1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
MONDAY, MAY 4, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 2, Number 19
[ Page 1195 ]
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
Prayers.
A. Warnke: If it's appropriate, it's good to see you back, hon. Speaker.
Hon. Speaker, in the gallery with us this afternoon is Mr. Don Manson, a native British Columbian whose grandfather, I believe, served in these very chambers. He has just come from Dalhousie University. Would the House please make him welcome.
J. Pullinger: Hon. Speaker, I'm rising today on behalf of our caucus to explain what we're doing to acknowledge the work of a very important group in our community. Our government caucus is wearing these red carnations once again this year in appreciation of Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week, which is this week. We are wearing them in support of those who are working to find cures for multiple sclerosis and their fundraising activities, and also to acknowledge those who are stricken with and suffer from that disease. I think all of the House would like to join me in a hearty round of thanks to all of those people involved.
D. Symons: It is my pleasure today to introduce to you a group of 30 students from Richmond Senior Secondary School in my riding. They are accompanied by four staff members: Mrs. Thornton, Mr. Kalf, Mrs. Barnes and Miss Yanosik. I wish the House would make them welcome, please.
Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like the House to welcome a student from Helsinki, Finland: Krisi Mikkola. She has been an exchange student in Kamloops for almost a year. She is being visited by her mother, Salli Mikkola, from Helsinki. Would you please make them welcome.
H. Lali: Today in the galleries I have a friend of mine, Brian Giles, who's a realtor and is here for the environment assessment hearings. He lives in the riding of West Vancouver-Garibaldi, in Squamish. I don't think he would mind me mentioning that his mother, Phyllis Lees, is a constituent of mine living in Merritt. Would the House please make Brian Giles welcome.
Hon. T. Perry: I have the pleasure to introduce to the House Mr. Jeff Hoskins of the Law Society of British Columbia, who is visiting to make presentations today and who is acquainted with many of the members here. May he please feel welcome in the chamber.
W. Hurd: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Jim Rhodes in the gallery. He's a former MLA from my riding of White Rock. Will the House please make him welcome.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I've just met with a group of students from James Ardiel Elementary School. I believe they are here in the gallery with us today, although I don't see them. They are here with their teacher Frances Cooper. This is a group of grade 7 students with a number of parents accompanying them. Would the House make them welcome.
K. Jones: I would like to ask the House to welcome my two constituency assistants from Surrey-Cloverdale, Ms. Heather Sinclair and Ms. Patricia Mountain.
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. J. Cashore presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. J. Cashore: This bill repeals the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act and amends the Wildlife Act.
The dissolution of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation was announced in the budget speech on March 26, 1992. The corporation is being dissolved because of its failure to achieve the results that it was set up for in 1990. By dissolving the corporation, the government can now provide British Columbians with a more credible, efficient and effective program for the treatment of hazardous waste in this province.
The second part of the bill, an amendment to the Wildlife Act, provides for the compatible use of wildlife management areas by other government-regulated users. This amendment will allow wildlife management areas to be used to their full capability, while at the same time protecting wildlife and their habitat.
[2:15]
I am convinced that these miscellaneous amendments reflect the government's commitment to both protect and manage the environment for the future. I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage.
I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 34 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.
PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. G. Clark: Bill 25 amends the Property Purchase Tax Act to clarify and preserve its intent. The bill introduces several minor technical amendments and addresses certain administrative issues concerning the application of the tax and eligibility requirements under the high-ratio financing tax relief program.
I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
[ Page 1196 ]
Bill 25 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.
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Marriage Amendment Act, 1992.
Hon. E. Cull: Bill 26 replaces references in the Marriage Act to ministers and clergymen in recognition of the fact there are religions that do not use these terms to describe persons who officiate at the solemnization of marriages according to their rites and practices. The amendments also recognize that the rites and practices of some religions see all persons gathered as officiating at the solemnization of a marriage.
I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 26 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.
GYPSY MOTH SPRAY PROGRAM
G. Wilson: Today my question is to the Minister of Environment. We learn in the media that this weekend saw the successful conclusion of the aerial application of spray against the gypsy moth -- the conclusion of phase one of what at least some people have concerned themselves with as this minister's Operation Silent Spring. The lightning morning raids have taken place; all planes and pilots have returned safely to their base. Can the minister tell us today how many dead gypsy moth larvae have been found? What is the body count after this lightning spray?
Hon. J. Cashore: It's indeed unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition would use this opportunity to make light of this very serious situation. The fact is that there was very clear evidence of the presence of nests in our midst. A great many people from an environmental perspective supported the decision that we move quickly in order to deal with that potential disaster. I would urge the hon. Leader of the Opposition to do everything in his power to promote a sense of awareness and understanding as we seek to ensure that all members of the public are as aware as they possibly can be of the urgent circumstances of this.
G. Wilson: This minister told the House and the people of this province that this was indeed an environmental emergency. The minister's staff and members of the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the federal ministries tell us that there was no clear evidence of where these gypsy moths were. They didn't know how many were in the area to begin with. They had no knowledge of whether or not there were sufficient numbers to really deal with. Now the minister is telling us that he doesn't know how many have been affected. Can the minister please tell us how he intends to justify spending $6.3 million of taxpayers' money on a spray if he didn't know exactly how many the infestation was in the first place and if he has no way of knowing how many have been killed after the application?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Leader of the Opposition has made it very clear that he, and presumably his caucus, are adamantly opposed to the spray program, and I think this is most unfortunate. If one was to read very carefully the question that the Leader of the Opposition just put, the answer is contained within his question. Because in saying that it was not known precisely where these caterpillars existed.... That is the very reason for needing the spray program. To allow this infestation to take hold could be the sowing of a wind, and I'm not sure that the Leader of the Opposition would want to be the one to have to reap that whirlwind.
G. Wilson: After the application of this spray in the first round, of the larvae that have been identified -- and there have been some identified -- how many in fact are gypsy moth larvae and how many of them are caterpillars related to the mountain swallowtail, western tiger swallowtail, Steller's orange-tip, clouded sulphur, cabbage white, plain ringlet or sylvan wood nymph? I could go on and on. Can the minister tell the House today if he has any way at all of identifying the numbers and areas and the percentages of caterpillars killed that are actually Asian gypsy moth?
Hon. J. Cashore: One hesitates to dignify that kind of fearmongering with an answer. However, there is no question that all of us on both sides of the House are very concerned with regard to potential environmental impacts. No one has ever said that we are not. Would the hon. Leader of the Opposition like to outline to the House how he would deal with the situation of defoliation of our forests and flora throughout the lower mainland? Obviously he is advocating that this situation be allowed to go forward unchecked.
PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS
J. Weisgerber: A question today to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Can the minister confirm that until very recently former NDP MLA Gordon Hanson was in fact double-dipping? Can he confirm that Mr. Hanson not only had a cushy contract with his ministry but at the same time enjoyed a lucrative contract with the first nations' language, heritage and culture board, a group funded by his ministry.
Hon. A. Petter: I'll take the question on notice.
J. Weisgerber: A new question for the minister. Can the minister tell us what special qualifications Mr. Hanson has to qualify him for the job with his ministry? What special qualifications does Mr. Hanson possess that many people in the aboriginal community themselves do not possess?
[ Page 1197 ]
Hon. A. Petter: Mr. Hanson's qualifications are considerable. He holds a graduate degree in anthropology and archaeology. Prior to becoming an MLA he served as a curator at the provincial museum and as an assistant provincial archaeologist for B.C. Over the course of his career as an MLA, he became intimately involved with aboriginal issues and developed a wealth of experience in dealing with those issues.
J. Weisgerber: It's interesting that the minister wasn't prepared to answer the first question but he certainly seemed to have thought about the second one a lot over the weekend. Can he tell us whether this is an example of what the Premier and his government mean when they say you won't need an inside track to get a job with the NDP government? Or is this a payoff for Mr. Hanson for his promise not to run in the last election?
Hon. A. Petter: I was prepared to answer the second question because the same question was put by one of your fellow members last week and taken on notice.
With respect to your question, the reason Mr. Hanson was retained was that he possesses the excellent qualifications I have indicated and has been providing us with tremendously valuable services.
The first project that Mr. Hanson took on -- I'll be pleased to share with the member -- was the resolution of a longtime dispute in Penticton over land. More recently he helped put a process in place to ensure the Haisla and Tsimshian nations were adequately consulted, as they must be under law, with respect to the Orenda pulp mill development, a $400 million development. He put that process in place, and as a result we received approval in principle from both of those first nations. That's a record of accomplishment that I think merits the congratulations of the House.
COMMISSION ON
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
J. Tyabji: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The minister has appointed a commission of resources to study sensitive issues in the province. My question is: if a sensitive area is under study, is he allowing resource extraction prior to the report of the commission?
Hon. J. Cashore: The commissioner, Mr. Stephen Owen, was appointed by the Minister of Forests and me. The work of the commission has been excellent in terms of getting some very good people recruited onto the staff and getting up and running and dealing with issues that have to do with land and water resources throughout the province. The fact that we have dealt with the strategies for setting aside certain areas that were on our original list of six and then expanded to seven has been dealt with in that manner. Therefore there is no intention in the process that.... The work and the commerce of the province will continue. In the meantime, we are proactive in putting in place a very positive and hopeful strategy that will help to deal with many of the land use conflicts that exist in the province.
This is a very practical strategy; it's a strategy that recognizes the importance of the economy to the province, and it also recognizes the importance of dealing appropriately with environmental aspects.
J. Tyabji: Maybe I should rephrase the question. My question is again to the Minister of Environment. One sensitive area is the Blue Lead Creek watershed in the Cariboo Mountains. Will this minister confirm that he is allowing clearcut logging of the Blue Lead Creek watershed to take place prior to the recommendations of the commission?
Hon. J. Cashore: Unfortunately, this member has not followed the process that has been, because indeed the Cariboo Mountains were one of the candidate areas selected by the B.C. Environmental Network as areas that needed government decision to enable the work of the commission to begin and to carry forward. Government made that decision with regard to what areas would be logged around and what areas would be protected. Significant areas in the Cariboo Mountains were protected. We do recognize that this has not satisfied everybody. Quite often, hon. member, the hallmark of a very good decision is when it doesn't satisfy everybody.
[2:30]
The Speaker: A final supplementary.
J. Tyabji: My last question is again for the Environment minister. Since he is making decisions affecting sensitive areas prior to the report of the commission, does he assume that his judgment in this area is better than that of the commission? If so, why appoint the commission in the first place?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member says "prior to the report of the commission." This indicates a basic misunderstanding of what the commission is. This commission will be involved in a long series of reporting to and recommending and advising government, so there's no "the report." We, in our role as government, recognize that the work of the province continues in the context of the kind of advice that is coming forward through the commission. We think that's the way it should be.
ALL-NIGHT FERRY SAILINGS
D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister responsible for the British Columbia Ferry Corporation. With respect to the recently announced policy of all-night sailings from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo, could the minister describe the form of prior consultation that has taken place with the communities most affected, namely Horseshoe Bay and Nanaimo?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm extremely disappointed that members of the Liberal Party are opposed to this service innovation in British Columbia. I think all
[ Page 1198 ]
members of the House, particularly those from Vancouver Island....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members.
Hon. G. Clark: People who live on Vancouver Island deserve better service, and we're trying to do that in the most cost-efficient way. All members of the House should be pleased with the fact that this innovation will not cost us the kind of money committed by the previous administration and will dramatically improve the service to Vancouver Island over the course of the summer months. It's not only good for people who live on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland, but it's good for tourism, which I know members opposite talk about and should be concerned about. This is good news for tourism and economic development on Vancouver Island.
D. Mitchell: My question was with respect to consultation. I'm not surprised that the minister responsible for the British Columbia Ferry Corporation doesn't answer that question, because there was no consultation. Would the minister commit today to putting this policy on hold and taking a second look before charging ahead with it? Would the minister give the people of Nanaimo and the people of Horseshoe Bay a chance to express their legitimate concerns? Would the minister do what he promised: take a second look and consult with the people?
Hon. G. Clark: If it wasn't clear with the first question, it is certainly clear with the second question that the members opposite are opposed to this service innovation. I wonder whether it's in the famous 60-year plan of the Liberal Party to have 24-hour sailings.
Members opposite should be delighted to know that I was in a meeting this morning, where the mayor of West Vancouver was in attendance, and I discussed this very question with him. There was consultation with staff people, with Frank Rhodes, the CEO of the Ferry Corporation, and with Mr. Sager. However, clearly they are not happy. This is a 75-day experiment to see a service innovation, and we plan to review it after that time. We are going to work with the communities affected to ensure that we mitigate as best we can any detrimental effect to the community of Horseshoe Bay.
Having said that, clearly we have a mandate to operate in the public interest. In my view, this is a very positive innovation, particularly for people on Vancouver Island and for tourism on Vancouver Island.
NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Hon. D. Miller: I rise on a ministerial statement, hon. Speaker. I hope my colleagues opposite have received a copy.
I want to draw the House's attention today to the fact that we are kicking off National Forest Week. On Friday I had the opportunity to visit the proud community of Chetwynd, which has been declared the forestry capital of Canada. I think that's important, in that it represents and is typical of the many forest-dependent communities that exist in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada.
This year's theme is "Take a Closer Look," and I would like to encourage all the members of this Legislature to take the lead and encourage their constituents to take a closer look at our province's forests and at our forest management practices. There will be displays, planting activities and contests throughout the province for all British Columbians.
For example, in the Bulkley forest district, many school and community events are planned. Boy Scouts and junior forest wardens will be planting trees. There will be a tree-growing contest for schools and a poster contest, and there will be a "treevial" radio quiz, radio interviews and school presentations. Chilliwack forest district has organized free guided bus tours to Vedder Mountain. Green Timbers in Surrey will be having a forest fair and a family day on Saturday. The list of activities goes on and on.
For those members who will be in Victoria throughout the week, please visit Can West Mall on Jacklin Road and meet our Forest Service staff, view our displays and discuss forest management with our experts. The Can West mall display is open this week from 9:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Thursday and Friday.
Our forests are important to our economy and environment, and I invite every British Columbian to participate in National Forest Week and learn more about our forests so that we can all be better stewards of this valuable resource. Forestry is an age-old and honourable profession, which has served as the lifeblood of British Columbia since its establishment as a province. This government is committed to ensuring that this environmentally benign and sustainable industry, which provides recyclable consumer products and which is an important part of our cultural heritage, can continue to thrive in the future.
W. Hurd: I'm pleased to respond to the statement by the Minister of Forests on the importance of forest education in the province. I'm also pleased to learn that Chetwynd is the forestry capital of British Columbia for the coming year. It is a quirk of British Columbia geography that we have a huge bulk of our population on the lower mainland where the forestry awareness probably needs to be improved the most dramatically. I certainly encourage British Columbians from all around the province to learn more about the importance of the forests to their communities and the importance of the forest to the economy.
While I'm on my feet, I'd also like to point out the urgent need for forest education in this province, particularly in our school system. Speaking from my past involvement in the industry in this province, I can tell you that it's a difficult role for industry to take, to encourage schools to avail themselves of forest materials. It's the type of role the government can more appropriately afford to the people of the province. So I'd like to endorse the opportunity for British Colum-
[ Page 1199 ]
bians to become more familiar with the forests and urge the government to look more closely at the whole aspect of forest education.
L. Fox: I rise as well in support of the minister's statement. We all know the importance of the forest industry to our economy. Certainly those in the north and in the rural parts recognize how large a role the industry plays in the economics of this province. If I recall correctly, three out of every eight jobs in Vancouver depend on a healthy forest industry. I'm especially pleased to hear that Chetwynd has been named the forest capital for British Columbia; a very deserving title to a very deserving community.
As the minister states, there are many displays and activities all across the province which follow the theme "Take a Closer Look." Our party has always recognized the importance of the forest industry and is committed to a balanced approach which honours the values of the forestry in terms of all interests for the province. We in this party join the minister and encourage all British Columbians to take part in the activities that are taking place throughout the province during the next week.
STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND
ACCESS TO POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Hon. T. Perry: I rise to make a ministerial statement to announce the creation of a comprehensive review of student financial assistance and barriers to access to the post-secondary education system.
Hon. Speaker, as members and the public will be aware, an important part of the government's election campaign platform was the freeze on tuition fees pending a thorough and comprehensive review of the barriers to post-secondary education. In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations announced the freeze on tuition fees at colleges, universities and institutes around the province. I am now delivering the second component of that promise to the people of B.C., which is a thorough and comprehensive review of barriers to post-secondary education and of the student financial assistance programs of this province.
Most members will be aware that student financial assistance operates at several levels. A federal student loan program is administered by the provinces on behalf of the federal government and has serious difficulties, most notable the 3 percent grab-back by the present federal government which was instituted as a tax on student loans in the fall of l991, and the failure of the federal government to adjust weekly allowances for students since 1984 despite significant inflation during that period. There a number of other difficulties with the federal program, including high administrative costs and a large default rate, which have led the federal Secretary of State to undertake a review of those problems, prompted by all provincial ministers of post-secondary education.
At the second level of assistance, most provinces have their own program to assist in access for students to post-secondary education. In British Columbia we have a significant program of student loans. We also have a relatively generous remission program for students accumulating large and excessively burdensome loans.
We also have a significant problem of a default rate of approximately 20 percent on loans issued. Most of the defaults probably relate to the inability of students to repay an excessive debt accumulated during their studies. Some of the defaults undoubtedly relate to a lack of intent on the part of the former students to repay their obligation to society.
Of course, we also have additional measures to assist students, administered by the colleges, institutes and universities themselves, in the form of bursaries and scholarships.
The problems with the loan program in British Columbia are significant. They were last thoroughly reviewed in 1987, if memory serves me correctly, and it's time for a fresh look at those problems.
[2:45]
The barriers to post-secondary education include not only the fees of the post-secondary institutions but also a number of other non-monetary barriers in addition to the financial status of the student and, where relevant, the student's family. They include social-cultural factors such as the environment in the school or home; psychological factors affecting whether or not a student in secondary school will even consider going on to another form of post-secondary education, be it career, vocational, academic or trades training; problems affecting people in remote parts of the province who have more difficult access to post-secondary institutions, higher transportation costs and higher living costs because they must relocate; problems affecting single parents -- perhaps some of the most severe difficulties for students now -- typically a single woman supporting children at the very margin of poverty and having great difficulty maintaining a household as well as studying; problems affecting native people, who have a shockingly low participation rate in post-secondary education; and the particular problems of students with disabilities, who face not only difficulties of physical access to post-secondary institutions but also attitudinal problems of a kind that were so clearly displayed to the public by Independence '92 a few weeks ago.
The intent of the review is to look objectively and honestly at all of those issues. There are some good precedents for reviews of this kind, including a review conducted in 1987, but this review is intended to be more comprehensive than those recently conducted in British Columbia. It will carry forward the work of the Standing Committee on Student Financial Assistance, but improve it.
We have been lucky in British Columbia to find an exceptional individual to chair the review: Jennifer Orum, the coordinator of financial aid and awards at the B.C. Institute of Technology, who is a student financial aid officer highly respected by her peers across Canada and very widely respected in this province. She has assembled, in consultation with the relevant sectors of the public and with our ministry, an extraordinary team of members for the review, representing not only
[ Page 1200 ]
student groups at all levels and from around the province but also students with disabilities, a single-parent student, a representative of End Legislated Poverty and a representative of the accounting community who will bring fiscal prudence and experience to the work of the review committee.
Our intent is for the committee to report its findings hopefully in early September, but certainly in time for consideration in preparation of the next budget. I look forward very much to the results of this review.
D. Mitchell: Members of the official opposition welcome the appointment of this comprehensive review of financial assistance to post-secondary students. I recognize that there has been some controversy associated with the nomination of the student representatives on the panel in particular, but we welcome the fact that it is now proceeding.
This is important work. We must work hard to reduce and hopefully eliminate barriers to post-secondary education in British Columbia. I would note that the participation rate in the post-secondary education system in our province has slipped now to eighth out of ten provinces in Canada. Surely that's something that we can't tolerate. We must work hard to improve the participation rate, and one way that we do that is by eliminating barriers to post-secondary education.
I would like to note just very briefly that finances are only one significant barrier to increasing access and to increasing the participation rate. Hopefully this review will address not only the financial barriers but family and community values, the general economy, distance from educational facilities and other significant barriers to post-secondary education. Of course, we need to address the student financial assistance as well, and that is a key to this.
I'm pleased that the mandate of the review committee is not only to review the financial barriers but also to identify other significant barriers. It is time to take a proactive approach to increasing the participation of members of the community, who have historically been underrepresented in our colleges, universities and training institutes.
I'm glad there will now finally be some planning; we need some planning. Unfortunately, in my view, some of the steps this government has taken -- in particular, in this year's budget -- reveal that there has been a lack of consistent planning. For instance, compensation for the tuition freeze which has been implemented has not been nearly sufficient to address the shortfall in funding to our institutions in the post-secondary system.
The ministry has not come forward with a clear decision on whether programs to provide for summer employment for thousands of students in the post-secondary education system will go ahead, and that's a serious concern.
In fact, the budget might actually serve to reduce access on a net basis to students in British Columbia, and that's something we will canvass further when the estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology come forward.
There is a need for new ideas about student financial assistance and about reducing barriers to education. Hopefully this review will come forward with some of the new ideas that are sorely needed in this area. We can't simply tinker with the old system any longer; we've got to really take a look at reducing and eliminating barriers to post-secondary education. I'm personally looking forward to making representation to the commission. With those few comments, I would like to thank the minister for his statement today.
H. De Jong: Hon. Speaker, I'm just going to say a few things about this. I'm rather surprised that the minister is making this announcement prior to his estimates going through the House. The reason I say that is that there are, no doubt, areas of concern within the present administration not only in terms of access to education and access to the funding for that education; but I think that, when the people of the province make contributions through taxation toward education, they expect value to be returned for that money.
I am informed that many students pick up the loans and sign in for a number of courses, but often do not complete them. They will do this two or three semesters in a row. I think those things are extremely wasteful measures of using the taxpayers' money and should not be condoned. However, if the terms of reference can be changed following the more detailed discussion of the minister's estimates to also look after some of these matters, then I'm in complete agreement.
Hon. P. Priddy: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Hon. P. Priddy: I would like to introduce someone in the gallery today who is a student from Princess Margaret Senior Secondary in the riding of Surrey-Newton. He is very interested in the constitution and indeed has made a number of submissions on the constitution. He is, as well, a friend and a colleague as a political activist in Surrey-Newton. I would ask the House to make Joseph Tilley and his family welcome.
Hon. J. Cashore tabled the 1989-90 annual report of the Ministry of Environment.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 5; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 1.
J. Weisgerber: The first question I have to the minister is with regard to section 1(f), where it says the following words are substituted: "51.5 percent for the 1987 to 1991 taxation years." I'm curious that the minister would see it necessary to make this change retroactive to 1987, and I'm wondering if he could tell us the implications of that.
[ Page 1201 ]
Hon. G. Clark: It's not a retroactive clause, nor is it intended to be. It's intended to change the designation to 1991 as sort of an end-date; then it goes through the bill in '91. I'll just get that checked, but it is certainly not intended to be retroactive.
J. Weisgerber: So it's my understanding that the rate remains unchanged in the years 1987 through 1991, then increases in section (g) to 52 percent for the current -- fiscal or calendar -- year. Could you perhaps comment?
Hon. G. Clark: The reason it's designed this way is that July 1 is the date. In order to do a 1 percent or one-point increase in income tax, you have to do two points on July 1 to capture that amount of money. Rather than doing that, we chose to raise it half a point on an annual basis, which means one point on July 1, which coincides exactly with the 1 percent cut in the federal surtax. That is why we have to do it in two instalments -- to get to the annualized 1 percent adjustment.
F. Gingell: I'm really pleased that you didn't put it up to 53 percent, or it would have been 53.5 percent to grab that extra 1 percent. But I do think that it is worthwhile my saying once again, at this moment in time at the start of the committee discussion of this bill, that here is British Columbia raising corporate income taxes, and the other provinces in Canada are recognizing that the key to increased jobs and getting the economy moving again is to decrease corporate taxes and give the economy a chance to expand. Give corporations funds that they can invest and put into job creation. I just want to make the point right now that I wish the Minister of Finance would start to understand that the way we get the economy moving is to decrease corporate taxes, not increase them.
Hon. G. Clark: The member should know that after these tax changes, we remain with the second-lowest personal income tax in Canada, and that continues under this section. I want members to be cautious in their criticism of this section, because clearly we are cognizant of our situation vis-�-vis the rest of the country. We will get to the corporate tax side later. It's not really part of this section, so I'll delay my remarks until then.
L. Fox: I want to talk a little about this impact. Something that is concerning me dramatically is the fact that the federal government obviously has seen the need to try to put more funds out there to help Canadians give a bit of a shot to the economy through increasing their spending. I find it rather objectionable that the province should immediately, upon the federal government reducing the taxation, find that they have some more room to move, essentially nullifying an initiative. It may have been small, but certainly the intent was in fact there. This government nullified an initiative taken by the senior level of government to put more dollars, more disposable income, into the hands and the pockets of British Columbians. I'd just like your response.
Hon. G. Clark: It doesn't surprise me that members of the Social Credit Party would support their friends and colleagues in the federal government -- the Mulroney administration.
The reality is that the federal government tax cut, modest as it is, is only made possible by the $1.4 billion annual off-loading onto this province. The federal government has cut back dramatically on their transfers to provinces in the areas of health care, education and social services. It has been particularly hard on Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. It's clear from the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan alone that we've lost a couple of hundred million dollars in revenue. It's a bit much for the federal government to say: "Now that we have shuffled all of those costs onto the province of British Columbia, we're going to be generous and cut taxes." As I said, the only reason that any cut is possible -- and that's debatable, given their fiscal situation -- is that they are downloading their problems onto British Columbia.
It's false to say that there's more than one taxpayer; there is only one taxpayer. The reality is that by off-loading onto us, we've been forced to take this little tax break to maintain health, social services and education spending. What it means is that British Columbians will not pay more next year as a result of these tax changes.
[3:00]
L. Fox: In reference to the comments made by the minister, I certainly would support any government that cuts taxes rather than increases them. However, I find it rather difficult to accept your rationale that the reason the federal government lowered its rate on income tax is that they off-loaded $1.4 billion onto the province. That seems to be the rationale that you have clear in your mind. I wonder why the same rationale wasn't used by your government when you off-loaded onto municipalities yet still increased the income tax rate to British Columbians. It's strange to me how you rationalize one in one way, and you have a different rationale on the other.
Hon. G. Clark: The reason is that we have not off-loaded onto municipalities. We've given the second-highest transfer to municipalities in eight years in terms of unconditional grants, and it's the highest in the history of British Columbia on the conditional grant side. Municipalities will receive significantly more revenue in spite of the drastic fiscal situation that we inherited from the Social Credit Party.
L. Fox: I realize that revenue-sharing is really not debatable here. However, I look forward to the day that I prove you totally wrong in this rhetoric that you're giving us. In fact, through your budget you have off-loaded onto municipalities dramatically, and those who do not already know it will know it when the tax notices come out. Obviously the minister will be made
[ Page 1202 ]
more aware of it come the end of June, when the tax notices hit the mail and the taxpayers.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
J. Weisgerber: My understanding of the import of section 2 is that it removes the sunset clause that was in the legislation. The surcharge was introduced last year as a temporary measure and had an expiry date of 1994. Interestingly, in debates the other day, the minister went on at some length about how he favours a sunset clause. That was when we were talking about the ecologically sound fuels measure and the decision to start taxing fuels. At that time he said he thought it was good public policy to have a sunset clause in the legislation. So I'm curious about the contradiction in this legislation, where he feels that it's necessary to remove any sunset clause and to give people no hope that there's ever going to be an end to this income surcharge. It's unfortunate that the minister decided, if not to leave the 1994 sunset date in there, not to have given British Columbians some indication of when his government sees the province coming to the point where it no longer has to apply a surcharge to high-income earners.
Hon. G. Clark: That's generally a valid point. Just so we're clear, the reason this section exists is in order to escape from three different surtaxes. We had to eliminate the previous surtax and replace it with the two-tiered new surtax. So it's more for simplicity that this section exists. You're quite correct that there is no sunset clause on the ones that now replace that, the two surtax levels. Clearly we'd be delighted to reduce them over time, but the fiscal situation -- and I don't want to belabour this point -- that exists in spite of these tax increases and the tough spending cuts is horrendous. The members opposite have made this point, and I agree with them that the deficit is very, very large, and we have to struggle to deal with it. These surtaxes will be there for some time as part of a strategy of trying to get our fiscal house in order.
L. Fox: With respect to the surtax, I just want to point out to the minister what a dramatic impact this does have on many hard-working northerners, people who work, in many instances when the season is on, from 2 o'clock in the morning right through until 7 or 8 o'clock the next evening. I'm speaking now of loggers, truck drivers and all these individuals whose one basic reward is to have a good paycheque. They work a substantial number of hours. This kind of initiative by this government takes away from the entrepreneurship and the hardworking ethics that we had bred into us in the northern parts of this province in order to get ahead. This is specifically targeted at the hard worker who works anywhere from 12 to 18 hours a day in order to do his job and get ahead in this world, and I'm really disappointed that you and your government have seen fit to tax those individuals who are the backbone of the economy in northern British Columbia.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
J. Weisgerber: For a point of clarification, I hope we can look at sections (a) and (b) together because, while given the minister's explanation about using 10 percent of the surcharge in the 1992 calendar year, being an amount equal to 20 percent in the entire 1993 year, I assume that the same rationale applies here as we discussed in section 1.
I'm curious, then, on the amount in excess of $9,000 taxable, why the bill would suggest that there would be a 10 percent charge in '92 on that amount and an equal 10 percent charge for the 1993 year. It would seem to me inconsistent. Perhaps I'm missing something here. Is it the intent to charge an amount equivalent to 20 percent surcharge per annum on the amounts in excess of $5,300 this year and an amount equal to 20 percent per annum on that same amount next year? That's easy to understand if that's the case. Where I'm lost here is to know why you're applying 10 percent to the second tier this year and again next year. It doesn't seem to follow.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes, it's very confusing. I'd like to try to clear it up, but it's a bit difficult. We do have the existing surtax. People now have the existing surtax deducted at source. That's partly what's causing your confusion. Your initial logic was correct in that these are half-year, so it looks a little smaller than the actual tax take is. It's a 20 percent annual surtax rather than 10 percent, as you pointed out.
I'm not quite sure what your question is. Maybe I could read from these notes, just so you have a clear idea. This provides new rules for calculating the surtax on high-income individuals for 1992 and subsequent taxation years. For the 1992 taxation year, the surtax will typically affect individuals with income exceeding $60,000 and a family of four with one wage-earner with income exceeding $75,000. That's the threshold, generally speaking, upon which you start paying.
The surtax for the '92 taxation year will be 10 percent of provincial income tax greater than $5,300, plus 10 percent of the provincial income tax greater than $9,000 and excluding any amount for the surtax -- that's on top of. The surtax for 1993 and subsequent taxation years will be 20 percent of the provincial income tax greater than $5,300, plus 10 percent of the provincial income tax greater than $9,000 and excluding any amount for the surtax. That's on top of again. The existing rules for calculating a non-refundable credit equal to $50 for each dependent will also apply to the new surtax as applied to the old surtax. Section 118(1)(a), (b) and (d)(i) and (ii) of the federal act defines a dependent as a taxpayer's spouse, parent, grandparent, child under the age of 18 or person dependent upon the taxpayer by reason of mental or physical infirmity.
Just to simplify it, it's an additional 3 cents on every dollar earned over $80,000 if you're a single taxpayer, or an additional 2 cents on every dollar earned between $60,000 and $80,000. That's the final impact of these surtax changes.
[ Page 1203 ]
J. Weisgerber: I'm still not clear on the mathematical formula. It would seem to me that if you're trying to achieve on an annual basis in 1993 a 20 percent surcharge on income tax payable over $5,300 and an additional 10 percent on taxes payable over $9,000, to achieve an equivalent amount of taxation in the current fiscal year you would go back to section (a) (i) and leave it at 10 percent. That follows. You're going to tax on the basis of a year over a six-month time-frame and get the equivalent 10 percent, which is an equivalent on an annualized basis of 20 percent in (b) (i). Why wouldn't the figure in (a) (ii) be 5 percent rather than 10 percent? Maybe that's an easier question.
Hon. G. Clark: Yes. You're absolutely correct. The reason is that we've already collected 10 percent from the previous surtax. We can't start collecting this until July 1. Because we've already collected, there's no need to deal with it in the manner you have suggested. We're not trying to make it retroactive; we're trying to have it start July 1. Your logic is correct, and the only difference is that there is an existing tax.
F. Gingell: Under section 2 you went back and repealed the surtax that existed to that point. You said: "On December 31, 1991, this surtax no longer exists." We are now into 1992. I appreciate that you have just charged.... You're saying that there's going to be no surtax. Is this correct? You're going to have no surtax?
Interjection.
F. Gingell: Why don't you come back with your new point of light.
Hon. G. Clark: You're quite correct. This does repeal the surtax as of January 1, or as of when we bring it in. It's repealed, so it doesn't exist. The problem is that the source deductions are determined as of January 1 and July 1, so these have already been deducted at source. It's not necessary to deal with the new tax in the manner you're suggesting, because it has already been collected. In fact, you are correct. This does repeal the existing surtax and replace it with the new surtaxes, but because the source deductions were declared on January 1 and they continue to July 1, the new deductions aren't eligible to take place, at least not easily, until July 1. I'm sorry if I've completely confused everything.
F. Gingell: Deductions at source that happen to be in a booklet or on a computer calculation -- how much you take off someone's monthly paycheque or weekly paycheque, whatever -- are irrelevant. The amount of tax that we pay is the amount that we're required to under the Income Tax Act. If you've had an amount for surtax included in the income tax deductions at source that subsequently is not taxed, it means we will get a refund. If you put in another tax that hasn't been included in the deductions, it simply means that all taxpayers that are affected will have to pay an additional amount with that filing.
What I understand from this is that the previous surtax ended on January 1. Commencing January 1, 1992, there will be a 10 percent surtax on the amount of tax that exceeds $5,300 but which is less than $9,000, and a 20 percent surtax on the amount that exceeds $9,000. Is that correct? Ten and 20.
[3:15]
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I can clear it up very simply for you. I guess what we're saying is that the existing tax and the new tax dovetail. We're not trying to double tax or anything like that, or to have anything fall between the cracks. My staff and legal counsel's advice is that this is the simplest way of making the transition. Not only is it the simplest way of doing it, but we wanted to make sure that the source deductions are July.... I mean, government and the Legislature has the power, of course, to impose these taxes at any time. We chose not to act that way, and most governments would not, quite properly. We chose to act at the time of the source deductions so that there's a rational way in which we collect these taxes. We tried to generate the same amount of income as was projected by the previous tax and then added our new surtax levies on top of that. This is simply a technical way of doing that.
If you'd like, I'd be delighted to have my staff available to you on these kinds of technical questions. I'm not trying to dodge them. You can continue to ask these questions and be sure that I would be delighted to try to answer them. But I'm not sure that we're getting anywhere. Essentially, these are technical amendments to try to bring about the changes I've made in the budget. It is complex because of two things: July 1, which makes it part-year, and the existing surtax and the repeal of that.
J. Weisgerber: I agree that we are going to go around and around on this by arguing technically. Perhaps the minister can give us an assurance or an undertaking that he would agree with us that the intent of this section is that the surcharges collected in 1992 will be no greater than those outlined in the legislation for 1993. If that's the case and if he will give us that assurance, perhaps his staff would go back and check, on the faint chance that there might in fact be an error here; and that if this legislation doesn't prove that out, he will give us an undertaking to bring an amendment to the House.
Hon. G. Clark: I'd be delighted to give that. That's quite correct: '93 is the exact number we are arriving at. I'll make sure that we check with my staff.
By the way, this is Alan Carver, from my staff. I'll have him deal with you directly on this question to ensure that it is. This is very complex. But having gone through this, I am satisfied that this achieves the purpose that the government desires.
F. Gingell: Just summarizing, Mr. Chairman. To move to subsection (b), I take it the understanding is that the surtax for 1993 is 20 percent of the amount which exceeds $5,300 and is not greater than $9,000, and 30 percent of the amount that exceeds $9,000. Is that correct?
[ Page 1204 ]
Hon. G. Clark: That is correct.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
L. Fox: I just want to make one comment and ask if the minister is aware.... I am extremely concerned about the headlines that I have here from the Bellingham Herald: "Tax-weary Canadian Businessmen Head South," "Your Next Boss Could Be A Canadian" and "U.S. Prices and Market Seem Ripe for British Columbian Manufacturers." All of these relate directly to the tax load which has been placed on businesses. I would like to know specifically what the impact is going to be as a result of this corporate tax and how the minister feels it has helped create these headlines.
Hon. G. Clark: The best thing that we think we can do for investor confidence in British Columbia is to get our own fiscal house in order. As members know, we inherited an incredible financial mess from the previous government.
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: I know that members are concerned about that. I'll have to use it next year as well, because this is going to be a problem which is going to take several years to dig out from under.
All members of the House have a very challenging and onerous responsibility to try to deal with this burden which the government inherited on behalf of the people. We felt that it was important to get the deficit down, and unfortunately everybody has to pay their share. This returns the corporate income tax rate to what it was under Bill Bennett; you people over there know Bill Bennett. This is no higher than it was for several years under the Bill Bennett administration.
When I talk to the business community, yes, there are concerns. Generally speaking, the corporate income tax rate in British Columbia is not one of the highest concerns on their list, given that we are competitive with the rest of the country and that it is a profit-based tax. We have done a study comparing us with Washington State, and the Minister of Economic Development made a ministerial statement in that regard. He used it as an example to give a sense of where we were, because we are cognizant of that, we are concerned about that and we are monitoring it. This particular section -- this particular tax -- I'm sure will have no impact on that question.
L. Fox: Mr. Chairman, I do have to make a comment. I want to point out to the minister that as he is well aware that there were alternatives to this tax increase. Very simply, that could have been not hiring the 1,549 new employees this budget has hired. As well, there is the $200 million in fixed wage costs that this government will see. This is a budget of choices.
Mr. Minister, you made those choices all right, but perhaps not necessarily in the best interests of all British Columbians -- perhaps, more importantly, in the best interests of your insiders and friends. I'm extremely concerned. I had to rise and make those comments because he continually goes back to the fact that this government and province were left in a big mess.
I suggest that he might have been able to clarify the earlier questions with respect to item 3 if he had his friends Peat Marwick and Thorne here to address the issue. That's all.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sure all three of them would be delighted to assist the government at any time. I would make the point, member, that you're right: this budget, and our government, is about choices. We chose to protect health, education and social services in the budget process. In spite of that, of course, I keep hearing members opposite complaining about not enough money in those areas and then complaining about tax revenues to deal with them.
I might say also that the previous government did have a choice, and they did cut taxes on business. It's interesting that the Liberal opposition spokesperson sides with the Social Credit Party on this question of trickle-down economics, because even with these tax increases, the burden on business annually is $300 million less than it was under the Bill Bennett administration. The reality is that business has to pay their fair share if we're going to protect the kind of health, education and social services systems which we believe in and campaigned on, and which we believe the people of British Columbia support.
J. Weisgerber: Seeing we're on this tack now, it's important to recognize that corporate profits take two paths. They can either go in the form of dividends to their shareholders and be fed into the economy that way or, in the most common instance with corporations, the profits are reinvested in the business to make the business more competitive.
If there has been one underlying, solid rationale for keeping corporate taxes low in British Columbia -- the forest industry is a prime example -- the profits that the industry has generated have made it the most modern, most competitive industry on the continent. If you cash-starve businesses, you will deny them the opportunity or the wherewithal to reinvest in their business, to bring in technological changes and to continue to make themselves competitive. So if we have an argument with the reduction of corporate taxes or, contrarily, to the increase in taxation on corporate profits, it's that it reduces from corporations that ability -- or impairs that ability -- for corporations to reinvest in their industry and in the technology that's made them successful and profitable in the first place.
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
F. Gingell: I decided that I would not say anything about section 6 but say something about section 7, because it seems to me that you've made a decision to increase corporate taxes. I'd be most interested in the analysis of your remark just now that corporate taxes
[ Page 1205 ]
used to be $300 million higher than this previous time under a different administration. I wonder whether that was because corporations were more profitable, or whether the $300 million is directly attributable to a tax rate reduction.
Hon. G. Clark: There are a variety of factors. During the mid 1980s, the previous administration -- actually the Bennett administration and the Vander Zalm administration -- started upon a process of what they euphemistically called tax reform, which resulted in a dramatic cut in a variety of things. It resulted in the corporation income tax cut by 2 percent; it resulted in the elimination of the capital tax -- one of the biggest ones was the industrial property tax -- and they were essentially frozen for several years.
In spite of the fact that we modestly increased the tax on commercial and industrial property by 6 percent in this budget, it's still significantly low; not just in dollars that grow with inflation, but it's actually lower -- in absolute dollars today -- than the amount of money generated by commercial and industrial property taxes in, I think, 1984-85.
Not only has it gone down just as a result of inflation, by being frozen; it is actually significantly lower. That's one of the big tax changes. I think the school tax on machinery was eliminated as well. That's another tax break for particularly large corporations, but ll corporations.
I'm not arguing reviewing the tax questions for their effectiveness and the differential taxes, and the merits of school taxes on machinery and the like. All I'm saying is that the total burden on industry is still, even with these tax changes, $300 million lower than it was a few years ago; and that's in spite of the fact that we have an onerous fiscal situation. Again, I think that's really what we're meaning. If you'd like, I can have some specific numbers for you to show you exactly how we generate it.
This section here deals with raising the small business income tax rate to 10 percent. As you know, it was originally 9 percent, I believe, and then it went to 11 percent under the Vander Zalm administration. Then it was cut back down to 9 percent just before the election. We've increased it to 10 percent, and not gone back to what it was, in 1987 I believe, which was 11 percent.
[3:30]
Having said that, one of the rationales is that when you raise the income tax, particularly on high-income earners, there's a very good public policy reason for raising the small business income tax rate as well; otherwise people can have the ability to shift their income around. I'm not arguing it should be higher, but there may be some leakage as a result of the high-income surtax and not having a significant increase in small business income tax rate, but it's one we're prepared to withstand, because we recognize the need to promote and enhance our small business sector to make sure they're competitive. So this section modestly raises the small business income tax rate to 10 percent. It is lower than it was under the first few years of the Vander Zalm administration.
If you're raising corporate income tax or high income surtax, you have to raise small business tax. Besides the fact that it generates income for the government, it also makes the whole system move along.
F. Gingell: I like your use of the word "modest" when you have increased the tax rate by 11 percent.
Interjection.
F. Gingell: A 1 percent increase on the 9 percent tax, I think is, 11.1 recurring. During second reading of the debate, we made a point that I'd like to repeat: it is the small business section of this province that is the main engine of job creation. They are the people that really have come through for British Columbia in the last three or four years. They're the people that have created jobs. We should be encouraging them. We have now brought our small business corporation tax up to be the highest in the country. With that I will pass on.
C. Tanner: I think the minister understands that there's a basic philosophical difference between that side of the House and this side of the House on this bill. You've made a decision, which is your right on that side of the House, to put any increase in expenditures into health, social services and education. It is your privilege to do so. On this side of the House we're saying that while we think you've made a mistake, you've compounded the mistake by making it more difficult to earn the wealth to pay those expenses. It's specifically in the very area that you aimed to appeal to before the election, and that is small business.
The retail small business in this province and North America has gone through the worst year and a half since the thirties. There are many small businesses hanging on by their fingernails, particularly in the retail and tourism sector -- the very sectors that employ the most people and, as far as you're concerned, can generate the most wealth, particularly tourism. When you increase their tax load, should they make a profit when you've taken the tax off them on their capital assets as well and then increased their taxes by about 11 percent, you are doing a disservice to the very policy that you ran on. The minister should rethink the increase in taxes on small business. It would be my suggestion that he should not proclaim section 7 until at least a year has passed, to give business time to recover. Would the minister like to comment?
Hon. G. Clark: I appreciate the comments from the member from Saanich. They are articulately stated. The only thing I would ask him to do is to make those speeches in the Liberal caucus, because every day, practically, we hear demands for more money for health and education. In fact, we've demands for some $80 million right now to give to education. We'd like to do that on this side of the House, believe me, but we simply can't within the fiscal target we've set. You've made a very good point, and I'm sympathetic to elements of it. You can't keep cutting the economic ministries and putting all the money into health care, because the economic ministries, particularly ones that
[ Page 1206 ]
generate our infrastructure development, are important for generating wealth and keeping the economy rolling. I think all members on our side of the House are sympathetic to that argument, but we do have a very tough fiscal situation we're trying to grapple with. In order to deal with that, we've focused on the priorities that we campaigned on and that are in keeping with British Columbia's sense of values. So health care, education and social services are areas where we focused the attention.
On the small business side, I agree with you as well that these are challenging times for small business people. We're sympathetic to that. We tried to balance the budget in such a way that it didn't have a big impact. You mentioned the capital tax; 80 percent of businesses will not pay the capital tax. Again, because we set the threshold to make sure that small business.... You can argue about the sizes, but 80 percent of the smallest businesses will not pay it. This is a modest income tax increase that is profit-sensitive. It's lower than it was a few years ago. We think it is modest, but I certainly don't have any hesitation in saying that people are concerned about it and complain about it. I understand that, because no one likes to pay taxes, but we try to be fair and try to generate our revenue in the fairest way possible. We think it is essential to try to deal with the fiscal challenge that we're facing.
C. Tanner: I can't let the remark go through about the fact that some members on this side of the House have been asking you to increase taxes while I and other members on this side of the House have asked you to go steady. Mr. Finance minister, you have illustrated the beauty, the strength and probably the weakness of the Liberal position. Liberals accompany and cover all points of view, and we try to resolve in caucus before we come in the House. Occasionally we don't make it. But the fact of the matter is that it is a more pertinent point of view to the people of British Columbia than yours is, because 60 percent of the people voted against you, not for you. I think the minister recognizes that it's the members on this side of the House who more properly represent the public point of view...
The Chair: Order!
C. Tanner: ...particularly the business point of view. I appreciate what you said about what I said. Mr. Minister, I asked you a specific question: would you give this House the assurance that you won't proclaim section 7 for a year?
Hon. G. Clark: We cannot do that in a tax bill. Upon proclamation, all sections are enacted. We can't stand it down or not proclaim sections as we can with other bills.
J. Weisgerber: I'm curious to know whether the minister sees a situation with a small business community which would be different from that which I described in the corporate sector, with a need to reinvest earnings into the business to expand, diversify, modernize or whatever. That seems like a very acceptable argument in the corporate sector, and it seems to me that the same logic should apply in the small business sector. If his reason for bringing this change in is simply to link it to personal income taxes, has the minister examined any ways of delinking -- of separating -- corporate taxes and small business taxes from the private or individual income tax rate?
Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. I'd say that at the peak of the economic cycle, when there was significant capital investment in small businesses and larger businesses, there was a higher tax burden. When the corporate income tax for small business was 11 percent, they were investing more money than they are today. So it's simplistic to say that there is a direct causal relationship between the tax rate and investment. Clearly it is taking money from the small business sector for the government coffers. That makes it more difficult -- I don't have any hesitation in saying that -- but it's much more tied to what's happening in the general economy.
We had very good years there in the late eighties, and we had good corporate profits, good small business profits, good rates of reinvestment and higher rates of small business income tax. So they're not directly related, and this does not return it to the level it was before. While we don't expect it to be popular, we're confident that people will understand that this is fair and responsible.
Section 7 approved on division.
Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 5, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.
Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 2, hon. Speaker.
MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION,
TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 2; E. Barnes in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
D. Mitchell: I have a general comment on section 2 of this act. I understand that this section gives the Provincial Apprenticeship Board the power to charge a f
[ Page 1207 ]
ee for exemption permits issued under the Apprenticeship Act; and I understand that that permit exempts an individual working in a specified trade from holding a compulsory certificate of qualification. But I wonder if the minister could inform this committee as to the reasons why section 2 is coming forward and the reason why this power is being granted. What are the fee implications here? Who will set the fees for the Apprenticeship Board? Can the minister comment in terms of how much revenue is expected to be raised by this fee that's now going to be charged? Under whose initiative has this section of the act come forward?
[3:45]
Hon. T. Perry: I think I'll take this moment, in case anyone in the ministry is watching, to notify ministry staff that it might be useful to have them here if detailed questions of this kind arise. I think I can handle this one, but there might be subsequent ones requiring their expertise.
The answer is that the Apprenticeship Board does not now have the right under its act to charge what essentially would be an administrative fee for the issuing of a certificate of exemption. Although it can charge a fee for examination or for issuance of a certificate, it's an anomaly in the old law that it can't do this in the cases where it considers it appropriate to grant an exemption. There are certain experienced workers who can satisfy grandmothering or grandfathering clauses, or whatever, and satisfy the board that they are sufficiently skilled that they needn't sit the examination; and there is some administrative cost for the issuing of the permit. It's appropriate that there be a modest charge for that.
I don't think the ministry knows what charge the board would elect to make. We have confidence in the board that they will not make an exorbitant charge. I would only be guessing, but it might be in the range of somewhere between $5 and $50, or $100 maximum. I'm purely guessing at that, but it would be commensurate with the fees charged for other administrative services by the board. So the total revenues to the province will be minuscule; and the total costs to individuals seeking exemption will still be considerably less than those for the process of qualifying for an examination.
J. Weisgerber: My concerns with section 2 are that I have the uncomfortable feeling that it may well be related to the government's so-called fair wage policy. When the policy was introduced to this House, and the government chose not to introduce legislation, we were only given some sketchy details that were outlined in a ministerial statement.
One of the areas covered by the fair wage policy was the need for employees working on government-funded projects to be either certified journeymen or enrolled in an apprenticeship program. It would seem to flow from that that as a direct result of the so-called fair wage policy, there may be a number of very well qualified non-union employees who do not have any certification coming forward to ask for an exemption, particularly as outlined by section 2. I suppose if one were to look at this thing in a mischievous sort of way, there would be an opportunity for the government to put in a significant fee for the right to be exempted from the requirements of this apprenticeship act.
I'm uncomfortable with the timing of this, and I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the government has not seen fit to indicate in any way what that fee might be. I would be much happier if the minister were not only to give me the assurance that this wasn't brought in to frustrate the possibility of people working in the non-union sector gaining certification, but perhaps to bring in an amendment that would outline the fees, which would give the people who might be looking for an exemption some comfort that they're not going to be hit with unreasonable fees when they ask for exemption under this section.
Hon. T. Perry: I was just checking the old Apprenticeship Act to see if it would give me the answer on fees paid for examinations, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with that act to know where to look.
The former minister, the member for Peace River South, would probably be aware from his former occupation as a minister that it's common practice for statutes to allow a discretion on the setting of fees to bodies like the Apprenticeship Board or to regulation set by the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The reason is simply that the evidence -- as we will see when we debate Bill 22, the Barbers and Hairdressers Statutes Amendment Act -- is that a statutory requirement for a fee can become out of date over the years and need some inflationary adjustment.
I can't see the right section in the old act, but as I recall, the fees are set at the discretion of the Apprenticeship Board for certificates of apprenticeship and certificates of examination. I think I can reassure the member that the amendment here bears no relationship to the fair wage policy, because in fact this amendment was brought forward as a request from the Apprenticeship Board before the change in government -- if memory serves me -- and was simply in the works. It may have been there for years, but it certainly was being brought forward by ministry staff very shortly after I was sworn in as minister, based on a longstanding request from the Apprenticeship Board.
The request for that amendment long predates the present government's fair wage policy, so there is certainly no intention to discriminate against people who might be grandmothered or grandfathered into receiving an exemption permit. I can assure the member that I have every confidence that the Apprenticeship Board will set administrative fees which are modest, fair and appropriate for the amount of work involved, which really relates to assessment of the skills of the applicant.
V. Anderson: I have a concern on section 2 related to the minister's statement. I'm concerned about the many people I come across who are on low income and are trying to get into the workforce and for whom fees are a basic concern. I would be concerned that in leaving it just to the Apprenticeship Board the needs of the low-income people may not be taken into consider-
[ Page 1208 ]
ation. I would be much happier if the decision were made that the House -- or even the executive council or the Lieutenant-Governor -- be the one that makes the decision. I think the government should be able to keep their finger on the pulse of what is happening here, and if they find that persons with low incomes are being handicapped in becoming recognized in the apprenticeship positions, they should receive that kind of support.
It seems to me that the present government has indicated a strong concern about this particular group of people, and therefore they, if anyone, should be willing and eager to have that finger on the pulse so that these people are protected and encouraged to have the opportunity for apprenticeship. I would urge the minister to make sure that that clause is there so that they don't give away the ongoing supervision and authority to the Apprenticeship Board.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure that I correctly understood the hon. member's last point. With respect to the first point, if I understood him, he was concerned that fees set by the board for an individual who is issued an exemption permit under section 23(2) of the act might discourage people with disabilities or people living in poverty from achieving an exemption. I can reassure the member that this minister will not allow the Apprenticeship Board to set fees so high, and I don't have any realistic concern that the board is about to do so.
In the interim, I've located section 11 in the Apprenticeship Act, which states under "Duties of the board" that the board shall determine its procedure and issue directives on the fees payable to the province by the recipient of a certificate of apprenticeship or of qualification. You can see that the board itself has the power to set fees, as do most regulatory boards. It's simply consistent for the board to be able, as well, to set a fee for the receipt of a permit, indicating an exemption under section 23(2), as the wording is in the amendment in section 2 of this bill.
V. Anderson: In response to the minister's statement that he would not allow excessive fees to be set, if he already has the authority to dictate those fees, then why do you need this section in the first place if he's going to override it whenever it's used by the board? I think there is a contradiction in his response to me on that question.
The other one is that even agreeing or acknowledging that the minister may have the power to override what we're dealing with here, this minister will not always be the minister of this section. If the minister has the authority to override, and if it depends on a particular minister, it seems to me that it's not a very good section. The section should be able to stand on its own merits, without the minister either affirming or denying it. If it's a legislative decision, it should be independent of the minister at that point. If it's not, then I question the meaning of what has been written here.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure how to explain more clearly a section which, I think, is transparently clear. I renewed my motor vehicle licence last Friday. Astute and awake members will deduce that it was my birthday last Friday. In the absence of any applause, I will carry on.
I was charged a fee of $35 to renew my licence. It didn't take very long; fortunately the lines were blessedly short at the Victoria office up on McKenzie Avenue, and the clerk was exceptionally congenial. But it did cost me $35. That's an administrative fee, I presume, set by the motor vehicle branch or someone in the branch under authority granted to that branch by statute. The fee is periodically adjusted. The last time I had to renew it I don't think it cost quite so much. The fee is simply an attempt to recoup some of the administrative costs, just like any other fee for an administrative service.
[4:00]
The intent of the question of the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara is well taken -- that it would be a mistake for the Apprenticeship Board to impose any artificial barriers against people with disabilities or people attempting to achieve apprenticeship or its equivalent in trades qualification, who come from a background of poverty. It's not unusual for boards and administrative authorities of any kind to waive fees under unusual circumstances. It may or may not be technically appropriate, but it's often done in our society. Fortunately, people sometimes use common sense. I don't foresee the situation arising in which a fee set by the Apprenticeship Board would become a legitimate barrier to anyone working in B.C. Were that to happen, the minister of the day always has the ultimate sanction, in that he or she appoints the Apprenticeship Board; the board is merely a creature of the elected government. It's rather unlikely that this minister, or any other, will require the resignation of members of the Apprenticeship Board over the setting of a fee for certificates of exemption.
V. Anderson: It's unfortunate under the present discussions about the membership of boards that the hon. minister has taken this discussion in that direction -- that the boards are not independent and that if they disagree with the minister, even though they may abide by the law, they will be replaced. That's a principle we have to object to and question. If the law is so written that it has to be applied in that fashion, then it's a very weak and unfortunate law. It should be able to stand on its own merits. If it was so written that the fees were set by the government, then I could see the minister, through his proper channels, making those kinds of changes. But if it is so written that the authority is given to the Apprenticeship Board to make the decision, then it's inappropriate for the minister to suggest that he can override the legislation as written. Therefore he has himself pointed out the need of stating it in quite a different way than it is at the present moment.
Hon. T. Perry: The hon. member for Vancouver-Langara could not have my greater sympathy when he advocates for accessibility to apprenticeship for people with disabilities or unemployed people on social assistance living in any form of poverty. I could not agree with him more, and it's noble of him to have raised the
[ Page 1209 ]
point in the discussion on what's otherwise a very dry bill.
However, -- with respect, Mr. Chair -- the member is failing to grasp my point. Most statutes devolve authority from the cabinet, from the Legislature, or from ministers to elected or appointed boards. It's the very essence of our democracy that we devolve as much power as possible, practically, to people who are well positioned to utilize it. This minister and very few others who have held this position are acquainted with the details of apprenticeship issues. Much as we might like, it's difficult to be acquainted with the details of every matter that comes before the ministry. Therefore one of the reasons that we devolve power to the Apprenticeship Board is simply the practical one of putting the power in the hands of people who know what they're doing. That's the reason the board has the right not only to set policies and to determine requirements for standards of apprenticeship and examination, but also to set fees.
All of those powers are held, like those of any other appointed board, at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council through the minister. That's the mechanism under responsible government of accountability to elected representatives. We would not want appointed officials to hold absolute power without reference to an elected minister. The reason the statute does not set the fees is simply to allow the board to set fees and to revise them with a certain amount of flexibility. The board has always required the minister's permission, ultimately, to set those fees. It will continue to do so. Should it propose fees that are exorbitant, unreasonable, discriminatory or even sufficiently large to make the Minister of Finance return to the chamber with his trademark smile, it's likely that this minister will restrain it -- or any other minister. Not that we wouldn't like the money, but we don't want to take unreasonable gouges out of the pockets of working British Columbians.
L. Fox: It would appear to me that section 2 allows an individual, who is presently recognized as a journeyman but may not in fact hold a certificate, to apply to write an exam which would give him that certificate. Is that correct?
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. T. Perry: The act -- I'm referring to the 1979 revised statutes -- states in section 23:
"(1) The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" -- the cabinet -- "may, by regulation, designate trades and require that in a specified designated trade persons hold a certificate of qualification to practise or be employed in that trade.
"(2) On application of a person primarily affected by a regulation made under subsection (1), the director of apprenticeship may investigate the applicability of the regulation to the person in the particular circumstances of his practice or employment and may grant him" -- nowadays it would also be her -- "an exemption from the regulation on such terms as the director of apprenticeship may specify."
I haven't read verbatim; I've interpolated a little into that. That's the existing statute.
All that's being amended is to allow the director of apprenticeship to charge a fee for that service. In other words, if an individual can establish such good qualifications that she or he should be exempted from the normal regulations, there's some administrative work to be done by the director of apprenticeship or by the Apprenticeship Board. It's normal that the province attempts to recoup some of those charges. We don't normally recoup the full cost of such service, because of course we have to maintain a civil service to administer acts like this, and we don't charge everyone their full share of the cost; we charge a very tiny fraction of it, just as in post-secondary education the tuition fees are a very small fraction of the total cost.
If ministry staff are listening at the moment, perhaps they could send in to me the current fees for examinations. That might clarify for hon. members opposite the nature of the fee we're talking about. It's not a large fee.
L. Fox: I'm a bit confused, as the minister is. Perhaps it's because I don't have the act in front of me, and I'm not able to follow what it is because it asks you to look at other subsections and so on. It's rather difficult to follow the train. As I understand this, the amendment will allow an individual to be exempted from an apprenticeship requirement. My question is: at what point would an individual ask to be exempted from that requirement? What necessitates that question, and therefore necessitates this particular change? I fail to understand that.
Hon. T. Perry: If hon. members keep up the debate on this section long enough, we will have the ministry staff here to answer this question in as much detail as you like. I feel a bit embarrassed, because I suspect the Chair knows more about this subject than I do. My understanding is: for example, a European immigrant clearly qualified as a master tradesperson might arrive in British Columbia, and while holding a certificate not recognized in British Columbia -- let's say, from a German apprenticeship program -- rather than repeat apprenticeship or examination in British Columbia on the basis of demonstrable skills, can be exempted from the requirement to hold a trade certificate where those are mandatory. Trade certificates aren't mandatory for all trades, only for some of the several hundred trades recognized under the Apprenticeship Act. Another example may be... I'm not sure if it applies to migrants from other provinces in Canada or not, but the typical situation will be someone who has the skills for a trade, be it carpentry or millwright. They clearly have the experience, and it would be pointless to make them sit examinations. A similar courtesy, or exemption, is occasionally extended to professionals. It's rare, but it's occasionally extended, for example, in the profession of medicine; that the requirement to re-sit examinations is waived. That's usually at the discretion of the licensing body. It's a simple practical measure, long established in the Apprenticeship Act.
I note from page 2 of Bill 2 -- the simple lay-language explanation of section 2 -- that apparently this is
[ Page 1210 ]
a re-enactment of section 11(d). For some reason the ability to exact a fee for this administrative service was deleted at some point and is now to be restored.
D. Mitchell: Given that we don't want to waste the time of this committee any further, and given that the minister hasn't been able to answer questions with respect to section 2 of this bill, I would move that we rise and report progress and ask for leave to sit again and move on to another piece of business. We're going to have to come back to this. Clearly the minister requires staff to answer the questions. It's not a life-threatening situation here, but it is an important principle. The minister should come to the committee better prepared to answer questions from the committee. I would move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again on this bill, Bill 2.
Motion negatived.
The Chair: The chair recognizes the government House Leader.
D. Mitchell: Opposition?
The Chair: Pardon me, the opposition House Leader. I stand corrected. Thank you for your assistance.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're about four years premature there.
Perhaps I might recommend for the sake of convenience that we stand down section 2 of Bill 2 and move on to the other sections. If, by the time we get to the end, the minister's staff still haven't arrived, then we might have to consider the other alternative I suggested.
Hon. T. Perry: If that's technically possible, I have no objection whatsoever. I'll remind ministry staff again that their presence has been requested. Although I think I'm answering their questions, members do not feel that they're getting all the information they need, so I'll request ministry staff to come down.
The Chair: Okay. Section 2 is stood down.
On section 3.
D. Mitchell: For the sake of convenience, we might take sections 3, 4, and 5 together at one time. I think they're all relating to the same thing, which is the recognition of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia as the only organization that represents college and institute boards in British Columbia. Could the minister just comment briefly on this one? Does this amendment to the act indicate that the Advanced Education Council will now be, as he said during second reading debate, the only body representing all college and institute boards? Could he comment on whether or not any changes are contemplated in this section of the bill in terms of the current representation on the Advanced Education Council? Are there any changes to the appointment process to the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia by virtue of this section of the bill?
[4:15]
Hon. T. Perry: Just for the clarification of members, ministry staff are not hiding out somewhere in the building; they're up in various offices. They reside in about four different offices around the city of Victoria, so it may take them a few minutes to get here. I'm confident that they've been watching the debates and will be on their way here with alacrity.
The Advanced Education Council of British Columbia is a society incorporated under the Society Act. It's an independent, non-profit society. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. The Advanced Education Council was not created by the Legislative Assembly, nor was it created by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. It's self-created under the Society Act, just like tens of thousands of other non-profit societies in British Columbia. So the answer is that this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the Advanced Education Council.
The only reason that that council is mentioned is that it has supplanted the former British Columbia Association of Colleges as the general voice of college and institute administrators, presidents or CEOs, and board members throughout British Columbia.
There was a British Columbia Association of Colleges which, for historical reasons which elude my comprehension, was established by act of the Legislature. The British Columbia Association of Colleges became defunct on its own volition. I don't know if the member for Burnaby North will know the exact date when that transpired. If so, he may wish to stand and take his place in the debate while we await the arrival of ministry staff -- the filibuster of a government bill perhaps.
The B.C. Association of Colleges is no more. I'm not sure how to say it more clearly than that. It's defunct, no longer exists, is no more -- and "it kicked the bucket," says one hon. member. It was an admirable organization in its day, but it has been supplanted. For those members requiring further clarification, it has been replaced, re-emerged, risen like a phoenix in its own way in the form of the Advanced Education Council.
I can tell you about the Advanced Education Council. They are an effective communication group. I've appeared once, at their fall meeting. I had the pleasure of meeting with their executive recently in Vancouver to discuss difficult and contentious issues involving colleges and institutes. I look forward to attending their annual meeting, in Nanaimo I believe, at the end of this month, and I suspect they would welcome other members of the Legislature from both sides of the House at their annual meeting. They are doing very good work. They have a very congenial president, and I have the pleasure of saying that my administrative assistant, Mrs. Barbara Clague, formerly worked for the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia. So I can tell you all of that about the Advanced Education Council.
[ Page 1211 ]
To return to the section that we're debating.... The simplest way of stating the matter is to read verbatim section 4, with no disrespect to any former members, or even people who currently regard themselves as members of the British Columbia Association of Colleges, even though there are no such things: "The British Columbia Association of Colleges is dissolved and disestablished," and if there are any adherents of antidisestablishmentarianism remaining in the House, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.
V. Anderson: We appreciate the extreme efforts of the Minister of Advanced Education to enlighten us. One of the concerns that I have -- both from what is written here and what he has said -- is that having been involved with many non-profit societies, I appreciate their independence and their desire to be independent and to make their own decisions. I have particular difficulty with section 3(2), which says that by a law of this Legislature all of the debts, liabilities and obligations of the British Columbia Association of Colleges shall be by law laid upon this society. It seems to me that any of the societies that I belong to would look with a jaundiced view upon the Legislature laying legal law debts, liabilities and obligations of a previous organization upon them. They might look favourably upon section 1, which says that all the assets will go from the one organization to the other, but I hesitate to say that all the debts, liabilities and obligations should be legally laid upon them, because this could be, without our knowledge, a very onerous responsibility that they would be unwilling to accept. I for one would not wish to vote in favour of that obligation being laid upon them; it seems a very strange thing to do.
Hon. T. Perry: I can advise hon. members that ministry staff are en route and will arrive presently. In the meantime, I thank the hon. member for his question, which allows us to carry on debate on these sections while we stand down section 2.
What can I say, Mr. Chair? If this is the most odious section of a bill that the hon. member is ever presented with, then more power to the government. I can reassure the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara, who is a man of great conscience, that if his conscience so precludes him, he is not obliged to vote in favour of section 3(2) of this bill.
To reassure any other hon. members who have not decided how they wish to vote on this section, the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia, to whom all debts, liabilities, obligations and convenants of the British Columbia Association of Colleges are transferred, has yet to raise any objection to that transfer. In all probability this is because there are some assets -- as well as good will -- to be transferred from the now defunct, previously moribund association of colleges to the Advanced Education Council. I think that's why the Advanced Education Council sees this as such a signal day in the history of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. In due course members will likely be prepared to pass this section.
I wish to advise hon. members of the arrival of Dr. Har Singh, director of policy, planning and legislation in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. With his able assistance, I'm sure I can answer any of your questions which remain hitherto obscure.
D. Mitchell: Perhaps now that the minister's officials have arrived, we can return to section 2 of Bill 2, which gives the Provincial Apprenticeship Board the power to charge a fee for exemption. I might just say to the minister that I think I've just provided the answer to the question that has been asked. I just ask him to confirm -- now that he has the assistance of his official -- that section 2 gives the Provincial Apprenticeship Board the power to charge a fee for exemption. Could the minister confirm that that is the simple answer. Could the minister confirm that now with the able assistance of his official?
The Chair: Hon. members, as we had begun the process of the debate on sections 3 to 5, we may be advised to carry on and complete that to avoid any further confusion, and then come back to section 2.
V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister, now with the advice of his resource persons with him, might be able to clarify for us whether there are any debts, liabilities or obligations of the British Columbia Association of Colleges that would be transferred.
Hon. T. Perry: I have to apologize to the hon. member. I was so excited to hear the technical answer to your earlier questions that I missed the question.
V. Anderson: In section 3, are there any debts, liabilities or obligations of the former British Columbia Association of Colleges being transferred to this new society? If there aren't any, there's no problem. But if there are debts of a couple of million, I think we should know about it.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm advised that the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia, ably advised by Mr. David Camp of Ladner Downs, the son of the distinguished adviser to Progressive Conservative prime ministers, moguls, would-be prime ministers and others, asked for the transfer of all assets and liabilities from the British Columbia Association of Colleges now defunct. To the best of my knowledge, there are no liabilities. But if the hon. member wishes, I will undertake to answer that question further. I wonder if the hon. member might be willing to accept my undertaking to answer it later, or if you'd prefer that we stand back down this section and return to number 2. It's not a matter of concern to the recipient of the benefits and the liabilities. It's simply a standard technicality of legal language that would be found in any similar act in the statutes of B.C. I can assure the hon. member that there is no hidden agenda, no hidden message here. This is all good news, but very unlikely that it will even merit the attention of the media today.
[4:30]
[ Page 1212 ]
H. De Jong: That's exactly the question I was going to ask earlier. Was this actually a request by the Advanced Education Council that they would get the assets as well as everything else that belongs to it? This being a society established under the Society Act, do they elect their own board of governors, board of directors, or whatever may be in place to govern that society?
Hon. T. Perry: The answer, hon. member, to those questions is yes, the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia requested the transfer. I don't personally know what the assets were. Perhaps there were a few chairs or a desk or a fax machine, or something of some value. Any liabilities, if there were any, would have amounted to day-to-day business. Given that the British Columbia Association of Colleges has been defunct now since July 1, 1990, when it officially closed, it's unlikely that there would be anything of any substantial nature.
I believe one of the reasons for a standard clause like this -- although I'm not a lawyer -- is in the event that an unpaid bill for a set of stationery turns up in a year and is still legally valid, or if an outstanding cheque were cashed for $15 to pay for a telephone bill. This is all being done with the express consent and request of the Advanced Education Council.
To answer the second question, yes, the Advanced Education Council is a non-profit society that elects its own board of directors, just like any other.
H. De Jong: I have one further question, Mr. Chairman. What is required in order to obtain membership in that society?
Hon. T. Perry: I would undertake to answer that question informally. It's not strictly relevant to the purpose of the bill, so I hope the hon. member and others would agree that we could proceed with the bill. But I'd be happy to undertake that. Normally the constitution of all societies are available where they're registered from the registrar of companies. The hon. member could obtain that from the registrar of companies, but I'd be happy to provide all hon. members with a copy of the pamphlets from the Advanced Education Council describing their function.
In effect, they're an advocacy organization for advanced education in British Columbia that sprang up from the colleges and institutes in order to ensure that not only the universities were represented in relations with government and with the public. The universities in B.C. have a long tradition of effective representation -- some might even call it lobbying -- and have had in the old days the Universities Council and the Tri-University Presidents' Council, which is now the University Presidents' Council.
The colleges formed their own association in order to be on equal footing with universities. That's the role of the Advanced Education Council now. They coordinate programs within colleges. Perhaps the former critic, the member for Burnaby North, who has been more familiar with the issues and has longer experience than I do, might like to elaborate on this excellent organization. But I think we could proceed.
B. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I marvel at the patience of the Advanced Education minister. This is a simple housekeeping measure. What happened about two years ago was that a new organization was created, whereas the old organization was composed of members who were college board members. They felt they would be more effective in their relationships with government if they added the CEOs of those institutions. They took the old organizations, added a few new members -- maybe no more than 50 new members -- and changed the name.
I doubt if there's any concern with the assets or liabilities. It's virtually the same body. It's just a simple housekeeping measure, and I think it's a great testament not only to the patience of the Advanced Education minister, but also to this government. If this is the kind of concern that members opposite have, obviously there's nothing but good legislation going through this chamber on the part of the government.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the explanation, and it's very helpful. The only other question that I would raise is clarification that the British Columbia Association of Colleges was also a private, independent body and was not incorporated as a government organization. If so, it's from one private body to another. Or is it from a government body to a private body?
Hon. T. Perry: I have to agree with the member for Burnaby North: I marvel at my own patience. Section 3 of Bill 2, which we're debating, states:
"All real and personal property, in possession or in action, including benefits under any contract, lease or agreement, of the British Columbia Association of Colleges established under the British Columbia Association of Colleges Incorporation Act is transferred to and vested in the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia, a society established under the Society Act."
Any reading of that section makes it clear that the British Columbia Association of Colleges was established under an act of the British Columbia Legislature entitled the British Columbia Association of Colleges Incorporation Act. If members are sufficiently curious, they may wish to refer to their statute book -- in fact, this one may have it, depending on the date of the statute -- and determine, under (b).... It must have been after 1979, because it's not in this version of the statutes, but it will be somewhere in the other books back there on the bookshelves. I really want to reassure members that the situation is exactly as the hon. member for Burnaby North described it: a housekeeping matter of no consequence to anyone.
G. Farrell-Collins: To the minister and, I guess, to the other government member who commented -- the former critic for this portfolio seems very well versed on the bill -- it's perhaps the patience of this side of the House that's wearing thin when we ask very simple questions and can't hear or find the answer to them. I've already clarified for the minister, with the member for Prince George-Omineca, the answer to the
[ Page 1213 ]
question for which we brought the staff here, so I don't think there will be a further need for the gentleman to stay if he would like to go home and be with his family.
This bill could move much more quickly if the minister knew the answers to the simple questions we were asking. We start to get worried when we ask simple questions and don't get answers. We wonder what else there is that we're not aware of, and that's why we're perhaps being a little more thorough with this bill than we might have been.
Hon. T. Perry: There's a clinical diagnosis that's sometimes applied to this situation, and it's called paranoia. But I wouldn't be in a position to make that diagnosis in this chamber.
I suggest that if there are no further questions about sections 3 to 5, we consider passing them and revert to section 2, where there may remain questions.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.
The Chair: We will now proceed with debate on section 2.
On section 2.
L. Fox: In spite of what a member mentioned earlier, I still do need an answer to my question.
I have referred to section 23 of the Apprenticeship Act, as well as to the amendments in Bill 2, article (iii). I have to wonder whether or not this particular item (iii), which is the change to section 11, was necessitated by the fact that private companies which are now going to work for government -- and which do not have and may not have recognized journeymen -- would have to have recognized journeymen in order to comply with the fair wage policy.
Is this the reason that this particular amendment was put forward? Is it to provide an opportunity to charge those individuals who will have to come forward through your ministry in order to achieve their certificates -- who may have been performing as journeymen for many years within the province, but who now have to be recognized as certificated journeymen in order for non-union companies to comply with the fair wage policy?
Hon. T. Perry: While Dr. Singh is considering the question, I'll answer it. I think I answered this question earlier. The simple answer is no. This request came from the Apprenticeship Board prior to the last election. It's been in the hopper, so to speak, of miscellaneous statutes and amendments for some time.
It's not intended to punish people who don't hold trade certificates now. It's intended simply to recover a small portion of the administrative cost of issuing certificates, which have always been issued in B.C. This provision of the act allows people with qualifications, but without the journeyman status that they would have achieved by completing a full apprenticeship, to appear in examinations, for example.
All that the statute is doing is updating the ability of the director of apprenticeship to recover that small administrative fee in the same way as any other administrative fee prescribed by a government or government agency. There's nothing more to it than that.
L. Fox: One further question: if I were a journeyman working for a non-union company, but was told that I had to become qualified in order for my company to bid on a job, is this the area to which I would apply to become certificated?
Hon. T. Perry: Yes. One would apply to the director of apprenticeship.
Now I've been able to clarify: the present fees for examination are in the range of $10 to $15 and do need to be updated periodically. If the members will look at regulations under virtually any statute of a regulatory nature, they will see that fees are charged for most applications permits -- fishing licence, driving licence, hunting licence -- and they undergo annual updates. This is a licence to practice medicine. I happen to know that one, because it went up too much for it to be worth my paying it this year. It was $375 and is now $550 or $575. Registered Nurses' Association fees are in the range of $200. This is not even an annual fee. This is simply a one-time fee to establish qualifications.
I don't know if the member is suggesting that the board should not have the ability to ensure qualification. On any job site in the province it's very important for workers to have highly developed skills, to show evidence that they have safety training and to show evidence of general competence.
[4:45]
Think of the consequences, for example, if an electrician is performing work that is not to an adequate standard. Or think of the experience that led the Minister of Highways recently to withdraw certification from a contractor, where there were two deaths of young men on building projects under the authority of the Highways ministry within a relatively short period.
Those are examples of reasons why it's appropriate for the Apprenticeship Board to require evidence of competence. This is simply a method of allowing someone who would not otherwise qualify for certification and who might not be eligible to sit the examination under the ordinary rules to be accorded some administrative flexibility. The requirement under section 23(2) of the present act to allow the director of apprenticeship to grant an exemption from regulation on such terms as the director may specify is a humane measure to grandmother or grandfather, or whatever you want to call it, people who otherwise could not qualify.
All this section does is to allow the director of apprenticeship to recover a small administrative fee. It will allow the provincial Apprenticeship Board to set the fee to be paid by an individual who receives an exemption permit. It's a simple as that. Members have my assurance as minister that as long as I remain minister, and I suspect other ministers will see this in the same way regardless of what party they represent, the fees will be reasonable. Other ministers will be
[ Page 1214 ]
briefer, but then questions will not perhaps be so redundant.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
L. Fox: Just one final analysis, rather than a question. It was sufficient for me from the very beginning when you suggested yes to my question that the fair wage policy did necessitate this process to be placed into the act.
Section 2 approved.
On section 6.
D. Mitchell: I just have one comment on section 6, which I would like to ask for a brief response on. Section 6 of this bill requires that colleges and institutes monitor their programs and report periodically to the minister. Previously the statute only required that institutions report every five years. I'm concerned, and we should all be concerned as legislators, when bills come to the House with very ambiguous or vague wording. I wonder if the minister could very briefly just tell us what is meant by "periodic." This section of the bill basically says: "An institution must plan for and evaluate its programs and operations on an ongoing basis" -- which is a good idea, and I think we support this section of the bill -- "and, on the request of the minister, must report on these matters in a form the minister directs."
Could the minister be a bit more specific? The bill is very vague here. What does "periodic" mean? How regularly do you want these institutions to report? Would it be annual? If it is annual, why wouldn't the bill simply say "on an annual basis"
Hon. T. Perry: First of all, the word "periodic" does not figure in the bill. I think the hon. member is referring to an explanatory note intended to clarify. It's irrelevant to section 6 of the bill, which the hon. member read verbatim.
Let me give an example. I think members are aware from second reading debate that the general philosophical basis for this bill is simply to remove an anachronistic requirement -- colleges were somehow felt to be perhaps worth having, perhaps not, when they were first established in the 1960s. Dr. John Macdonald, who recommended them, certainly had faith, but others may have had less faith when they started, so a requirement was placed in the original act that they report and justify their existence. We feel that's unreasonable. It's mildly humiliating to the colleges. Very few people probably even know about it, and it achieves nothing.
Let me give an example of why it's desirable for colleges to be required to report, on the request of the minister, on plans for programs and operations. First of all, there is a normal three-year planning cycle in which colleges do report now. Second, matters periodically arise where it would be useful for the minister to exercise some direction. One example which springs to mind is the analysis of waiting lists for college entrance, or students who are "turned away" or do not succeed in registering in colleges. The colleges have not routinely collected information on what happens to those people. It becomes very difficult, therefore, to interpret data meaningfully. One group, like the Canadian Federation of Students, will suggest that 18,000 students were turned away from colleges last year, a figure which I find difficult to believe, although very significant numbers of students were turned away.
In the absence of really hard information, it's very difficult for government to plan meaningfully. I have requested that the colleges begin to collect such information in meaningful terms so that the statistics will be reliable, valid, publicly available and interpretable not only by the government, but by the public.
It may arise periodically for the minister to request evidence from the colleges on how they're dealing with issues of sexual harassment. There have been problems of that nature in at least one college recently. It may be desirable to request information on how they're approaching energy conservation or day care, pay equity, or any number of matters where it's normal and natural that the minister, responsible to the public for those institutions, will expect some accountability. It's as simple as that.
V. Anderson: I thank the minister for his explanation, because I think it's a different explanation than we had when we previously looked at this. The explanation that I heard then was that it was inconvenient for the colleges to have to report every five years in order to justify their existence, and I agreed with the minister that that implication should be taken out of the act. However, that was where he stopped in his explanation previously. If I hear him right today, he's saying that in place of that -- because not only was it inconvenient for the colleges to report every five years, but it was also inconvenient for the ministry because it didn't give them the authority at any time in the five years to come in and demand an accountability, as he's just described -- the new clause now enables the minister to give a format of planning to the colleges so that any time any issue arises, the minister will have the authority to go in, on a predetermined format, and ask for an accounting. That would give more freedom for the ministry to move in and ask for an accountability which would be a positive on one side, but on the other side would be a negative because it could be taken, unfortunately, as Big Brother looking over your neck all the time and being able to move in any day, any week, whenever an issue arose, either from staff or faculty or student or community. That could be very uncomfortable if it's not controlled.
Hon. T. Perry: I suppose if there were concern about a Big Brother approach by government, it's surprising that we haven't heard that from either the Advanced Education Council of B.C. or any of the colleges or institutes themselves.
This section is really very simple. There's no contradiction between the explanation I gave in first or second reading debate and the explanation I'm now giving. The former requirement that colleges "justify their existence" was considered insulting. Their existence is well
[ Page 1215 ]
justified by their popularity, by the fact that students want to go there and by the fact that they can't accommodate all the students who would like to register. That's justification of a substantial kind of its own. It is normal for a minister of the Crown, exercising her or his responsibilities to the Legislature and to the public, to ask questions of any institution. We have not only our statutory authority, but we have an even more powerful authority, which is money, and we naturally exercise that continuously -- all of the time. One hopes that no ministry of government awards money casually to any public institution without an assessment of how well the institution is performing. So we're constantly doing continuous evaluation.
There's nothing, in my view, in any way sinister in this section of the act; nothing which gives the minister any additional power not already there; nothing which takes away from the ongoing three-year planning cycle that institutions themselves incur; and nothing which either discourages or encourages them from doing careful forward planning, which they must do in order to be able to plan for the needs of their communities, which they're proud of -- in short, no real change. What we're doing here is satisfying the lawyers.
D. Symons: I would suggest that the last comment you made was one of the things that concerns me on this. When we read in the bill that "operations on an ongoing basis" are to be evaluated, I'm sure that the colleges would be doing this on an ongoing basis; you wouldn't find anyone who says they're not already doing it. So the bill in a sense asks for something that one would assume is going on.
What I'm probably looking for, I suspect, is a melding together of what it was and what you're suggesting here, in that in the public school system it is required that the public schools -- within a five-year period and sometimes shorter than that -- have both an internal and an external evaluation. Then after that evaluation the school is given a further period of time until the next evaluation is needed.
This seems to be taking that away. It's leaving a fair amount in the minister's hands, and if the minister is somewhat lax or the college is lax, I could see this just going past and nothing being done when a college is maybe not living up to the standards expected from the community, particularly since the community is often funding these organizations. I feel that there should be some time-frame in there when a report on the evaluation is required. It should not be left in limbo as it is here, where it can be done at the discretion of the minister, if he gets around to it.
Hon. T. Perry: The institutions all have an ongoing three-year planning process. I'm advised that they are also subject to a five-year institutional evaluation process by the ministry now. We are constantly performing an ongoing evaluation. The ministry field staff and staff in Victoria are constantly assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of each institution. As part of the budget process alone, every year there is a review of how well this institution has done. In more policy-related areas we're constantly undertaking that. We could probably do more, but we have limited resources.
When we get to the estimates debate on this ministry, members will have a chance to see that we have been very modest with our administrative expenditures. We try to rely on the institutions and their independent boards of governors to undertake maximum responsibility.
I'm advised that a cooperative colleges and institutes evaluation framework is now being developed with the Comprehensive Auditing Foundation and the colleges and institutes of B.C. We try to maintain that cooperative relationship. We don't propose changing it, because we think it's generally working well.
Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.
[5:00]
Title approved.
Hon. T. Perry: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 2, Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. T. Perry: Committee on Bill 22, hon. Speaker.
BARBERS AND HAIRDRESSERS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 22; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 1.
Hon. T. Perry: I would like to acknowledge the work of William Peters, the reference librarian in the Legislative Library who attempted to answer some of the questions I raised in second reading debate about the history of the anachronistic requirements in the Barbers Act and in the Hairdressers Act. I thought it would be of interest to hon. members to report to the House on what Mr. Peters was able to find, even though the search has been rather frustrating. In case some future historian follows our path, this may be of use, and Mr. Peters' excellent librarianship shall not go to waste.
The first hairdressing bill, entitled the Hairdressers Act, appears to have made its debut on February 3, 1927, and is reported in the Victoria newspapers of February 4, 1927. Subsequently, articles on February 23, 1927, in the Colonist indicate that Mrs. M.E. Smith, also known as Mrs. Mary Ellen Smith, brought the bill forward at that date. It refers to a functioning legislative committee of the day before which appeared Mr. Gordon Wismer for the hairdressers. He pointed out that the bill aimed in large measure at protecting the
[ Page 1216 ]
public against unreliable people. I leave it to members' imagination to conclude what that term meant in the year 1927. Whether it referred to bankers or stockbrokers or anyone on the eve of the Great Depression, I don't know.
The bill encountered fierce opposition from barbers. The Star of March 5, 1927, under the heading "Barbers Withdraw Objections to Bill," indicates that the bill was making its way through the House, and the barbers who previously had been lobbying vigorously against the bill had withdrawn their objections, Mrs. Smith assured the House. New members will perhaps not realize that in those days there was no Hansard, so it's impossible to reconstruct the intent of the Legislature other than by referring to the daily newspapers.
On March 8, 1927, the Colonist reports that the bill was killed: "The bill, which was intended to provide for the incorporation of this class of workers, suffered death in the House yesterday."
On February 29, 1928, the bill reappears, apparently intended, according to its boosters, "to protect patrons of beauty parlours from unskilled practitioners."
On February 9, 1929, under the heading "Beauty Bill to be Redrafted": "...the Speaker rejected the Attorney General's objections to the bill and allowed it to proceed as a government bill." Members familiar with the history of British Columbia in some depth will recognize a familiar and famous name: the Labour Party member for Fernie, Thomas Uphill. He is famous in eastern British Columbia. He was sponsoring a version of the Hairdressers Act, and Mr. Pooley, the Attorney General, apparently objected to the private member's bill and suggested it could be redrafted to make it conform better to legislative standards. But according to the newspaper: "He could understand, rejoined the Labour member" -- that would be Mr. Tom Uphill -- "that the bill might need redrafting, as 'it was a lawyer who drafted it, and they always make mistakes, anyhow'."
On March 13, 1929, under the heading "Hairdressers Bill to be Trimmed Up," the Province reports that Mr. H.D. Twigg, a Conservative of Victoria, was named by the government to assist Mr. Uphill in an unholy alliance -- those are my words -- to assist him in this work. The Attorney General stated that the bill in its original form was a "concoction" such as he had never seen before.
On March 14, 1929, Mr. Uphill was complaining that the government did not keep its promises, and was forced to leave the House with Mr. Twigg in an attempt to rescue the bill. The March 15, 1929, Star reports:
"On the motion of Dr. L.E. Borden" -- the member for Nelson -- "the right to colour hair and the right to remove superfluous hair by electrical methods were struck from the hairdressers bill. Mr. Uphill, sponsor of the bill, protested vigorously that these methods had been followed for years and that the whole purpose of the bill was merely to prevent their use by unskilled persons."
On March 27, 1931, the bill appears again, under the heading in the Sun, "Uphill's Hirsute Bill Trimmed and Sheared by Big Tory Majority," according to which the object of the bill was to give the board administering the affairs of the hairdressers' corporation the same control over students as they had over apprentices.
Finally, on March 27, 1931, Mr. Uphill argued in the House, stoutly defending the bill, that doctors, lawyers, dentists, barbers and others were given special rights by legislation, and modest powers of self-control should not be refused to hairdressers.
Mr. Chair, that makes it clear that the Hairdressers Act experienced a stormy history, but an exciting and rewarding one in this chamber sometime in the past. But it sheds no light, I regret to conclude, on the questions raised in second reading debate as to why it was felt that a medical certificate must be required from barbers and hairdressers.
Mr. Chair, I admit defeat and suggest that we get on with passing the bill.
L. Reid: It warms my heart that the hon. minister has taken his seat; I would love to pass this bill within my lifetime. However, the Liberal Party in B.C. is a party of individual rights. We welcome the amendment act because we believe that both the Barbers Act and the Hairdressers Act were very regressive in that sense. So we agree with you in the message you relayed to the House. Is it your belief, hon. minister, that the amendments proposed are indeed simply housekeeping?
Hon. T. Perry: No, the amendments are not simply housekeeping. They remove from the Barbers Act and the Hairdressers Acts the possible stigma of a requirement for the.... They remove the wording "good moral character" and substitute the expression "good character." It was felt by the government that the expression "good moral character" might be offensive to some individuals -- not only barbers and hairdressers, but other British Columbians -- in that it has implications which could be offensive to people. It has no substantive meaning. In other words, it's an ineffective and useless term which might be offensive to people, and therefore it's proposed to be struck from the statute.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
V. Anderson: I could have a personal interest, since I spent most of my life trying to get into a barber chair because my dad was a barber, starting in 1919 before there were such acts.
I would like a little clarification on section 2. I think I understand the change from "infectious and contagious" to "communicable." It has changed the wording. In the explanation on the other side, it indicates that a doctor's certificate is required stating that the person does not have infectious and contagious diseases. I do not see in the amendment any indication that the doctor's certificate is not still required only to testify that one does not have a communicable disease. I see a difference between what's suggested in the description and the actual wording, because it's only changed "infectious and contagious" to "communicable," and I see the doctor's certificate is still required.
[ Page 1217 ]
Hon. T. Perry: Patience, hon. member. We'll get to the meat of the matter in section 3. It is an inconsequential change of vocabulary from "infectious and contagious" to "communicable" in section 2, which simply brings this statute into line with the modernization of all the other statutes in which the term "communicable" is substituted for "infectious" and "contagious." I'm not sure what the reason for that is; it may simply be to spare the word processors the extra vocabulary of three words where one will do.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
V. Anderson: My understanding, then, although it's not printed here, is that section 3 is removing the requirement for a medical certificate that one is free of a communicable disease. Is that what the minister has indicated is being repealed there?
[5:15]
Hon. T. Perry: Precisely.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.
On section 6.
L. Reid: I'm interested most sincerely in the type of offences one would commit under the Barbers Act, and if indeed the increase laid out in this amendment is relevant and would pertain directly to the perceived crime.
Hon. T. Perry: Section 16 of the act refers to a person who does not hold a certificate of registration engaging in the occupation of barbering, advertising or such. Section 16(2) refers to a person who contravenes the act or a rule governing the sanitary regulation of barbershops. For example, it is possible -- probably very unlikely, but technically possible -- that a barber not practising standard sanitary precautions could transmit a virus like hepatitis B from one client to another. It would be appropriate for the regulatory body, the Board of Examiners in Barbering, to enforce sanitary standards with a meaningful penalty.
If, for example, they find that a barbershop is unsanitary, that instruments are not properly cleaned and sterilized.... The requirement in the act presently dates from, according to the reference I'm looking at, 1960 or earlier. It sets a fine not exceeding $15 for the first offence and not exceeding $50 for any subsequent offence. Most hon. members would probably agree that the fine would hardly be worth the bother of imposing it, and some inflationary adjustment is appropriate since the time that statute was revised.
One could have argued that the alternative was to leave this to regulation. In this case, we chose an amendment, and the implication is that at some point in the future, unless we perform the miracle of stopping inflation, the Legislature will again have to up the ante. But for the moment, we propose that the fine for a first offence be increased from $15 to $150 and for a second offence from $50 to $250, in order to establish a meaningful deterrent. Naturally, as with all laws, the hope is that the act will be respected, as it is by the vast majority of, if not all, barbers and hairdressers, and that it will not be necessary to impose any of these fines.
L. Reid: How many offences occur on an annual basis?
Hon. T. Perry: I'm afraid I don't have that information. It would probably be simple for the member to find that out from the Board of Examiners in Barbering. I could undertake to find that out for her if she wishes. It would be equally easy for her to make the telephone call herself.
L. Reid: Yes, I would love to have that information provided to me.
Sections 6 to 12 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. T. Perry: Mr. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 22, Barbers and Hairdressers Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. T. Perry: I call committee on Bill 23, hon. Speaker.
UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
The House in committee on Bill 23; E. Barnes in the chair.
On section 1.
D. Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I have just a quick question for the minister. We had a very wide-ranging debate on this bill in second reading, and I don't think it would be fruitful to revisit any of that debate. But in section 1 of Bill 23, what we essentially have is the removal of section 80, the Industrial Relations Act. Prior to giving consideration to removing section 80, did he or the officials of his ministry have any dialogue with his colleague the Minister of Labour or officials in the Ministry of Labour with respect to the current review that is now taking place of the Industrial Relations Act? There is a panel that is travelling around the province receiving public input and consultation, and presumably the Ministry of Labour has some points of view as to possible amendments to that act. Was there any discussion with the Ministry of Labour with respect to possible changes to the Industrial Relations Act that may or may not have any impact here with respect to this removal, and replacement of any of the provisions
[ Page 1218 ]
that relate to designating educational services under the act?
Hon. T. Perry: Yes and no. All government legislation brought before the House is approved not only by the government caucus before it appears in the House but also by the cabinet, and the Minister of Labour is, of course, a member of the cabinet. So the answer is yes. The answer is also no, in the sense that we did not specifically consider deferring this legislation pending the review of labour policy and labour legislation in British Columbia, nor would we have.
The reason for that is very simple. Section 80 of the University Act prohibits university faculty from forming faculty associations or trade unions pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. This prohibition is not found in the legislation of any other province; it has been ruled to be in direct contravention of the International Labour Organization convention on freedom of association. We felt that it was an odious provision of the former act. It was a very clear commitment of the governing party's election manifesto; it was a well-known policy at the time the former government went to the polls last October. We regard it as a very straightforward matter. Naturally, in any review of labour relations policy and law, all members of the Legislature will, I hope, consider the impact of any new law on everyone in British Columbia affected by it, be it university faculty members, college instructors, industrial workers, hospital employees, agricultural workers, or anyone else. But there was no reason in our view to delay correcting what we believe is a discriminatory provision in the old University Act.
H. De Jong: I understand what the minister's saying. However, the question must be asked, I think, at this point in time: have similar situations -- unionization of professionals of this nature -- really improved the relationship between the government or the board, whoever's in control of that specific university, and the staff as such? Perhaps the minister may wish to comment on that.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm not an expert on labour policy, labour law or labour relations, and I have no special knowledge to bring to that question. I'm aware that in at least one province, at Memorial University in Newfoundland, the university faculty have chosen to form a trade union. I'm not in a position to comment on the experience. Furthermore, I don't think it would be particularly appropriate for me to do so insofar as what this amendment recognizes is a fundamental right of association. It's for the individual citizen -- the member of a university faculty in this case -- to decide whether the benefits of forming a collective bargaining unit, a trade union, outweigh any disadvantages. I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to purport to tell faculty members what is good for them.
H. De Jong: I think very recent history has shown that some professionals have not considered their salaries to be negotiated as they have been doing in the past. It's only fair to say, too, that since the various school districts and the elementary and high school teachers have organized into unions, I don't think it has improved the relationship between the students and the staff, nor has it improved the relationship between the professionals and the board of directors of whatever school district or organization it would be. I fail to see the wisdom of this change, and I wish it wasn't in this bill, because the rest of the bill is a good bill. I don't think that this adds to the value of the bill as the other issues in the bill do.
[5:30]
Hon. T. Perry: The hon. member has certainly recorded his objections clearly, and the record will speak for itself on that.
I take the position -- which was supported, in effect, by the member for Matsqui in second reading debate -- that the government has brought forward this amendment in recognition of a fundamental right of association. It will be up to the university faculty members to decide for themselves whether the advantages of forming trade unions outweigh any disadvantages. But in a free society that respects the right of individuals to organize collectively for the advancement of their interests as employees, it's our position that it is not up to government to discriminate arbitrarily against one or another group of employees. We believe that the right to organize is a fundamental right, and therefore we will recognize it.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
V. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I'm aware of practices in the United States, where they have a lot of small independent -- in most cases, private -- colleges issuing degrees. The result is that the degrees lose value, and people who are presenting the degrees find that they are not acceptable, because they have come from so many different institutions that people are not aware of them. They don't know who they are, where they are or what their credentials are.
I'm not against colleges issuing degrees, but as they issue the associate degrees, I'm wondering by what means we can assure the persons who receive those degrees that they will be recognized with the quality they deserve while coming from smaller institutions that people across the country and around the world will be able to identify and give proper recognition to.
Hon. T. Perry: I thank the hon. member. It's an excellent and important question. There are some basic differences between our system in British Columbia and that which prevails in many American states. No non-public institution may grant degrees in British Columbia now. Right now there are four -- the Universities of British Columbia and Victoria, Simon Fraser University and Trinity Western University -- which may grant degrees under acts of the Legislature.
This act refers to colleges and institutes incorporated under the College and Institute Act which are publicly
[ Page 1219 ]
administered and publicly funded post-secondary institutions.
The University of Northern British Columbia, I am reminded, will be able to grant degrees. In fact, it technically has the authority to do so now. Of course, it will enrol its first students this fall. If I offended UNBC by omitting them, I'm thinking of the near-term future.
First of all, we're dealing with public post-secondary institutions, not private ones. Private institutions are separately regulated under the Private Post-Secondary Education Act. In addition, the minister has the authority to require that suitable evidence be given that standards are adequate. The minister, under section 3(d) of the existing act, already has the ability to require an institution to issue a diploma or certificate to a student who has successfully completed an accredited course of instruction given by that institution.
The intent of this amendment is to establish a somewhat enhanced category of recognition for students who complete two years of rigorous study in an accredited program -- initially in sciences or arts -- and therefore to award an associate degree of sciences or an associate degree of arts. We believe that this will not only encourage retention of students who might have been tempted to drop out because they saw no value to their studies short of a full university degree, but will also certainly -- as I explained in second reading debate -- enhance standardization of standards in the colleges, institutes and universities, and therefore enhance the transferability of credit.
Therefore it should deliver better value to the taxpayer, who is funding the whole kit and caboodle, and ensure that we get a more effective, efficient system that functions better in the interests of students.
V. Anderson: Two questions arise out of that. One is the transfer from the colleges to the universities, because even on our present system it has often been difficult to transfer credits from the college to the university system. If this improves that transferability, I would certainly applaud it.
The other implication that comes out of it is that we do have some private degree-granting institutions in the province, as you have suggested. My expectation would be that as soon as you open the door for this associate degree in the public, you would get the same applications for that opportunity in the private sector -- in places like the school of theology, the Trinity college, Regent College. Would the same opportunities be available to them? I am sure that they will ask as soon as this is put forward.
Hon. T. Perry: I think the hon. member is correct that we will likely be approached by more private post-secondary institutions. They already do that. We periodically get requests from individuals who feel that they could offer inexpensive -- sometimes they even say cheap -- additional degrees to help take the pressure off us of students wanting to enrol who can't find a place to get into our public system, or that they can recruit overseas students and bring a significant foreign exchange.
At the moment, we foresee no movement towards the granting of degrees by private post-secondary institutions. Although there will perhaps be additional pressure -- as the member suggests -- my job is to respond appropriately.
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
V. Anderson: Section 2 and section 4 permit the colleges to offer these degrees. I'm wondering why in section 3 the change permits the minister to require the granting of associate degrees by an institution. It seems to me that this contradicts the opportunity that permits them; on the other hand, the minister is now requiring them to give associate degrees whether they want to or not. That's why I'm curious about the meaning and implication of this.
Hon. T. Perry: It's standard legislative wording again. The current act reads, at section 3, "the minister may," and then it lists from (a) to (k) things that the minister may do, of which (d) is may "require an institution to issue a diploma or certificate to a student who has successfully completed" a course. It doesn't mean that the minister will order, willy-nilly and right-and-left, institutions to offer or award associate degrees. It's technical, legal wording. Of course, in practice, the awarding of an associate degree will only be done under the circumstance where the institution favours it.
I can give you an interesting example of where the authority to require can be useful. From a post-secondary institution that shall remain nameless but resides within the sphere of influence or interest of the hon. member, a nursing student recently wrote to me complaining that she had completed her training in June or August of 1990, was unable to work in British Columbia and therefore sought to work in California, but could not sit the California licensing examinations because she had not been issued her diploma. The institution took the position it would only award the diploma in May 1991, some 11 months after the student completed her course. When I saw the letter, I hit the roof, to put it mildly. Here was a student who had been educated largely at public expense, but had also shelled out of her own pocket to complete a tough course. She was supporting children as a single mother. She had an extremely well-argued case in her letter, and my instructions as minister to my staff were that the institution shall issue the diploma forthwith or face the consequences. Fortunately, by the time I did that, it turned out that there had been a delay. Originally the letter had inadvertently been sent to my colleague the Minister of Education, and by the time I saw the letter, the college had already successfully resolved the dilemma.
Once in a while it's useful for the minister to remind colleges, institutes and universities, and for other ministers to remind other public bodies, that they serve the public of British Columbia and are accountable
[ Page 1220 ]
through us, the ministers, to you, the hon. members, and through you to all of the public of B.C.
Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. T. Perry: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your patience, and I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Bill 23, University Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. T. Perry moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada