[ Page 10067 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill PR401). Mr. Mercier

Introduction and first reading –– 10067

An Act to Protect Owners of Manufactured Homes, 1990 (Bill M216).

Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 10068

Housing Initiative Fund Act, 1990 (Bill M217). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 10068

An Act to Provide Lower Cost Financing for First-Time Home-Buyers

(Bill M218). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 10068

Oral Questions

Gifts to hospital board members. Mr. Clark –– 10069

Surgery waiting-lists. Mr. Perry 10069

Road blockages by independent truckers. Mr. Serwa –– 10070

Psychiatric program at Nanaimo General Hospital. Ms. Pullinger –– 10071

Residences for the mentally ill. Ms. Smallwood –– 10071

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 32). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 10071

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Third reading

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 39). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 10076

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 20). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 10076

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Brummet)

Mr. Rose –– 10077

Mr. Barnes –– 10078

Ms. A. Hagen –– 10079

Ms. Marzari –– 10081

Mr. Sihota –– 10083

Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 5). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Parker)

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 10085

Mr. Blencoe –– 10086

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 10086

Electorial Districts Act (Bill 3). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Dirks)

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 10086

Mrs. Boone –– 10086

Mr. Blencoe –– 10086

Mr. Vant –– 10087

Mr. Sihota –– 10088

Mr. Chalmers –– 10089

Mr. Rabbitt –– 10090

Ms. Smallwood –– 10090

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 10090

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 10091

Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 10). Second reading.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

Hon. L. Hanson –– 10091

Mr. Blencoe –– 10091

Hon. L. Hanson –– 10091

Sustainable Environment Fund Act (Bill 16). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Reynolds)

Ms. Edwards –– 10091

Ms. Cull –– 10093

Mr. Clark –– 10095

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I and other members of the Legislative Assembly had the pleasure of joining you at lunch today with a very prominent visitor, His Excellency Ernst Andres, Ambassador of Switzerland who is currently visiting Victoria. Accompanying his Excellency is the consul general of Switzerland, Mr. Max Inhelder.

We had some interesting discussions. It is particularly relevant at this time when our national leaders are debating heavy issues surrounding Confederation. It is interesting to meet a representative of a country that has existed for hundreds of years yet includes three separate and distinct cultures and four languages. Maybe if the House will forgive me, I'll point out the importance of maintaining a tax structure that allows rewards, and I understand that Switzerland has a top rate of 40 percent. Would you please help me welcome our distinguished visitors.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is my pleasure today to introduce the consul-general of the Philippines, Ms. Eufronia Recaido, who has visited with His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor this morning and will be having meetings with me and the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). I would like the House to make our special guest very welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: In the galleries today are approximately 30 to 40 owners of manufactured homes in British Columbia. There are too many to introduce by name, but suffice to say that they are here to hear the debates and concerns facing them. They are representing the United Mobile Home Owners' Association of British Columbia and the Active Mobile Home Owners' Association of British Columbia. Would the House please make them all welcome today.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Visiting the precincts this morning and this afternoon and having deliberations in Victoria yesterday, today and tomorrow, are the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, under the chairmanship of Paul Thiele. I wonder if the House would please make them welcome.

MR. ZIRNHELT: In the precincts today is Chief Roger Jimrnie from the Kluskus band west of Quesnel, whose homeland is along the Blackwater area. Accompanying him is a band member, Archie Chantyman, and they are also accompanied by their adviser, Bill Horswill. They are making presentations to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and also to the Conference on Canada's Timber Resources put on by Forestry Canada. Please make them welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: For the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, we have 13 supervisors of administrative services from region A — that's Vancouver, Richmond and Delta — visiting the Legislature today. I would ask you to please make them welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Visiting in the gallery today are Reg and Louise Armstrong of Mill Creek Village in Coquitlam. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

HON. MRS, JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon are two gentlemen who are very much involved in the progressive development taking place in the province, and I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Richard Ott, president of Phillips Barratt Kaiser Engineering Ltd., and John Akerley, who is the vice-president of PBK.

MR. PERRY: I would simply like, on behalf of the opposition, to second the welcome to the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. Although I can't see them, I assume they're behind me. We look forward very much to the results of their deliberations and particularly to periodic publication of their reports.

MS. PULLINGER: Visiting the legislative buildings today are a group of students — a grade 11 social studies class from Ladysmith Secondary School — their teacher, Mr. Annis, and several other adults. On behalf of the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) and myself, I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We also have two other guests with us this afternoon representing the Vancouver Stock Exchange. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Dave Laundy and Martha Silver.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr. Mercier presented a bill a bill intituled Vancouver Stock Exchange Amendment Act, 1990.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the Vancouver Stock Exchange has a long history of serving the capital markets of British Columbia, the west and North America. The Vancouver Stock Exchange has devoted considerable time and effort on self-regulatory matters to enhance the performance of its members and improve its service to the investing public.

These efforts are all the more important as the VSE strives to fill a significant role in the capital markets of the world. Substantially all the people involved in the conduct of the business of the VSE share this global view, and of recent years have dedicated themselves to the operational and regulatory changes necessary to fulfil those high aspirations.

This bill is presented to enable the stock exchange to, among other things, ensure that the exchange has

[ Page 10068 ]

jurisdiction to investigate and discipline persons who have allegedly committed infractions of exchange bylaws and rules, but who have since left the industry and ceased to be registered, to standardize the wording of the act in this regard and to empower the exchange to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents for regulatory purposes.

This bill will enable the enforcement of disciplinary measures of the stock exchange over their members for the greater protection of the public, and will improve the self-regulation and self-discipline procedures for application to those who would operate outside the regulations.

In closing, it should be noted that the government recognizes the Vancouver Stock Exchange status, operating under its private act, the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act of 1907, and consents to this application.

Bill PR401 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services.

AN ACT TO PROTECT OWNERS
OF MANUFACTURED HOMES, 1990

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled An Act to Protect Owners of Manufactured Homes, 1990.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this bill adds to the extensive legislative package that we are putting before this Legislature to deal with the housing crisis in the province. The purpose of this bill is to address the dominant concerns expressed by representatives of 155,000 British Columbians who live in manufactured homes in their representations to the Mobile Home Task Force. The key issues were excessive rent increases and fear of eviction.

This bill does three things. It provides that actual park owner operating costs may be passed through to the residents of the park in the form of fair rent increases; it provides that the costs of any park improvements and major repairs may be passed through to the residents, with payments amortized over five years and divided equally among all the homeowners in the park; and it provides safeguards for manufactured-home owners when the park is proposed for redevelopment.

All municipal or regional district approvals must be obtained before eviction notices can be issued. The notice period is extended from six months to one year, and the developer must pay reasonable moving expenses up to $10,000 per pad, plus $100 for each month of residency, up to $3,000, in compensation for the stress and inconvenience of moving.

Bill M216 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HOUSING INITIATIVES FUND ACT, 1990

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled Housing Initiatives Fund Act, 1990.

MR. BLENCOE: Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill adds to our legislative package of setting the agenda for housing in the province. The purpose of this bill is to establish a $5 million housing initiative fund. This fund is to be used for approved pilot projects that explore new avenues for dealing with the housing needs of British Columbians.

Under this bill, developers and community groups would need to demonstrate that they are putting in resources of their own. The fund is flexible enough to allow a range of things to be done. Some of the proposals that might be submitted are alternative methods of cooperative home ownership, to improve on the present federal program, and alternative methods of delivering affordable individual home ownership.

Habitat for Humanity has been building homes on the United States eastern seaboard for several years. A Victoria chapter is now organizing the same kind of program. This fund could be used to contribute on project-by-project experiment site proposals. Habitat minimizes capital costs by using as much volunteer labour and donated materials as possible. Interest-free financing comes from church or community groups, and mortgage payments are plowed back into building more homes.

[2:15]

There are ways of dealing with homelessness in our society in which the homeless, community groups, the private sector and government can work in partnership.

Bill M217 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE LOWER COST
FINANCING FOR FIRST-TIME HOME-BUYERS

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled An Act to Provide Lower Cost Financing for First-Time Homebuyers.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide substantial lower-than-market second mortgages — up to $40,000 — for first-time home buyers of modestly priced homes. The interest rate would be linked to the rate at which the provincial government was able to borrow money— currently at 11.75 to 12.5 percent. Modestly priced homes are defined as 10 percent below the average selling price of homes listed with a multiple listing service for the region and sold in the previous six months. The local financial institution would process the whole transaction for the homebuyer and minimize the impact on the taxpayer.

I am concerned by the enormous levels of debt that young people are required to carry in an increas-

[ Page 10069 ]

ingly service-oriented economy to get into a home of their own. Skyrocketing interest rates mean that what is prudent and possibly affordable today may not be affordable at renewal time. For these reasons, it would be a condition of the second-mortgage financing that the lending institution would agree to participate in the provincial debtor assistance program if the lender got into difficulties.

It is not enough just to get young people into homes of their own. We must do our best to help them stay there. We are going to be tabling more legislation to help young British Columbians get into their first home.

Bill M218 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

GIFTS TO HOSPITAL BOARD MEMBERS

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Health. Could the minister advise the House what the policy is with respect to government-appointed hospital board members accepting gifts and/or services from suppliers of hospital equipment?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, those kinds of policies are normally dealt with by the individual hospital boards, but I would suggest it would be inappropriate for members of boards to accept gifts if they're conditional upon any purchase relationships.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In 1986, in relation to a major purchase, two board members of the Greater Victoria Hospital Society, Frances Gooday and Susan Brice, together with three VGH staff members, accepted a one-week, all-expenses-paid trip to Germany from Siemens Electric. Does the minister think that this is appropriate for board members?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, we have had many questions and criticisms in this House concerning the actions of boards. The members opposite don't understand that boards are autonomous. They do account to the public for their actions.

I'm aware of the circumstance the member is referring to. This decision was made public some time ago, shortly after the decision to visit the Siemens' operation. It was made long after a contract was entered into by the company. So, Mr. Speaker, that answers the question in terms of that issue.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary. The minister said the boards are autonomous. The boards are appointed by the provincial government. This is public money we're dealing with for the purchase of equipment for hospitals paid for by the provincial taxpayers.

The minister knows that subsequent to this trip, major purchases were made from Siemens Electric, including an MRI unit at the Victoria hospital — $3.2 million for one piece of equipment.

Can the minister assure the House that all tendering procedures took place; that an independent advisory committee recommended the purchase of Siemens' equipment, rather than what appears to be the case; that Siemens Electric bought and paid for their purchases from the provincial government in ways other than the normal tendering procedure?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, the other side is wont to mix up issues. The issue that I was referring to, in terms of the Siemens' purchase, was substantially different than any other MRI equipment. The MRI equipment was purchased by the province— 100 percent funding. It has nothing to do with the hospital board. It's regional referral equipment, which means that it is treated as such in terms of funding. The other aspects of the Siemens contracts were entered into much before the trip the member's referring to.

SURGERY WAITING-LISTS

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health. The minister has previously assured the public that everything possible is being done to deal with long hospital waiting-lists for heart surgery. Yet Vancouver General Hospital has recently cut by 15 percent the number of heart operations it performs. And last week a 53-year-old woman on the waiting-list died after an inordinate wait for urgent surgery. How can the minister reconcile growing waiting-lists and continued nursing-staff shortages with his public reassurances that everything possible is being done to address the problem of heart-surgery waiting-lists in the province?

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the minister.... If the member would choose to review that question when he has a chance to read the Blues, he'd find that the way the question is phrased is well beyond the bounds of normal questions. But the minister may wish to answer.

HON. J. JANSEN: I was going to spend the next 15 minutes talking about the initiatives the government has taken in terms of dealing with waiting-lists. But specifically regarding the open-heart waiting-list, that's an issue that is of concern to us. As a result, as the member is fully aware, we have instituted what is called the provincial registry to manage the waiting list more effectively, and put in place a provincial advisory committee on cardiac care. What this has shown to us is that two surgeons in the province....

MR. HARCOURT: It's getting bigger not smaller.

HON. J. JANSEN: Two surgeons — if the Leader of the Opposition is listening — have almost 50 percent of the wait-listed patients for open-heart surgery in

[ Page 10070 ]

the province of British Columbia. We are putting in place a very aggressive plan of action to deal with this problem.

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN: The Leader of the Opposition is here now — we haven't seen him for quite a while — and maybe he has a question he'd like to ask as well. We are putting in place additional funding to enable 700 additional cases to be dealt with this year; and through the number of initiatives we are taking, we will be addressing this problem very aggressively.

I find most unfortunate the unfortunate circumstance referred to by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey in that the patient was dealt with, and there were some complex medical reasons why her surgery was not successful. I regret that he is using it as an occasion for his politics.

MR. PERRY: Supplementary, please. The facts in that case are remarkably simple. The reason the woman did not receive her surgery in a timely fashion was that the operating-room was closed on a Saturday. Will the minister explain how his integrated list management system worked on that Saturday?

HON. J. JANSEN: I don't intend to get into the details of the case that the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey is referring to, but I can tell you this: when the patient was classified as emergent by the physician responsible, she had care as soon as possible and an operation as soon as possible after that — within 24 hours.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, the medical facts in the case are that by the time the operation was performed, it was too late to help that patient. On April 26 the minister promised to provide me a copy of the Dr. Keon report on the problem of the hospital waiting-list for open-heart surgery. I have reminded him of that promise, and he has failed to provide me with that report. Has the minister now decided to make this report public so that the people of British Columbia can judge for themselves what the reasons are for the failure of the health care system to meet the needs of British Columbians?

HON. J. JANSEN: Again I regret that the member has let his professional competence be overshadowed by his political beliefs and hasn't informed himself about the issue he is referring to, the unfortunate circumstance of the death of Mrs. Sallis.

I have indicated to the member, and I would be pleased to send the member.... Obviously the mailing system isn't very effective. Either that or he doesn't open his mail, because he's around trying to stuff his pockets with government money in terms of the Medical Plan. But in any event, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the minister if he was imputing an improper motive by the member. If you were doing so, would you please withdraw.

HON. J. JANSEN: I certainly was not, Mr. Speaker. That would be the last thing I would want to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, I would ask you to take your place. Is there a point of order that a member wishes to raise?

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I find that remark remarkably offensive. I would challenge the minister to repeat it outside the House and explain what he means by it — immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is also not a point of order, but the minister has advised that he is not imputing an improper motive.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, following your advice, the minister has already said he didn't impute any motive. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition the same question when he hollered "cover-up" across the floor. It's unparliamentary, and I would ask him to withdraw the remark.

MR. LOVICK: He wasn't recognized.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, because he's never here.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Minister of Health to continue.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about the problem that was brought to the attention of the House in terms of open-heart surgery. I had indicated that we are addressing it through the Provincial Advisory Committee on Cardiac Care. As the member is aware, the Roy al Columbian will be coming on stream in October, which will enable 300 additional procedures to be done. We will then be increasing the throughput at the Royal Jubilee Hospital by 100, and later on this year we will increase that by another hundred. We are doing a number of things that would enable us to be more efficient in terms of the wait-list management problem. Mr. Speaker, I hope that he now understands the initiatives the government is taking in this regard.

ROAD BLOCKAGES BY
INDEPENDENT TRUCKERS

MR. SERWA: My question is directed to the Solicitor-General, and it involves the road blockages that have been taking place throughout the province by the independent truckers. Would the minister please advise the House what steps he has taken to ensure that law and order prevail on our public highways and public places?

[ Page 10071 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm going to allow the question, but I'll ask the minister to be brief, because when a member asks a question that would allow the question period to be totally talked out by a minister, it's far too broad a question. Members of the government back bench have been particularly out of order in the business of answering questions that sound like reciting the encyclopedia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would only assure the members that the RCMP are doing what they do best, and that's keeping the highways of British Columbia open and running.

[2:30]

MR. SERWA: A supplementary question. Numerous phone calls from my constituents indicate some question as to the ability of the RCMP to maintain law and order on the highways of the province, in view of the action. I would like the minister's comments on that.

PSYCHIATRIC PROGRAM AT
NANAIMO GENERAL HOSPITAL

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Despite months of negotiations and appeals, the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital has been forced to eliminate its entire out-patient psychiatric program because of continued insufficient funding by this government. How does the minister reconcile these cuts with his ministry's supposed commitment to improved, community-based mental health services?

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm not aware of the details of that. It hasn't been communicated by the hospital. I appreciate that the member has some interest in Nanaimo Hospital. This is news to me, and I'll certainly take the question on notice and have a look at it.

RESIDENCES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Is it the minister's policy that mentally ill patients in Surrey are forced to live in rooms above a rough hotel like the Turf?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I can't comment. I don't know what the rooms are like or where the hotel is located. What I can tell you — as the member for Nanaimo just recently talked about — is that we have a mental health plan which has received worldwide attention. The World Health Organization has commended it as a yardstick for other jurisdictions to look at.

Obviously a very important component of that is the housing initiative. I've had an opportunity to visit quite a number of facilities throughout the province and, in Vancouver, and am aware of some of the deficiencies in some of these housing units. That is why we have taken a very strong leadership role in dealing with some of these matters. The mental health plan will be part of that initiative.

MR. D'ARCY: Point of order. I didn't interrupt question period because of the time factor, but during the exchange between the Minister of Health and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Minister of Health used language and phraseology which the member found offensive.

It has been the practice in the House since I have been here that when a member says words or phrases which another member finds offensive, those words are withdrawn. I personally do not find it acceptable to simply have the Minister of Health say: "Oh, I wasn't imputing false motives." If that were the case, any member of this House could get up and say anything, no matter how outrageous, about members opposite and simply sidestep the issue by saying: "I wasn't imputing motives."

Particularly since the remarks which the member found offensive really had nothing to do with the Minister of Health's answer, I would very much feel, as a member of the House, that our interests as a chamber would be served if the minister simply withdrew the remarks which the member for Point Grey found offensive.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Parliamentary practice in this particular House has changed over the years, but it's tradition that where remarks have been made, the test we use is that members should ask themselves whether they would be offended if the same remarks were used about them. Using that as a test and in order to facilitate the ease of what will obviously be a testy afternoon, I would ask the Minister of Health to stand and just withdraw any unparliamentary remark.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's unfortunate that the member took offence to that comment. What I meant was that he was busy drawing payment from MSP, and as a member of the Legislative Assembly maybe he was too busy to avail himself of the facts relating to certain cases.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister for his clarification, but now I must ask the minister to simply withdraw.

HON. J. JANSEN: I withdraw my comments, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[ Page 10072 ]

On section 24.

MR. CLARK: On section 24, 1 was asking why non-deposit-taking trust companies would have a different liquidity test than trust companies that are retail institutions.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The simple answer is that if you are not taking deposits, there's no need for that liquidity ruling. That's why the distinction is made between deposit-taking institutions and non-deposit-taking trust companies.

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the minister. I didn't quite hear your answer because of the buzz that was going on. The other member has asked me to inquire on his behalf. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to repeat the answer, so that I can make a note of it. I'm sorry, I just didn't hear that because of the noise on this side.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I understand it, the question related to why there is a distinction between deposit-taking trust companies and all other trust companies. The distinction is required because you need the liquidity issue addressed only in the case of deposit-taking trust companies.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

MR. CLARK: This is a large section, and it deals with the statutory minimum capital base. I wonder if the minister has at his disposal how many financial institutions currently adhere to the capital-base rules It seems to me that many of them are — or have been — out of compliance. Does this, in fact, make it a stronger test? Is a larger capital base required to conduct business, and will that be rigorously applied?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: At the moment, the issue primarily relates to credit unions. There are about 20 under supervision as a consequence of our concern.

MR. CLARK: That's more to the point. There are roughly 20 credit unions that are under supervision for not having adequate capital reserves, the minister says. That sounds about right. This section of the bill seems to make the capital requirements more onerous than in the past. Therefore, is it likely that more credit unions will be required to come under supervision as a result of the passage of this bill?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It is intended to increase the capital requirements over a period of time — in the order of five to eight years. As the hon. member knows, credit unions are currently doing very well. We are very pleased with the dramatic improvement in the system as a consequence of the current strong economic activity. It probably will take five to eight years to get to where we want to be.

MR. CLARK: I certainly understand the answer, but I don't see it in the bill. In other words, if we're passing a bill, I don't see a phase-in period and all that.

The problem I have is that we have certain capital requirements now, which in some cases haven't been adhered to. The government has now put them under supervision. To strengthen those capital requirements, however desirable — to put them in legislation — surely they have to be enforced. Of course, this has been part of the problem in the western provinces, In North America, over the last little while. Recession, political pressure and the problems of actually enforcing legislation at the time the violation happens are very difficult questions for politicians to deal with and have caused some problems.

We are bringing in legislation to strengthen the capital requirements, which I certainly agree with. But I have some concern that they won't be met, and that seems to be the problem. If we don't enforce these regulations rigorously.... A phase-in period is fine; I don't have any problem with that. But at some point— and there should be some allusion to that in the bill or somewhere — there is a period when "we hope to get to where we want to be," to use the minister's terms. And at that point the rules are applied rigorously and aggressively so we don't run into problems of inadequate capital reserves.

My great concern about strengthening the capital requirements is that we're not there now with the old requirements — here we are strengthening them — and it could lead to some problems down the road. I wonder if the Minister has thought about that. If there is a five- or eight-year period when this would be phased in, how would that be applied in this bill? Is it possible for the government to phase it in? I'm sure it's possible, but I don't see in the bill a phase-in period of five to eight years. Perhaps I haven't read it thoroughly enough.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That level of detail will be provided in the regulations.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could just clarify the prohibition against unauthorized trust business — why we need an amendment to that effect. I recall an amendment to that effect last year.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The language in this one parallels the language in the FIA which establishes a prohibition — who am I speaking to? He asked the question and then disappeared, did he? — against unauthorized deposit business. So it's really an initiative to bring conformity into the wording.

MR. SIHOTA: Our debate leader may have disappeared, but we are still interested in asking some questions of the minister.

[ Page 10073 ]

I am not too sure what would amount to an unauthorized trust business. Can the minister give me an example of what the section contemplates there when it talks about an unauthorized trust business?

[2:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Clearly the government doesn't want to see anyone purport to be a trust company, so they have to be authorized by the appropriate authority. I am not quite sure what the member is trying to get at here.

MR. SIHOTA: You may have answered my question there. I take it what you are saying under this section is that if you want to engage in this activity, you have to be authorized under the statute to be able to do it. If you are authorized, you can proceed. If you are not, then you can't. That's really all you're trying to do then? Fine.

Section 26 approved.

On section 27.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister be kind enough to explain to us what the purpose of this section is?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The old section 75 establishes a prohibition against any person carrying on insurance business unless they are exempted from the prohibition. This will be changed to delete the unnecessary words in paragraph (a), to add an exemption from the prohibition for insurance agents and insurance adjusters carrying on insurance business only in that capacity, to correct an incorrect cross-reference, and to provide an exemption from the prohibition for credit unions and central credit unions carrying on insurance business as permitted under the Credit Union Act.

MR. SIHOTA: So I take it that prior to this section there was an error. Credit unions could engage in insurance business, but for some reason this act prohibited them, and you are just doing some housecleaning. Is that understanding correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Basically that's correct. The member might remember that we grandfathered existing credit unions who had been in that business, so they are allowed to remain in it.

Section 27 passed.

On section 28.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know what a patronage allocation Is, but it creates all sorts of images in my mind. Again, if the minister could be kind enough to explain to the House what the intent of section 28 is....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the words "patronage allocation" excited the interest of the hon. member. It basically refers to mutual insurance holders who receive payments back from the corporation in which they have their insurance under the mutual system. In any event, this section amends previous sections to add that ability basically for mutual insurance clients.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, could the minister quickly indicate to us what the intent of that section is?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This really recasts some of the sections in consistent language. Nothing has changed in this from the original act, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 29 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MR. SIHOTA: Can the minister explain the intention behind section 33?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The old section 93(1) enables the superintendent to prohibit an insurer from using a form of contract or advertisement that is misleading or deceptive. However, the intent of that section was to regulate contracts in advertising used by all financial institutions, not just insurers. This amendment clarifies that the superintendent can prohibit the use of misleading or deceptive forms of contract or advertising by any financial institution.

MR. SIHOTA: That raises two thoughts. The first, I guess, is that if you use the Principal Trust situation as an example -the minister and I are both somewhat familiar with it — would this provision prohibit someone in that kind of activity from falsely suggesting that the contract is in some way covered by the provisions of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The old Investment Contract Act did not contain such a provision.

MR. SIHOTA: So I take it that this provision would fill that gap. Or am I wrong on that?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, all these sections have the effect of improving legislation, and this section is typical of the others. They all deal with changes that were deemed prudent. But I think I have answered the member's question.

MR. SIHOTA: I remember that in the Principal Trust situation, people had brought to our attention — and it was raised subsequently in the House — the fact that people advertise on their doors as if to suggest that all their activities are covered by deposit

[ Page 10074 ]

insurance when only some of them are. Could the minister explain why that scenario was not attended to In this legislation or in this section?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I believe that the issue the member is referring to relates to the inference that Canada deposit insurance is available to the institution. That issue received considerable discussion between ourselves and Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation officials. It is indeed a chronic problem and one that the federal authorities are aware of. We certainly have transmitted that message.

MR. SIHOTA: So you're saying that it's simply a federal matter, and the province believes that it has no jurisdiction to enter into it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to mislead the House here. It's just that my belief is that the member, in talking about the Principal Trust issue, is referring to the question of deceptive advertising on the doors of Principal Group companies, which implied that all the companies domiciled in that office had CDIC coverage when in fact they didn't. On that issue, we have had extensive discussions with the federal government. It is clearly a federal institution and one that they themselves control.

MR. SIHOTA: I think that this is a good provision, because this protection ought to be available and this scrutiny ought to be in place to ensure that financial institutions are monitored and that the information they provide to potential borrowers is not in any way deceptive or misleading. It has been unfortunate that we have had situations in the past in which information has not been particularly clear, and consequently people have entered into agreements with financial institutions with the expectation that a particular state of affairs is in place. Things are fine so long as the company remains solvent, but once it becomes insolvent, these concerns are raised.

Section 33 purports to deal with what I think is a concern out there in the public eye. Hopefully the superintendent — with greater vigour than perhaps has been the case — will consider the form of contract and be a little more vigorous in terms of determining whether contracts violate the provisions of the act. If they are misleading or deceptive, certainly action should be taken. So I think that's a welcome section.

Sections 33 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

MR. CLARK: This provides financial institution directors with any costs, expenses and charges pertaining to their duties.... If they get sued, their defence of that action can be paid for by the financial institution. In the case of a credit union, if some credit union director is sued for whatever reason, the costs associated with that can be paid for by the credit union, provided it's in the course of their duties. Is that correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Provided they've acted honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of the financial institution.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

MR. CLARK: I just wonder If the minister could explain "may require prescribed financial information." It seems to me that that's appropriate. I just wonder if the minister has an explanation as to why it's not "will" require. It seems to me it should be a requirement.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: One of the difficulties is that we don't know in advance what kind of data might be relevant to any particular examination by the superintendent, so clearly it's our intention to be able to capture whatever data might be relevant to any particular issue at the moment. This will do that.

MR. CLARK: This doesn't deal with routine matters; this is an extraordinary matter with respect to some investigation. Is that correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. It could relate to things at the moment unseen, but it could also include regulatory reports prepared by other jurisdictions, that we become aware of.

Section 39 approved.

On section 40.

MR. CLARK: I just wonder what the significance of this is. This just deals with authority delegated from the Financial Institutions Commission to the superintendent. Previously the powers vested in the commission did not give them power to delegate, and this allows that delegation. Is this correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes.

Section 40 approved.

On section 41.

MR. CLARK: I am just curious about this provision which allows credit unions, upon approval with the superintendent, to exceed the limits established by regulation on commercial loans. I don't really have any objection to some kind of flexibility, but it seems to me that if you're going to have regulations established pursuant to rather detailed legislation to protect people, it's odd to allow the superintendent to waive that with respect to credit unions. I wonder if the minister could just give me some comments on that.

[ Page 10075 ]

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Oh, it's a sunset provision. Is it to deal with any loans which may be at variance with the regulations now and to allow them to phase those out? Is that the purpose of it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Basically, Mr. Chairman, we believe that the strict prohibition against making commercial loans, unless approved by the regulator, is paternalistic and inconsistent with the thesis of the regulatory scheme, which is self-management and responsibility. We wanted to have a phase-out period so that the credit union movement could become accustomed to this new situation, so we envisioned a two-year phase-out period. During the two-year period, as credit unions demonstrate their commercial lending skills, they would be released from their requirement individually.

[3:00]

Sections 41 to 45 inclusive approved.

On section 46.

MR. CLARK: An area of interest to me — and one of the few concerns that I have — is the rule that extraprovincial corporations in British Columbia are not governed by legislation in British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could clarify what this attempts to do with respect to regulating extraprovincial corporations, to which it refers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Basically, Mr. Chairman, with this amendment we wanted to make sure that extraprovincial corporations had to comply with all sections of the Financial Institutions Act that have general application. We felt that it was prudent to make that clarification.

MR. CLARK: What does not apply — or is that too difficult a question to answer? For example, do the capital reserve requirements referred to in the act apply to extraprovincial corporations or not?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate that. I guess the Financial Institutions Commission will rely on the home jurisdiction to file the appropriate reports with respect to how they're complying with regulations in that regime. Is that how this bill is enforced?

I appreciate that the minister is striving, as are many others, for harmonization of this kind of legislation across Canada, which will make this a lot easier. But in the absence of that harmonization, is the Financial Institutions Commission apprised of the various rules in different provinces? An extraprovincial corporation with its headquarters in, say, Alberta may have different capital requirements. Would we then be in a position to scrutinize it and penalize, or to deal with any problems that might arise with respect to the different rules that are now cast in British Columbia and elsewhere?

What does not apply to extraprovincial corporations operating in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the memorandum of agreement that we spearheaded between the western provinces imposes a requirement that we must be advised if there are concerns in the home jurisdiction. But our powers are not limited to that. We have the authority to proceed unilaterally against an extraprovincial company if we so choose. With this early-warning mechanism that we have in place, it should be possible for us to monitor very well the operation of extraprovincial companies— certainly much better than prior to the memorandum being negotiated.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate that. Could the minister advise the House who's culpable? In other words, if there's a problem with an extraprovincial corporation operating in British Columbia, is it the province or the home jurisdiction that bears the responsibility for that, given these rules?

It seems to me that if you've been advised of a problem and you take no action in British Columbia.... This is reminiscent of the Principal affair. Does that make the provincial government responsible in any way for any problems that that corporation might have and any suffering that it may cause investors in British Columbia? Given that you do have this memorandum of understanding and you do have notification, it seems to me that that puts the province in the position of being responsible for deciding how to apply our rules to that corporation.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Clearly it's difficult to deal with a hypothetical situation. Presumably, were events to unravel to that extent, it would be the subject of a court case, and the facts at the time would determine the outcome.

May I just point out for the record, and for the hon. member's attention, that this is not typical of the Principal Group. The evidence in that situation is clearly the reverse. It was the province of B.C. that led the requirement to visit that entire situation. I think the record is clear in that respect.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman' we'll have this debate in the estimates; I won't debate it here. Clearly the province also allowed the selling of investment certificates during a time when the province knew that they were not conforming to the legislation of the day. Nothing in this act prevents that from happening again, it seems to me. If the government knows of a fact and chooses not to act on it, the government will then be— as in the Principal Trust affair — held responsible to a certain extent, depending on the facts of the day.

I'm prepared to pass the remaining sections of this bill. Essentially they seem to be consequential amendments.

Sections 46 to 76 inclusive approved.

[ Page 10076 ]

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 32, Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 39.

TAXATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I had some discussion with the minister around the philosophy of the property purchase tax in his estimates, so I won't do that here. I'm prepared to proceed to section 8.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MR. CLARK: I remember discussing the question of railway rights-of-way, I think, with respect to taxation. I wonder if the minister could just explain to me the rolling-stock controversy addressed in these amendments. I'll just give you my assumption, and you can tell me if it's correct. The Social Service Tax Act becomes quite complex when you get into interprovincial jurisdiction. Therefore there must be some formula to work out the percentage of business conducted in British Columbia in order to collect the tax. I just wonder whether that's the case here, and if this has to do with railway rolling-stock which moves interprovincially. This is the formula arrived at and agreed to, I presume, by other provinces with respect to that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes.

Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. CLARK: We're moving kind of quickly, so I thought I'd ask the minister to explain section 14, if he could.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I brought the House down with my in-depth discussion of this at second reading, so I'm surprised that the hon. member wants to repeat it. This amendment corrects an inequity by allowing a refund where a purchaser of contract to improve real property is incorrectly charged tax on the full amount of the contract. Do you remember that fascinating elucidation?

Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 39, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call committee on Bill 20.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

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

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

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

[SECTION 2, in the proposed section 4(l)(z.94)(ii), by deleting "conveyance" and substituting "tangible personal property".]

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK: Whenever there are amendments, I would appreciate it if the minister could inform me of their purpose — seeing as I didn't catch this one in Orders of the Day.

I know the minister is looking for it. If the minister could explain, for the House, the purpose of the amendment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment does appear on the order paper, hon. member.

MR. CLARK: Yes, and I apologize to the House for not reviewing it before. I thought I'd ask the minister to explain why such a small amendment is required. Was something missed in drafting? What is the purpose of the amendment?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This amendment merely establishes that lease payments under a sale leaseback transaction are exempt from tax, provided the applicable tax has been paid. It really qualifies as a housekeeping amendment.

[3:15]

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

[ Page 10077 ]

On section 3.

MR. CLARK: This is a rather unusual little amendment, and I thought I'd ask for clarification. It says that electricity used as a source of energy does not qualify for the exemption from tax given to tangible personal property. I'm just curious as to who was using electricity or energy and trying to declare a tax exemption on it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This arises from a court decision, Mr. Chairman. It really deals with the electrolytic process where an electric current is passed through substances whose composition is changed as a result. A 1985 court action established that electricity used in this manner qualifies for the exemption. We wanted to clarify that.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 20, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

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

Leave granted.

Bill 20, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1990, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 24, Private Post-Secondary Education Act.

MR. PETERSON: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON: It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the House 26 grade 7 students from Credo Christian Elementary School accompanied by their teacher, Mr. John Roukema, and other adults. Would the House please join me in making them very welcome to our precincts.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY
EDUCATION ACT

(continued)

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, it might have slipped the government House Leader's mind, but I think we agreed that the University of Northern British Columbia Act might precede Bill 24 because of its interest. The minister agreed to that. Would that be satisfactory? He has to leave early.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The minister wishes that we do them in this order.

MR. ROSE: I told everybody here something else, that's all.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are we proceeding with second reading of Bill 24?

MR. ROSE: I move debate be adjourned on this particular bill and ask....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Do you want me to adjourn the debate? I get it. You're asking me to proceed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If you want to, you can take your place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is all very unparliamentary.

MR. ROSE: Since you asked, and we're going to insist on going on with this, I suppose I will. I don't know whether this will be the world's greatest speech that I've ever made, but....

It looks to me that what we're concerned about here is a kind of a self-policing mechanism for private-enterprise, entrepreneurial schools. It's a system much more appropriate to our neighbours to the south, who seem to have a much stronger ideological bent for that sort of thing than we have here. This party is not all that pleased with the proposal. Whether or not the businessmen who own these schools.... I imagine, like anything else, they vary from excellent to mediocre to rotten, and some are merely fronts to raise money from unsuspecting immigrants. We have seen examples of the collapse of those schools and things that are not, educationally, particularly sound. We're concerned about this.

We're not dealing here with the College of Physicians, the Law Society or the college of engineers. We're dealing with a group of people who are essentially self-policing businessmen, and we wonder whether or not this is a satisfactory way to organize, legislate and control, if you like, the activities of people who are in the education business for profit. That is a major concern of ours, and I don't think we should try and hide it. Somehow, through some kind of commission- I know this calls for a particular commission nominated. by the industry itself —

[ Page 10078 ]

we've got to make certain that the consumer is protected. We're not satisfied that he is, under this set of circumstances. That bothers us as well.

I don't think it's the Canadian way. If you don't have enough inspectors or enforcement people, then it's possible to get away with murder and not provide the public with the educational services they require and in fact demand.

I had an occasion a few years ago when my daughter attended a craft school with a promise of a job thereafter. I think she made a very nice candle while she was there, after two or three months. The job she was offered was an opportunity to go and sell some of these craft materials to the public if she opened a store. That was really a matter of false pretences. She was a young woman and was quite taken in by this outfit. I don't know if your commission would protect us from what I would regard as fraudulent activities of that nature. That's another concern with us.

What we have to guard against is the kind of deceptive advertising that some of these mills get away with. If it's self-policing owners of diploma mills, then I'm not convinced the self-policing will be particularly effective.

We could get into all kinds of other things. Do we have the commissioner investigate the financial stability of these groups? Are we likely to run into a situation in which people pay fees and then the educational goods are not delivered? There's something else that worries us a bit.

Another thing that bothers us somewhat is something that happened a while back — I think two or three years ago — where the lobbyist for the independent schools became an employee of the Ministry of Education. In other words, the lobbyist for independent schools became the inspector of independent schools. I think there was an innate conflict of interest in that regard. On the other hand I suppose it could be argued: who would know more about them? Therefore he would be a good catch. I don't buy that We're worried about similar things happening.

I suppose this is a question more appropriate for committee stage. We have Trinity Western, for instance — now a university, but a privately endowed one. Would that be investigated as well? Would that come under this umbrella?

We had a private bill here a few years ago. I think the minister might have been on that committee at the time. Trinity Western promised to do a certain number of things if they were able to grant degrees. Further, they came back and said: "We're under the umbrella of Simon Fraser, and we would like to do more than just grant undergraduate degrees. We would like to go into the graduate field." I don't know if anybody ever checked to see if they did those things as they moved along. Would this commission be charged with that responsibility? Would it have the manpower— if you like, the firepower — to do that effectively? We don't know that either.

Those are some of the things that bother us. These people may be self-serving; they may not be. But it seems to me that in all instances where we try to protect the public, we get people in it such as the ombudsman or the auditor-general, who have no interest in it so there's no conflict. They are capable people, but they are appointed from outside, and they are insulated from being influenced by their own special interests. We all have our biases; we're not talking about that at the moment.

Anyway, I feel the government's job is to advocate for students. It's the government's job to protect the public here. It isn't a private commission of some sort appointed from the industry. It's not a licensing body. The government should be an advocate for students, not a licensing body for some sort of educational flimflam that may be foisted on the public.

Those are among the principal concerns. I don't know what kind of outfits we've got. Somebody said there are 400 of them in British Columbia— 473 or something like that. I don't know whether they are diploma mills or what they are or what their fee schedule is. There is all that consumer protection; I think it is important.

Somebody else mentioned that you've got mandatory regulations but you've got voluntary accreditation. That seems to be upside-down as well. We're not very happy about this. What kind of diploma mills are going to be operating? We have no idea as we move into this sort of American-style entrepreneurial education. Are we going to have the Majestic Technical College of Medical Truss Builders? Are we going to have the Hirsute Barber and Hairdressing School, or the Hong Kong Language and Culture Academy, or the Autoharp and Kazoo Conservatory for Advanced Folk Music? We don't know what we're going to get. We could get all kinds of exotic, interesting educational institutions, and there doesn't seem to be any limit to their number.

We want to make sure they are serving an educational purpose, that they are on the up-and-up — not fraudulent — that people get value for their money, and that the educational fare is nutritious and fulfilling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Social Services and Housing seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: On behalf of the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) and myself, it is with great pleasure that I introduce Miss D. Ash, a teacher, and 25 of her students from Durieu Elementary School in Mission. They are grade 6 and 7 students. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleagues who have expressed some concern about the situation respecting the post-secondary private schools and the way they are managed. This proposal will perhaps remove them even further from public responsibility— that is, responsiveness to the people

[ Page 10079 ]

they serve — so there are some questions with respect to this commission that will be set up.

Will it be accountable? Will it be in a conflict-of-interest situation, perhaps? I understand they will be the bearers of the financial responsibilities for monitoring the activities of these private schools.

I haven't had a great deal of personal experience as far as the schools are concerned, but I do recall....

Beg pardon?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You haven't had much experience with the bill either.

MR. BARNES: Well, I've had enough. I listened to the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) speak on the bill about a week or two ago, and he did an excellent job of critiquing the bill. He went into great detail about the number of these schools that exist. I was amazed that there are hundreds. How many is it? Three or four hundred?

[3:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Four hundred and sixty five.

MR. BARNES: Four hundred and sixty-five private institutions. Well, I would certainly shut.... You don't have to shut them down; they close themselves down when business isn't good, and that's the problem.

I haven't had that many experiences with them, but I had an experience with one particular institution last year. Here is a letter that I wrote to the former Minister of Consumer Services at the time. I'm not sure what the Minister actually did, but I think he did call for an investigation. This was January 18, 1988. In fact, it was longer ago than I thought; it was almost a year and a half ago., I said:

"Over the weekend past I received a most disturbing telephone call from a student who has been attending a privately operated training school at 1901, 4330 Kingsway, called Success Unlimited Institute. If the information I received is correct — and the evidence indicates it is — the management at Success Unlimited Institute gave students and staff the day off on Friday, January 15, 1988, presumably to allow time to vacate the premises undetected. A suspicious instructor queried management's motives and subsequent investigation discovered the school was closing."

This is the kind of thing that we certainly don't want to continue. This particular story turned out not too bad, because the minister responded, intervened and had to scramble to find alternative courses so that these students would not lose the funds they had invested, plus get their credits or diplomas to seek employment as they had intended. But the government had to rescue that situation.

I would hope this legislation is going to improve the situation. I would like the minister to explain how that's going to be done, because it's private. It seems as though you're removing it a step further from the government's purview, and this is an example where privatization has to be regulated in the interests of the public or the consumer.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, I hope it works. We know what your intentions are. I'm not suggesting your motive is to weaken the situation, but sometimes inadvertently that's exactly what happens, because this is education for profit. These operators are not necessarily committed to the best interests of the student at all cost. Cost is the bottom line. If they can afford to, they will give them the best they can, but profit is the main motive; that's the purpose of business.

When you get business and education mixed, there are always some concerns about quality and the protection of the consumers of that product. Nonetheless, I would just caution the minister, and I would like to go on record as saying that ideally, when people go for an education, we should be concerned that the first responsibility of whoever is providing the service is that they be accredited, that the quality be there, that the very best instruction possible be made available and that the costs involved be sufficient to ensure a commitment and some guarantee that the program will be provided and will be consistent and that students are not caught unawares by scams and get-rich-quick operators.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will hope that the minister will address in his windup.... Actually, a few more people are going to speak, but as far as I'm concerned, I'll be listening to the minister address in his windup remarks some of the concerns that have been expressed on this side of the House.

MS. A. HAGEN: I am very pleased to enter into this debate on Bill 24 this afternoon about privatizing private training institutes. When I first came to the Legislature and had responsibility for a segment of the Advanced Education minister's responsibilities— namely, job training — I was singularly appalled by the record of this government in the management and regulation of these 450 private training schools, with thousands of students registered in them. The minister notes that there are now 460.

Mr. Speaker, just to put it on the record again, this government has been dealing with the private education institutions with two full-time-equivalent employees— one to anchor an office and the other to have everything to do with the registration and regulation of the schools. And who has been unprotected by this laissez-faire attitude of government? The students of these schools.

Let's make it clear that students who attend private training institutions have their attendance in most instances supported by student loans which pay their fees, fees which are no bargain in their absolute cost and— quite often we found — no bargain either in the training and education that students have received. So the record of this government's dealing with private training institutions in the interests of

[ Page 10080 ]

job training for the students who have attended them or who plan to attend them has been abysmal.

The second thing I want to point out is that there are certain traditions in this country on what we do for profit, and I think there are two areas where most of us believe that government - and through government, those who offer services - should operate largely In a non-profit arena. We should ensure that the services delivered are excellent, that the people who provide the services are well trained and well paid and that those in receipt of the services can therefore be assured that the quality is of a standard that we can all recognize as being in our best interests.

The two fields where I think there is a very strong perspective that government should continue to be very extensively involved are education and health. But indeed, in the field of education for job training, the government has chosen, instead of providing for these services within its institutions — which are mandated by government to colleges and universities and other training mechanisms — to have these services developed in the private sector.

Now we have a bill intended to provide some changes and some protection for the students attending these institutes. It is certainly an improvement on the very bad record of this government to date, but is it an improvement that we should applaud and support?

I have some real concerns about this legislation, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the government is now moving to divest itself entirely of any responsibility for private training institutes. And as I've noted earlier, there are a very large number of them. I believe that British Columbia has the largest number of any province in the country, which again tells us something about this government's commitment and agenda on making affordable education available to students. It is proposing a piece of legislation that only in a limited way provides for the protection of students. It continues to require that schools be registered, and it may in fact provide some slight improvements around the regulation of these schools, but there is no requirement for schools to be accredited. There is no requirement, therefore, for these schools to have standards that are recognized and can be known not only to students but to the public at large.

There is some protection for students around the schools defaulting and their tuition therefore being refundable. It's a very modest improvement when I think of the number of students I have talked to over the last three years who have enrolled in private training institutions and who have had no protection whatsoever.

There are excellent private training institutes. They do a good job for the students they serve. However, the cost of education under private training institutions is high. Many students are paying something in the order of $3,000, $4,000, $5,000, even $6,000 for what we would consider to be a semester— four, five, or six months of training.

These schools are marketed in ways often that present unrealistic expectations to students about what will be available to them after they have finished with that training. Many of the people at these schools are students who are already financially disadvantaged by lack of education, lack of training— students who have a long way to go before they can move into the job market.

What we are dealing with in this legislation is the broad picture of how we are going to providing good training for students in the province and of how we are going to do that in a way that protects the interests of students.

Over a number of estimates in this House this year I have raised with the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology and with the Minister of Social Services and Housing some of the challenges that we have in respect to providing appropriate training for women— women who need upgrading, bridge training and specific skill training. Many of these women are going to be served by these private training institutions because of the government's failure to provide space and opportunity for them within our colleges and BCIT and other public institutions.

In my discussions in other estimates, Mr. Speaker, I have noted that in many instances we need for these students a very special quality of training that takes them from where they are in terms of the life skills that they need, upgrading in some of their academic qualifications and specific skill training. In most Instances these institutes— indeed even our public institutions — and other training opportunities are not adequate for students.

So we are asking these students to use these institutes to borrow very large sums of money under the student loan fund to try to achieve the kind of success that they so desperately want to become a part of the economic mainstream.

[3:45]

In turning these institutes over to a new set of regulations that does not require accreditation and that does not have government involved in the planning and coordination of the services offered in these schools, we are just continuing the abandonment of many students whom we need to provide for much better if they are to be a part of the mainstream of our economy through the educational opportunities available to them.

Although this particular legislation does provide at least some improvements in the protection of students, they are too little, too late— and based on a faulty premise that is related to this government's thrust towards privatization. If we can foist onto individuals the responsibility for paying the full cost of their education, then that is in fact the initiative that this government has taken.

Therefore this legislation moves us backward rather than forward. It creates more problems than it solves. It does not provide the kind of protection that students are going to need for them to be fully aware and fully in tune with what these institutes are able to offer. It is out of the mainstream of our public

[ Page 10081 ]

institutions and therefore provides us with yet more problems around bridging and upgrading and all of those issues.

It puts students who attend these institutes at a disadvantage. In fact their fees may very well go up, because instead of government taking some responsibility for regulation and accreditation, that cost is going to be borne by the private institutes themselves. Those institutes will presumably be raising their fees to cover those costs. Once again the student will pay by not necessarily having an institute whose educational offerings have any kind of scrutiny by those who would be concerned about the standards of teachers, the standards of equipment, the standards of curriculum. There will be some basic regulation, but nothing more is required unless the school decides that it would seek accreditation. This kind of laissez-faire privatization in the field of education is a retrograde step.

It's interesting that this minister is moving in that direction at the same time the Minister of Education, in funding and regulating and dealing with curriculum that's offered in our private K-to-12 schools, is seeking much more accountability, much closer integration with standards that we all accept.

This minister is moving us at odds with that thrust, even within the public system. All too often, Mr. Speaker, we find this government looking to the United States for models that we know have failed, that have not served students. That is what I fear will be the case in respect to this legislation.

It will mean a loss of accountability through government quality control. Without an arm's-length relationship in terms of regulation of these schools, without requirements for their accreditation, without there being some kind of stipulations around fees, these schools can charge the limit.

We, the taxpayers, will subsidize them through student loans. Students will continue to have a less-than-adequate educational opportunity, because government will use these schools as the escape valve for its own failure to provide for educational opportunity within our college, institute and university systems. We will be going backwards, rather than forwards.

It's regrettable that for the first time that we are looking at any kind of genuine regulation of the private institutes, we are looking at moves that I don't believe, in the long term, are going to be in the best interests of very often our most needy and disadvantaged students as they seek to be in the mainstream and get the training that they need for participation in our economy.

I have institutes in my own riding that provide an excellent service for students, and I want to make it clear how much I value that approach. It is an approach that tells us what can be available within the private institutes. Many of these institutes are operated on a non-profit basis. Some of them work with our school district in terms of the programs they offer. They offer programs that are very often bridging and upgrading, as well as specific skill-training programs. But I believe those are still too much the exception rather than the rule. There's too much opportunity here for franchising a whole range of programs that will cost students a great deal of money, that will not guarantee a quality of education, and that allows the government to wash its hands of its responsibility to regulate and accredit these institutions under its own aegis. That's a retrograde step that I very much regret.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, in the "Enabling Learners" document, "Year 2000: A Framework for Learning, " "Options Within the Graduation Program" reads as follows:

"There will be several options within the graduation program from which students may choose. The options will provide choices in the areas of career programs, general liberal arts programs, and programs designed specifically to prepare students for admission to post-graduation studies at other institutions, including universities.

"Because the selection of an option will affect students' plans after graduation, school staff and parents have a vital role to play in assisting students to make wise choices...."

The streams which are recommended include humanities, sciences, fine arts and practical arts. Practical arts include physical education, technology education, business education and home economics. That is the area which I'd like to focus my attention on.

Why am I talking about K-to-12 programs in debate on a bill which has to do with post-graduation? Well; I'll tell you. When the Minister of Education outlined his post-Sullivan plans for the education system, a certain concept arose called the grade 10 leaving certificate.

When my community and my constituency got wind of the grade 10 leaving certificate, and when they saw the documentation which suggested.... An actual funnel was drawn to show intake of students into kindergarten. As they proceeded through the high-school system, their numbers were gradually whittled down, and when one got to grade 10, one could see the graphic dramatically narrow so that the catchment of students who had come in at kindergarten took on the shape of a funnel. By the time students reached grade 12, they were down to a fraction of what they formerly represented in terms of students graduating from our schools.

Why do I connect that with this? Mr. Speaker, at that point in time, two years ago, people in this province — parents, students, administrators — started to understand that there might be a move afoot here to basically start to encourage our high school students to graduate from the practical arts in grade 10 and move to private institutions. There is nothing in this bill before us today to suggest that this scenario is not a real one, that this is not a cog in a larger machine which will basically attempt to privatize practical arts or vocational training from grade 10 onwards, to basically push into the private sector— the unorganized, the unsupervised, the unaccredited and sometimes the unlicensed private

[ Page 10082 ]

sector — our kids, our students, unprotected from the vagaries of private schooling for the practical arts.

Rationalizations, programs and plans at BCIT would suggest that scenario as the vocational training — formerly once a proud part of BCIT — is being pushed out to community colleges that cannot afford to take them in. Community colleges, faced with cutbacks in federal training programs and provincial training dollars, are also faced with having to make hard choices as to whether they're going to become university colleges or continue to upgrade and maintain the quality of their community college programs in the trades and vocations. I'd suggest that this is indeed one piece in the middle of a much larger puzzle which is going to continue the disruption, the downgrading and the devaluing of our whole vocational training system in this province.

My colleague from New Westminster has said the students will pay. Yes, they will. They'll be paying through the nose for private schooling, in what was formerly public schooling, to get vocational training More importantly, Mr. Speaker, it will be society that pays as our young people from the ages of 16 on, who are interested in going into vocational trades, are going to be seeking their training from private schools. Now how are we going to pay? Those students will be approaching those private schools which will, according to this bill, be self-monitoring, self-licensing, self-accrediting and responsible to — whom? — themselves.

We've known that we have had 400 to 450 private schools in this province, and we know that after this bill goes through, there are going to be a great many more. I have some private schools and private businesses in my own constituency that teach computer technology. I think they are reasonably good operations and that they have some credibility. They have good people who have started them and worked at them. My major concern is that these organizations, under this bill, do not have a firm, solid accountability to us the government; and we, in turn, are losing our thread of accountability with parents, communities and students. Ultimately we will pay, as students leave grade 10 to go into a private system for their training, to be turned out into the community into low-paying jobs from institutions whose diplomas and certificates will not be recognized - perhaps not even in our own province, let alone across the country. Their credits will not be transferable into other provinces or into the United States. We are not guaranteeing ourselves a very vibrant future for our trades and for our so-called practical arts.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I have to note again that I would guess that far more than 50 percent of the young students who will be going into these colleges will be women. I must say once again that it will be young women who are put onto a market which will be devalued, in which their work will continue to be devalued and in which their efforts, certificates and diplomas will not carry weight.

[4:00]

How do you rectify it? What do you do when you have a bad situation? You take a look around at what we do with other organizations when it comes to licensing and accrediting. Many professional organizations we deal with daily in this House....

Mr. Speaker, I'm having difficulty here. I have a very good train of thought, and I'm really trying to develop it here. I'm finding it difficult to pursue it when I'm facing backs on the other side of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, members. There appears to be some excessive noise in the House at this point. Please hold it down. Please proceed, hon. member.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, Mr. Minister, I'm trying to develop a train of thought for you so that you can see that there are some positive ways to actually do it.

I do find it difficult when I find myself unheard and invisible in this House. I will proceed with a couple of recommendations. What I like to do in my speeches and my addresses is provide some concrete, positive alternatives, so the routes that you've chosen may not necessarily take us to the depths of the sea.

What might be done? I have spoken to the principal of the school in Nelson and assured him that I think the CIC program is an excellent program and has done an excellent job. However, Nelson did have a university at one point, which was closed down, and that is why we have a private college there now.

What we have to do is invest, not create a council so that private schools become self-monitoring, self-accrediting, self-credentialing and self-licensing. We have to invest in our students' vocational and clerical post-secondary education, whether that comes at the grade 11 level or the grade 13 level, if you will. If we are going to go the private route, we need to ensure that the route is accountable, that it has ceilings on the tuitions to be paid and that we have proper access for all students - male and female - to properly coordinated programs that flow naturally from good, solid programs developed in the K-to-12 system that precede them.

If we are going to insist on going the route of privatization — supposedly to cut back on our own costs in the education system — we must ensure that the public sector and government take as much...

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Listen up here, Mr. Minister.

...concern about what kind of programs are being offered and what criteria must be met for a decent program. I don't see that anywhere in the bill. I don't see this commission being instructed or having the threads of accountability back to government.

Considering that we spend days and weeks in here debating the finest nuances of the professional engineering act, the Dentists Act or the Physiotherapists Act and considering that we spend day after day deliberating over the tiniest pieces to adjust who is eligible to become an engineer or to remain a physio-

[ Page 10083 ]

therapist, does it not seem incumbent upon us in government to ensure that private schools — which are already flourishing, but will continue to grow — have similar public attention paid to their act, to their licences and to how they operate?

Our capacity and competence to date has not been all that great with an office of two taking care of 400 private institutions. I daresay that doubling that to four and having a commission of 15 or 16 is not going to do that much better in the future.

As I said, Mr. Minister, unless you take this more seriously, people in my community and around the province are going to see through this and see it as a piece of privatization which ultimately takes our students into a void. Students who leave in grade 10 or grade 12 will step off the edge of the elevator into a void.

We have a higher responsibility to those students. I think we should start thinking now about how we want to meet the needs they'll have as they graduate, whenever that may be.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to get in on this debate for a few minutes and offer some thoughts.

I see the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) is anxious to leave the chamber and do other things. I noticed he was sitting here earlier on in the minister's chair.

I was going to talk about a training centre in my riding.

But I see the member for Yale-Lillooet has his microphone up and is ready to jump on his usual point of order.

Dealing with this bill, I want to talk about some matters that relate to my riding.

Before I do that, I can't help but wonder what the member for Yale-Lillooet is doing in this House — not engaged in this debate — and whether he's even looking after the concerns of people in his riding. I noticed the other day....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Order! Come on now, this is an education act.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Do you have a point of order?

MR. RABBITT: On a point of order, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is making allegations against me as a member of this assembly which are not fitting and are strictly out of order. I would ask that the Chair call him to order and that we get back to the debate and the business of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to stick to Bill 24, which is before us in the debate.

MR. SIHOTA: In response to that point of order, I see that the.... I'll deal with the bill just to make the members happy.

If he wants to rise on a point of order, I would be very happy to talk about what I was reading the other day about Woodcorp of Duncan coming in and taking some 45,000 cubic metres of wood, I believe it was, out of his seat and sending it to Duncan.

We have in his area the highest level of unemployment in British Columbia, and he has done nothing about addressing....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please speak to Bill 24, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry. If I may continue, I was going to talk about....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, I'm not against the value-added program. I'm just wondering how it was that the chairman of the Social Credit caucus got scooped by the reluctant Social Credit member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who got all these jobs created in his riding. But this member for Yale-Lillooet never looked after the people in his riding, and he's having timber going from his riding to Duncan.

At any event, if I may speak....

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

MR. RABBITT: I regret to have to rise to my feet again, but if the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues with this personal attack, I will continue rising and asking the Speaker to call him to order and make him speak with relevancy to the bill.

It seems whenever this member enters the House, the House lowers in level of debate. I think it's unparliamentary, and I would ask you again to keep this member in order or throw him out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order, I would agree with the member who raised the point of order. I again ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, when he resumes debate, to stay relevant to Bill 24.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to talk about a situation in my riding which has just come up recently, and it in many ways indicates quite clearly what is wrong with the legislation that is before the House. The legislation that is before the House totally vacates the field of any responsibility for looking after the interests of students who enrol in these private institutions.

We saw in the greater Victoria area some time ago concerns that constituents of mine raised with respect to Western Media. One would have thought that the government would have moved in and made sure now that legislative enactments were in place so that students would not be ripped off by unscrupulous so-called educators coming into the community.

Instead, the government, by virtue of this legislation, has chosen to distance itself even further from monitoring the activities of unscrupulous training

[ Page 10084 ]

institutions setting up in communities, taking advantage of students and deciding afterwards not to honour their commitment as an institution to the students.

Let me give the minister a very simple example of something that happened in my riding just this week. There was an institution that set up in Esquimalt called the Easy Way Training School. This institution purported to provide students with all sorts of business training skills: word processing, typing and those basic business skills that many of these institutions purport to provide.

Constituents of mine took several of the courses: a WordPerfect course, which was supposed to be finished in a short period of time; other courses which ranged anywhere between two to ten weeks in duration. One of my constituents actually managed to complete the course about two weeks ago; other constituents of mine enrolled in the courses and never got to the first session; others received instruction for one or two weeks.

All of a sudden, this institution — the Easy Way Training School — decided to close its doors. The constituent of mine who had been promised a certificate to warrant the fact that she had completed one of the courses enrolled in has yet to receive her certificate. She was ripped off by the training centre, which has now vanished, despite, of course, all the usual promises to courier the appropriate certificates to my constituent on a number of occasions.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, I'll get to the Better Business Bureau and the comments to the Better Business Bureau in a few minutes.

I had other constituents who had put in a fair bit of money. I was just talking to one woman this afternoon who had put in about a hundred dollars— which to her is a lot of money — to enrol in a course of instruction. She's an individual of modest means; she doesn't have a lot of money and had saved a hundred dollars to get into a course. She paid her money with the expectation that she was going to get the necessary training that was promised to her, and she was ripped off. The centre took her money, closed down and left.

Another constituent who put in a little bit more — about $150 — had gone through two weeks of training. Again, the same state of affairs: she gets halfway through her course, she's ripped off, and the operators of that enterprise, if I can put it that way, leave.

They all contacted the Better Business Bureau, which indicated that they had received a number of complaints from other students. Because they had little or no power to act in this type of situation, they suggested that the MLA be contacted.

When my office received complaints from constituents, we made inquiries to the ministry and were told that this group was not licensed by the Advanced Education minister to operate and that they had not met the appropriate criterion. Despite that, they continued to operate; despite that, they set up their courses; despite that, they took in money from students; despite that, they ripped students off.

[4:15]

We have a situation here where the Better Business Bureau can't do anything, and then when we turn to the ministry, it says that the marketplace dictates— buyer beware — and that it's up to the student to decide whether or not the program is appropriately accredited, whether or not the institution is solvent and whether or not it can offer the types of programs it represents that it has when it says: "Yes, this is what we provide." This case is so terrible that even the Esquimalt municipality, which, of course, had to issue a business licence to this operation to set up.... They never got paid, as the cheque payable to them for the licence to operate bounced.

I think this is my point. Every student I've talked to in the last few days has said the same thing: there ought to be a law; the government ought to be able to prevent this type of scam from occurring; the government ought to be able to ensure that companies that set up and purport to offer this type of course of instruction are able to deliver on their promise. Well, again that wasn't the case. And more importantly, there was no law in place to make sure that these people either provided the courses of instruction or were booted out of the province. Instead, what they did was just rip off the students, take their money and not provide the course or the certificates.

My constituents asked: "Well, what is this government going to do about it?" If the bureaucrats that I've talked to say "buyer beware," surely the government will recognize that there's a need for legislative action to make sure that this type of ripoff activity doesn't continue; that this type of misrepresentation isn't commonplace in society. We've seen it all too often here in greater Victoria.

When I looked at Bill 24, which is supposed to deal with this kind of situation, I thought: okay, fair enough; these people were injured, taken advantage of, ripped off; finally we should have a system through this legislation to prevent that type of abuse from occurring. Then I looked carefully at the legislation, and it gives blessing to that type of ripoff activity. Rather than saying that we as a society ought to make sure that institutions don't rip off individuals, the government has introduced legislation here that sanctions that type of ripoff activity, and it vacates the field of responsibility of making sure that there is some scrutiny of these organizations, that there is some accreditation, and that there is some meaningful ability on their part to provide the course of instruction that they tell the students they can offer.

Now we're left with a situation where we in British Columbia are the only jurisdiction in Canada that has divested itself of the responsibility for education in this regard, for monitoring and regulating the industries and for making sure there's a standard of delivery and ethical conduct on the part of those operators.

My constituents — because, you know, this ought not to be a partisan debate — are disappointed to see

[ Page 10085 ]

that the provincial government has chosen not to regulate in the field, not to accept their responsibility, not to show some leadership and not to guarantee consumer protection. Instead, this Minister of Advanced Education would rather not engage in debate, and he just talks to other members, walks around and cavorts with his Social Credit colleagues while I'm talking. In that process he shows a lot of disrespect for those constituents on whose behalf I speak. In British Columbia we will have the only government in this nation that is not prepared to regulate.

Now I listen to the Social Credit member for Langley (Mr. Peterson) talk about respect. He supports this bill which vacates the field. What is he going to say to his constituents, like mine, when they show up at the constituency office and say: "Hey look, I've just been ripped off by somebody"? What are you going to say, Mr. Minister? Are you going to say that we passed a law that allowed it to happen and sanctioned that kind of ripoff? Let the jungle of the marketplace prevail; buyer beware.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would just like to ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to address the Chair.

MR. SIHOTA: I will, and I would hope that the member from Langley will break ranks with his caucus and see the need to assure that there is protection for consumers of this service. I want to say, with some regret, on behalf of those constituents of mine who have contacted me this week.... I want to say with some disappointment that the government has first of all not chosen to assist them through the operations of the ministry in their direct problem. Having failed in that regard by arguing that the buyer should beware, it has now introduced legislation which will allow this type of unscrupulous activity to continue. I know that I don't support that type of enshrinement of ripoff activity, and I know that those constituents of mine who have been adversely affected by Easy Way Training School are going to be as disappointed as I am in seeing that this has occurred.

I was going to conclude my remarks, but I see the member for Yale-Lillooet is ready to go at it again. I'm sure he doesn't want to talk about how those small forest operations in his riding have lost 45,000 cubic metres of wood to the Cowichan area, and how he failed to protect the interests of workers in the highest unemployment area in British Columbia.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I call second reading of Bill 5.

CROWN LANDS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Crown Lands draws authority to administer Crown land from the Land Act. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation with broad statutory powers. From time to time it's necessary to make amendments to bring legislation in line with day-to-day practice within the ministry or to correct certain deficiencies within the act.

The amendments are part of my ministry's continuing efforts to streamline the administration in order to improve service to the public and reduce unnecessary delays. Most of the amendments deal with general matters, but there are two specific Land Act amendments and an amendment to the Land Surveyors Act that I would like to bring to your attention.

When the Ministry of Crown Lands was given responsibility for the surveys and resource mapping branch of the Ministry of Environment, a significant responsibility was transferred with that branch, The responsibility for establishing place names for geographical features throughout the province has been carried out by the toponymy unit of the surveys and resource mapping branch.

In the past, the designated authority resided with the director of the branch in his capacity as British Columbia representative to the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names. The amendment to the Land Act will establish the statutory authority for geographical place names in British Columbia with this Minister of Crown Lands.

In response to recommendations from the ombudsman's office, my ministry conducted a thorough review of its appeal procedures. An amendment was requested to improve legislation to address the need for a more complete process for hearing applicants' disputes regarding Land Act dispositions. The amendment permits the Minister of Crown Lands to appoint an independent third party to conduct a hearing where there is an objection to an application for the disposition of Crown land. This change will ensure access to a fair and impartial hearing, and dispel any existing concerns regarding my minister's appeal process.

As with many other professions, the Minister of Crown Lands has the statutory authority for governing the province's land surveyors. This authority is derived from the Land Surveyors Act, and grants certain powers to the Corporation of Land Surveyors of the Province of British Columbia. In the past, the corporation established mandatory fee schedules for all B.C. land surveyors. This practice was successfully challenged in the courts last year. In light of the court's decision, an amendment to the act removes the mandatory nature of the fee schedule and replaces it with suggested guidelines for professional survey fees.

Other amendments to the act are of a housekeeping nature, aimed at bringing statutory requirements in line with current practices of other professions today. The proposed amendments to both pieces of

[ Page 10086 ]

existing legislation reflect my ministry's policy to effectively administer Crown land and the profession of land surveyors in a manner that reflects our concerns for service and stewardship of a major Crown resource.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, as far as we're concerned, I don't think there's anything particularly controversial in this legislation. If we do have any major discussion in debate, I think we will take our time in committee. We're quite prepared to let second reading go at this stage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes debate on second reading.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 5, Crown Lands Statutes Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 3.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on first reading, this bill will complete the process of electoral boundary reform that commenced when the government asked the Hon. Judge Fisher to make recommendations for reform of electoral boundaries and the elimination of two-member ridings.

Subsequent to Judge Fisher's report, the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations unanimously recommended the names and the boundary descriptions of the 75 new electoral districts. This was done by October 31, 1989.

I want to commend most highly the members of the select standing committee who laboured. long and hard in a non-partisan way to produce their unanimous report. Subsequently, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council was pleased to enact a regulation establishing the 75 new ridings, together with their names and legal descriptions. This was done on January 24, 1990.

This bill honours a commitment of the government to incorporate these changes into legislation at the present session of the Legislature. This bill not only establishes the names of the 75 new electoral districts; it also establishes the boundaries for them It repeals the electoral boundaries regulation effective the day after the bill receives royal assent.

Section 4 of the bill is a consequential amendment deleting a reference in the Election Act to the Constitution Act, and replacing it with the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act. The effect of section 5 is to bring into force certain amendments of the Constitution Act to provide for the 75 new districts. As I've already referred, the bill will come into force on the day the thirty-fourth parliament is dissolved.

[4:30]

The commencement provisions of this bill are somewhat intricate. For that reason I arranged for members of the House on the opposite side, designated by their House leader, to meet with the legislative counsel for briefing. I understand that all are satisfied that the effect of the bill is to bring the new electoral boundaries and their names into force on the dissolution of the thirty-fourth parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, it's with pleasure that we see the introduction of this bill, and with pleasure that we see the second reading of this bill go through quite quickly.

We on the New Democratic side have been calling for fair electoral boundaries for some time and a process to bring them about, and although this legislation does not necessarily give everybody exactly what they want— and there are a few little sections that people are not that happy with — I think that all of us are convinced and satisfied that the process was fair, that Judge Fisher, who did this report, did so on an unbiased basis and that all the boundaries were drawn strictly in accordance with his guideline, which was to create fair electoral boundaries based on population size, with a discrepancy for some northern ridings.

Therefore, as I stated, although we're not always satisfied that the boundaries are necessarily the best around, I don't think any of us can quibble that they are not fair and not done with the utmost integrity.

It's important that British Columbia have this process in and that we have a process whereby boundaries are reviewed on a regular basis, taking into consideration population increases so that boundaries may be changed or reviewed accordingly, thereby giving people just representation.

I think that the committee that sat on this should be commended for the work it did. Both sides of the House worked on this together. Therefore we on this side look forward to the passage of this bill.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't want to delay the passing of this bill, but I would like to put on record — and my colleague from Prince George may have said some of the same things — that this is indeed a historical moment in this Legislature and in British Columbia. We have gone through an exhaustive process to review and come up with what I think are considered fair electoral boundaries. We've had much input, discussion and sometimes heart-rendingly difficult decisions by a number of our colleagues in this Legislature, but I think we came to the conclusion that the recommendations of the learned judge were excellent. Now British Columbia moves to a whole different system.

As a member from a dual riding, a two-member riding — which is a strange animal that still exists in British Columbia; I think we're the only province still

[ Page 10087 ]

retaining that system — I'd like to say that it's also history passing by. Two-member ridings will disappear under this legislation; we'll have one member, one riding. It has also been a bone of contention. There was a feeling that some people who lived in a riding represented by two MLAs had two votes, whereas some had only one vote.

I just want to put on the record that we are pleased that this bill is before us. It has been a long time in coming. I think it's a major move to have fair boundaries, and I think the citizens will know when they see the boundaries that divide up this province that there has been a great effort to build them on population base, geographic recognition, urban areas and trying to be on neighbourhood issues, and that those conflicts have been difficult to attain in some circumstances.

I think we've come up with a good piece of legislation. All those involved — I wasn't as involved as some of my colleagues were — should be congratulated on the process. Now we look forward to the test of this legislation, if you will, in the upcoming election, whenever that may be.

MR. VANT: I certainly agree with the principle of Bill 3, the Electoral Districts Act. Like the two previous speakers, I certainly favour single-member constituencies and the idea of fair, equitable distribution throughout the province in the 75 new constituencies. It is certainly commendable. Personally, from having been a member in a dual-member riding, I certainly favour the establishment of single-member constituencies.

However, with all due respect to the judge, in the Cariboo electoral district I would have to say that where Judge Fisher put the line creating the new constituencies of Cariboo North and Cariboo South is nothing other than absurd. I say this in all sincerity, because in the judge's initial report he said that he wanted to strike a balance in population equality, But he also mentioned the realities of geography and the sense of community in British Columbia. In other words, he did give weight to things other than population.

If I might, I would refer to the original order-incouncil which gave Judge Fisher his mandate. This, of course, was triggered by the cabinet in this order-incouncil back on April 9, 1987. The schedule attached to that order-in-council says: "...the principle of the electoral quota; that is to say, the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the Province, as ascertained by the most recent population figures published by Statistics Canada pursuant to the Statistics Act, by the total number of Members of the Legislative Assembly...." By dividing the total population figure by 75, the electoral quota was arrived at. That's fair enough. But it also mentioned historical and regional claims for representation as another major factor to be considered by the judge.

Also, in subsection (c) it says: "...special geographic considerations, including the sparsity or density of population of various regions, the accessibility to such regions or the size or shape thereof...." It goes on to say: "...special community interests of the inhabitants of particular regions; and (e) the need for a balance of community interests."

I am very concerned that Bill 3, in particular schedule 2 as it applies to Cariboo North and Cariboo South, gives much too much weight to the electoral quota; that is, much too much weight to population balance. There is absolutely no respect for history, for community interest, for the geography, or I might even say for the British parliamentary tradition, because there are many other factors justifying giving somewhat greater weight in some circumstances to the rural vote. Indeed, our own Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which passed this Legislature just last year, said that under special circumstances one could go beyond the plus or minus 25 percent of the electoral quota.

There are certain special interests of rural residents — residents of areas such as the one that I am proud to represent, the Cariboo. We have unique special interests when it comes to the environment, to conservation; we have transportation challenges; and of course we have an abundance of resources which contribute to the well-being of the whole province. Also, of course, in my part of the province we have difficulties at times in communications with our people scattered in rural areas. In the Cariboo constituencies only one-third of our total population live in incorporated municipalities. Two-thirds of the 62,000 people that I currently represent live in the rural, unincorporated areas. Many of the urban members of this House take for granted having cellular phones in their vehicles. We still don't have the cellular network up in the interior. We do have communication obstacles to overcome,

Certainly rural members have a much wider range of problems with which they are required to deal. In fact, a member from my part of the country has to deal with just about every ministry of government in order to serve constituents. Also we have a lack of access to some media in rural areas — media which the urban members enjoy or often perhaps feel the discomfort of.

It is on this basis that, very respectfully, Mr. Minister, I am going to ask you to consider an amendment to section 2 of Bill 3, which refers to the boundaries of electoral districts— schedule 2, specifically the section that refers to Cariboo North and to Cariboo South. I would ask that I be allowed to work with some of your staff so that when Bill 3 comes to committee you might very carefully consider an appropriate amendment. This amendment would serve to have the boundary between Cariboo North proceed from approximately the Marguerite ferry landing to a point on the map northeast of Quesnel Forks and Likely.

In this way — speaking to the principle of this bill, without getting into too many specifics — many communities like Big Lake, Miocene, Beaver Valley, Likely, Horsefly, 150 Mile House, Wildwood, Pine Valley, all these communities which have historically and traditionally related to Williams Lake, would end up being in the same constituency as the city of

[ Page 10088 ]

Williams Lake, because that is where people do all of their banking and most of their shopping. It would be a shame if the residents of these areas.... Indeed, parts of the area are actually south and somewhat east of the city. It would save them from having to make a trip all the way up to Quesnel to see their MLA. The proposed bill would see them having to relate to the member for Cariboo North.

I respectfully end my remarks by requesting the minister to consider the appropriate amendment when we go into the next reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a number of comments on this legislation. I'm out of breath, because I was told at the last second that I was supposed to be the debate leader for this in the absence of the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson). Accordingly I want to make a number of comments.

[4:45]

First of all, on the process by which this legislation came to the House, I think it's important to note that the legislation came about through a process which I think many of us endorse. A legislative committee reviewed the official report, and that report....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, if the member says the Premier said so, that's fine. It may well be that the Premier said so.

The point, however, is that the process was a good one. I see that several members of the legislative committee are present in the chamber — albeit not all sitting in their seats. I know that members of our caucus have said, as did the House Leader at the time, that the work of the chairperson of the Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, which took a look at this issue.... He should be congratulated for his work on the matter. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who participated in the subcommittee that looked at this issue, should also be congratulated for his work in terms of trying to make sure that there was a piece of legislation and a process that was unanimous and endorsed by all members of the House and of the committee. Those two members in particular should be commended for their work in seeing that happen. It really wouldn't have happened, in my view, had it not been for those efforts.

I can tell you that it was one of the matters I've dealt with over the last three and half years which to my mind was of sufficient import to be involved in. It was kind of nice to be involved in a process that at the end of the day worked as well as it did.

I must also say for the record that we on this side of the House would also like to commend His Honour Judge Fisher for the work he did in going around the province and taking into account the representations and the positions of a variety of community groups from throughout British Columbia. Again, he did a very commendable job. In my view, at the end of the day, His Honour came up with the set of boundaries which were eminently fair and balanced towards all of the appropriate interests which should be there: geographical interests, demographic interests and population figures. So I think Judge Fisher should be commended for his work and his efforts for British Columbia.

It's not an easy job for a judge to do: taking into account all the concerns of the different political parties that make representations; those of aldermen, municipal representatives, regional officials and the like who attend; and those of the average citizen, who takes a lot of care about, and some concern with, electoral boundaries in British Columbia. Needless to say, it is a very difficult and somewhat divisive issue in society. To ask a judge, with counsel, to attend to the matter and to draft a set of guidelines is asking him to engage in a relatively onerous task. Again it is, to my mind, incredible that they were able to come up with a report that gained the blessing of all members of the Legislature. So my applause goes to His Honour Judge Fisher for his handling of this matter.

In many ways this bill puts an end to the concern expressed in this House prior to my arrival and that of those who served on the committee. There were comments about gerrymandering and little fingers in electoral maps. Every effort was made by Judge Fisher and those on the committee to make sure that those types of accusations would not carry the day when the whole thing was proposed. I think it puts an end to that type of history Let it be said, in fairness to this House, that never again should we have to face those types of accusations and that type of comment. Let's hope those days are behind us as well. I have every confidence that those days are behind us, because as part and parcel of this legislation there is a process in place that allows for review of legislation every ten years and makes sure there is an independent trier of fact — if I can put it that way — that takes a look at electoral boundaries and makes the appropriate adjustments. That type of independent process is a process I endorse.

I regret that my colleague the first member for Victoria is not here, because he is one of those people In the House who for years have fought for that type of independent process to be in place. On his behalf, let me also say that we welcome the type of change that will make sure our electoral boundaries in British Columbia remain fair.

There are all sorts of other things that come to mind in terms of electoral fairness, and some of those aren't dealt with in the legislation. Perhaps there are other forms of legislation that should be in place to make sure those concerns are attended to.

I must say with regret that, in the overall review of the Election Act, a decision was made to eliminate the section 80 provision which allowed British Columbians who weren't enumerated on election day to come to the polling station and exercise their franchise by swearing to the fact that they resided in a particular area. I think the people ought to have that right. We have, enshrined in our Charter of Rights, the right to vote. It should be protected, and no one

[ Page 10089 ]

should be denied the ability to place an X beside whatever candidate they wish to put an X beside on the ballot, by virtue of the fact that they have moved since the last time the list was done, or because for some other reason they were not able to get on the voter list.

I think the elimination of section 80 — which is really something that we saw occur after 1986 — should be looked at again through one of these processes, to make sure we don't have a lot of people off the list. Everyone in this House knows that lists tend to age. The last enumeration in this province was done in September 1988. By the time the next election rolls around, that list may be two years old. People move over two years. It is important that it be accurate.

There are other models in place. At the federal level, for example, I am told by the studies that, because they do their enumeration during the election campaign, their lists have an accuracy rate of about 98 percent, whereas ours are somewhere around 60 percent. All the more reason to make sure there is adequate provision in the legislation to ensure that those who are not enumerated on election day, much to their surprise, are given the opportunity to enumerate themselves at that time. Those are the kinds of changes that still need to happen in our electoral system to make sure everyone who wants to vote indeed gets the opportunity.

Let me also say that in the future we should — and I look at the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks) when I say this — take a careful look at the voting age in British Columbia, whether the appropriate age should be 18 or 19. Some jurisdictions in Canada have a voting age of 19, others 18. 1 believe that in Alberta — I stand to be corrected on this — the voting age is 18. That raises an interesting constitutional question under the Charter of Rights, in that an 18-year-old living in Alberta may have rights which an 18-year-old living in British Columbia doesn't have. Does that amount to a violation of the Charter? I don't know But that is the kind of matter which in my view should be brought before an appropriate legislative committee, to take a look at it and make some determinations and pass judgment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The legislation before us represents an important first step in making sure we have fair electoral laws and electoral boundaries in British Columbia. There is much work to be done, but again I want to say that had it not been for the efforts of, particularly, the chairperson of the Labour and justice Committee, I don't think we would even have gotten to the stage we are at today.

Let me also say that the discussions which took place in the Legislature last year weren't without controversy. I listened with some interest in my office, but I did have a constituent there, so I may not have heard the full text of the comments made by the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant). If I heard his comments correctly, I want to tell him that consideration was given to the representations he made to the committee. I think all of us would have relished the opportunity to attend to a number of what can only be called anomalies, if I can put it politely, in the boundaries. If there was some way it could have been addressed, I think that the committee would have found a solution. But given that parameters one works with, which were set down by the government and by the judge — namely, the quotient of 25 percent and some of the demographic factors — it is unfortunate that some communities, if my memory serves me correctly, like Horsefly and Likely and 150 Mile House, were all affected one way or the other. I know there is some disappointment among people in those communities. Perhaps nowhere in B.C., from what I could see, were the concerns so gravely expressed as in the Cariboo. The member made representations to the committee, and he knows that the committee tried to act on a fair and impartial basis. So I can't say that the matter was not attended to because one party had a different view of it. I think that at some point all members of the committee were able to shed a good portion of their partisan clothing and tried to deal with the matters in an impartial way. I'll have an opportunity to review his comments so that when we get into second reading debate, I can discuss his concerns more directly than I can right now.

I think that concludes my comments with respect to this provision.

MR. CHALMERS: I'd like to make just a few brief comments, because most of what I would have said on this matter has already been canvassed. I know that many members in this Legislature were disappointed with the boundaries that were provided by Judge Fisher. But having served on the committee that reviewed the good judge's recommendations, I came to the conclusion that there's no such thing as a perfect map, regardless of who prepares those boundaries. But I think that we are light-years ahead of where we were prior to the legislation that was introduced in the last session and prior to the legislation that has been brought before us today— as far as how we go about defining the boundaries of the constituencies of this province is concerned.

I would caution the minister against reopening this now to go down that slippery slope to where we were when politicians were drawing lines, as tempting as that is. In saying that, I certainly recognize the frustration of many of the members on both sides of the House when these boundaries were prepared, because I know of the disappointment in my own constituency of Okanagan South for the people of the communities of Peachland and Indian Rock and other areas that were not very happy with the boundaries. But we do have a system, as pointed out by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, where we can review this after every second election or within ten years, so there is ample opportunity to once again review these matters at the proper time.

At this time I would certainly urge all members to keep in mind the spirit in which we went into the

[ Page 10090 ]

discussions to resolve this matter once and for all and to establish a system that is as pure as possible: that an independent review be done to establish the boundaries and that it not be done by politicians.

[5:00]

MR. RABBITT: I'll only take a few moments of the House's time. I think this is an exceptionally important day in the history of British Columbia, and I rise today to speak in support of the principle of the bill. This bill may not be everything to everybody, but as the previous speaker — who is chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations — mentioned, it certainly is a long way ahead of where we were just a year ago.

While a royal commission, a special committee and a select standing committee dealt with this from its inception, I think we have to reflect back to 1986, when the Premier gave an undertaking to the people of British Columbia that he would bring forward electoral reform. That he did, and I wish to commend the Premier of British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There is always debate when a piece of legislation such as this comes forward. Of course, Judge Fisher developed three principles on which he built the report: he eliminated the dual-member seats, he increased the number to a total of 75, and he allowed for a variance and recognized that rural British Columbia could not live with the one-man, one-vote philosophy. The 25 percent variance is an arbitrary figure, which was accepted and which has been implemented.

My participation was very limited. I participated as an MLA, making presentations to the royal commission on both the preliminary and the final reports, and I acted as chairman of the special committee. I'd like to conclude by saying that if we use the same political will when this particular bill will again be under review and the Legislature will again look at the boundaries of British Columbia, then we will be able to come forward with a non-political, pro-British Columbia set of boundaries that all the citizens of British Columbia should be pleased with.

With that, I will take my seat. Again, I support the bill wholeheartedly.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Surrey–Guildford–White Rock - I'm sorry, Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have enough hard work dealing with Surrey, Guildford and Whalley without throwing White Rock in there too.

I want to make a couple of comments, first of all, about the process that was undertaken by the royal commission and in particular, the guidance and leadership provided by Judge Fisher — the opportunity we had in our community to speak to the commission, to bring forward our concerns and subsequently have them recognized by the increased number of constituencies representing this Surrey–White Rock area. It meant a lot to our community I think that people who participated thought well of the process and welcomed the opportunity to truly have a say in this important issue.

I want also to say, as the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) pointed out, that we have yet a long way to go with electoral reform. It's the first opportunity we've had to deal with boundaries in a fair and just fashion in this province. I think we've got to recognize that there is a need to deal with the issue of 18-year-olds and their right to vote and certainly the rights of all individuals to vote.

Coming from a riding like Surrey, it's blatantly obvious to me that the voter registration process in this province is sorely lacking. We have situations in Surrey where the turnover of residents is so high that, given the lapse of time between voter registration and the writ being dropped, we have a lot of people who are no longer on the voter list. That causes a considerable amount of confusion.

When I'm thinking along these lines, I think of one school in particular in my riding whose population in a school year turns over 100 percent. For some more stable communities — older communities that don't have the same turnover — that may be very difficult to understand. But for a young community like Surrey the turnover, the right to be registered and the right to have a vote are very important.

The issues of justice and equity around electoral reform are important ones, and I would encourage us to first of all congratulate and welcome this piece of legislation and all of those who worked very hard to bring it to the House; and to not stop here, but to look very seriously at the need for just electoral reform so that everyone in this province has the right to vote, and so that the process is as accommodating and supportive as it is just.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister rises in the debate, it's concluded. If the second member for Cariboo wishes to speak, this is the opportunity to do so.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to bring to the attention of the House that this matter of the boundaries between Cariboo South and Cariboo North was a very hot issue for a while during the Cariboo by-election campaign. It ended with a commitment by the Premier that this boundary could be changed, provided there was will on both sides of the House.

It seems to me that there are a couple of regrets involved here. Those are that I came in too late to make the changes, and also that the sitting member was not able to convince the members of this House and that committee to make the changes. When it was clear that the committee was proceeding, I wrote to the Premier in January to ask him to involve himself in the process and put a proposal on the table that was acceptable and that would begin and end with the Cariboo.

He then referred it to the Chair of the committee, and I guess no agreement was made. I would like to

[ Page 10091 ]

express serious concern and regrets on behalf of the people who live in the 150 Mile House–Big Lake–Horsefly-Likely area that they are not part of Cariboo South. I predict that this too will be an issue and will remain an issue in the election coming up. I want it on the record that these people are unhappy and that they have been heard in this Legislature.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 3, Electoral Districts Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I call second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker,

ELECTRICAL SAFETY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. L. HANSON: It is my privilege to present for second reading, Bill 10, Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990. Bill 10 contains revisions which provide a role for regional districts in electrical safety inspection, giving them equal status with municipalities If requested. The amendment clarifies terminology and prohibits uncertified persons from advertising as electrical contractors.

The proposed legislation will enable the future implementation of a modem system of electrical safety. It will protect by allowing improvements to be made to administrative and regulatory requirements which ensure public safety. These regulatory improvements are being developed under the guidance of the Electrical Safety Advisory Committee, which in turn has consulted extensively throughout our rapidly expanding construction industry.

Technological change in a booming construction Industry and a maturing electrical industry are challenging our safety programs to respond to these conflicting interests. This must be addressed in order to ensure public safety while not inhibiting the growth of the industry. The consensus of advice we have received is that safety programs must focus more on the competence of tradespeople and on the accountability and responsibility of the electrical safety contracting industry.

One last comment, Mr. Speaker: electrical work done by do-it-yourselfers will continue to receive complete inspections.

This bill paves the way for a more effective and more efficient safety program, and I am happy to put it forward today to the House for second reading.

MR. BLENCOE: This is probably one of the most controversial bills we have before the Legislature, We intend to support the legislation. From what I understand, it basically makes provisions for regional districts to undertake electrical inspection if they wish and provides some clarification.

However, my understanding — and the minister is probably aware of this — is that the UBCM has raised a concern with section 18. We'll talk more about this in committee, but it says in section 18(3): "The council of a municipality shall ensure compliance with this act and the regulations within the municipality."

I have to say at this stage that I haven't investigated all sides of this issue, but apparently the UBCM executive is concerned that the revised sections of this Electrical Safety Amendment Act will open local government to a new area of liability. I am sure the minister has had that brought to his attention, and certainly in committee we will be able to explore that. As I say, I haven't discussed it with the UBCM; I only have their note saying they have brought it to the attention.... Obviously, anything that may create liability exposure for local government is a concern. I and my colleagues over the years have dealt with that issue many times, and I think we have come to some reasonable conclusions on how to deal with it.

Be that as it may, this bill is significant in that it expands the Items covered by the act to include alteration, repair and maintenance of electrical equipment, and it seems to be a step forward in ensuring safety— and of course, that's what we're all interested in. Apart from section 18, which we will cover in committee, we will support the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate, although the Speaker would like to speak on this issue.

HON. L. HANSON: I move second reading of Bill 10.

Motion approved.

Bill 10, Electrical Safety Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 16.

[5:15]

SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT FUND ACT

(continued)

MS. EDWARDS: In trying to get around exactly what is in this bill and what the intentions of the government are and the reasons for doing this kind of accounting procedure, shall we say, by putting out a special fund for many things that either have been in ministry functions of line ministries or should be functions of line ministries, there are a lot of things to talk about as far as the principle of so doing is concerned. The problem overall with this kind of thing happening with the budgeted money is that we may in fact have a disguise for the fact that there is less money available for some of the programs that

[ Page 10092 ]

are extremely important to the environment. That situation is probably the worst problem for this bill — and the suggestion that a sustainable environment fund be put up for specific functions as named in the list.

When I go over some of the functions that are laid out in the material that came out both earlier with the budget and at various times hither and yon, there are some questions in my mind about the reason that this would be put forward this way. It doesn't appear to me, from the constituency I represent, that there will be nothing but benefits.

For example, there is a proposal that $71 million of this spending will go toward a number of things, including waste management, environmental protection, sustainable development initiatives and resource management initiatives. If one looks just at the waste management proposals for this bill, one wonders why they are here. There is a suggestion that a solid waste management strategy will be developed with a stated amount. It's called the first year of a multi-year plan that has a goal of reducing municipal solid waste generated in British Columbia by 50 percent by the year 2000. That would all be very good if it were in fact happening — if the government had indicated its good intent up till now. However, from my very constituency, I can tell you that the Elk Valley municipalities, who are to the point of suggesting that they are being harassed by waste management people when they want to do something to address the solid waste problem, finally got themselves ready to act, and they got out of this $5, 000 to $10, 000 to begin looking at a solid waste plan, which may or may not include recycling because It doesn't need to include recycling. If it doesn't need to, and if they are not willing to work with the minister people under the direction that they've already been given, it will work against reducing the amount of solid waste in that area by 50 percent by the year 2000. Again, it looks to me like a bit of a disguise around what's happening, and what's really happening is not going to fit into the proposal as it's laid out here, unless the approaches are changed significantly in the very near future.

The material that comes out about this sustainable environment fund says that there will be a hazardous waste management strategy. This is talked about at a time after the minister has just turned down a proposal — a very positive, specific and forward looking proposal — to deal with toxic waste in the Regional District of East Kootenay. The minister has decided that he can't allow the regional district to do that. My question is: what in the world is the money going to be spent on if the minister has so far shown that he's not interested in dealing with a forward looking proposal for a storage depot for PCBs and for dealing with other toxic wastes?

Another of the initiatives talked about here is when we move on to environment protection and the preservation of natural areas. There's an amount designated for that under this fund. This fund or amount of money is supposedly there for acquisition of fish and wildlife habitat and parkland, the monitoring and enforcement of environmental standards, mitigation of environmental threats and the development of standards concerning new industrial development. They're all very good things, Mr. Speaker.

The interesting thing to me is why, in this fund, we would have an amount of money to deal with the acquisition of fish and wildlife habitat. Not that the acquisition of fish and wildlife habitat is not a commendable goal, but we have a fully laid-out program to deal with the habitat conservation fund. As far as I can read it, there is no reason to suppose that this money in the sustainable environment fund will be handled in the same way that the habitat conservation fund moneys are handled. The habitat conservation fund, which has a fairly long history, and which has been set up finally to deal with the kinds of acceptance that the government says it would like to have, has guidelines for the way that the money will be allocated, for the way that people's presentations will be taken, and so on. I cite, in particular, one of the statements in the guide for applicants to the habitat conservation fund that is current policy, as I understand it: "It is intended, under the habitat conservation fund, that considerable consultation will take place as part of the review process." If that's the case, how is it going to be different under the environmental protection and preservation of natural areas amount under this sustainable environment fund? Why is the money that is very badly needed for the acquisition of fish and wildlife habitat not put under an existing fund and an existing process, a process that the public understands and the minister understands, and a process that should be used more? I'm sure the minister would agree that there is certainly an oversubscription of applications for these funds. So why in the world...?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, much of the discussion, as you're going through now, is of items that should be handled under the estimates of the minister. My perusal of the bill indicates that there's no mention of the habitat conservation fund in it. It's another one of these bills that is perhaps best discussed in committee. But I must ask you to stick to the principle of the bill during second reading, rather than going into what is essentially committee stage debate on it. Please continue.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to address the whole principle of the bill as I see it, which is to take the money out of the line ministries and put it into a special fund, when it should on principle, I believe, be allocated to the spots where it has traditionally been allocated, within line ministries where this money has, until the proposal of this bill, been spent. If you want to put it simply, the money is normally spent other ways; this bill proposes that it be spent through this fund. That's what I'm trying to address, Mr. Speaker.

I'm suggesting that this fund doesn't add anything at all to how we deal with the revenue that comes into the fund; it simply puts it into a different kind of

[ Page 10093 ]

fund. It suggests, then, that the rules and regulations, the process, the whole business that has been set up for the spending of funds, will not necessarily apply in this case. That is the principle I am objecting to, Mr. Speaker.

I strongly object to the fact that these things are put in when they have an extremely relevant place to be handled within the existing body of legislation and existing administrative functions.

I also am interested to know why the minister.... I would suggest it's a matter of principle when we talk about resource management initiatives and another large sum of money is allocated for the implementation of a provincial wildlife inventory. The minister will be well aware of how supportive I am of having more inventory of all the resources in this province— particularly the wildlife and even more particularly the wildlife ungulate population in the East Kootenay, because there's a great deal of pressure. Therefore it's very delightful to see that in all the literature surrounding the proposal of this sustainable environment fund, we're talking about the implementation of a provincial wildlife inventory.

The principle to me is that the spending should be done under the Ministry of Environment, where it has been neglected for years. It should be done on a regular basis. The ministry should know that it has control of that spending, some direction and a fairly direct ability to say where the money is going to be spent for wildlife inventory, that it will continue from year to year under regular funding, and that it will not have to wait to be taken out of a particular fund — a sustainable environment fund — which is administered in a very different way than the way regular funds are administered.

That is the essence of the principle that I object to with this fund. Too much of what's going into the proposed fund comes straight out of line ministries Therefore it escapes the kind of monitoring and auditing that is normally done for line minister spending. It creates almost a double track. You can spend it here or you can spend it there, and it's a little harder to keep track of. I object to that on principle and on that I will say that I believe the fund should not be set up.

MS. CULL: I too have a number of concerns with this bill. I want to go over a number of the points that concern me, because I think that this bill represents some of my worst fears of what this government is doing with respect to the environment.

First of all, we're dealing with a fund that is going to be managed directly by a committee of cabinet, as opposed to through the ministry or the regular program, through the structures of government that most of the people of this province are familiar with and expect this kind of funding to be carried on under.

This brings up the spectre-as some of my colleagues have already mentioned-of how the fund is managed and who is going to benefit from it I don't think the environment is going to benefit from the fund. I think the friends of this government are going to be receiving money to do the kinds of projects they are able to do-not the kinds of projects we would prioritize in terms of environmental need.

The bill also throws together in a curious fashion a number of ad hoc programs that one would expect to find in other places and that in some cases are in other places: in other bills, in the budget and in other areas we have been discussing. But there is no guarantee of where the total amount of money going into this fund — almost $300 million — will actually be spent. There are announcements as to where some of the money will go: into forestry and various initiatives. But there is no guarantee that even the money taken from the reforestation budget— the $222 million that has been moved over from the Ministry of Forests to the Ministry of Environment in an attempt to create the appearance of increased funding — will actually be spent on reforestation.

[5:30]

Another aspect of the bill that troubles me is the recycling of old announcements and existing initiatives. It seems to be a common practice of the government right now to announce an initiative over and over again and to create it anew each time as if something new were happening, when all we are doing is recycling— I guess that's very environmental — announcements.

The final thing I want to touch on in terms of the principle of this bill is the reliance, as the environment critic said already, on a techno fix as a solution to all of our environmental problems— as if we could throw a bunch of money at a problem with some kind of new and special technology, and thereby solve all the problems facing us.

If PR could save the environment, British Columbia would have no worries. We have been going on for some time now making and recycling announcements, putting ads on television, sending out glossy magazines and telling the people of British Columbia that something is happening in the environment. I think what is really happening now is that the people are waiting for some real action. They're tired of announcements, they're tired of PR, they're tired of paper coming into their mailboxes, and they want to see something really going on.

What are they getting? Let's have a look at some of the things happening in this bill. First of all, we know from looking at the budget document that the Ministry of Environment budget is increased by less than 1 percent. That's the kind of commitment this government has to environmental programs — less than 1 percent of additional money available to the Ministry of Environment for the very important programs of environmental enhancement and protection that the people of British Columbia are looking to the government for. In fact, if we have a close look we see there is actually less money available this year for environmental protection than there was last year. That's a very serious concern, because that is probably the area that most people in this province want to see some action on now: protection of the environment.

[ Page 10094 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you must come to the principle of the bill. Estimates of the bill and the amount of money available in ministry estimates are matters to be discussed in Committee of Supply during the estimates of the minister. We must be on the principle of the bill. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) will assist you in these matters, as he has been chastised and coached by the Chair these many years.

MS. CULL: I'm trying to deal with the principle of the bill. The principle I see here is that money is being hived off into a special fund— money that exists elsewhere in other ministry budgets — instead of being put into Ministry of Environment programs and instead of building up the programs of the Ministry of Environment that are already established and building on the staff and expertise we already have in this province within the minister.

Really, what is happening here is that the fund is creating an illusion of action on the environment. It's a shell game. That is what's wrong with this bill. It is a public relations device to take a lot of money that exists in other programs that have been announced earlier — it has no true effect on the environment — and to hold it up and say, "We're doing something; it's called the sustainable environment fund," to get more effect for the PR dollar by announcing it over and over again.

Let's just look at some of the specifics in the bill that are of concern to me. First of all, I think we have to question some of the sources of revenue for the fund. Let's just look at one: green taxes. Once again, the bill is going to be penalizing consumers and not polluters. We look at things like the 6 percent tax on diapers. It is hard to believe anyone would think that such a small tax would really have an impact on consumer spending. I suppose it will raise some money for the government, but it doesn't really address the issue of pollution, the sources of pollution and the concerns we have about things like disposable diapers in the landfill. It doesn't deal with many of the other items that perhaps could be penalized in some fashion, particularly at the production level — plastics, styrofoam, deposits on liquorstore bottles, junk mail, all the kinds of issues and products....

MR. CLARK: Such as British Columbia Report.

MS. CULL: Such as British Columbia Report. Now there's some junk mail.

All of the things that end up in the landfill.... These materials, these products are not being taxed, We single out one item — disposable diapers — and supposedly this is going to have some wonderful impact on the environment. We look at the tax on tires and batteries — again, another way of grabbing some money without having any real impact on the environment.

Then there's a reference to a hazardous products levy, which is not specified. The products that are going to be taxed are, I guess, going to be defined by regulation later, but so far we're not told what they are. There's a forecast for revenue — $3.8 million this year and $5 million next year. But what are these products?

The kind of thinking that has gone into the so-called green taxes that make up a portion of the fund is another illustration of what is wrong with the thinking behind this bill. It is incomplete; there is no comprehensive approach. It's not well thought out: it taxes consumers, not producers, and it doesn't really get to the heart of the issue.

We could also have a look at some of the initiatives to be funded out of the sustainable environment fund — just to mention a few that were mentioned by the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) and to take a different tack on them. First of all, there is the solid waste management strategy; $27 million is supposedly allocated to this particular item. I just want to remind members that while there is money allocated in the notes that were provided with the bill, there is nothing in the legislation itself that guarantees the money will actually go to these projects.

But here we are. The suggestion is that solid waste will be reduced by 50 percent by the year 2000. 1 want to note again that this a reannounced and recycled goal. This isn't something new; this is something that has come out of a previous report on solid waste. We're just recycling announcements and promises to the people of British Columbia. Nonetheless, it's totally ludicrous to even suggest that this amount of money is going to address the question of reducing solid waste by 50 percent by the year 2000. First of all, the amount of money provided to communities is quite small — in the order of $5,000 to $10,000 for start-up costs for recycling programs. But as the member for Kootenay has pointed out, when municipalities are asking for assistance, in many cases they are not getting it from the Ministry of Environment. Their ideas are not supported.

We also have the situation in the capital region where the goal for 15 years into the future Is for a 10 percent reduction. Mr. Speaker, 10 percent is all that the Capital Regional District thinks they will be able to achieve in solid waste reduction through the recycling program. In other parts of this country— and I'll point to just one example: Peterborough, Ontario —  they are already achieving the goal of 50 percent. One has to ask why there is this big gap between what this regional district here, working very hard to try to tackle the problem, can come up with when other communities in this province are already achieving a much higher goal.

In the list of initiatives that are going to be funded through the sustainable environment fund is the hazardous waste management strategy. I find it curious that this one is in here at all, because we recently had the minister table another bill about a hazardous waste management corporation. It's unclear to me why this fund is going to be dealing with the hazardous waste issue, and we're also going to have a hazardous waste corporation dealing with it. One wonders what the connection is going to be between

[ Page 10095 ]

this fund, the corporation and the funding for the corporation.

We'll be getting into some of the issues on the hazardous waste a bit later, so I won't go into my concerns about what this project could actually be.

I want to raise the question of whether this is going to be another techno fix solution — another Cache Creek scenario — where the Ministry of Environment finds itself proposing solutions that the community does not want and has not asked for.

Speaking about the recycling of announcements, another area is the GVRD vehicle emission inspection program. This is a program that's been announced at least three times since it was dismantled by this government in 1983. It was announced again last December after the GVRD pressured the government to bring it back. When are we finally going to see it?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, perhaps you could assist the Chair by pointing out the section of the bill that deals with the subject you are currently canvassing. It's a subject that may be canvassed appropriately under the minister's estimates, but there is no mention whatsoever of vehicle emission testing in this bill. I must ask you to remain somewhat within order.

MS. CULL: I think this is one of the things that it has been suggested would be funded under the bill. That was the list of issues I wanted to bring up under initiatives. I will move on to another area here.

I want to talk about what's missing from the bill, in terms of the things we would be looking for in sustainable environment funding. There is no money promised in this bill for sewage treatment, which is something that my community has been asking for.

MR. SPEAKER: If I didn't know the issues so well, I perhaps wouldn't interject, but the greater Victoria sewage matters and the disposal of effluent in Victoria are not covered in this bill. You have to bring those matters up in estimates or in the principle of the bill.

In second reading, I must ask you to stay within the scope and confines of the principle of the bill. If there are areas of concern for your constituency to bring up, this is not the appropriate time to do it.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't trying to bring up matters of concern to my constituency.

MR. SPEAKER: Even if it's matters that you find are not listed in this bill, and if you find that there are environmental issues you wish to have considered and think should have been considered, again that's inappropriate at this time. There are other times and other places to do that.

MS. CULL: I thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I was canvassing a number of issues that are either related to the funds for the bill or are suggested as projects that would be funded out of the sustainable environment fund. I used them as illustrations to point out that the bill does not address the kinds of environmental issues that the people of British Columbia are looking for.

This is not a good bill for the environment; it's good PR for the Social Credit government. It's good for those individuals and companies who support technological solutions to very complex environmental problems. It's good for the friends of the government who are going to get the money to carry out these projects. But it is bad for the environment. It's certainly not a sustainable environment fund in the way that I understand the term "sustainable environment." It's simply another sham by the government to make the people of British Columbia believe that it is doing something about the environment.

Everyone out there is crying for action on environmental issues. I suppose this is the way the government is going to respond: set out a bill, set out a fund, say there's a lot of money in it and promise a lot of projects out of it. It's clearly not doing that, and it's clearly not going to address those issues.

I'm saddened that at a time when we really need leadership on the environment, all we're getting out of this bill is shell games and further PR. I will take up the specific issues when we get to the committee stage of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Bearing in mind the guidance of the Chair, the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK: I should be more in order. I haven't had a chance to peruse the bill in any great detail, so I'll be talking about the principle, Mr. Speaker.

This is actually a curious piece of legislation. We wonder why the government would create a Sustainable Environment Fund Act when....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Well, that might be a good reason, Mr. Minister. But it seems to me that one could fund the Environment ministry better or announce these programs in the minister's budget. There's no real need for an act, a separate fund or a separate account in the general fund -unless it's because we're three and a half years into the government's mandate, and they want to wave this around as a kind of flag, a kind of proof that they're born-again environmentalists. I have to be careful with that phrase when dealing with this administration; I meant it with respect to the environment. I only want to deal with the environment, not the prayer room or any of those other things that we could talk about.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We have a visitor here — or a member who is not here often. I must advise the Leader of the Opposition that he is not allowed to interject across the floor from someone else's chair. Having done that, I would ask the second member for Vancouver East to continue.

[5:45]

[ Page 10096 ]

MR. CLARK: There is a rule that when the government issues a press release, it just fades into oblivion. When the government wants to use an issue as an election issue, you have to get up to three or maybe four announcements, maybe five press conferences, a video show or something else, and then an act. You have to do that, you see, and that tips you off that the government wants to use it as election fodder.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fodder?

MR. CLARK: Oh, sorry — propaganda would be more appropriate.

The problem, of course, is that when you look at the bill, there's really not much there. There are big announcements, and then tiny, little programs flow from them. The minister heckled a minute ago about polling. We were talking about polling and how the government.... No, we were talking about PR. Briefly — this relates directly to this bill, Mr. Speaker — a friend of mine was polled on this bill. He was part of a focus group about a sustainable environment act. Either the government or Decima or the party was polling, and he was asked: "What do you think of this sustainable environment idea?" He said: "Oh, that's a great idea." Then they showed him an advertisement with the Minister of Environment's (Hon. Mr. Reynolds's) picture on it. I know the minister is applauding. There was a group of about 12 people looking at government programs and polling — before the budget, Mr. Speaker; you know how these things are — and they had a mock-up of a page ad with a picture of the Minister of Environment on it, and it said, "Sustainable Environment Fund," and it said all the things that were going to be in this legislation.

What do you think of that? And you know what they said? Every one of them said: "Well, we like the sustainable environment fund, but take that Socred politician's picture off that thing. If the government wants to prove that they are committed to the environment, then take that politician off the page. They are politicizing what should be a non-political issue." That was the consensus of the focus group hired by this government, or by the Social Credit Party — whoever does this kind of stuff; it gets kind of fuzzy and overlapped from time to time whenever it comes to polling.

I'll be interested when the ads come out. The minister said: "Wait till you see our new ads." I can't wait to see whether they took their pollster's advice and took the minister's picture off the ad. But I suspect not.

Now, of course, they have that guy, that shadowy figure with the typing going on in the background You know that ad that comes on and you think: "Is that Tony Parsons or not?" No, it's not Tony Parsons; it's Eli Sopow, that's who it is.

It will say: "We've created a sustainable environment fund, and it's going to be debated right now in the Legislature." And then at the end of the ad — after it talks about all these little goodies that are just very little; little programs in this bill — it will probably have the sombre face or presence of the Minister of Environment.

Oh, he's smiling because it's good news. There's an election coming up. Although the minister has won the nomination, so maybe they don't have to worry about that anymore. Mind you, he's got a tough fight over there in West Vancouver, I am sure, after redistribution. I don't know, is Squamish in your riding now or not?

Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is going to heavily promote this bill — I'd better watch what I say when I deal with this member about promoting — through advertising and everything, because they want to prove that they are committed to the environment. That's the agenda. It's got nothing to do with the environment, but they have to convince people that they are concerned about the environment because, of course, that's the primary purpose of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the late Mr. Chabot would be very proud of this display of Sonja Henie on ice, but you are skating around the bill, and I must ask you to skate into the principle of the bill and actually discuss something close to relevance. I realize it's not long until the hour of adjournment, but this is a performance that we haven't seen in some time, and hopefully it will be brief.

MR. CLARK: I was sure that the principle of this bill was the Socred re-election fund act or something of that nature. But let me deal directly with the substance or the principle of the bill, as I have perused it.

It's quite clear that the bill is really smoke and mirrors or a shell game or.... There are other ways of describing it, but the bulk of the money is old money. It's money transferred from other programs, and the bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's recycled money.

MR. CLARK: It's recycled money — that's appropriate. The vast majority of the funds have already been spent, and this really is a very modest incremental improvement in this area. I want to deal just briefly with some aspects of that, because I worry about the fund. I worry about it essentially confounding public accountability— I'm being serious now, Mr. Speaker — because the fund gives the power to the minister, through the Cabinet Committee on Environment and Land Use, to spend money out of the fund.

Of course, any fund has to have the power to spend, but I worry about the role of the Legislature in these matters, because normally when we deal with estimates, the government has certain votes for certain purposes, and it has sub-votes, and a great concern to the auditor-general is the transfer of money between sub-votes. And here we have a bill which in section 5 allows the money to be spent on a whole range of initiatives, any one of which could be

[ Page 10097 ]

spent in any given year. In other words, they could shift money around among these different programs. Nothing apparently would be out of order for the government to take that $200-odd million from the Forests minister that they now put in this fund for reforestation and to spend it on something completely different. They could take $50 million of that and spend it on a high-tech waste recovery plant; that's allowed under this bill.

The fund can have the impact, in a sense, of confounding the kind of public accountability that I think is required of legislatures. I worry about that, because the spending from the fund could be a kind of pork-barrel, one could say. It could be that this minister gets to spend it on whatever he wants within the confines of section 5 of this bill, and that's pretty broad. That gives him an extraordinary amount of latitude, which I don't think is healthy in terms of the accountability that we would hope to see from the minister in the House. We may not be able to debate with the minister next year; he won't hold that chair next year, because there will be an election intervening. We'll have to peruse then what he spent the money on, because this is pretty loose.

When you look at how they raise the money, it also concerns me because we have — I think, for the first time —what I would call dedicated taxes, taxes dedicated to the fund. There is no ability, it appears, to move that money politically to other issues of concern. Surely the role of this House is to debate tax revenue and where taxes are spent. In this case the taxes are dedicated specifically to the fund, and that means again that politicians in this House, who determine priorities, will not have the influence over that. That may be good with respect to this bill.

I'll just wrap up. I just want to say one thing about disposable diapers. I know I have a conflict of interest, but it concerns me greatly that rather than taxing producers, this government chooses to tax consumers. It's not the big pulp mills that are causing the problem. It's not the big industrial polluters that are the problem. It's all those young families who dress their children in disposable diapers. They're the culprits; they're the enemies of the state; they're the polluters that this government has chosen to deal with in this bill. Of course, a 6 percent sales tax on disposable diapers is hardly going to influence spending patterns. It's simply going to raise revenue for the slush fund that can be spent in any way the minister wants within section 5 of the bill.

Mr. Clark moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Reynolds moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.