people in your region, because they are some of the ones undergoing some of the worst hardships in terms of the policies of this government. You'll have your opportunity later.

[ Page 8043 ]

We witnessed, first of all, the spectacle of the government offering this overture: "We want to do it a little differently." I canvassed that with your predecessors, and as I say, there has been nothing of substance in it.

We have the Premier, who kicked off his '86 campaign by going to visit a native band. I think it was at Kingcome Inlet. He put on a head-dress. The Premier likes to dress up. I suppose as a result of that, native people, despite the showboat atmosphere, might have had some hope that someone was prepared to deal with fundamental issues. At various times we get these statements. Last year I believe it was, "Well, you know, land claims are really the most difficult issue we face in this province," but no admission that they're prepared to deal with it in any substantive way.

Now we get the sorry statement from the Premier, which I can only conclude is a criticism of himself and his government, that Indians are forgotten people. When did he find that out? When he went on a visit, because he operates on such a superficial level.

There are some very real issues. Despite your head-in-the-sand position in terms of your responsibilities, which I do think exist.... I think provincial responsibilities do exist in terms of aboriginal title and being part of a solution to the aboriginal title issue. The courts are increasingly sending that message very loud and clear.

Nonetheless, we have a government that, even if we accepted their rather foolish position, has not a single-part position but a convenient two- or three-part position. It's (a) aboriginal title doesn't exist; and (b) lo and behold, if it does exist, it's not our responsibility. It's covering all the bases, covering your collective.... Well, I won't use the word. It's a nice, safe position, and nothing happens.

You contribute, Mr. Minister. This government developed a policy that would see a significant part of the land base of British Columbia rolled over into tree-farm licences. Tree-farm licences grant a proprietary interest in the resources, at least, to corporations. We know from our experience on Lyell Island — we don't know the extent at this point — that there appears to be an obligation to compensate tree-farm licence-holders when timberlands are withdrawn. When that licence is reduced in size, if not completely, as in this case, there appears to be an obligation on the Crown, which entered into that contract, to compensate the forest companies. That's a proprietary interest in the land. It allows them access to a designated quantity of resources.

At the same time, in some parts of British Columbia — let's just leave aside for the moment the even more fundamental issue of the lack of treaties, where there have been treaties, where clearly the courts and the treaties have said there is an entitlement — you clearly exacerbate the problem by proceeding with a proposal that would turn over.... Now in the case of Treaty 8, in the case of the application of Fletcher Challenge to six million hectares of Crown land.... If I can draw an analogy, I've heard constant criticism on that side of the House in response to the many land claims that exist in this province, almost a derision: "They're going to claim the whole province." In fact, I think I've heard some people over there say that they're going to claim 110 percent of the province.

At the same time as you deride the native people's notion of aboriginal title and filing of claim, you are prepared through your Minister of Forests to turn over six million hectares of Crown land to one single company. In fact, Mr. Minister, when all of the applications for tree-farm licences were collectively applied to a map of British Columbia, it was so bad that the Minister of Forests refused to let the public see that map. That is from a party and a government that derides native people because they're trying to press their legitimate claims.

I heard you express that you're an advocacy minister. Now I'd like to hear what kind of advocacy you have undertaken on behalf of native people relative to this question. It's clear that if that proprietary right exists — and I think that's beyond discussion — and those companies have to be compensated if land is withdrawn, how can we proceed with allocating a proprietary interest in land to a private corporation? I think that would lead to the position that when we attempt to resolve the land question of the treaty eights and assign land within that region, we will be liable to compensate a private forest company before we can do that. So I'd like to know what advocacy the minister undertook on behalf of native people. Surely you must have received briefs and submissions from native bands and tribal councils on that issue. What advocacy, Mr. Minister, did you undertake on behalf of the native people on that question?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I want to enter the debate on the minister's estimates. I'm somewhat concerned with what the member for Prince Rupert is doing. He's doing the same thing that they do on that side of the House all the time: foment dissent and try to stir up things.

The member and some of his colleagues have spent most of their time saying this is bad, this is awful, this government is wrong and this government isn't doing anything. The parallel was rather interesting; he said when the NDP was government in the early seventies, they didn't get much done, but what they did was done in good faith, and they really tried. However, what this government is doing somehow doesn't qualify in the same category. And this government has done a lot more than you've done. All you've done is carp and criticize.

MR. MILLER: Save your energy for the education bill; you're going to need it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We may get back to the education bill when that side comes to its senses.

MR. MILLER: You should rest a bit.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They did, I guess.

[ Page 8044 ]

The question of what has been done: certainly not enough, and it's easy to be a critic. It's always easy to show that not enough has been accomplished.

But I can tell you that the minister in charge of native affairs and his predecessor have all tried to do something, and they haven't stopped because they couldn't do everything. They have made an attempt, and I think the member said something about the natives in our area being the most abused by this government. Those are the kinds of things he likes to get on the record with no substantiation — nothing of that nature.

What has he done for his natives other than say to them: "I am going to be a good friend of yours. I'm going to go and attack the Socreds." That's all you've done. Tell me something positive you've done for them.

In my constituency I have helped to get grants for their friendship centres; I have helped them with land deals; I have helped them with grants for travel; I have worked with them. Even before I got into politics, I worked as a principal in a junior secondary school when some of the reserve schools were being closed down.

MR. MILLER: Your natives? Really. My natives?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. member to wait his turn.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I said the natives in my area. Yes, I've worked with these people for many years, and I've done what I could to help. I could not get everyone through school, but I was able to get some through school.

Now what have you done, other than criticize and carp about it? What have you done?

MR. MILLER: Paternalism.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's not paternalism when you get somebody to stand on their own feet and get through school because you give them a helping hand. That's paternalism? Well, if that's paternalism, I'll plead guilty.

I've traveled the northern area as well, trying to do something. I didn't get much satisfaction in coming to Victoria and saying it's awful, and nothing can be done; everybody's evil. At least let's do something, instead of criticize.

So a great deal has been done, as I think that member is probably aware. We have tried to meet them on equal terms at a native advisory council to discuss education, because we don't have all the answers. You have all the answers, because it's easy to have the answers when you're a critic. It's easy to be a critic. It's a little tougher to solve the problem.

So we are trying, and we're not there yet. But if we're going to have native languages taught in the school, which I think is a legitimate request, then we need to work with the people who can speak the language, in order to get them into the schools. Five will get you ten that when my bill comes up, you people will oppose the right for school districts to hire somebody to assist teachers when it could help this very cause. But you'll oppose it, because philosophically you don't understand it. We have been working with them. I can tell you that that minister has worked very cooperatively in any attempt that we have tried — in education and with myself as MLA. Then you get here into the House and all you hear from these people, who claim to be the friends of the natives, is them trying to stir up dissent. What useful purpose will that serve?

I think it would be far more productive to work, to set some targets, to try and get some help in place to work with them than to constantly snipe away at what hasn't been done. You bring in any remark and take a remark out of context from somewhere and say that there is something wrong. I don't need to take any of your comments out of context to know where you stand: you stand as a critic totally, completely and fully. I don't even have to take a comment out of context.

I would like to support that minister and the effort he is making to solve some of the problems that the native people are bringing to him. He is trying to elicit the cooperation that is necessary to accomplish something that is going to help the people instead of spending time nattering and criticizing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: What solutions? You never offered one solution to that minister; all you have offered all night is criticism. You offer a solution. You guys feel guilty and do something. That's not a solution; that's an easy way out for you. Try and offer a specific solution. If you can't get to the top of the hill, maybe you can get to the first rung. Do you know what happens when you get to the first step? You can get to the second one, and it's easier to get to the third one, and so on. You never leave the basement if you can't even raise your sights. Try a pat on the back once in a while; it's only 18 inches higher.

[8:30]

MR. MILLER: I guess there is a prior agreement in terms of the order of business. I want to restate my question, because I think it may have got lost. It's unfortunate and somewhat ironic that the Minister of Education did not.... The first lesson I suppose is that you should pay attention. You are the Minister of Education. Mr. Minister, I am afraid you have got a failing grade in terms of paying attention. I suspect you are somewhat defensive and you may have forgotten. Perhaps the minister has forgotten as well. I will simply restate my question.

There was a policy of the government to turn over 67 percent of the land base — probably more really; I don't want to complicate the argument, but a significant portion of the land base — to companies like Fletcher Challenge and MacMillan Bloedel, major multinational corporations, in the same areas where native people have treaties where they clearly have the right to a certain amount of land.

[ Page 8045 ]

I asked the minister what representation — since he says he is an advocate of native people....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, I am following the time-honoured tradition of this House and seeking answers to questions, and you are trying to divert me.

Let the minister get on with his job. I'm sure he is more than capable of answering the questions I have put to him. If he fails that test, maybe we will see a fourth minister of Indian affairs in less than three years.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: One of the lessons I guess we all learn in school is: "Don't come late." If you get here on time, you pick up the debate at the beginning and you have a sense of the conversation that's gone on. That way you don't ask all the same questions that were asked a little earlier in the day.

Some of the comments are interesting. I am not going to debate with the minister from — or the member from...

MR. MILLER: Soon to be.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Soon to be, perhaps — self-styled, perhaps.

...from Prince Rupert; I am not going to debate forest policy with you. You are going to have an opportunity to do that with the Minister of Forests You will have your turn to talk about forest policy. The member comes in and he says: "Don't worry about what we didn't do in 1972. Look at what we did. We didn't do native land claims; we did some great economic development projects." That's what we have been talking about since yesterday — economic development, social issues, justice issues.

MR. MILLER: Answer the question.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I don't understand the criticism, and the member is impatient. He likes to have the floor and then he likes to chatter in between What he has to do, first of all, is ask relevant questions. That's the first ticket in getting an answer: you ask something that's within the mandate of the minister doing his estimates. If you go outside that, then you rarely get answers. And you won't get answers from me on tree-farm licences in British Columbia. You will have to talk to another minister about that.

The member claims that he was here in 1973 when cut-off claims were put....

MR. MILLER: I didn't say 1973.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Oh, '74, '75.

It's interesting that the bill didn't get passed until 1982. It must have got lost somewhere when the folks were moving out.

MR. MILLER: We put it all together and you guys didn't act on it.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Come on, you guys — get serious.

MR. MILLER: Check the records.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You know you didn't pay any attention to cut-off claims.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would like to remind the members to address the Chair, and I would ask the member for Prince Rupert to bide his time. The Chair will be recognizing him if he wishes to stand after the minister has replied. Mr. Minister, would you please continue.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: My point was that the party across the way didn't do anything to settle cut-off land claims, and they should stand up and recognize the good efforts that this government has put into settling cut-off claims. Nor did they do anything for the situation at Ingenika, which was a problem during their term in office. They didn't address the issue at all. They didn't meet with native people.

As I said earlier, when talking with the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), the Nisga'a people were consistently refused an opportunity to talk to the Premier of the day. It wasn't until this year that they had an opportunity to talk to the Premier.

MR. MILLER: Why don't you want to answer the question about tree-farm licences?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I am not going to talk about tree-farm licences. You talk to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). That's not my jurisdiction.

MR. MILLER: You're responsible for Native Affairs.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I am responsible for native issues, and our record with native timber tenures is good.

MR. MILLER: What about the point I raised?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: We have 34 existing tenures with native bands in the province, and I am not going to talk to you about the whole issue of tree-farm licences.

MR. MILLER: Why are you avoiding your responsibility?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: You can chatter away there all you want, but that's not the issue.

So, having covered all of the questions that I heard that were relevant to debate, I would move that the committee now rise, report progress and request leave to sit again.

[ Page 8046 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to make a gaggle of introductions.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: First of all, given the discussion we had earlier today on the question of education, I learned to my astonishment that I had a niece visit the House earlier. Robyn Quackenbush, with her daughters, was in the House this afternoon, and they were entranced with the debate on education. They're in bed now, but I wanted to at least get on the record that Lauren and Tiffany-Anne wrote us all a little card to commemorate our debate with a verse. With your permission, I'd like to read it:

To Uncle Mel.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Parliament is sweat
And so are you.

I thought that was particularly appropriate.

I'd also ask the House to welcome some guests who are in the House at the present time and who enjoyed our fine cuisine in the dining-room. They are my wife Millie, the wife of my ministerial assistant, Mrs. Pat Lory, and her sister Mrs. Lorna Shields, who is visiting from Port Moody.

Also, with the courtesy of the House, I'd like to ask the House to welcome Ms. Vicki Easingwood, general counsel of the B.C. Central Credit Union, who is also with us.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned committee on Bill 51.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 51; Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.

On section 48.

MR. CLARK: Just before I begin, I want to recommend to anybody in the gallery that they might think about other things to do tonight. This is an incredibly boring bill. I see the minister has introduced his wife, and I think it's cruel and unusual punishment. My recommendation to the other members might be likewise.

In spite of the fact that this is an incredibly technical, long and rather boring bill, it is actually very important and in fact pioneering legislation which, as I said at the outset in second reading, we on this side of the House support.

There are, however, three major sections which I outlined in second reading, concerns that I have which I want to spend a little time on, and I think we will try and move through them more expeditiously than we did the other day. Having said that, the first section that I would like to spend a little time on is the section that we are on. Actually it's 48, 49, 50, 51, and even 52 and 53, but essentially it is this first few sections here. This is the section — probably the first interesting section of the bill, by and large — that deals with the ownership of trust and insurance companies.

I am of the view, and I think most people are, that trust companies and insurance companies should be widely held, and I think it's been a philosophy, by and large, of all governments in Canada — and most governments in the western world, actually — that ownership be dispersed and publicly held and widely held and not concentrated and that the kind of financial power that banks, trust companies and the like can hold be vested in individuals or even companies, specifically. So what we have in many jurisdictions — I don't have my notes here, but in many jurisdictions — is a prohibition on ownership of more than 10 percent. In this bill we have a limit of 10 percent unless the minister agrees, essentially, to waive that restriction.

That concerns me a great deal, because I see no reason, essentially, for ministerial discretion in terms of the ownership of these companies. If I might say so, it does give the minister a lot of power. In fairness, he could restrict anybody to 10 percent. But I suggest that the ministerial discretion is there because the minister contemplates exercising it.

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, with those general comments on the interpretation section, section 48, the minister could respond in a general way, and then we can move on to 49 and some of the more detailed questions on the same topic.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: First of all, I would like to put this in context so that the members appreciate the dimensions of the issue we're discussing.

At the moment we have two trust companies in B.C. and eight or nine insurance companies, so it is not a matter of great moment, in the sense that the world isn't going to shake too much over this issue.

The rule in all jurisdictions with recent trust company legislation or even contemplated legislation is the same, to the extent that ministerial or superintendent approval is required for share ownership in excess of 10 percent: Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario and the federal government. The federal government in Quebec is proposing a requirement to have 35 percent of shares widely held for trust companies with over $750 million in capital.

If it appears that all of a sudden we are going to be in the enviable position of having to concentrate our efforts in terms of monitoring this relative handful of firms, then of course the Legislature at the time can deal with that issue.

We should point out, I think, that widely held ownership does not prevent concentration. Banks are widely held, and yet there are only five of them in all of Canada handling the vast majority of banking business. We believe that we are more flexible, in the

[ Page 8047 ]

sense that we permit a share ownership to fluctuate within a 10 percent band; that is, 5 percent either way above or below an approved level.

We don't think that this reduces control; it merely reduces the number of requests for approval. We expect that other jurisdictions, even including the federal government, might well embrace this ethic that we have described as the "flutter rule."

Section 48 approved.

On section 49.

MR. CLARK: I note that a phrase has been coined by the minister, and I am sure it will go down in posterity in Hansard, never to be uttered again.

[8:45]

This section deals with the determination of the base-level ownership. I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that this Is a complicated bill and I don't pretend to know all the details. I know the minister is relying on his staff here likewise.

Perhaps he could just elaborate, if he would, because I hadn't appreciated, to be honest with you, that in fact this was a fluctuation plus or minus 5 percent around 10 percent. It was my reading of the bill that the minister had discretion to allow more than 15 percent. That's what I thought I heard from the minister. If he could explain that, I would appreciate it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I don't know whether we are talking about section 49 here or whether that was a generic question, but the approved level can be set at any figure, Mr. Chairman, the point being that it has a band of plus or minus 5 percent.

MR. CLARK: I don't understand that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We can set it at any level. The existing firms are to be grandfathered. The two trust companies and the eight to nine insurance companies will be grandfathered. The range of 10 is firm. The individual level will be determined by the individual application —capitalization, proposed style of business, that kind of thing — so it becomes a judgment call. We will be adjudicating it as each individual dictates.

MR. CLARK: I understand the first point; I didn't quite understand the second.

Maybe we'll deal with some specifics. I read this clause — and this is MY next question — to be a grandfather clause. I think the minister agreed with that. If it's wrong, he can correct me in a minute when he gets up. As I read it, 49 (1) says the base-level ownership percentage is the same as the substantial interest; in other words, substantial interest, defined as 10 percent, etc., is defined in this case as whatever it is at the date of this bill being passed. Does it follow in this section that the grandfather clause, if the base-level ownership percentage.... Maybe the minister could tell me what the highest number might be of those ten companies. Say the base level percentage is 20 percent. That's a violation of the act, but this clause grandfathers it.

I don't understand the fluctuation of plus or minus 5 percent, and I don't see that in this section. If it's not in this section, the minister could inform me of that and we could move on and get to a different section.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We don't have that specific information as it relates to the existing firms. I should point out to the hon. member that a substantial interest is 10 percent or more. So the determination of the issue will be resolved by assessing the proposals that are brought forward, and they'll be judged on the basis of their merit. Unless you have a hypothetical company that you wanted to present to us with a hypothetical capitalization and a hypothetical business style as laid out in their incorporation material, it's pretty difficult for us to deal with that.

MR. CLARK: I understand what the minister is saying. Obviously each application will be judged on its own merit. I guess what I'm not getting any comfort on — to use the minister's word from time to time — is that the complete discretion is in the hands of the minister, and this goes through the bill. I understand the need for the flexibility that you desire, but it has to be balanced by consumer interest. I went through this discussion before.

My concern is that the minister is saying we have to balance all these things and judge it, and I agree with that. But in certain sections — and this is one of them — there does not appear to be the kind of processes that might be in place to give one guidance as to what the minister might do. In other words, the discretion seems to be somewhat unfettered in this section.

Let me just give you an analogy, and your staff might appreciate this. In the section that we'll be discussing later on, called "related party transactions, " there is the ministerial discretion on related party transactions, but it's vetted through the new self-regulatory mechanism. There is not a similar vetting in this section; it's complete discretion of the minister, as I read it. There is no self-regulatory process; it simply says essentially that the minister shall decide.

The minister has stated in the House that he -through his staff, I guess — will weigh all of the different configurations, and I appreciate that. It's just of concern to me that there are no guidelines, no structure to determine what is or is not likely to be approved by the minister. That's not the case in other sections where there's a ministerial discretion. There are caveats to that and processes in place which would lead one to be more comfortable with the section.

As I read it, this section and the sections which follow give unfettered discretion to the minister to weigh the various options and to decide on whether or not ownership above 10 percent will be allowed. I'm not suggesting that the minister is going to act in

[ Page 8048 ]

a nefarious or an incompetent way, or anything like that. I'm just saying that I'm more comfortable with the other sections, although I still have concerns' because of the processes in place. There doesn't appear to be that in this section. I wonder if the minister agrees.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would remind the House that when we discussed this the other evening, I mentioned that the basic precept of this bill is that ownership is a privilege, not a right, and it is enshrined in the approach here. There has to be somebody making the decision. I would also point out to the House that those decisions are subject to a judicial review if needed, so it's not without some sort of appeal process.

Section 49 approved.

On section 50.

MR. CLARK: I think the next two sections are the last parts here that deal with the ministerial discretion. I notice it says in subsection (4): "...the minister may consent to the acquisition of a substantial interest or increased substantial interest in a trust company..." and shall specify the following. Then in subsection (5) it says at the consent expiry date. I wonder if the minister could explain to me how that is.

Let me just tell you my interpretation. Someone wants to make a purchase of a substantial interest under the definition of a trust company. He or she or the company applies to the minister for approval. The minister says yes, you have 90 days to complete that transaction, upon which time that consent will expire. In other words, someone wants to buy a trust company; he or she applies for consent. That consent is not given unconditionally so that at some point in the future he or she can buy a trust company; it has to be for a specific transaction with a specific time-frame to complete the sale. Is that a fair characterization of it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I guess the brief answer is yes, Mr. Chairman.

Section 50 approved.

On section 51.

MR. CLARK: This section deals with the refusal of consent. As I suggested, someone would apply for consent to take over a substantial interest in a trust or insurance company. I'll read it entirely:

"The minister shall not consent under section 50 if the minister believes on reasonable grounds that the applicant for the consent or any connected party of the applicant is a person who, in the public interest, ought not to be in a position to control or influence a trust company, insurance company or holding company."

Once again, I don't have any problem with the principle of the minister having that power. It is a somewhat awesome power: the minister has complete power to disallow the sale of a substantial interest in a trust or insurance company. I guess the question is the definition of the public interest, which is one that people in my profession — the planning profession — talk about a lot.

I wonder if the minister can tell me whether this is the section he's talking about that someone could challenge in court. Would the minister, for example, refuse consent under this section and give reasons, or could he just do it capriciously and say, "No, under this section I don't think it's in the public interest," and that could be challenged? I'm wondering how it might work.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's quite right. That is something that could be appealed to the courts and would be subject to a judicial review.

Having sat in this House and had the very same member who is now questioning me make the point repeatedly that it is in the public interest to review individuals' backgrounds and business styles, I suspect that philosophically at least you are not really unalterably opposed to the suggestion that I should do exactly what I've been hearing on other days that I should do.

MR. CLARK: No, and I tried to preface my remarks by saying that I don't have any problem with it. I was just curious, really, about the unfettered nature of it and the power it does give the minister. Again, I don't have any problem with it. I just wondered whether there was a procedure in place to review it or whether there were parameters or whether, in fact, the minister can simply say: "I don't think it's in the public interest to have that kind of concentration of ownership."

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As we progress forward, there is a requirement that reasons be in writing.

Section 51 approved.

On section 52.

MR. CLARK: I don't know if this is the section the minister was talking about. Regardless, I think I asked a question earlier, and I wonder if the minister could just clarify the consent expiry date. The minister said I was correct in saying that consent is given conditionally and a for a certain time. What kind of time? Is it possible to give us a sense of what that means? It said earlier: "reasonable grounds." I'm wondering whether it isn't open to some abuse, or whether it would be three to six months or something of that nature.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The thinking is that it would be about three to six months.

Sections 52 to, 59 inclusive approved.

On section 60.

[ Page 8049 ]

MR. CLARK: This deals with business authorizations — this new form. Maybe, if we can, to expedite things, there are a few sections here on that. It sounds to me a reasonable proposition, and I wonder if the minister might, in a general sense, if he has his notes on the business authorization section, briefly review that process for us.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This section provides transitional provisions for financial institutions currently in operation, converting their existing licence, registration or incorporation into appropriate business authorization.

Subsections (1) and (2) require the commission to issue an appropriate business authorization to each existing trust company and insurance company, to replace the registration or licence that they currently hold. This will not change the ability of existing companies to carry on business. No application for a new business authorization is necessary.

Sections 60 to 67 inclusive approved.

On section 68.

MR. CLARK: This is a section on capital base requirements. Just in a general sense, I wonder if the minister could tell me where this comes from. It strikes me as quite low. Later on we'll get into some concerns I have about extra provincial corporations. I notice that they're exempt from certain sections of this. We can deal with that later, I guess. But I have just the general sense that it's low.

Is this borrowed from other jurisdictions or the federal government, or is this new, or do you have some rationale for the capital requirements that strike me as quite low? I might say to the minister that I note that it appears — again this is part of the flexibility — there are low capital requirements with regulatory power to add to them. I guess what I'm saying is that it strikes me that they may be a hair low, and there may be too much emphasis on regulation here.

[9:00]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The $5 million requirement for deposit-taking institutions is the same as presently contained in CDIC and the province of Ontario, I'm advised.

Sections 68 to 80 inclusive approved.

On section 81.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 81., in the proposed section 81(1) by deleting paragraph (d) and substituting the following:

(d) a corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of a bank and is a loan company to which the Loan Companies Act (Canada) applies, or.]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: I would appreciate it if the minister would explain what the purpose of the amendment is.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This amendment clarifies section 81(1)(d), which refers to an extra provincial trust company as described in section 157. That section does not directly refer to extra provincial trust companies, but instead refers to bank-subsidiary loan corporations. Bank loan subsidiaries are in fact extra provincial trust corporations. So it's clearer to describe the subsidiaries directly, rather than using the somewhat oblique reference in the original.

Amendment approved.

Section 81 as amended approved.

Sections 82 to 89 inclusive approved.

On section 90.

MR. CLARK: Sections 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94 seem very good to me; I just wanted to commend the minister. In particular, the tied-selling prohibition, I think, is very important in a deregulated environment, and the disclosure statement. The tied selling I'm quite sure, is new. But is there anything new in the questions on disclosure of identity to customers? It's a principle that I think we might extend in other areas — securities legislation and the like. I know that there are some in the Securities Act, but financial planners and the like would be worthwhile.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I mentioned in earlier evening discussions, we are very actively promoting greater interprovincial harmony, and we do expect that other jurisdictions will be considering very similarly worded legislation. In the sense that there's presently no disclosure requirement, these are new sections.

MR. CLARK: That just reinforces my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to commend the minister. I think these are excellent. And if I might say so, just to extend it, I think financial planners, in the general sense.... Disclosure requirements like that, I think, go a long way towards caveat emptor. At least with their eyes open, people would know that there are a lot of salesmen who purport to be financial planners. This is off the topic. So I commend the minister for these.

And then, Mr. Chairman, we can move to 95.

Sections 90 to 94 inclusive approved.

On section 95.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I have a bit of a problem with 95, and I wonder if the minister could help me. In fact, I'm not sure it's inadvertent. This

[ Page 8050 ]

section is called "confidentiality." Let me give you an example, and perhaps the minister could tell me whether I'm wrong — and I hope I am. I just changed my insurance agent for my house insurance — this is personal — and he said: 'We're going to cancel your insurance; I've got a different one that's cheaper." I agreed to it. He then wrote a letter to my old insurance carrier and said: "Mr. Clark has cancelled his insurance with you and is now carrying insurance with this firm, which I represent." As I read it, that won't be allowed under this section. It sounds trivial, but I have had a problem — believe it or not — with this before, and the insurance agent taking that for me is an extremely useful although minor service. I read this to be a very strict confidentiality requirement where even if the individual agrees, the financial institution, insurance company, or whatever, cannot disclose certain information. Is that an incorrect interpretation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I hesitate to say that the member is incorrect, but I would point out to him section 95(1) (a). The wording in there is: "...communicate any of the information to another person except as necessary in the performance of the financial institution's duty." So in the instance he described, this section would apply.

MR. CLARK: That allays that concern. I know it sounds like a trivial concern, but I think it's important in another sense. Maybe if the minister could read his notes on this question.... It does strike me as overly strict, but I may just be reading it wrong. Is this a new clause again? Is it stricter than previous confidentiality requirements? Again, as I say, even when it's authorized there seems to be some potential problem or some burden on the financial institution not to inform someone about the customer's general insurance coverage. It just seems to me overly restrictive — and I may simply be reading it incorrectly — and I'd like the minister to clarify it if he could.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It is new in the sense that normally confidentiality rules for financial institutions were probably covered by common law as opposed to legislated law. But I trust the member would agree that the absence of such legislative requirements could lead to abuse, particularly given the fact that the four pillars, traditionally having the separated powers, are badly eroded and rapidly disappearing. The impact on the major banks in the country is obvious, and similarly with the impact on those who have traditionally serviced those markets, I suspect. I do believe that this kind of legislation, as I say, will be looked at closely by our fellow provincial jurisdictions across the country.

MR. CLARK: I really have no problem with that, I guess. I thought that the tied selling, for example.... What you're really saying is that it's one company now and they can tell one arm of their company to use that information to advantage. This tries to prohibit that, but it seems to me the other rules — tied selling and the like and disclosure — may well be adequate. Again, I guess to be cautious, there's nothing necessarily wrong with it. If there are some little hitches, as I suggested, that appear to be developing as a result, I hope the minister would see fit to move some minor amendments which might deal with facilitating transactions such as the little personal insurance example I used — if it turns out to be somehow prohibited by this section.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: If this ministry is anything, it is on the balls of its feet. It is able to move expeditiously whenever public interest is negatively affected, and I certainly will make that commitment to continue that diligence in the future.

MR. CLARK: I just would have thought that it was on its toes as opposed to the balls of its feet.

Sections 95 and 96 approved.

On section 97.

MR - CLARK: I'll just deal with part 4, corporate governance. Again, as I said at the outset, this section, corporate governance, gives a greater degree of self-regulation to the industry — at least as I read it. There are more committees — if I recall, an audit committee, a conduct committee and the like. In principle the self-regulation is fine. There are lots of tough regulations and statements which we might get into in a minute, but I just wanted to make my concern known at the outset of this part 4. There may be just a little bit too much reliance on self-regulation as it pertains....

I just caution that because, as I said, the notion of banks, insurance companies and trust companies regulating themselves, albeit with tough legislative sanctions, just concerns me somewhat. I'm a bit concerned that this bill leans too heavily on the self-regulatory model. But having said that, I appreciate and I do agree that there are some very tough sanctions which enforce that self-regulation, and we will get to some of those in a minute.

I just wanted to make the point that there may be just a slight overemphasis on self-regulation.

Sections 97 to 139 inclusive approved.

On section 140.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 140., in the proposed section 140 (l) in each of the paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) by deleting

"written".]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like the minister to explain the purpose of this amendment.

[ Page 8051 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's a redundancy. The word "written" is being deleted here because the section already requires the consent to be in writing. It's an unnecessary redundancy, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment approved.

Section 140 as amended approved.

Section 141 approved.

On section 142.

MR. CLARK: This section is the one that concerns me the most. This is the section on related parties. Just for posterity, Mr. Chairman, "related parties" means essentially lending to yourself. This is a great deal of the cause of some of the collapses — Principal Trust being the main one — where subsidiaries of the trust company are lending money in and among and between themselves. Other jurisdictions prohibit it, with certain exceptions. This bill allows it, with certain exceptions. I think it's a philosophical statement, and I think it's a wrong one.

Again, I must say that there is some protection. I'd like to get into a bit of detail on some of the sections, but I am quite concerned that this related-party section is a bit too weak.

With respect to section 142, perhaps the minister might tell me.... I have a little note that says: "Where did he get this?" I wonder if this definition is from somewhere else, or if this is again novel.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We were interested in the member's concern about this matter, because this wording is very similar to that in Ontario and that being proposed by the federal government. As I mentioned earlier, we are working closely in respect to these matters to get comparability and uniform treatment across the country.

The member seems to have different information than I do, in respect to our proposed legislation being unique. We don't believe it is. This act does prohibit related-party transactions just like other legislation, and it provides exemptions just like other legislation. It also provides significant penalties for contraventions of the provisions, including the ability of the court to require that the full amount of the transaction be repaid and to assess punitive damages in addition to imposing fines and jail terms.

We don't think we're doing anything different or less onerous in any significant way. The transactions must be approved by a committee of the board and must meet criteria which ensure that the transactions are not risky or damaging. The related-party transactions associated with any of the financial institution failures in the past ten years would have been prohibited by this act. Our intent is to allow normal, prudent business practice to continue, but any absence of that prudent business practice would be prohibited.

[9:15]

MR. CLARK: I appreciate we're discussing this general section, but I might say the title of section 146 is "Certain related party transactions permitted." I trust you would at least agree that there is greater discretion in this bill than other bills with respect to related-party transactions. There appears to be greater ease with which one could make related party transactions than in other legislation.

I know the staff of the ministry is probably responding to my remarks, and I certainly appreciate that. But I would still argue quite strongly that the restrictions are not nearly as onerous as in other jurisdictions.

Section 142 approved.

On section 143.

MR. CLARK: I'm sure the minister will at some point respond to that as we go through it.

I just want to make a comment with respect to this one: "Designation of related parties." I was struck again by the discretion that the superintendent has. As I read it, the superintendent — and when you look at the description — has virtual power to designate almost anybody a related party. Again, I understand this tension between flexibility and regulation, and I know that this is designed to give the superintendent flexibility. Perhaps the minister might explain what appears to be the extraordinary discretion on the part of the superintendent with respect to designation of related parties.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am trying to understand the direction here, or at least the intent of the information sought. I gathered from the previous comment that there was some concern that there may be a laxity in applying rules. Now I gather the questioner is implying that it is too strict or severe. It's everyone's right to have a personal opinion, of course, but the inconsistency of the arguments confuses me.

It does seem very important to me that this related-party issue have close scrutiny by the superintendent. It strikes me that it is in the public interest for him to do that. Indeed, I can well imagine the criticism we might receive were there not to be that kind of thorough examination of these matters. Once again, I think it's consistent with the principle underlying the whole bill. We see these registrations as a privilege rather than a right. Therefore we do want to maintain tight control on how business is performed in the province.

MR. CLARK: There is no inconsistency in what I said. Maybe I should just clarify it. Tight control I agree with. This gives discretion to the superintendent; that's different from tight control. This says that the superintendent, at his or her discretion, can essentially determine who a related party is, and it gives that person complete control. He or she may well be very strict; I hope and expect he or she will

[ Page 8052 ]

be. But it doesn't necessarily say that. I guess that's the point I was dealing with.

I appreciate that by necessity it gives a lot of power to the minister and the superintendent to achieve that flexibility. With that power comes a great deal of responsibility, and with respect to the superintendent here, I think it is quite critical. At the time — and the minister has answered the concern about the discretionary aspect — he responded by saying that we are going to have good, tough legislation and that the superintendent has the power. He does, but it doesn't mean that he's going to exercise it.

Section 143 approved.

On section 144.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister would agree with me that these restrictions on self-dealing as a fiduciary are tighter — more rules, more conservative — than the others dealing with related-party transactions. In other words, as I read it, where a trust company is acting as a fiduciary — that is, in trust for someone else — the rules are tougher than those that apply to financial institutions and related parties in general.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, I guess we could agree with the member that it is tougher. It is consistent, though, with the Trustee Act.

Section 144 approved.

On section 145.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper.

[Section 145., in the proposed section 145(4)(a) by deleting "subsection (1)(a) and (b)," and substituting

"subsection (1)(a),".]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: I apologize for this to the minister, but I have to confess that I haven't read this amendment. Could the minister explain it, please? Is it a long one?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The intent is to strike out items under 145(4)(a). Subsection (a) says, outstanding under transactions described in subsection (1)(a) and (b)." This strikes out "and (b)." The reason is that the subject matter of the proposed subsection (4) is a transaction described in proposed subsection (1)(a) not one described in proposed subsection (1)(b). it was merely an incorrect reference caught on proofreading.

Amendment approved.

On section 145 as amended.

MR. CLARK: This section deals with the area that I find a critical one. The operative words here are "fair market value specified in an approval given under section 147," which we'll get to in a minute. Obviously market value is something that is easy to test. If It's an interest rate, it's an interest rate, I would think. But I am somewhat concerned — and we will get to that in the next two clauses — that it's not necessarily quite as neat as that with respect to financial transactions. Perhaps I'll just flag that at this point, and I'll deal with it in the next two sections.

Section 145 as amended approved.

On section 146.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 146., in the proposed section 146 by deleting "section 145(3) or (4)," and substituting

"section 145(3), (4) or (6),".]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister please explain the amendment?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: A reference to subsection 145(6) was inadvertently omitted from this section. Subsections 145(3), (4) and (6) all place overriding limits on related-party transactions which would otherwise be permitted as a result of the exemption in this section. This is an editing amendment which corrects the oversight.

Amendment approved.

On section 146 as amended.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I guess this is the key clause — this one and the next one. In my view, it deals with judgments about risk and fair market value. It seems to me that with higher risk comes higher interest. I think there is cause for some concern about the different inter-party transactions which might take place under this section and the next section.

Just in a general sense of how it works, there is now a conduct review committee which must approve a related-party transaction, and then the minister must approve a related-party transaction. I'm not convinced that the conduct review committee.... In some respects I think it's more difficult for them to deal with it at arm's length. I just have a nagging concern that the bill, while in theory I understand it, allows a certain flexibility on related-party transactions that I don't agree with. I don't agree with it in light of recent history, in particular with respect to problems like those associated with Principal Trust,

First Investors, Associated Investors and the like.

I know the minister said that there may be a fine line between not allowing them except under certain exemptions and in this case allowing them but with

[ Page 8053 ]

these hoops to go through, but my own feeling is that I prefer the approach taken in Ontario to the approach the minister has taken In this respect. I know the minister has tried to say that this is similar. I think that is not the case.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We are dealing with 146, and in 146 this is exactly the same as what's proposed in Ontario and the federal government. I don't think the members concerns are well founded. Transactions exempt under this section include the payment of fees and salaries, provision of services at fair market value, loans to employees and directors within prescribed limits, and transactions sufficiently nominal that review is not warranted — something less than say $100 or something of that order. These are transactions that do not pose any danger to the financial institution, and I repeat that this is similar to Ontario and the federal government.

MR. CLARK: I may be wrong in assuming that this is a key clause that deals with that question. I stand by my remarks with respect to the general premise; I may be wrong on the section. I wonder if the minister could tell me where it says that this deals with essentially nominal fees In this section.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Subsection (d), Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: I certainly agree that subsection (d) deals with nominal amounts, but this is an and... and ... and, or and/or. That's only (d) ; (a), (b) and (c) do not deal with.... Would the minister agree that while (d) deals with nominal amounts, the other three subsections do not, necessarily?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I do realize that the hon member has tremendous credentials and is fully competent in these areas, but I have to point out again that this is no different than what is contained in federal legislation or the Ontario legislation. As I have often said, we are very deeply involved in trying to get portability among provincial jurisdictions' legislation.

I have no difficulty accepting the judgment of those who are generally acknowledged to have the lion's share of the responsibility of managing Canada's financial institutions. If they are comfortable with this arrangement — we are, as I say, attempting to be compatible with our legislative amendments and proposals — I don't agree with the member that there is any risk associated with this that should be of concern.

Section 146 as amended approved.

On section 147.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 147., in the proposed section 147 (l) by deleting "section 145(3) or (4), " and substituting .section 145(3), (4) or (6), ".]

Amendment approved.

Section 147 as amended approved.

On section 148.

MR. CLARK: I had a little trouble with this section. Does it allow the superintendent to override the conduct review committee?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This section provides an exemption to the general ban on related-party transactions for ones that are approved by the superintendent. The superintendent may only approve transactions which are not contrary to the interests of all persons having an interest in the transaction. This ensures that reasonable transactions will not be unnecessarily prohibited, but imposes a relatively difficult test to prevent an excessive number of applications for exemptions.

MR. CLARK: Is the minister agreeing with me that the superintendent can override the conduct review committee? I don't understand. I was of the belief that the conduct review committee must approve related-party transactions.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The superintendent can approve things that the review committee cannot approve.

Section 148 approved on division.

Sections 149 to 151 inclusive approved.

On section 152.

MR. CLARK: These next two sections, 152 and 153, look very good to me, and I wonder if the minister could tell me whether this means that the conduct review committee essentially takes on the liability of directors. Is that how it is?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes. The review committee is made up of directors, and yes, they do take on the responsibilities.

Section 152 approved.

On section 153.

MR. CLARK: This is also an excellent section, which deals essentially with shifting onus, requiring the burden of proof of compliance to be in the financial institution, etc. I think it's very useful.

Sections 153 to 155 inclusive approved.

On section 156.

[ Page 8054 ]

MR. CLARK: We're getting there, members. I see the gallery has the appropriate number of people in it that I would expect for this bill.

With respect to my third major concern, it's about extra provincial corporations. Perhaps in this section I won't make the minister.... It has a whole list of what applies to extra provincial corporations and what doesn't. I looked quickly at a couple of them, and I must say that it seems to me the exemptions for extra provincial corporations under this section — in particular, the capital requirements and the related parties.... Perhaps the minister could explain why one would allow extra provincial corporations into British Columbia, as defined in the act, and yet have them regulated by their home jurisdiction as opposed to this bill, which, as I say, I think is an improvement.

Let me just say one last thing on this section. I looked through it, and I tried to understand it, and I think I understand (1), (2) and (3). Then I got to (4), which deals with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and I don't quite understand why that's here. It doesn't seem to fit. The first one deals with extra provincial corporations, as I read it. The second one deals with out-of-country jurisdiction. The third one deals with some definitions. The fourth one, appears to me, to allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to override any of the previous sections. So perhaps the minister might review his motives with respect to section 156 of the bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Subsection (4) defines whether subsection (1) or subsection (2) shall apply.

On this point, I do remember that the hon member was concerned about the section and made reference to, I believe, Ontario's equals approach. I would point out to the House that the biggest single stumbling-block we presently have in terms of getting uniformity across the country in regulating financial institutions is Ontario's equals approach. in effect, Ontario is saying to the rest of Canada: our rules will determine the basis on which financial transactions are regulated in Canada. Denying other provincial jurisdictions or incorporated firms access to that Ontario market unless they comply with all of Ontario's regulations is a burden that no national financial institution is comfortable with. All of the provinces across the country have this concern about Ontario's equals approach and are determined that one province will not dictate how financial Institutions are regulated in this country. Indeed, that very same approach provides some difficulty for the federal government in attempting to deal with federally chartered companies doing business in Ontario.

We would only use this rule of jurisdiction of incorporation if the legislation and regulatory practice of that jurisdiction are considered inadequate We feel - and all of our provincial colleagues across the country feel the same way - that if we can all acquire a comfort with each other's ability to deliver a regulated product and to assume responsibility for that task, then there will be an enhanced capability for financial institutions to practise extra provincially

Clearly it is a question of every provincial jurisdiction acquiring the expertise to do that job. Indeed, in those jurisdictions that don't feel comfortable with that responsibility, we have had discussions along the lines that they might delegate that responsibility to a jurisdiction that did have the comfort. It is an issue that we are moving on in a coordinated way fairly well and with some degree of unanimity, except for that Ontario equals approach. I might tell the House that I do believe that Ontario is revisiting that principle at the moment, because they understand the difficulty it's creating not only for the federal government but for all their provincial colleagues.

MR. CLARK: I simply cannot resist pointing out to the minister that not ten minutes ago he said that he would rely on the Ontario legislation. He said, in the other area where we have all the great financial institutions in Canada ... a certain section of the bill is exactly the way it is in Ontario, therefore it must be good. When I point out that in this section it is not the Ontario example, he says, "Well, Ontario is doing it wrong." I couldn't resist pointing that out, given that the minister attempted to point out what appeared to be a contradiction in my remarks, Mr. Chairman.

I don't want to harp on the Principal Trust case -far from it - but I would say that I appreciate that once everything's uniform, presumably one can rely on other regulations and other regulators; and it seems to me that one of the problems we've got in British Columbia is relying on Alberta with respect to Principal Trust. I think it has caused us some problems.

I have some concerns with this section, which says that extra provincial corporations may well be exempt from sections of the bill, and home or primary jurisdictions apply. In particular, when I look at subsection (2), which deals with out-of-country corporations, it also includes section 68 (3) and a couple of others; that means, by inference, that extra provincial ones do not.

The two areas that concern me, where it appears that extra provincial corporations are exempt from the act, are the capital reserve levels and certain aspects of the related-party transactions. I understand the desire of the minister and the government to encourage these kinds of transactions in financial institutions in British Columbia. I understand the need for flexibility. I have some concerns that it may have gone too far in this section; in fact, I must say that it appears that way. Although, having said that, let me just say that in a couple of other sections there is a tremendous, powerful ministerial discretion in this regard, which I won't criticize directly, except to say that, while I think the regulations are too loose with respect to extra provincial and out-of-country financial institutions, it does appear that if the minister chose to exercise some of that discretion, that criticism might be blunted.

Sections 156 to 199 inclusive approved.

[ Page 8055 ]

On section 200.

MR. CLARK: We just passed what appeared to me.... I'm sure this is essentially lifted from insurance questions and put into the bill. I don't see any changes in it, or at least no noticeable changes. This section - 200 and the like - is the new Financial Institutions Commission. I just couldn't let it pass without some general comment. I must say that it is a brand-new section, and it may well be worthwhile in dealing with some of the conflicts. I wish the government well in setting up this new and rather innovative proposal. I'm not really competent to pass judgment on the nuances of it, because it is brand-new; it doesn't exist anywhere else that I know of. It seems to me to be a positive move. I'm sure there will be some bugs to work out as the new commission is set up. But in general, having pointed out some concerns, I think this new undertaking seems to be a positive step.

Sections 200 to 235 inclusive approved.

On section 236.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 236., in the proposed section 236

(a) in subsection (1) by deleting "Subject to subsection (2) (g) this section" and substituting "This section", and

(b) in subsection (2) (a) by deleting "246 (2) or (4) or 274;" and substituting "246 (2) or (4), or 276 (d) to (g) ;]

Amendment approved.

Section 236 as amended approved.

On section 237.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 237., in the proposed section 237 (l) (a) by deleting "or 274, and" and substituting ", 274 or 276 (d) to (f), and".]

Amendment approved.

Section 237 as amended approved.

Sections 238 to 240 inclusive approved.

On section 241.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 241., in the proposed section 241 (l) (a) by deleting "246 (2) or (4) or 274, " and substituting "246 (2) or (4), or 274 or 276 (d) to (g), ".]

Amendment approved.

Section 241 as amended approved.

Sections 242 to 250 inclusive approved,

On section 251.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 251., in the proposed section 251 (2)

(a) in paragraph (a) by adding "102, " after "95 (l) or (2), ", and

(b) by deleting paragraph (e) and substituting the following:

(e) being a member of the conduct review committee of a financial institution authorizes, permits or acquiesces in giving an approval under section 147 (2) that the conduct review committee, by section 147 (3) or (4), is prohibited from giving, .]

Amendment approved.

Section 251 as amended approved.

Sections 252 to 272 inclusive approved.

On section 273.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 273., in the proposed section 273 (2) by deleting "are protected or insured" and substituting "is protected or insured".]

Amendment approved.

Section 273 as amended approved.

Sections 274 to 279 inclusive approved.

On section 280.

MR. CLARK: As I understand it, there are a few sections in here that deal with.... CUDIC is gone or is now under the auspices of the new commission. There is now a deposit insurance fund that is run by - for want of another word - the government, a commission, an arm of the government. This is a stabilization authority which is run or governed by the credit unions themselves. Is that a fair characterization, and is it fair to say that the stabilization authority is really a kind of reserve run by the credit unions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We're debating whether the choice of words is appropriate, and we seem to feel that it's close enough.

[9:45]

MR. CLARK: If I could just understand how this works.... A credit union has some problems and has to draw on the fund, but the people who draw on the fund are the stabilization authority, and then they administer. Is that how it works?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I have a number of background points here. The stabilization authority

[ Page 8056 ]

consists of a membership of all the credit unions In the province - not just those with B.C. Central, but all of them. The Financial Institutions Commission would be approving the utilization of the authority. The intention is to initially delegate stabilization of just a few credit unions. As the industry gains experience, and if it demonstrates the ability to do so, the level of delegation may be Increased over time.

Sections 280 to 333 inclusive approved.

On section 334.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing In my name on the order paper.

[section 334., in the proposed section 334 in the proposed amendment to sections 225 (l) and 282 (l) of the Insurance Act, by deleting '"in the definition of .assigned risk plan"'.]

Amendment approved.

Section 334 as amended approved.

Sections 335 to 361 inclusive approved.

On section 362.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister would agree with me in my interpretation that this is a tax increase for those who choose to purchase insurance through an insurance contract located with an insurer outside the province.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. This merely moves the tax from the Insurance Act to the Insurance Premium Tax Act, where it properly belongs.

MR. CLARK: Thank you. When I looked at the Insurance Premium Tax Act, I thought it said 3 percent. I assumed it meant 3 percent on domestic transactions and 5 percent on those who choose to exercise an option, which is not normally done, and that there was some disincentive. That's completely erroneous, Is it? When I looked at the Insurance Premium Tax Act, this added a section which is a higher percentage tax on certain rather unique transactions. I just assumed this meant there was a differential tax between essentially domestic insurers and insurers out of province. If that's not correct ' I don't want to belabour it, but I would certainly like some clarification.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The reference being added to this tax originally was in section 296 of the Insurance Act.

MR. CLARK: And it was 5 percent? The minister is nodding his head. I'm just curious, then, why there would be a differential tax rate between essentially the same transactions. Would the minister or his staff agree with my interpretation that there is a slight disincentive, or a higher tax, on certain transactions as opposed to domestic transactions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's right. The intention is to encourage use of licensed insurers. That's the motivation behind the difference.

Sections 362 to 371 inclusive approved.

On section 372.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 372., in the proposed section 372 in the definition of "savings institution" by deleting paragraph (d) and substituting the following:

(d) a corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of a bank and is a loan company to which the Loan Companies Act (Canada) applies;.]

Amendment approved.

Section 372 as amended approved.

Sections 373 to 396 inclusive approved.

On section 397.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 397., in the proposed section 397 (b) in the proposed amendment to section 10) of the Securities Act by deleting in subparagraph (v) of the definition of "private mutual fund", and substituting '"in paragraph (b) (v) of the definition of "private mutual fund"'.]

Amendment approved.

Section 397 as amended approved.

Sections 398 to 413 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 51, Financial Institutions Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 51, Financial Institutions Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House,

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:52 p.m.