[ Page 4791 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Proposed tenancy of B.C. Hydro in B.C. Place. Mr. Macdonald –– 4791

Crown corporations at B.C. Place. Mr. Lauk –– 4792

B.C. Place negotiations with Sweeney Cooperage. Mr. Barnes –– 4792

Northeast coal cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Leggatt –– 4792

Rural electrification. Mr. D'Arcy –– 4793

Ministerial Statement

Student Aid. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4793

Mr. Lauk –– 4794

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities. Science and Communications estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 206: minister's office –– 4794

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Barber

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MACDONALD: I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that my niece, Mary Elizabeth, is in the gallery. I ask the House to bid her welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: You may have noticed in the corridors a short time ago a group of unusual people that would make the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) look like a runt. I don't mean the one in the front row; I mean the one in the back row. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) and I are very proud to have invited to our galleries today some very unusual British Columbia athletes. They are the Canadian champion basketball teams. The men's team, the Vikings, are from the University of Victoria, and the women's team, the Vikettes, are also from the University of Victoria. Each team won the national championship last year, and to prove it was no fluke they each won the championship again this year — two years in a row. It's unprecedented in the annals of Canadian basketball.

As I was telling the teams, having been a member of the team that played for the first Canadian college basketball championship — it was in prehistoric ages when little guys could play basketball, but the stakes were very high because the winners that year went to the Olympic Games — I know the thrill, dedication and hard work. On behalf of all the members I'd like to say how very proud we are. The Minister of Education is going to introduce these people individually.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'll start with the Canadian champions, the Vikettes: Mrs. Kathy Shields, coach; Carol Turney-Loos, assistant coach; Brenda Smith, manager; Cindy Smith, captain; Tracey McAra, captain; Jane Boe, Janine Prince, Leslie Godfrey, Shelley Godfrey, Sandy Lewis, Sue Shaw, Shawnee Harle, Donna Digby, Jamie Mackie and Luanne Hebb. Another rarity of this double win is that we have a husband and wife team of coaches and a husband and wife team of assistant coaches. I'll introduce the Vikings: coach, Ken Shields; Bill Turney-Loos, assistant coach; Bill Chapman, manager; Ted Anderson, captain; Dan Brosseuk, Ryan Burles, Jim Larson, Kelly Dukeshire, who used to play for Oak Bay, Kevin Danes, Quinn Groenheyde, Bruce Hamilton, Craig Higgins, who used to play for Oak Bay, Gerald Kazanowski, Greg Kazanowski and Eli Pasquale. When we presented the most valuable player award at the high school basketball finals last weekend, you'll be glad to know, Ken, that we told the winner that he had to come and play for the Vikings.

MR. BARNES: Having been designated as a runt by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), I nonetheless would like to associate myself with his remarks in congratulating the Vikettes and the Vikings basketball teams from the University of Victoria. I would just like to remind the House that that minister himself was somewhat of a star in his day. There was a team called the UBC Tall Timbers. I don't know how he ever got on it, but he had his day as well.

On behalf of the tall first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and this runt, the second member, I would like to wish those people continued success. We're all proud of them as fine and upstanding British Columbians. Good luck to you.

MR. HANSON: I would just like to add my congratulations and the congratulations of my colleague, who tells me he used to play for the First United Church team — very badly, he adds — and having been an old basketball player myself, I'd just like to tell the team that we're very proud as MLAs for Victoria to have you representing Victoria in the national finals.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mrs. Lillian Barrett, daughter-in-law of the illustrious Cecil Barrett, VC, whose picture hangs on the outside wall of this Legislature. I make this introduction without her permission — I just met her in the hall — but for this gallant company of men whose pictures are there, and for the great service they did and what they represent, which saved this nation for democracy, I just thought it proper that I introduce her to the House today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a group of school students from Brocklehurst in Kamloops, accompanied by their teacher, Allan Dodd. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a visitor from Vancouver whom I'd ask all members to welcome. The particular area of Vancouver is Vancouver South, on a constituency basis. Joyce Whitman, who has just been nominated to represent the NDP in that constituency in the next election, is here looking at the two seats over there, and we'd ask especially those two members to join with us in welcoming a constituent of theirs.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to the Legislature Mayor Bob McPhee of the city of Courtenay, who is here today in his capacity as president of the Mount Becher Ski Society. With Mayor McPhee are Wolf Clar, who is the area manager for the ski hill, and society directors Ernst Jensen and Don Gordon. I'd like them all to be made warmly welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We have another visitor from Kamloops today, a long-time friend of mine. Will the House please welcome Claude Richmond.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to ask the House to welcome two guests of mine in the gallery: Elaine Cash and Mr. Herb Lett.

Oral Questions

PROPOSED TENANCY OF
B.C. HYDRO IN B.C. PLACE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In the light of reports that private developers may put up a tall building on B.C. Place lands and that B.C. Hydro will move into that as a tenant, I ask the minister this simple question: have there been any discussions with respect to B.C. Hydro — of which the minister is a director — moving to B.C. Place?

[ Page 4792 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Has any consideration been given to B.C. Hydro moving into B.C. Place as a tenant, rather than owning the building?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There are negotiations between the management of B.C. Hydro and B.C. Place. Those negotiations are still going on.

MR. MACDONALD: I presume from the minister's answer that no final decision has been made. Do those discussions embrace B.C. Hydro going into B.C. Place to help save the finances of that situation?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that's part of it: to subsidize that as a tenant, so that hydro bills will be even higher because there will be a developer making something as a landlord. Is that part of the discussions? Are the reports we've heard true?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I haven't heard the reports that the member has heard. If he has them down on paper somewhere, I'd like to see them. There are negotiations going on at the present time. B.C. Hydro is desperately anxious to move into new quarters as quickly as possible. As you know, they have a large responsibility to a private tenancy in the Simpsons-Sears building down on Hastings, among others, and have had since your time in government, I believe. So it's very important for them to find new accommodation. Those negotiations are going on right now.

CROWN CORPORATIONS AT B.C. PLACE

MR. LAUK: This is a question to the Minister of Environment in his capacity as the guru of B.C. Place. Are there are any discussions going on with respect to any other Crown corporations moving into the B.C. Place lands?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Not that I know of, but there may very well be.

B.C. PLACE NEGOTIATIONS
WITH SWEENEY COOPERAGE

MR. BARNES: This is a question to the Minister of Environment. Instead of forcing eviction by expropriation, can the minister advise the House whether he has ordered officials of B.C. Place to go back to the table and negotiate with Frank Sweeney of Sweeney Cooperage?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It is my understanding that the subject is under appeal before the courts. Therefore it is one I do not wish to comment upon.

NORTHEAST COAL COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business. Could the minister advise, in respect to the northeast coal deal, as to whether a cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken and what stage that analysis is in'?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, yes, there is a cost-benefit analysis going on. But I think the member knows as well as I do that that is not really an exact science. It depends on who is doing the study. Cost benefit studies at the best of times depend on what one wishes the outcome to be. Let's face it, that's the reality.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That seems to amaze the socialists across the way, but that is a fact.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer, Please continue.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm just amazed that the socialist hordes opposite are so amused by this statement of fact, which has even been known by the scientists who originally wrote the book about cost-benefit analysis. However, regardless of the cost-benefit analysis, history will prove that northeast coal is one of the greatest developments that ever took place in Canada or the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: I just want to be clear. The cost-benefit analysis study is still going on. Is that the answer the minister gave to the House? I just want to make sure that's correct.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to make it perfectly clear that regarding northeast coal we have analysed cash flows, tax returns and so forth. Now we're doing yet another study which is not yet complete. The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it that the minister is confirming to this House that the government that he represents has committed itself to literally billions of dollars on northeast coal without completing a cost-benefit study. Is that right?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We've done several studies with different economists — Price Waterhouse Associates, etc. The benefits from the development of northeast coal will indeed pay for every cent that's put into it, and history will prove that. If the socialists are against it, I dare them to stand up in this Legislature and say so.

MR. LEGGATT: Will the minister confirm to the House that he intends to keep going at cost-benefit studies until he finds the right one? Is that why he hasn't got it finished?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I will be happy to answer the member's question. As I've said before, when additional tonnages are sold in most of the southeast and northeast parts of the province, history will prove that this is the best development ever undertaken in the province of British Columbia or indeed in Canada. I want to tell you further that if we'd listened to the socialists over there nothing would ever have happened in this province. History has proved them wrong time and time again, and history will prove them wrong this time.

MR. LEGGATT: The federal DREE recently released a list of studies on northeast coal which were conducted by

[ Page 4793 ]

both the province and the federal government. All those studies are available to the public except three. One of those is called "cost-benefit analysis." Will the minister confirm that it's his government that's trying to cover up the cost-benefit analysis that is presently there?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Even though I think the question is somewhat argumentative and meant to impute certain motives, I would like to advise the entire Legislature that I have prepared and am willing to table at any time.... It will take about half an hour. I'd be most happy if the House would give me the opportunity to table all the studies that were indeed tabled in Ottawa; I have them ready. As a matter of fact, they are in the Clerks' office. I'd like to further inform that member that this minister or this ministry or this government is not holding back any reports which are completed.

MR. LEGGATT: Do I therefore have the minister's undertaking that the cost-benefit analysis listed in the documents tabled in the federal House of Commons will be tabled in this House? Will they be tabled today or tomorrow?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I said that I'd be quite happy to table these documents at any time. I don't want to take up the time of the House. I intended to do it during my estimates, but if it is the desire of the House, the Whips can get together. I'd be quite happy to do it at any time.

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION

MR. D'ARCY: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. For a number of years in this House a succession of British Columbia governments have had a philosophical and financial commitment to the principle of rural electrification in the remoter areas of this province. Can the minister advise this House as to whether or not his Ministry and his government still have that commitment?

The British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, of which the minister is a director, has been advising applicants for rural electrification services that they are receiving no funds from the provincial government in this regard. Can the minister confirm this? If it is true, will he retract his statement that his government still has a commitment to rural electrification, at least as far as its energy arm with B.C. Hydro is concerned?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I certainly will not retract the statement. When the government took over the responsibility for transit from B.C. Hydro, we requested Hydro in kind to take over rural electrification at that time, because of the significant savings that would be put forward to B.C. Hydro as a result of the transit commitments made by this government. B.C. Hydro responded very positively to that. We now have in this year's budget over $5 million committed to rural electrification. Next year it's expected that it will rise to something like $5.3 million or $5.4 million. It will continue to rise because B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, through its board of directors, has established a formula by which there will be a significant percentage of its total budget committed to rural electrification.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister confirm that the provincial government of B.C. has merely transferred a taxation-benefit function from itself to a Crown Corporation, so that those services are now being served by B.C. Hydro ratepayers?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I guess that the only way I could answer that is that the provincial government took from the backs of B.C. Hydro ratepayers something like $70 million or $80 million a year in transit subsidy. B.C. Hydro has now picked up the responsibility for some $5 million a year of rural electrification subsidy. That's a responsibility which B.C. Hydro should have and has accepted willingly, as part of its responsibility as a major Crown corporation, to make sure that electric power is made available to as many citizens of this province as possible.

STUDENT AID

HON. MR. SMITH: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) I would like to announce that there will be changes and improvements in the provincial student aid program effective September 1981. I will outline for the House what those major improvements will be. There is a federal-provincial task force on student aid which has a preliminary report, and that report has been circulated to various groups and students for further comment. Following that report's finalization there will, hopefully, be some lasting changes to the Canadian student loan plan. Some changes have been made by Parliament this session, but to bring some relief to our students at the next academic year of September 1981 we're going to implement some provincial changes immediately.

First of all, the maximum grant available for full-time single students in this province will rise from $1,700 to $2,000. That will mean that with the loan portion of $1,800 available the maximum that a full-time single student can receive will be $3,800 instead of $3,500. More significantly, for married students and single parents — the two categories that have the major need in this province for attending college and university — the grant portion will rise $700 to $2,400, making a total of grant and loan for married students and single parents of $4,200 instead of $3,500.

The eligibility limits used to be that only students in a program of 26 weeks or more could receive aid. That has now been reduced to 12 weeks to reflect that we have many students in our colleges today who are taking vocational and technical programs of much shorter duration. So there'll be an entire reduction of eligibility to 12 weeks for full-time students.

Another change will be in the field of adult basic education. Hitherto adult students going back to try to get high school courses and graduation were not eligible for student aid. They will now be eligible for student aid for their direct educational expenses.

The criteria for assessing need have been given an inflationary increase of 14 percent to take care of the cost-of living index in Vancouver of 13.3 percent. It will be easier to qualify now and take account of inflation.

A further change will be that the front-end loan portion of student aid will be raised from $600 to $800 so that it will be possible to divert money to the area of the needy. Also, the amount of student aid money available this year has been raised from approximately $11 million to $15 million in the estimates.

[ Page 4794 ]

Finally, there will be additional money put into the work study program of student aid, to provide for funds just under $1 million. This creates campus employment for students in their field of study.

These are major changes, but they are put forward this year on an interim basis until the changes have been made to the federal loan portion of this program and can be integrated.

MR. LAUK: A more detailed discussion of these changes may be helpful in estimates. I greet the minister's announcement, and congratulate the government for finally acting on these recommendations. It's not just sour grapes. I should tell the Premier — who's yawning at our remarks — that there are many students in this country who have not been able to attend university and post-secondary education this year and have lost a year — perhaps two — because of the delays in bringing about needed reforms, if for no other reason than inflation. The minister has known this. But better late than never.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE
AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 206: minister's office, $147,400.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, not wishing to filibuster these very important estimates, I rise just to express, as did my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), our satisfaction that we have been able to make some interim moves in the matter of improving student aid in British Columbia. It's been a matter of considerable distress to myself during the period when I was chairman of the Ministers of Education of Canada that we were able to make so little progress with the federal government in getting joint action between the federal government and the provinces in this matter. And thus our province — and I hope others too — has taken unilateral action on an interim measure. Sometimes things can be better done by the provinces than the national government, particularly when they reach consensus.

When we have circumstances, as we do in Ottawa today, where extremely controversial programs are before the national parliament — I think of the energy program, and of the bitter debates that are going on now with respect to the constitution — then the necessary legislative time to pass beneficial measures for all the people of Canada gets shunted aside, as one debates the more major and controversial issues that face the nation. Provincial legislatures are not in that kind of difficulty in terms of the time of the House, and therefore they have a degree of flexibility and speed which frequently permits things to be done much more rapidly and effectively, serving people who need that service closer to their homes. Education, of course, is a provincial responsibility, and it has always seemed to me that it would have been better for the national government just to turn the revenues over to the provinces and let them do the job, instead of trying to insert itself into policy, only to find that it lacked the legislative time to be effective.

When I spoke earlier today, to give a rundown on some of the activities of our ministry, I did not cover one rather important aspect which I would like to draw briefly to your attention, Mr. Chairman, and that involves our activities with respect to discovery parks in British Columbia. The government made available to a non-profit foundation called the Discovery Foundation a sum of money which it was then able to use in conjunction with the universities to develop research parks on university campuses, with the idea of drawing this province into the modern era of high technology and its industrial spinoffs.

I had the pleasure earlier this month of testifying before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee with respect to trading — particularly with the United States — and the ways in which we build up surpluses and deficits in certain kinds of industries in Canada. One of the examples that was chosen was that of the computer industry — and this has been the subject of some debate already in the House during this past week. I can't remember the precise figures, but they go something like this: our deficit in the computer industry three years ago was between $500 million and $600 million; the next year it was about $900 million; this year it's estimated to be $1.9 billion; and three years from now it's estimated to be over $5 billion. That's a single industry in the high technology field — and the area that is growing generally nine times faster, in terms of employment, than low technology industry.

The circumstance we're in in Canada, if one takes the computer industry and others like it, is that we're building up alarming deficits with enormous speed. Our alternatives are either to do without these modern inventions or to sell off our unprocessed resources at an ever-accelerating rate. The question is: can we continue to accelerate the selloff of our resources in order to compensate for our desire to get in, as consumers, to these high-technology areas? We're not going to do without computers in government. Businesses aren't going to do without them. This is repeated many times as we consider other rapid-growth high-technology industries.

What we've done to try to give British Columbia a stake in this newly developing field is to provide the climate where we ourselves can participate in the high-technology developments of the future. We have two of our discovery parks now functioning, one adjacent to BCIT and the other on the Simon Fraser University campus. It's my hope that the University of Victoria will have its discovery park underway before the year is out and that they will be able to follow through on their early efforts to become a computer centre for western Canada. In addition, the board of governors of the University of British Columbia has approved in principle a discovery park for that particular campus, and negotiations are underway now so that they too will have a high-technology location. The Discovery Foundation, in addition to all of the campus-based sites, is looking to larger industrial sites in the lower mainland where firms that are already established and are in production can find a larger place in which they can establish their plants and then grow.

We place great stock in these high-technology developments. Only time will tell how successful they will be. But as a nation Canada is going to have to pay great attention to high-technology industry in the future, or else we're going to be left very far behind countries like Japan and the United States and those of western Europe which have embraced the new technology and are at the cutting edge of the growth industries of the future.

[ Page 4795 ]

MR. LAUK: It's so nice to have the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) back. We didn't have that kind of rudeness....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I believe at the outset of our transactions today vote 207 was called. For the record, that should have been vote 206. If that meets with all members' approval, the first member for Vancouver Centre continues on vote 206.

MR. LAUK: According to Nicolson on Beauchesne, I'm informed that once passed over, a vote automatically fails. I've always felt the minister has been excessively paid for the effort that he's been making, so I think we'll just leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. Does that meet with your approval? No? Well, then I'll press on.

It was with deep regret that every man, woman and child, huddled together in their inadequate housing in British Columbia and paying some of the worst tax burdens anywhere in the country, heard that the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) was leaving public life. I mean, his office must have been and still must be swamped with the letters, petitions and entreaties that he stay at the helm and take us through another 18 years of Mr. Science. I'm sure the minister will rise in his place and confirm that and table all of those letters in due course.

One of the problems in British Columbia with post-secondary education has been an attitude of elitism toward the whole concept of education. I'd like to point out the difference in philosophy between this side of the House and the minister with respect to that attitude of elitism. We believe that the opportunity for post-secondary education should be available to all people who wish it and to those who think they can benefit by such education. I think that it should be available, irrespective of one's income or economic status or who one knows in B.C. That's not always the case, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever that this minister has made the attempt, as a true democrat should, to make this kind of education available to all citizens.

There is an ever-increasing economic and financial barrier to entering universities. There is a cultural barrier that is reinforced by this minister, and above all, and pointing most seriously to this particular minister's culpability in that regard, there is the attitude that somehow it can be scientifically measured just how well a student may perform at the post-secondary level by introducing a series of "streaming" tests, which is a massively expensive testing program, to determine how well people are doing from region to region. This is a totally irrelevant exercise in terms of encouraging individuals to obtain more and greater education.

What has happened is that over the years the participation rate in post-secondary institutions in this province has gone from one of the highest in the country to one of the lowest. I didn't see the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications getting up and bragging about that. Is he of the view that only an elite few should get a higher education? The people of the working class and working families are not capable of going to university: is that what the minister is saying? I'm sure he would admit that he is of that view privately. I'm sure he would also say privately: "After all, it's been shown by history that only those people of a special class in our society have the brains and the ability to go to university." Well, if one measures brains and ability by the minister's criteria, that may be correct, because when one works as hard and long against the cultural and financial barriers which I'm talking about, sometimes university education seems so impossible and out of reach for the average individual that the attempt is not even made.

Statistics Canada advises that full-time enrolment at universities is down numerically in B.C. more than any other province in Canada. That's shocking information. The provincial figures are from 1979-80 and 1980-81 in British Columbia. In 1979-80 it was 30,870: in 1980-81 it was 30,420, which is a percentage decrease of 1.4 percent, a decrease of 450. In Alberta there were 30,615. Between last year and this year it is down slightly, but it's only a fraction of a percent. Enrolment in Newfoundland is up by half a percentage point. It is down slightly in Saskatchewan. It's up in Ontario and Quebec this year. Now I only cite those figures to show the trends.

I hope the improvements in the student aid loan program will encourage a higher participation rate in the next school year, because if these people are better educated and more highly skilled, they will come off the welfare and unemployment rolls. They create wealth and the benefits of which this minister has spoken in his 18 years in this House. There should be a greater incentive for those who are in economically poorer circumstances to achieve their full potential in post-secondary institutions. It's a sad thing indeed that we've gone from second or third in a participation rate in Canada to seventh or eighth place, which are the most recent figures we've been told. That's a disgraceful situation for an industrially rich province such as ours with vast resources to call upon to provide incentives for people to receive a higher education.

The philosophy of education is based on the political philosophy which one holds. I state again that the New Democratic Party is of the view that education should be available to everyone, and that means an egalitarian approach. It's not an approach to lower the standards of higher education to the lowest common denominator, but to encourage all segments of society to reach those high standards and to achieve a higher education. Last year I think we spent $120 for every man, woman and child in B.C. This year the minister intends to spend $144 in higher education for every British Columbian.

The big question that most citizens must ask when confronted with those figures is what they are getting for that kind of money. What are the people in the outlying districts getting? What are the people in certain economic classes getting? Are they all just paying taxes for an "elite" to go through university? It was true when I was at university and it's true today that the universities of B.C., all three of them, seem to be middle-class preserves — preserving what class distinctions we have in Canada and providing evidence of that tremendous barrier to a higher education. Most of them have got nothing. Of what value is their $120 or $144? Does the minister think about providing an education and making it more accessible to people in the outlying areas?

The minister seems to have the philosophical point of view that a certain Mr. Bennett had. I'll quote Mr. Bennett, not the Premier of the province, but a man named Arnold Bennett who said: "A university education cannot be handed out complete, like a cake on a tray. It has to be fought for, intrigued for, conspired for, lied for, and sometimes simply stolen. If it were not, it would scarcely be an education." That sort of a voice from the past is a part of the typical nineteenth century liberalism that the minister espouses, and I know that

[ Page 4796 ]

it's part of his economic philosophy. I don't know whether this minister entirely supports that point of view. But by his practices, speeches and policy statements the elitism creeps through everything he does to the extent of destroying the democratic ideal that Canadians should all be pursuing.

I think that his unhealthy association and support for independent schools — and I mean unhealthy association from the point of view of supporting independent schools in a way in which he attacked the public education system....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Oh, here we go. Now there is the classic example of what I'm arguing about. If that poor chap had access to post-secondary education, we would not have to be hearing from him in that manner at this time. Right behind that member is a classic example of how any amount of education is no help whatsoever.

If you have the philosophy that education is a struggle, then you start putting up and encouraging the barriers that are there. I think that this minister is doing just precisely that. What is the government doing to support students who are facing relatively formidable odds in attaining higher education? Well, they've been very helpful. They've done away with the Work in Government program which provided hundreds of jobs to university students. They take away with one hand and then come back and give with another — this afternoon with a student aid program. I don't know where we're going to end up — with a net benefit or a net loss. At the same time, it seems to me a rather short-sighted thing to do — paring off the Work in Government program, which provided hundreds of jobs to our university students, so they could make some money and provide some service instead of having the handouts and the giveaways that have been announced this afternoon. We need the support. We need the subsidies. At the same time, wouldn't it be more in keeping with their philosophy and with ours if we gave jobs instead of welfare to our students?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Am I keeping the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) from an appointment? I certainly wouldn't want to.

I was hoping for the undivided attention of the soon to be retired minister. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

The Work in Government program provided an opportunity for many students to contribute to the government service, to learn something and enhance their education, and at the same time to provide for their dignity and feeling of well-being. We owe that to them, as we owe it to all of our citizens.

One of the most attractive and creative programs was the Work in Government program, where students from various universities would receive summertime employment in various ministries. Although it was too early to tell, from that group of people it was hoped we would get some of our top civil servants — people who would see and have the experience of public administration and be proud to serve their provinces, instead of just hearing about the negative aspects through rumour and the press. They would see it firsthand, come in, support and work, eventually, after graduation, and we wouldn't have to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars we do every year hunting down people who will work for us in government. They'll be there. They'll be British Columbians. They'll have had the experience and the benefit, and they'll be available to us. It seems to me that it was very short-sighted for the government to cut away the Work in Government program.

There's a brief item that I've been asked to raise — and I'm delighted to do so — with respect to Simon Fraser University. About one and a half years ago, in response to numerous complaints, Simon Fraser University commissioned an external review of the condition of its residences. This review concluded that the condition of the residences was abominable. It's chiefly related to the fact that little money had been made available for renovation and upkeep, due to a political decision made to subsidize the residences in order to be able to offer an education to students who might otherwise not be able to afford it. However, with the cutbacks of education funding, the university was forced to leave the residences on their own. I now move that the minister be taken out and publicly flogged. Will you accept that motion, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. LAUK: That's absolute bias. Mr. Chairman, I hope you are listening carefully to this. It's a very important issue.

Since the overall rent structure was low, this meant that little or no funds were available to do the necessary upkeep. That's really the development of a slum on campus.

At the time of the receipt of the report, a conflict developed on the board of governors, I'm told, as to whether to raise the rents to cover all immediate upkeep costs or not. The decision at the time was to allow a 10 percent increase in rent with specific instructions that the university was to petition the council and the minister for at least $1 million in order to bring the residence up to an acceptable level. The idea was that rents would be gradually but steadily raised to something close to market levels, but we all know that in the last few years market levels, if achieved on campus, would be another horrendous financial barrier, and the announcements of this afternoon, for example, would just be tokenism.

[Mr. Lea in the chair.]

The director of student services informed me that the council was positive on the idea of providing some funds. However, the minister rejected this outright in a memorandum to the university. I hope that's wrong, but that's the information that I have. Therefore the university is considering a different course of action. It will be recommended to the board of governors at their April 21 meeting that $1.8 million be spent on renovations. The rents in the Louis Riel House are to be increased from $185 to $300 for one-bedroom apartments — it's an increase of 62 percent for these students; and from $225 to $375 for two-bedroom apartments — a two-thirds increase again. They hope this increase will place these apartments in about the middle of the comparable off-campus market.

Clearly, under this new policy, the present tenants will be paying for past decisions made by the board of governors and the government. Tenants will directly be paying for much of the costs of renovating the housing, which has taken 10 years to develop — in other words, the negative aspect of it. I say to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, this is patently unfair.

[ Page 4797 ]

What shall policy be on this issue? We must keep in mind that in the near future the minister may no longer be there. This is an opportunity for him to intervene and provide greater government assistance to the housing on the Simon Fraser campus. I'm sure all hon. members would not object to not changing the name from Louis Riel House, but perhaps changing one of the names to the Pat McGeer Memorial Home in recognition that the minister, through his generosity and magnanimous spirit, saw the evil of his ways, retracted the memorandum and provided some government assistance. The deputy, of course, agrees.

We're not asking the minister to adopt your position and my position on these matters, but I'll state them to the minister, in any event. Subsidizing students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds should be done through the financial aid system, and there are ways in which that can be done. Funds for the renovation of the residence should come directly from the provincial government — its plant, its capital. Perhaps this could come jointly through university education funds and housing funds; close to $2 million would cover that. Rents should be set at something close to the lower end of the off-campus housing, and they should be very gradually increased at the lower end of that market. The university is an artificial situation, and residence requirements near it are created by the site of the university itself. It can be argued that it's the same with cities and towns. But because we are dealing with people who in the beginning of their careers are not in strong economic positions in earning capacity and so on — they make really nothing — they should be subsidized, and indeed the rents should be gradually increased at the lower end of the market and should perhaps be artificially low.

As a contingency measure in the the meantime, I am urging the minister to raise the funds from the provincial coffers. We also intend to urge the board of governors to find some money in their treasury — perhaps from the university's contingency fund. This seems to me to be a grave emergency.

I know that the contingency fund has been kept to build a university club, but perhaps we could put up a plaque instead. Wouldn't that be all right? We'll put up a plaque instead: "These residences have been renovated, thanks to the kindness of the board of governors, the president, and the Minister of Universities, who forwent their tremendous desire to have a private, exclusive club for the elite on this campus. Instead they designated the money to that contingency fund to go for the renovation of housing for students, in their bold and continuing commitment to the democratic ideal and to the education of our young." I'd ask the minister to consider that appeal.

Another thing that has disturbed me, which the minister did not turn his mind to.... The minister has concentrated heavily on research and science, rather than on higher education. Although he is only peripherally interested in industrial jobs through research, he did not address his mind to an industrial strategy in the universities — not just to discovery parks research and what have you.

The big question now being posed in British Columbia and elsewhere in the country is: why are so many university graduates ending up in jobs that are totally unrelated to the studies they've undertaken? At this stage I'm not arguing that universities should not be that reservoir of a liberal education available to all of us, or that they should should not always be tied to a materialistic goal. Education in itself in a democratic system is the essential ingredient that protects the democratic system. The more educated the more of us are, the less chance there is of losing those freedoms and democratic ideals that we have protected so far. I am told — and the figures indicate — that thousands of students wind up in jobs totally unrelated to their studies. That can't be a good thing. It just can't be related to their keen desire to receive a liberal education and go out and drive a cab. It's causing widespread regret among their families and all of us and causing lots of debts, because they have their university education debts. They move into jobs that are not producing the kind of income they need to pay off the debts. Perhaps they are the lucky ones. Some don't end up with jobs at all, but they are not the majority by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps we're not counselling properly. Perhaps we're not providing the kinds of courses necessary, particularly in the vocational training end. We'll be dealing with that with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith). But also perhaps the universities are failing to respond. They are failing to deal with the undergraduate. The tremendous concentration on research and postgraduate work is undermining the confidence of the public in the universities. It's also undermining the ideal of educating as many people as possible in a democratic society. Those who would benefit and seek university education should be regarded as our most valuable resource.

The universities seem to concentrate on that handful of special people who go into postgraduate research. I think that's regrettable. I don't argue that we ignore postgraduate research. I support some of the things the minister said this morning, and we must continue to invest in research. But if we do that at the expense of the undergraduate, at the expense of educating these large groups of men and women who will take professional positions in our society and who will be the influence-moulders in the community, who will provide an economic upsurge to the knowledgeable and sophisticated society that we dream of — a community that is not easily hoodwinked or deceived and is positive and productive.... The job of the universities is still primarily the undergraduate.

I'm reminded of John F Kennedy....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: For the benefit of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), he was President of the United States. He said: "Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which if fulfilled can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation." That, to me, is really the primary thought I have when I think of the undergraduate fresh from high school coming to university. He has a private hope, yes, seeking out his own goals, as private as they may be, but in the end benefiting the community to a great degree.

I do think the minister is not totally responsible for this elitist view of post-secondary education. I think university administrations have a lot to answer for too. But we have to get back to that idea of a democratic institution and not an elite one, to the idea of an education for everyone who seeks that opportunity, cutting down the financial and cultural barriers.

Thank you for your patience, Mr. Chairman. I only have two hundred or three hundred points to cover. Having covered five of them, I'll wait for the minister to reply so far.

[ Page 4798 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: The member raised some interesting and relevant points. In our education system at the post-secondary level our full thrust, over the last five years, has been to do precisely what the member says we ought to be doing. We've greatly enriched both the quality and depth of the programs that are being offered, and never has it been easier for students to attend post-secondary institutions than it is today. The fees are at a record low in terms of percentage of costs.

I suppose, Mr. Member, one could eliminate fees altogether, as they do in countries like Australia; but what you find there, and what you find in most countries of the world, is very great restrictions placed on the numbers of students who can attend. Therefore you get institutions in Australia where there are no fees but where there are quotas, and if you don't get the marks you don't get in. If you go to very highly competitive countries like Japan, you start getting your whole career shaped in kindergarten. People who get into the right kindergartens get into the better primary schools; if they do well they get into the better secondary schools, and if they do well they get into the universities. But far from that approach, here our doors are open wide to virtually everyone who wants to benefit from a post-secondary education. For those who don't have the prerequisites, and therefore confront a barrier because of past inadequacies in their education, we provide the opportunity through the Open Learning Institute for them to take more advanced courses without any prerequisites at all and without having to leave their jobs or their homes.

What we've done is to give post-secondary education at the university level, and to have tremendous redundancy what with that and our college system, which in every region provides the first two years of university. If that isn't enough, you can get it through the Open Learning Institute. Simon Fraser University in particular has encouraged people to take their degrees on weekends and at nights, so that they can hold their jobs in the Vancouver area and continue to take their programs. All of the institutions have kept their fees low. So it seems to me that people are working towards those objectives. I'm not sure what further things we could do in light of what has to be some limitation placed on the total amount of money. We're still the most generous in Canada. But I suppose that if the province were wealthy enough, we could commit even higher amounts than we've done up until the present time, and probably that will be the case in the future.

The particular instance of the Simon Fraser University residences was raised. Far from discouraging Simon Fraser, we have encouraged them to undertake that upgrading and to prepare residences on a proper management basis, just like the other institutions have with their residences. What we did say — and perhaps this was what the member was referring to — is that those moneys that were set aside by the Legislature to take care of the operating costs of education per se should not be drained off for the purposes of housing, simply because we vote the money in the Legislature to be applied to actually tutoring the students and not housing them. What the member says about the mismanagement of the residences at SFU is entirely correct. On the other hand, Mr. Member, it would be unfair if we were to use educational money to house a small percentage, while we took that money from others who might want it for true educational purposes. Even within institutions where there is housing, those students who are receiving that student housing are getting a benefit relative to the many students who would like to be in that housing but who are forced to live off the campus — as is the case at SFU, UBC and UVic — where they have inferior accommodation and pay much higher rents. So what you do when you lower the price of your student residences and get them so that they're not self-financing is confer a particular benefit on one institution or a minority of people at that institution. If you're going to be totally fair with the money that you make available, then what we vote for educational purposes in this House should be used for educational purposes, and what we may be able to vote for housing we can use for housing; but that should not discriminate and give a special benefit to a few on one particular campus.

We have told the institutions that they may have access to the Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority, thus giving them a source of capital that they used to have from CMHC but don't have now. All we've said is: "Make it fair; put the thing on a self-financing basis and give every student the same break. But don't sap off educational funds for a special group of people at one institution, because in our view that would be unfair, given the constraint that we have generous amounts of funds which are nevertheless finite."

Now it does disturb me, as it disturbs the member, that frequently there is a mismatch between what people study in institutions and what they pursue in terms of their careers. I think that in some of our harder subjects like medicine, or like many of the programs which are given at BCIT, you do have lineups, and people know perfectly well what they want to do, but they don't get a chance to do it, which is wrong and unfortunate. I suppose I've been the loudest critic in British Columbia of the fact that our medical faculty, for one, is too small, and that many of our highly skilled trades have too long a waiting list, while we bring in people from outside to fill the jobs. That certainly is not anything we can congratulate ourselves about or anything we can excuse ourselves for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Law school is too big.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, we're not going to make any comments about the calibre to members in the House here; they can judge for themselves.

In any event, I think the students are in many cases well aware of the programs that lead directly to employment and of the ones that are less likely to bring about that result. I'd like to say that there were greater opportunities in those that do lead directly to jobs. We don't attempt to run the institutions. We do attempt to encourage them to expand those programs, and when they have redundancy, to let it be slimmed down. That's a difficult thing to do, but I subscribe to what the member says — that pressure should be kept on to achieve exactly that result.

MR. LAUK: I thank the minister for considering the issue. I do think, though, at this stage the Simon Fraser housing situation demands provincial attention. I don't quite agree that we can separate a student as a student without looking at his total needs. Just providing an education is one thing, and I think that is the first responsibility of this minister's portfolio, but he should also be a keen and committed advocate with other ministers and agencies to make sure that his students are properly housed and have economic subsidies where needed.

I haven't gotten into the very shocking and scandalous figures about the accessibility of universities for people living outside the lower mainland and the greater Victoria area,

[ Page 4799 ]

but it is scandalous. People living in outlying districts just simply do not have access to universities, and the participation rate from those communities is scandalously low — the worst anywhere in the country. We look with some degree of hope to the Knowledge Network, but it's so fledgling and embryonic that we can't look to it as a solution to that problem.

Part of the problem is student aid and part of the problem is student housing — accessibility to housing. The minister asks if I would agree to having a university wide open and making marks and merit the criteria for entry to the university. It just depends on who's doing the marking — who's providing the testing. For better or for worse, I was told in elementary school that, if I was not retarded, I certainly couldn't possibly make it through high school. Maybe they were right then — I don't know; maybe the subsequent higher institutions of learning were wrong. In any event, it depends on who's doing the testing. I'd like to see the universities wide open, and I would like to see us try to provide as best we can a place for serious students to obtain an education.

I want to touch on something else. I want to talk about the more humorous side of the minister. A lot of people — and they're more uncharitable than I am — have claimed for years in this province that the minister is totally and absolutely without a sense of humour. I want to say now that that's false. This minister has a tremendous sense of humour. He has played the largest and most successful practical joke on all of the people of Canada — let alone the province — of any other person I've ever heard of. He argued seriously for — now wait for this — the longest exhaust-pipe in the world to be built between Victoria and Vancouver. I remember the headlines. I asked some of our research staff to keep a running record of this controversy, because I had been an admirer of the good doctor from Point Grey for many, many years. I knew that he had this Tom Sawyerish side to him and that he was capable of the practical joke. It was at great expense to the taxpayer, I might add, but what's the price of a good joke, I always say. I mean, why quibble about $100,000, $200,000 or a million here and there. I mean, let's have our fun. After all, the good doctor comes from an established British Columbia family. They've been paying taxes for years....

MR. COCKE: And reading the riot act.

MR. LAUK: Yes, and reading the riot act, but it seems to me it was a bit dear. "Tunnel Vision Piggy-Backing Under Water" was the first Victoria Times headline. We got all kinds of them here as it progressed. "Take Car Onto Tunnel Train — McGeer's Vision of Island-Mainland Link" — do you remember that? It was last year. We were all wondering why, all of a sudden, this mad idea was coming forth from Mr. Science, but if you looked at the debates in the Legislature, you knew they were on the tremendous scandals that the government was getting itself into. There was the Eckardt commission, there was Gracie's Finger, there was the Vogel problem. There were all kinds of situations that were totally embarrassing the government. The Social Credit Party was going down in the polls. "What better way," said the Premier to himself, "can we get out from all of this heat? Let's go to the Island — this little imaginary Island — that Dr. McGeer sits on and ask him for a solution. Let's ask the Wizard of Oz what to do." We came up with the longest exhaust-pipe in the world.

Another headline states: "Victoria Watching Japanese for Tips on Building Tunnels." I mean, that boggles the mind. Can you imagine the good doctor from Point Grey permanently resident in Japan watching the Japanese building tunnels? It didn't say how big the tunnels would be. It didn't even say whether they were sand tunnels or sand castles; he'd be there watching them.

Here's another: "McGeer Talks Tunnels With Group of Experts; the Mystery Grows."

"McGeer Enthusiastic About Island Tunnel." Remember that? March 29.

"McGeer Vague on Plans for Island Tunnel." That was the day before.

"Floating Highway to Vancouver." He decided to throw in a floating highway. This man has an imagination, Mr. Chairman. No one can ever attack him for having a lack of imagination.

"It looks like either separation or a ten-mile long spike." That was another comment on the tunnel.

They go on — "Flowers Don't Grow in an Undersea Tunnel, says Danny Boyd."

"U.K.'s Channel Still Only a Dream After a Century, but McGeer not Convinced."

"McGeer Puts Island Link Plans to the Cabinet." Who took him seriously?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: My good friend took him seriously, didn't you, pal? Nod your head. Attaboy. He took you seriously because he thought you were serious, but I knew you much better than that. I knew what you were doing all along. This is why I kept this scrap-book on you. I've never found anything so amusing in all my life,

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You're constantly cleaning your glasses. Do you spray them or what?

But there were people who took this fantastic proposal to build a tunnel seriously. Nobody in the Province, for some reason, ever thought to ask themselves what normal human being would travel in a 30-mile tunnel in an earthquake zone under the sea from city to city. Malcolm Turnbull didn't have any trouble accepting this practical joke as being serious. He said:

"Pat McGeer's $3 billion proposed transportation link to Vancouver is now a simmering political time-bomb due to explode in the next few weeks. McGeer, the medical researcher turned Universities, Science and Communications minister, has successfully held the public's interest with his proposed bridge–road tunnel crossing concept for almost a month, much to the increasing annoyance of the NDP opposition. The floating tunnel concept first developed for an international design competition by a British engineer eleven years ago, and now elaborated on by B.C. engineers, has quickly become joke fodder for the legislative corridors. It is called 'the bunnel' by Bill Vander Zalm, 'a tinker toy' by Alex Macdonald, and by some of the other opposition MLAs 'the mad professor's missing link' (McGeer is a former University of B.C. professor). But aside from the bantering there is nail-biting about the transportation link within the NDP caucus."

[ Page 4800 ]

Nail-biting. Do you remember biting your nails, Mr. Chairman?

"The proposal has caught the opposition on the horns of a dilemma. In short, they don't know what to say or do about it. When first proposed, they pooh-poohed the idea and hoped it would go away, but now they are scared because it has diverted attention from the issues the NDP has tried to create in the Legislature, and particularly their continued but not too successful attempts to discredit the Premier."

No, we've been a hopeless failure there, haven't we?

"For the more imaginative members of the cabinet the transportation idea is the type of visionary diversion that politicians dream about."

For the more imaginative members, Mr. Chairman. You know who was against it — the poor member for Cariboo, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Poor fellow. A most unsuccessful, unimaginative politician. The poor Minister of Highways and Transportation — where is he these days? He's so unsuccessful he doesn't know what the real world is all about. But Alex Fraser was against the tunnel, and he was one of the less imaginative members, says Malcolm Turnbull.

"It is also vintage B.C. Social Credit politics, reminiscent of the type of ploy that former Premier W.A.C. Bennett pulled on the B.C. public on a number of occasions, particularly when under prolonged fire during his 20-year reign. Of course, McGeer, a former Liberal Party leader and a product of the late Bennett's heyday, is milking the diversion for all it's worth. But there is one startling difference" — are you ready for this, folks? — "between the Socreds of today under Bennett the younger and the Socreds of yesteryear: the current Social Credit crew are far more cautious, and in this case some are almost as scared as the NDP."

I don't know whether I should go on or not.

But it was finally put to rest, and we got this item:

"Science minister Pat McGeer's idea of a bridge tunnel link between Vancouver Island and the mainland is being set aside. McGeer has been an enthusiastic supporter of such a link" — and is now issuing buttons that say Support the Pipe; I interjected that — "but a $60,000 report commissioned by the government on such a project...suggests it would cost more than $4 billion, according to sources in Vancouver. McGeer has said that if the project costs more than $2 billion, the government would probably not approve it." How did you arrive at the $2 billion — just by throwing a dart at the wall? "The report has been completed but not yet released. McGeer wouldn't say what the final cost estimate is, but agreed Wednesday that $4 billion would not be far off."

We said it would be $4 billion. As soon as the minister came out in the hall with his hare-brained idea, the first thing that the member for Victoria said was: "Why, this thing is going to cost at least $4 billion." We didn't charge you a dime for that advice. It was there, but because of your blind faith in science you had to go to an expert to have him tell you the same thing — $60,000 later.

"The sources say: the report points out ferry traffic would have to increase by at least 200 percent over the next 10 to 15 years before the costs for a fixed link could be justified." Can I remind the minister what he said at the time before he went on to this hare-brained scheme, about how costs in developing our ferry service were reaching such proportions that it would be far and away more economical to go the tunnel route?

It was the minister's little joke at great expense to the province of British Columbia. Now we're left with a bill to the experts; they must be laughing, because everybody appreciates a good joke. I'll tell you who isn't laughing, Mr. Chairman: the taxpayers of this province aren't laughing. This year $625 million in extra taxes have to be raised — needlessly, we point out. This is the kind of extravagance and playing with the taxpayers' money that has cost us so dearly and has brought this government to the financial disaster it has brought itself to today.

In introducing these estimates I am saddened indeed that the minister had to spend $60,000 and other such moneys on wasteful whims — nothing more and nothing less. I wonder how far that $60,000 could go to help improve some of the housing at Simon Fraser. I wonder how far that $60,000 would go — and more that the minister spends — on some of the other basic cost items under his ministry, instead of a hare-brained scheme. It cost the taxpayer $60,000 simply to distract attention from the Legislature of last spring — a very cynical attitude toward politics.

Although we admire the minister's creativity, we know full well that the taxpayer of this province no longer thinks he's funny. I think that's why the minister has decided to retire. He says he's politically tired, but I think he knows that the taxpayers have had the final straw. They knew it was time for the old professor to pack his satchel and walk off under the gas lamps for that last time — white-knuckled and ashen faced — to AirWest and take his last flight to Point Grey.

MR. NICOLSON: We listened to the minister give an outline of some of the projects he's undertaken. I don't think we dispute the value of trying to bring about a conversion to the utilization of natural gas. We can question, however, the government's schizophrenic policy where on the one hand they are bemoaning the fact that we can't export our natural gas out of this province fast enough — we can't consume it fast enough — and yet on the other hand they're saying that this is the way we're going to be able to save on the importing of petroleum. I agree with the saving of imports, generating the energy here in the province and being self-contained and more self-reliant. The minister, though, is not the great innovator. Indeed, when I worked in a factory back in the 1960s we ran our lift trucks using propane and butane. The technology by which they're now utilizing methane or liquid natural gas is not all that much different, but it's welcome. The minister has provided a service there in terms of the little bit of publicity he got.

His almost taking the credit for the mushrooming of dishes all over the province is rather a little bit much indeed. Before the minister's dish had sprouted on the Legislature lawn, one of my students phoned me one evening and asked if I could recall the formula for the focal length of a parabola, with which I furnished him. He now has a private business enterprise where he is manufacturing dishes here in B.C. He is, in cooperation with the existing regulations of the CRTC, endeavouring to bring dish satellites and extended television services to isolated mountain parts of the Nelson-Creston constituency. As I'm sure my colleague from Esquimalt will expand upon, we certainly don't object to those efforts either.

The minister indeed seemed to emphasize the science and technology aspect of his portfolio more than the education

[ Page 4801 ]

situation. I don't take any great issue with an open-skies policy, at least within the restricted terms of reference that the minister mentioned.

It's rather difficult to criticize a portfolio which is largely high technology and which is a two-edged sword. I note some of the research projects that are taking place right now. One is the use of microwaves in automatically grading lumber. I see a problem in this, inasmuch as while we will perhaps be introducing new efficiencies and remaining competitive, we are also looking at eliminating jobs. One of the aspects of the minister's portfolio and of the Science Council of British Columbia is the dearth of research taking place to find out what the impact of high-technology research is going to be on the workplace. How is this going to affect our workforces? Things are moving at a very rapid rate in the one very small field, in which I do try to keep current, of microcomputers and microprocessors. I think that anybody in the industry is astonished by the rate at which changes are being accomplished. Things that people thought would occur in ten years have happened in five years and three years.

If any leaps are being taken.... Certainly increases in budget are before us here in terms of research allocations. The minister talked about what Canada should be doing and where we stand with respect to Ireland and other countries that we would normally think of as our technological inferiors. He pointed out that we stand well behind certain countries that we might wrongly assume we would be ahead of. Certainly we're not in a league with Japan, Germany or the United States. As the minister indicated, we're more on a par with Portugal, Spain and other countries that are just emerging from rather oppressive regimes and only beginning to come into even a second-wave technology.

Having said these things and realizing that there are benefits for research, I would ask the minister what is being done in terms of looking at the sociological effects of some of the research we are undertaking. What is it going to be and how are we going to cope with that? To reduce costs by getting into the automatic grading of lumber by the use of microwaves, which apparently shows some promise, is going to solve some problems, but it is going to create others. If our research in this province goes ahead wildly in one direction and lags in terms of sociological research, then I think we do a disservice.

Another thing I would like to bring up is what I think is the minister's responsibility. He talked about medical research being one of the most — I think he said the most — important areas; he did not qualify it. There is a very sensitive subject in medical research; that is in the area of vivisection. Just as we have had people opposed to the leg-hold trap and the manner in which trapping takes place, we also have people who for humane reasons are absolutely and totally opposed to vivisection.

I want to make it quite clear that by my remarks I'm not saying that I come out in absolute opposition. But I must agree with people who are opposed to vivisection, inasmuch as it would appear that vivisection experiments are not properly supervised. If the minister wants to start talking about turf, by saying that we in British Columbia should have control over cable television and that we should have control over things which affect us here in British Columbia, I think the minister should also take responsibility for the supervision of experiments which are being funded here in British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you agree with the minister's stand on television?

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, we've said that before.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You do.

MR. NICOLSON: We said that back when René Lévesque proposed it in 1974 or 1975.

When the minister goes selecting turf I would be very disappointed if he were to say, for some reason or other, that there is the Canadian Council on Animal Care which is responsible for inspecting animal experiments in Canada. I would be disappointed if we were just to say that that's where things begin and end.

There have been some — perhaps you could say — "break-ins" into a few laboratories, where people went in and looked at what was going on. This is what was found in the past year at the G.F. Strong research lab.

"We found 13 dogs in the darkroom. They were in small cages, standing on inserts of expanded metal. They had been devocalized, and the only sound I heard was the thumping of their tails hitting the sides of the cages when they saw us. One was trying to bark but instead only made a pitiful gurgling sound: it had been surgically mutilated. All were in advanced state of starvation. The stench was indescribable. The dogs were covered with excrement that was oozing from a section of tissue that was approximately four inches long protruding from their abdomens. Some of the dogs were turning frantically, trying to bite the section of bowel hanging from them. Their motions alone obviously indicated the pain and agony these dogs were experiencing. One German Shepherd I saw was only a living skeleton and its ribs were visible even though it had a heavy coat. I immediately wanted to leave the room, as I felt sick...." and so on. Others were taking pictures.

"The next room we examined contained many cages of rabbits. At my feet was a rabbit I thought was dead but it started to crawl across the floor, dragging its mutilated hind quarters, which were saturated in blood. In one of the cages was a rabbit that was so deformed it looked like it had melted in a corner of the cage: another was dead. Some of the cages had 'starve' written on the door tags. I remember wanting to put the rabbit on the floor out of its misery, but I was incapable and didn't know how to bring a swift death to this pathetic creature."

I see that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has left. I can remember his eloquence in talking about the need for humane treatment of animals when we were discussing leg-hold traps back in 1974 and 1975.

A visitation was also made to what was the old Heather Pavilion at the Vancouver General Hospital, where they found animals in a similar state, with cages placed one upon the other so that any elimination of wastes went through bottomless cages from one animal down on top of another. The Canadian Council on Animal Care makes visits. They make them on a random basis, basically with a phone call in advance. I would like to ask the minister if he does not agree — and I'm sure that experimenters would come back with fantastic counterarguments.... But where does the truth lie" Where does the responsibility of this House lie in

[ Page 4802 ]

terms of trying to reconcile the great gulf and credibility gap which exists between other people who respond, such as those who responded to a letter from the municipality of Chilliwack, who found that dogs being taken from their pound were ending up in this Heather Pavilion experimental station...? And the letters that go back and forth! On the one hand you have the anti-vivisectionists; on the other hand you have people almost saying that there is an ideal situation.

Now I recall that when I attended the University of British Columbia dogs that were being experimented upon were exercised, there was care taken of them — the little bit that I saw of it. Certainly we didn't have this kind of a situation, where animals are being ill-housed and ill-cared-for. If this type of experimentation must go on in the name of science, and we subscribe to the fact that man is the highest biological form and that other biological forms are simply here to serve man — if one even accepts that — at least there should be some degree of humanity in the way in which we do this.

I would like to ask the minister if he would not be agreeable, if he does not think it a good thing that there be a standing committee of the Legislature — the Select Standing Committee on Health Education and Human Resources is, I believe, the standing committee — activated in order to hear both sides of this issue and to make recommendations, so that perhaps British Columbia–based people of good reputation and representing both points of view might be able to inspect these facilities, on a random basis, without warning, and make sure that everything is being done to keep the very best of standards in this very sordid.... You know, it's an area in which many learned people — people who have been engaged in animal research — are now totally against it for any purpose whatever. People like Ivan Illich and other philosophers are totally opposed to it. One can quote many people of great repute who have come out totally against this. But I think that we as legislators have some responsibility, and this is where it lies. It lies with this minister, because these are the things that are being done in the name of research, and I'd like the minister's comments.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, there is no place at all for cruelty to animals in medical research. There is no need for it, and there is no excuse for it if it does exist. Every investigator nowadays signs an agreement before he undertakes any medical research that his experiments conform with the standards that have been set for animal care and animal treatment in any medical research. Those standards are regularly monitored and enforced — not just by the Canadian Council on Animal Care, but by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Any other responsible group of concerned citizens that wishes to set up a society of some sort that would inform itself about standards that are applied here nationally and internationally would, I think, be welcome to do the monitoring.

Now you're always going to have people who will set their own standards and make their own accusations independently of what any responsible group might say, because they're prejudiced and think that because medical research is going on there must be something cruel. So they will break in, as has happened in British Columbia in the last little while. There has been a great deal of vandalism undertaken, supposedly in the name of friendship to animals, but it is in fact cruel to them and cruel to humanity — quite apart from individual irresponsibility. So I think that one shouldn't give encouragement through this to nuts. One should make certain that the responsible groups are in fact doing their job, because their standards are quite adequate. There is an understanding and an obligation on the part of every investigator to be certain that he does not cause animals suffering, that he is not cruel and treats animals with the care and respect that they deserve.

In medical research, just as in the slaughterhouse, animal life is taken. I don't think there's any question about that, and I would think most of the people in this Legislature are meat eaters — some may even be hunters. I'm sure the fact that man takes animal life is certainly no shock to members of the Legislature and, indeed, that does happen in medical research. That's not different in quality to the standards that are established outside of the medical research fraternity. The answer I would give to you is that the standards which are set are, in my view, proper and appropriate. If they're not being enforced, then we should look at means by which this can be done. I certainly don't think we should embark on witch hunts, because there are responsible groups that are supposedly taking this responsibility and are competent and happy to do so. I think that we should really attack the thing through them. I'd be quite prepared to bring to the House the kinds of standard forms signed by investigators, the sorts of standards which are set and the groups that are supposedly monitoring it all.

With respect to social research on the impact of high technology, it's a little difficult to sum up what may happen in an area overall when you're just commencing a new venture. What we can say about the experience of high-technology industries is that they offer two things. The first is growth, because the average growth of high-technology industries in North America has been ninefold greater than resource and low-technology industries. So this is where opportunity and employment will come from. The second basic fact is that wages are higher because these industries are growing and making a profit, and therefore they're in a position to pay higher wages.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The problems occur in areas like Silicon Valley when the firms want to expand and there aren't any workers that can be employed. They say in Santa Clara county that the largest want-ad section of a newspaper in the United States is that one little county paper. They say that the way you get a new job down there is to turn into a different driveway in the morning. The firms are looking for places in which they can expand outside of the area, because that's the only way they can expand. If they stay in the area, they can only get their workers through the expense of somebody else who is trying to expand. This is why I've paid at least a half a dozen visits to that area interviewing various firms and suggesting to them some of the advantages of moving to a place like British Columbia. One of the big advantages of a place like British Columbia for them is that there aren't a lot of other high-technology firms sapping all of the available people. In the high-technology area, they're working in almost virgin territory, and that's of high interest to them.

Another is that we've got an abundant supply of electrical power. You might think that that's a strange thing for them to want, but if you're running a production line making chips that are being impregnated from ion guns and there is a surge in power throughout your week's production.... Ample supplies of guaranteed power are very important to them. It's

[ Page 4803 ]

a real danger down in California where they have not planned as well as we have, and where they're facing regular brown-outs. Another important resource that we have here is lots of water. Again, California is a water-short area, and if you're going to have the surgically clean atmospheres that are required for reliable production of large-scale integrated circuits, you've got to have a lot of water. We have that.

So the availability of people, power and water are very important pluses for us, and it speaks well for our opportunities for the future. I'll tell you what the largest negative is, because I think we must speak frankly about these things and the cards just have to be laid on the table. They consider the labour climate in British Columbia to be one of the worst negative features of any area in North America. This happens to be the reputation we've built for ourselves. Whether we agree with it, disagree with it, or like it or not, that's the perception. Therefore, when these people consider whether or not they can get into an area and become a good corporate citizen, they've got to ask themselves if they are going to have a stormy time, or if they can enjoy the kind of tranquillity which is more characteristic of other areas of North America than our own. Anybody who thinks that I'm prattling nonsense can go down and do some of these interviews themselves. I think you will quickly learn, whether you agree or disagree, that this is the perception. We're going to have to work very hard in B.C., if we want a share of the fruits and benefits of high technology, to overcome this factor which most of these firms consider to be the largest negative for B.C.

As a kind of incidental event, one of the favourite areas at the present time, since a lot of these firms, having originated on the west coast, have a bias towards the west coast, north or south, was the state of Oregon and the area of Vancouver, Washington, just north of it. That was until Mt. St. Helens erupted. The one thing that will spark more paranoia than everything that I've described to date is dust. If you see a little grain of dust sitting on one of these chips you'd throw it away. On two occasions the wind was blowing away from us, but towards Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, which bumped them down to the bottom of the list.

MR. BARBER: We're exploiting their misery, Pat.

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure. If the wind had been blowing in the other direction we might be suffering from another negative.

But with all of that, I do remain very optimistic that this location will be looked upon with considerable favour in the future, that we will be able to reassure people, we will be successful, we will be able to give workers here an opportunity at something better than they've ever had before and, maybe down the way — I'm talking 20 years — we'll have to face some of the sociological problems that occur with tremendous success, like they've had just south of San Francisco. Perhaps they're experiencing problems of growth — not problems of pollution, but certainly problems of housing. These are things that go with growth and success. Perhaps we've got to be thinking about that down the road a little bit, but for the present, we don't have the basis to undertake the kinds of studies the member's referring to.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll be very short. I would still like the minister to tell me if he does not believe that animals in the last year or two have been placed in cages and stacked one upon another with screen bottoms so that when they eliminate their waste it's coming down upon the animals below. These are animals that are subjected to all kinds of probes and a multiplicity of experiments. Can he guarantee me that that is not happening anywhere — even in the greater Vancouver area?

HON. MR. McGEER: You asked me, Mr. Member, if I believe what's been stated. The answer is no, I don't believe that. I think that if a specific complaint is laid, it certainly deserves investigation. I think that either I or others who regularly do these things would be very pleased to aggressively investigate any charges of that kind, because it's an abuse. But the answer is no, I don't believe that.

MR. NICOLSON: If photographic evidence is presented to the minister, would he be willing to set a standing committee of the Legislature in motion to really look into this?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd not be prepared to guarantee that we'd set up a committee of the Legislature, but certainly I can assure the member that I'd be very pleased to look into anything of that kind, if you've got responsible evidence. But you see, the thing is that when complaints are laid, the SPCA or the Canadian Committee on Animal Protection are right on top of things like that. That doesn't mean to say the system is perfect. Obviously I can't guarantee that there isn't cruelty going on out there somewhere. There probably is, simply because people aren't perfect. We'd be pleased to took into that.

MR. KEMPF: I have a few words to say in regard to the estimates of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, but before so doing I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF: Joining us in the chamber this afternoon are a fine group of young northern British Columbians, students from three schools in my constituency: Nechako Valley, Fort St. James and Fraser Lake. Accompanying these students this afternoon are Mr. McPherson and Mr. Cursons, teachers from Nechako Valley Secondary School. Mr. Cursons is the chairman of the Vanderhoof air show, the second largest — soon to be the largest — air show in British Columbia, which is held once a year in that great community of Vanderhoof, and will be held again this year on July 25 and 26. I invite all members of this chamber and all members of the community of British Columbia to attend that air show. It's something to be seen and is certainly fast becoming a very fine air show in this province. I would ask all members to make these people welcome this afternoon.

On the minister's estimates, while I'm on my feet I would like to commend the minister for the serious promotion in this province of our high-technology industry. It's long overdue, and I believe in the future it will benefit many British Columbians as well as people from other parts of the world.

Particularly while this group of young northern British Columbians is with us this afternoon, I would also like to commend the minister for the open-skies policy which he has promoted in this province. As northerners who live in very rural areas of this province, we appreciate that kind of program to provide assistance for the promotion of TV reception

[ Page 4804 ]

discs, which in many communities in my constituency of Omineca are the only way in which you can receive TV reception.

I would also like to commend the minister on his new educational channel. With the educational channel and the promotion of TV discs, all the people of this province, including those in my constituency, not just those in the large urban areas of this province, will be able to receive that channel. As you know, Mr. Chairman, being a northern representative, we in the north do not have the services or the amenities of those living in the lower mainland of this province, and it's that kind of thinking and programming which will assist us as rural members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the spirit of letting debate reciprocate between all sides of the House, I recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, followed by the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem).

MR. MITCHELL: There are three major issues in this particular ministry that I would like to cover in this debate. I think these issues are every day becoming more and more important in how they affect the community. I think the major problem that developed in the province this year — much to my dismay the minister took no active interest in it and made no positive public suggestions of assistance — was the B.C. Telephone strike and the long negotiations that preceded that strike.

I feel this minister has in his power the greatest ability to bring to the public the problem of what is taking place in the telephone industry, and what is developing in telecommunications and micro technology not only in British Columbia but in the whole world. I was quite surprised that the minister, with all his ability and flamboyance, didn't get into this discussion early. I know there are times you feel that you are stepping on some other ministries' toes because it is labour negotiations. It is quite true that it is a labour negotiation, but his ministry also has the responsibility of correcting and giving input. The description in the estimates says that it is also concerned with the rates charged and the standard of service offered by telephone companies. I feel that the standard of service offered by the B.C. Telephone Co. deteriorated to such an extent that it was imperative that this ministry got into it, gave input and gave some explanation about what is happening to the technology in this particular industry. He had an opportunity to explain just how effective the new technology is and how it is taking over this particular industry. He had an obligation, Mr. Chairman, to set up some kind of communication between the telephone company, the union involved and the many communities of British Columbia who are being vitally affected by these changes.

Within the province of British Columbia last year, nearly 800 employees were going to be phased out of their jobs in various smaller communities in one way or another. What effect would this have had on the community, on the economy of the community, on the social life of the community and on the workforce of that community? I think this is one of the programs that the ministry could have pioneered. It could have taken a lead in what is happening to the workforce in that community.

I know from my small involvement as the communications critic that I spent many hours talking to technicians, tradesmen, administrators and supervisors from B.C. Telephone. They tell me of the technical changes that are happening in that industry, of people who spent 5, 10 and 15 years working in the industry mastering a trade and who learned how to do repairs in various sectors of the industry. They now find that with the new equipment which has been brought in, when something becomes a problem, a few red lights flash, someone comes down the line, takes out a whole component of that particular machine, replaces it and ships that component back to the company for repair. This has a great effect on the type of training and the workforce that must develop in that industry. People who have been working 10, 15 and 20 years are now phased out of that industry. As I have said before in this House, we're not going to eliminate the wheel. Technology is here. I think we must start to plan what is going to happen with this new technology and where and how we are going to phase out people who are becoming redundant. We can't allow it to go on and on until it falls flat on someone's face.

I was quite surprised that this ministry didn't take that leadership, get involved, try to get some input and make some commitment to those people who are involved. What type of service is this company giving to the public? I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the minister himself, with his long ivory-tower connection with the universities, realizes that when you lose the morale of any group of people the type of service that they are giving to the community and to their employer goes down. You know that after 14 months of a long-drawn-out strike, and explanations that they are being phased out — that they as individuals are becoming redundant in the workforce — the type of service that they're going to give is not going to match the high technical capabilities that they have. It's only normal.

I feel that this ministry should be giving some leadership. This is the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications. This is the ministry that can and must give the leadership that is needed to make an effective transformation from one technology to another. As I make this recommendation to the minister I think there are other studies that must come into consideration.

I'm quite happy that the minister is actively pursuing the bringing in of the new silicon-chip industry. These changes are going to affect not only companies like B.C. Telephone but our whole industrial development in British Columbia. They are going to affect the type of industries we have and how we are going to manufacture our resources, so that we can manufacture these resources in this country without shipping them out to lower-wage areas. I feel it's important that this industry be promoted in British Columbia and that this ministry not only do the studies but bring this information back to the public.

I think it's important that the public, the trade union movement, the business community and political parties of all stripes become partners in the changes that must and will take place. We can't stop them; what was new yesterday is old today. It's important that the education and the type of training we give to our youth today — the people who will enter the workforce tomorrow — be compatible with the type of industry that we are going to have down the line.

That input and study must come from this ministry with the full cooperation of every member of this House for every member of every strata of our society. To sit back and say that something is just part of the capitalist society and that the socialists over here are not interested.... It is the people over here who are more interested, because after the next election we will be having those decisions to make. I feel it is important that we....

[ Page 4805 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to bet?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes — $100!

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't bet; it's against the Constitution Act. I'll find somebody to bet with you though, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues on vote 206.

MR. MITCHELL: As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am quite disappointed, on listening to the minister, that he hasn't brought out these new ideas that he should be preparing and promoting, that he wasn't involved in these changes.

There's another issue that is going to affect and is affecting the general public because of this new technology, the new computer industry. This is something that we in British Columbia and Canada must face. That is the right to privacy and the Videotex industry. I know the minister is well informed on what happens in computers. Every one of us, one way or another, has a record in many facets of a computer. We go to a doctor and our doctor makes a record. The vast majority of doctors today store this information in data banks or computers throughout the city. If we have a driver's licence there is a record of that. If we go to a bank and take out a loan.... Each and every one of these businesses has a record on us. I know so many people today think the only records kept are those of criminals. Actually, every one of us has many records and I think it's important that we must bring in some type of regulation that the rights to that record should remain private to the individual it concerns.

I think that we can no longer afford by default to allow this information to be stored in data banks or computers. With the way computers are set up in a modern world, tied into a telephone line, some 12-year-old child in New York can get into a computer situated in Washington. He can pick the brains and pick the information, because basically a computer is a very simple machine; once the key to get into it is mastered, computers all over British Columbia can be open to people who have no rights to the private records of anybody. What is happening right now in British Columbia is that companies are getting into these personal files. There are right now records of women who were not hired for jobs because their doctors' files said that they were pregnant. It had nothing to do with their qualifications, their need or anything else. Because someone could get into a computer, that file that had nothing to do with that person's application for a job — no request or permission was given by either the doctor or the person involved — was tampered with and that job was denied.

We have people who have been denied promotions, Mr. Chairman, because someone got into the file of an insurance company that stated that that person was turned down on an application for insurance. I say that we in this Legislature and the minister must give some leadership to protect the privacy of the records that are on file in computers today — your files, my files and the general public's files. If someone is involved in an accident and he is unconscious in the hospital, and if you can get his medical file to be used on a case where it is important for his life, that is a justified need for getting into that file. If someone is making a loan who has a long record of not paying his bank loans off, maybe that would be a justified excuse, but I believe the abuse in the computer world is taking place today because there is no legislation to date to cover that particular subject. I think that legislation can come in with some leadership from this ministry.

In many cases in personnel problems, if the personnel manager for some reason or other has a difference of opinion with an individual, he can write anything on his personal file. Anything can be filed on a silicon chip hidden away in some computer; years later someone can get into that computer and out comes certain information that is untrue. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this ministry can bring some leadership into this particular industry to protect individuals' rights to their records, and what goes into that record and what goes through this modern technology. The understanding can come from this Ministry, and this ministry has yet to show that leadership.

I can't say that I'm really impressed with some of his reasons and his record over the last year — the record that he has shown to the community and to new industry, and the record he has shown in involving people who are going to be affected by that new industry. If I can very humbly give some of my suggestions, these are some of the grounds that he should check over, some of the groups of people that should be involved and some of the problems that are going to face our communities because of new technology. Somewhere down the line we must have a right to get into our records and check that they are true, and we must have a right to say where they can be used and how they can be used. I don't believe that something that is hidden in a computer is the property of anyone but the person whose record it is.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to make a couple of suggestions. I feel that our minister, through education and his connection with the Knowledge Network, and with his desire to pioneer something new, can give some leadership to his government in bringing the television to some of the debates in this House. I feel that — and I say this very honestly — he can at least start off with televising the debates of question period and all the ministerial statements that are made. I feel that through his Knowledge Network, his technology and his personality we must take the information that is coming out of this House. It should be dispensed throughout this province, and his is the one Ministry that call lead that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To advise the House, while we're in estimates we can discuss the administrative actions of a department, but we cannot discuss legislation. If the member or any member wishes to speak to that, the Chair would have to find that out of order. The necessity for legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you. I'm not discussing legislation. I'm asking that we get a little leadership from the minister. We feel that he should give that leadership now and get it out to the public.

I'd like to close on an idea that he did bring to this House that I spoke on earlier on in my speech. If he has the opportunity to go into these areas like California where he is interviewing the various types of new industry that are coming in, and if it's true that the reason new industry is not in here is because of labour unrest or labour-strike records, I think it's really important when he goes on these trips that he not only take the critics of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, but also men and women who are active in the business community of that industry and

[ Page 4806 ]

people from the trade union movement so that there can be some open and straight debate on what is happening. If some of these stories that are untrue are surfacing in other countries, then there are people in the business world and the trade union movement who can squelch them and give the actual facts. I know it's easy to get up here and throw out statements without any substantiation or record that they're true, but have some witnesses down there other than the minister and his select few. Have others from the community who need to be involved give their input.

I feel if we take this attitude toward all our development in British Columbia, we'll go ahead instead of having this class war that is developing from the opposition over here. They keep saying that they are the pure, true, capitalist free enterprisers and we are the true socialists. This sort of philosophy went out, I think, years and years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's a true socialist?

MR. MITCHELL: Well, I don't know. We've been branded as that. The thing is that there is no such a thing as black and white today. There is no such thing as a pure, free enterprise capitalist. There is no such a thing as a pure, true socialist economy, because today we are living in a mixed economy. We are living in an economy that must be nurtured and developed. It's not going to improve by shouting names across the floor of this House. It's not going to improve by running down and making attacks on one and another. It's going to improve when we — with the leadership of this government and of this opposition — involve more people in the active cure of some of the problems that we are being faced with.

It was this opposition.... When this government would do nothing with the B.C. Telephone strike, when it was dragging on and with a lot of unsubstantiated charges that there were certain people going to be charged with criminal offences, instead of the leadership coming from that government the leadership came from the Leader of the Opposition on this side of the floor. It was the leader of our group who had the guts to get on the phone and phone people in the industry and the trade union movement, who got in there and got involved so as to get the negotiations back on stream.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I must remind you that we are on the debates of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. I think you might be canvassing the estimates of another minister. That is my opinion at this point. Could the member relate the remarks to the administrative actions of the department.

MR. MITCHELL: This is definitely why I'm relating to this particular ministry, as the critic of that particular communications ministry. One of the most vital things in British Columbia is B.C. Tel. The B.C. Tel application for a CRTC increase and their long-drawn-out strike both tie into communication, and communication within the province of British Columbia is a most important part of our industry. When this ministry failed to give that leadership, and when that leadership had to come through my committee, through the Leader of the Opposition, that particular strike was solved. We must develop cooperation, and we must develop a real communication within industry and business and take a different approach. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, we want some leadership, and in the last year he has not given it.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I will not discuss the portfolio of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), but I will remember it when it does come up, and I'll be bringing to the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) the chapter and verse of what the Leader of the Opposition did to those negotiations. I'll make no further comment at this time.

Today I want to make a remark on the speech made by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when he heaped left-handed praise on the tunnel from Vancouver to Vancouver Island and suggested it was a stupid idea. I want to tell him that without imagination people perish — that's the truth. It took imagination and I commend the minister on the imaginative thinking.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: For example, Jules Verne, in Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea, had an atomic submarine that circled the earth under the sea. He didn't have the technology; he had the idea but not the technology.

The fixed link is much more simple than that. We have the technology and some day — very shortly, perhaps.... What this government is doing is thinking 10, 15 or 20 years ahead. Thinking is very important, and I commend the minister for his thinking. I accept what he did as a proper job of his office.

I want to say to the minister how pleased I am with his promotion of technology parks. That is the only area where British Columbia can prosper. When we are so far from the manufacturing centres of Canada and our consumer goods are hampered.... We cannot sell our consumer goods in the United States because we have duties against them, and we can't sell them to ourselves. Consequently manufacturing in large amounts and big consumer goods are impossible in British Columbia. Technology is another thing. The great difficulty of surmounting the trade barrier of the United States.... It is a known fact that, for example, televisions cost $200 more here than they do in Bellingham. Why is that? Because of duty. Because we have to buy them from our suppliers in Ontario. We must have another source of effort, and that source of effort is technology. We have the electric power and the power resources to do just that. It takes promotion and vision on the part of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications to promote this factor. Without that portfolio there, we would be far behind. With the thinking, ability and promotion that's going on, we will succeed.

I believe we have one small problem: this province does not produce a sufficient number of engineers. I think that the total number of engineers produced in B.C. is an average of 150 to 200 a year. They need 600. Now where do they come from? They come from Ontario, the United States and Europe. They're good engineers — they train them, and we use them — but these people are not akin to British Columbia. They have no direct loyalty to this province. I think we should be producing the engineers ourselves, but the University of B.C. alone cannot produce sufficient engineers. It has not done so.

I believe that the University of Victoria is now gearing up for an engineering faculty. I appeal to the minister to consider a faculty at Simon Fraser University. I had lunch three or four months ago with Dr. Pedersen and the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) at the university, and we

[ Page 4807 ]

talked about that. They're ready and willing, I'd like to tell the Chairman and the minister, to establish a faculty. As a matter of fact, they're anxious to do so. I appeal to the minister to take this under very special consideration at this time. If we're going to develop technology anywhere, we have to have more engineers. We have to have them now. If we start today to establish a new faculty on the mainland, it will hardly be ready in time. I say that there's not a day to be lost. I urge the minister to consider this very seriously.

MR. COCKE: I would probably second the proposal of the member for Dewdney if Simon Fraser University would guarantee that we weren't going to have a Lady Godiva's ride out there as well.

MR. DAVIS: What's wrong with it?

MR. COCKE: Well, I know that you're an engineer, but surely you see something wrong with that nonsense.

I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions about a pet project out at UBC — a "pet" of many people. That is not Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It's the TRIUMF nuclear reactor, or nuclear creator — the machine that makes the radioisotopes. It strikes me that this is a very valuable adjunct to our health-care system, in terms of potential. I'm told that in order to get the right ingredients out of the TRIUMF, you require positron emission tomography. "PET" is what it's called. The minister knows very well what I'm talking about. The minister would probably also say in his answer to this question that somewhere in his recent past he's seen to it that the project has been given a grant of $658,000. My understanding is that that grant had a bit of a hooker. Tied to the grant was....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Now I said what I said, and I said it positively. There are two meanings for words, as you well know.

The grant was tied to the fact that the tomography would be bought and made by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. They were to deliver that this February. B.C. paid $250,000 down. This February they came back with their hands out like this, and they said: "We need another couple of hundred thousand bucks." Now it's virtually predictable. Way back in ancient history in the early seventies, AECL had been doing health machining for some time but had been very dismal in terms of their delivery. As a matter of fact, I think that some things ordered as far back as 1971 have not been delivered to this day. So now they come back to us, and they want $200,000 more. It strikes me that the original grant of $658,000 that the minister gave is going to be inadequate. I'm informed that Siemens of Germany — but from their Amsterdam plant — manufactures similar equipment that could do the same job for $500,000. I'm also informed that Ortec in the States can do it for a million dollars. Somewhere in between these is what we want. But we want it delivered.

Now I understand that if we are going to have to wait another year it means that the minister's pet project is behind another year. I'm also under the impression that he may wait a lot longer than that. I do hope we are not going to send more good money after bad — if their delivery is going to be as bad as their history. I'm not casting aspersions about the atomic energy commission of Canada — on a lot of the work they do — but in the health area they have had a dismal record. I'm not sure why we went to them in the first place. I wonder if the minister could very quickly give us an answer to that question, because I think it's rather important. I wonder also whether the minister or the university or the TRIUMF group has given them the additional S200,000 they want.

HON. MR. McGEER: I can answer that question quickly, because I know a great deal about that particular project. First, I'll give just a little background for the members. The TRIUMF facility is Canada's number one big science project of the last 35 years. Of its kind, it's the greatest accelerator in the world, and it has the greatest capacity to produce medical isotopes — it has no rival. One of the particular things it can do is produce positron-emitting isotopes, which lend themselves to an absolutely dramatic and almost magical technique called positron emission tomography, whereby the brain and organs of the body can be visualized at work if you've got a machine to do the visualizing.

We set up in our province a policy whereby institutions could buy large capital buildings which are written off over a longer period of time. An application for a positron emission tomograph came through that route. It was recommended by the university, the Science Council and the Universities Council, and a sum of $645,000 was made available. The atomic energy commission was to deliver their machine this past month. There is alleged to be a major design fault, so that the machine will not reach specifications. On the market today the best machine in the world, the one that produces the highest resolution, is made by the Ortec Corp. of California. I think they want more than a million bucks.

I'm advised that the route being followed is to cancel the contract with Atomic Energy, and they have agreed to return the money. That money will be used to build the machine right at TRIUMF following the design of the Washington University at St. Louis group under Michel Ter-Pogossian, which many feel is capable of producing resolution comparable to the Ortec machine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: No, they did not do their job well. Unfortunately there were design faults. They built the machine, but it didn't reach specifications.

I think what's involved here is that if you've got the finest isotope-making machine in the world, it's a shame to give anyone else an advantage by not having the best imaging machine. This will be one of the important routes through which international medicine will be practised in British Columbia. I don't anticipate that there will be a request for any more money. I think the money that is available will be used by them to build their own machine. Hopefully it will be done by the end of the year.

To the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) with respect to engineering: I heartily endorse the attitudes people have had about emphasizing engineering education. That's why in these estimates $1.5 million has ben set aside for our three universities to pursue their programs in engineering. I particularly hope Simon Fraser University will do as the University of Toronto has done: start a Bachelor of Science program in engineering, specializing not in old-fashioned engineering of how to build bridges and highways, but in the more modern solid-state physics engineering that underlies a

[ Page 4808 ]

lot of the high-technology industry we've been talking about today. I have very high hopes that we're going to see exciting things in engineering, because it's really the cutting edge between academia and industry. We've done the traditional engineering things quite well: mechanical engineering, mining engineering, old-style chemical engineering, civil engineering, etc., but really very little of the modern solid-state physics and electronics which underlies much of the Silicon Valley high-technology industry.

I'd like to go back for a moment to some of the matters raised by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). First of all, as a government and as a ministry we've said we wish to have jurisdiction over the B.C. Telephone Co., because we think that telecommunications appropriately should be within provincial jurisdiction. In this, we're only asking féor equal treatment with the other provinces across Canada. The federal government really attempted to trade this off in constitutional debate and say: "We'll give you this, but we want you to give concessions in other areas." We said we were not interested in dealing that way. This is something which should stand on its own feet, simply because that's the way it is in other provinces across Canada. Every single province now is of the view that telecommunications should be regulated at the provincial level. We stand ready to take that over, but because it's an act of the federal parliament there isn't anything that we can do. I'm sure that we would not have been welcome in our ministry if we meddled in a labour dispute, no matter how positive our motives might have been. It was handled up to a certain point by the federal Minister of Labour. I realize the Leader of the Opposition made an effort to contribute, as did our Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), when he chose the mediator who finally got the thing settled.

I agree with the member that we have to do something about computer confidentiality. I'm not quite sure how one tackles that from a legislative point of view, but it is certainly something that deserves attention and undoubtedly will receive attention in the future. It's one thing to have regulations, but people are going to steal; you're not allowed to rob banks, and people rob banks. We can't, as you know better than I, do things in the criminal sense here. This is why we've got to look at what's within our jurisdiction. In any event, it really deserves thought and attention. We'll certainly attempt to do that.

Members know my view of the televising of the debate here — pollution of the airwaves or not.

As the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew said, we're into a totally new era with respect to telecommunications. I think that everyone is really aware of that. The satellites have totally removed terrestrial distances. Now if you're going to send your telephone communication by a satellite, it really doesn't matter if it's across the street, to St. John's, Newfoundland, or to London, England. It's all the same distance. When it goes up there and pops back, the distance is up to satellite and back again and not any distance over land.

The satellite really makes us all into communications equals. It doesn't matter where in British Columbia you live — behind a high mountain or whatever. As long as it's going up there you are on an equal basis. What has us still unequal is the fact that some people have the dishes to receive but others don't. What we're going to attempt to do in the next few months, particularly for the northern communities, is to give them the equipment they need so they can translate into practice their communications equality. It really doesn't matter as much to us, living down here, whether we've got that dish. We can get lousy movies anyway, on a regular television, without hauling them in by satellite. But for those people the satellite link is going to be extremely valuable and therefore we want them to have that opportunity. That's where we will bias in building the electronic highway.

We're also going to have major changes — as everybody probably knows — in the cable system.

MR. LAUK: You like it here, don't you?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm being heckled here, Mr. Chairman, and that heckling is putting me off this afternoon, so I'm going to sit down.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very kind and controlled. What I'd really like to do, however, after listening to the speech by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), is just to try to get a little positive tone into this thing.

First of all, I'd like to say to our Minister of Universities, Science and Communications on behalf of my constituents that we're excited about a lot of these things that he is doing for our province. Particularly, we're very thankful for the most recent development and announcement that there would be that project concerning cancer research. I think that's something that we can all be very thankful for. I'm sure there are many people out there who feel that way.

I have a pet project that I'd like to talk about a little bit, if I don't get heckled too badly by the other side. Being a simple farmboy I can't get away from agriculture and I'd like to talk a little bit about that. It's an exciting industry that's growing....

MR. LAUK: You're a simple multimillionaire farmboy.

MR. RITCHIE: That's fine. You know, we didn't all manage to get to university, but we made it without it anyway.

MR. LAUK: I took the wrong road, I'll tell you that.

MR. RITCHIE: You took the wrong route, my friend — there's no question about it.

MR. LAUK: Can I borrow $10 from you?

MR. RITCHIE: The socialist route doesn't pay.

We're in a very exciting industry in agriculture, and this becomes more exciting as our Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) creates the industrial climate that has happened in this province and attracts people to our province the way he does. You can just imagine, with an increase of approximately 50,000 people in British Columbia last year, how many more mouths must be fed.

I think there is a role here for our Minister of Universities. I would like to suggest that we take a look at the faculty of agriculture at UBC, as we did the provincial lab when it was there a number of years ago. I can recall quite vividly that when that facility was located out at UBC it was used very little — because of its location. I believe, on account of the fact that we have this exciting industry that has really developed, technology has to be one of the most exciting things in agriculture, something that demands special attention.

[ Page 4809 ]

Also, in view of the fact that there is a plan underway to establish a first for North America, and that is an agricultural centre, hopefully in the lower mainland, in the not-too-distant future, I am going to ask our Minister of Universities to communicate with our Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and discuss the possibility of moving the faculty of agriculture from the UBC campus to the lower mainland., which, I believe, is very well suited.

MR. KING: To Spetifore's property?

MR. LEA: Pouce Coupe.

MR. LAUK: The engineers want to have it moved to Yahk.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, would you please protect me from those negative fellows over there, those highly educated lawyers...?

I'd like to suggest to the Minister of Universities and the Minister of Agriculture that they get together and look into the possibility of this. I believe that it's time we in British Columbia looked at a university campus that would specialize in agriculture. I would say that now is the time, especially when we see our universities growing and know what can happen here through new developments as a result of our minister's efforts. The space that would be made available would be put to very good use. But more important to the agriculture industry of B.C., I think, is a campus established on the lower mainland, maybe in conjunction with this agricultural centre. It would be most beneficial, not only to the agricultural industry but to all of B.C. and possibly to other countries. I'm conveying a message to our minister and am asking him if he would please look into this idea without too much delay.

MR. LEGGATT: I just wanted to direct a couple of questions to the minister. They deal with the very worthwhile objective the minister has in arranging for the transfer of BCRIC shares to the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation. Certainly there's no one in this House who doesn't support the concept of a substantial donation from government to that particular foundation. Many of us have serious reservations that this is the right avenue to use.

My question deals with the present legislation which set up BCRIC in which clause 5 (b) of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation Act provides that: "there shall be a 3 percent limit on the total number of issued and outstanding voting shares." That's the present law. In order to transfer the government shareholdings in BCRIC to the Terry Fox Foundation there obviously will have to be a change in the law, as I read it. There will have to be an amendment to either provide that particular organization to be able to hold more than the 3 percent.... It could presumably be done by an order-in-council, but by my reading of the section that would have to be a discriminatory order — in other words an order which allowed this one organization only to exceed the rules that have been laid down under the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

First of all I want to know whether we're going to see legislation before the House or whether the minister is going to use the device of an order-in-council on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must say at this time that matters involving legislation or the need for legislation are not totally appropriate at this time.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member has drawn attention, quite accurately, to an important point. We would not want there to be an order-in-council that appeared to be discriminatory or that left any doubt. For that reason, we'll bring in tidying-up legislation. I might say to the member that it's also not the intention that the trustees of the foundation should have management influence over BCRIC. Therefore it's not intended that their voting powers would exceed 1 percent. There shouldn't be a particular advantage given to this foundation in terms of influencing management above and beyond any other organization.

MR. BARBER: Would they be entitled to have a seat on the board?

HON. MR. McGEER: That is really up to BCRIC and how they attempt to recast their management structures to make room for people to nominate to the board.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I would recommend that the foundation hang onto its shares, but then I would recommend to all of you to buy.

Looking to the future of the foundation, we believe that there will be great opportunities here in the pharmaceutical industry which may even outstrip the wonderful opportunities of the natural resources of B.C. It certainly will give the foundation a broader base from which to derive its funds in the future. The member has raised an excellent point, and I hope that I've made clear to him what the intentions are.

MR. LEGGATT: One of the real problems is that in fact the legislation does discriminate in favour.... The minister mentioned that he wasn't going to discriminate. The worry that I have is that the minister won't discriminate, and if he opens up the BCRIC ownership situation for the foundation and therefore changes the legislation it could be opened up for any other organization, which would therefore see an increased concentration of ownership in BCRIC. Surely the original legislation attempted to avoid this.

While we certainly disagreed with the whole principle behind the setting a up of this corporation, it was worthwhile to try to diffuse the share ownership. What I want to be sure the minister does when the legal technicalities are worked out for this particular grant is that the right of this foundation to own more than 3 percent is limited to that organization only and that it won't be a general right which will concentrate ownership in BCRIC to any other corporation that wants to now come along and pick up 4 percent, 5 percent or whatever percentage the government now has.

HON. MR. McGEER: I can give the member that assurance, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss two matters briefly. One of them isn't political in the least — at least for what it may be worth to the minister. It has to do with some of my own notions about the philosophy of science and the way in which that philosophy seems to have failed in

[ Page 4810 ]

enlivening the public interest and attitude of the people of Canada. It's a particular concern, I suppose, through the educational system and thereby of some interest to the minister responsible for universities, but I think more generally it's of interest to persons concerned about the development of a competent policy toward and appreciation of the discipline and the intellectual pursuit of the scientific method and the scientific attitude.

I think there is a lot of evidence that in the last five to ten years there has been an extraordinary upsurge and growth in the neo-science and in the superstitions that a lot of us thought and hoped had been largely thrown out the window. One thinks, for instance, of the extraordinary increase and seemingly popular interest in horoscopes, casting of fortunes, I Ching and the rest of it. One looks for instance at books that regularly make the best-seller list. They tell people how to command their lives via the commands of the stars and the moon and all of the other ways in which one can see people clearly feel disfranchised from the scientific attitude and the scientific method and instead find refuge and take some comfort in superstition, magic and in all of the senses in which people are no longer willing to trust the intellect, because in their judgment the intellect has failed them in a very significant way. And I think that's a problem of science policy in this province.

There is a resurgence in the sense of people that think crackpot medical remedies, faith-healing, and divine intervention of a totally mysterious and usually rather expensive sort is the only remedy for problems in their lives, and I think it's further evidence of a diminished faith in, confidence in or respect for scientific method and attitude. I'm concerned about that. I'm concerned because it seems that once again, as the result of fear, fundamentally ignorant — and sometimes abhorrently ignorant — attitudes command public attention. One thinks of those who, if they had their way, would teach utterly unproven — save on the basis and tests of faith — stories about the creation of this planet, the solar system or the universe itself. I have great respect for people who go on the basis of faith and instinct, and even more respect when they're honest enough to admit that it's only faith, not science. It's only faith, and it's not evidentiary; it's only faith, and it's not proven; it's faith alone, and that, by itself, is a good thing as long as it's never described as anything else.

But it concerns me that we see in this province an attempt beginning to be made by people who will actively disengage the rigorous, intellectual and disciplined pursuits of the scientific method in favour of superstition — superstition at whatever current or popular level it may hold to, be it the reading of horoscopes, the I Ching or any other nonsense. I'm concerned about that, and yet one has to acknowledge the reasons why, I suppose, so many people have lost confidence.

I think, in some measure, it's because people like us have allowed the notion of the scientific discipline to be misunderstood. There was a period when it was convenient to do so. There was a period when science, as a policy, was viewed as an achievement, when science was viewed as a promise, when science was viewed, I suppose, as an end and an art in itself. I think that's a great mistake, and it's a mistake and failure of policy on all our parts if we allow that to continue. It is no wonder that people, if they were brought up to believe in science as a promise, and as that end and achievement of human endeavour, might today lose great faith in it. Science is no more than a method. It is an appreciation, a discipline, a means. It is an attack, an argument, an analysis of things as they appear to be and things as they might have been caused to be. Science is a means and an approach. It is by no means a guarantee, a haven or a fail-safe promise. "Don't worry, boys, we'll solve it for you. Just allow us to don our white smocks, enter the laboratories and do the rest of it."

In a fashion, it's no philosophy at all save that philosophy of disciplined intellectual commitment to ask the toughest questions in the toughest way and never yield, even for a moment, to doubt or superstition — to guarantee and always insist on the achievement finally of certain proof on reproducible experiment in any lab in the world, meeting all of the tests and demands. I think one of the reasons why we see so many people returning to the nonsense — the stupid and magical superstitious explanations of the way the world really works — is because they've had a false notion of science in the first place. It was a notion that was convenient, I suppose, to science as a profession to put forward in the thirties, the forties and the fifties, when the great miracles of electronics, chemistry and practical physics were taking place, and they were sometimes made available and displayed, in terms of the ability of people to prosecute war and seemingly miraculous cures for dreadful human disease. When you examine all of that, it's understandable why a false patina — a false glow, a false ardour — was granted the discipline of science.

I suppose it is now just as understandable that people, having seen the false lesson, have drawn the false conclusion. Now that science appears to be failing them.... Why, after all, every food you eat apparently causes cancer; every deodorant you spray apparently diminishes the ozone layer and thereby diminishes our protection from various of the sun's rays and gives us skin cancer. When you look around you and the world seems to be collapsing in some mechanical way, and all of the natural systems of protection of health and defence are failing, and everyone is terrified we're going to dying of this or that disorder and the environment falls apart, then it's no wonder people lose some faith in science, or at least in what they construe science to be. Of course they then fall upon mystery, superstition, horoscopes or the roll of the dice.

I think that it is really a failure on all of our parts to correctly, prudently and passionately state the necessity of retaining an intellectual and disciplined commitment to the scientific method. That does not mean we guarantee happy results. It doesn't mean that we guarantee there are remedies for any or all of these human dilemmas — not at all. There may well be no cure for any of these things. There may well be no means of overcoming many of the human problems we face. People with a correct and sound scientific attitude will freely admit that and feel no embarrassment and no disgrace. No competent scientist I've ever met would make any such absurd claim for science as has been made sometimes in the past.

I wonder, though, whether or not the minister is prepared to consider developing some statement, be it through the whole of the public educational system in this province, through the devices of government, or by example of a government itself, to find some way to begin saying no to all the people with the crackpot medical cures, with the faith-healing remedies that only cost $1,000 if you mail off for some prayer shroud to a post office box in Dallas, Texas, or do all of the other things necessary to begin to honourably re-establish the discipline and the intellectual advisability of the scientific method.

[ Page 4811 ]

It may well be a fair criticism that science appeared to have promised too much at one time. It may well be that science — capital S — having promised too much and having delivered too little, is now understandably criticized by people who never knew its real meaning in the first place as having failed to deliver the goods. Therefore, of course, we have to find remedies in hocus-pocus. We have to find remedies in crackpot cults and religious prescriptions that don't make sense at all, except to the people who run the post office boxes in Dallas, Texas, and earn millions a year out of human misery. That disturbs me a lot.

Three summers ago I purchased my first home. I purchased it from a woman who, as it turned out — but not known to her — was dying of lung cancer. It appears I have since been on the mailing list, there at my house at 74 San Jose, of anywhere from eight to ten crackpot religious organizations that promise miracle cures. You see, she wouldn't go to a doctor — I learned this some months later; the real estate agent told me — because she had mailed away for water or shrouds, junk that she was persuaded to pursue because she had lost any confidence at all in the ability of what she took to be the scientific method to deal with her problems of health and life. It's a great shame and a great disappointment. There are many people like that; and by no means are they just in Victoria city.

I call on the minister to begin to recognize, if he might, the possibility that science at the moment does not command the broad respect, the intellectual respect and the human and popular respect that it must in order to continue to serve as a discipline and a method.

Western science is one of the great achievements of western civilization. The notion that things might be logical, that they take form, that they have proportion and shape, that they make sense, that they can be held accountable, that they are in some fashion predictable, that they are fundamentally analyzable: it is a great achievement of the human imagination. The scientific method and approach to human problems is a great achievement of the western world. I think it is now under some threat and under duress, and in some measure being repudiated by increasing numbers of people. I won’t restate, other than to name it, the considerable popular evidence that that's correct, and regrettably so. I think the Jacob Bronowskis, the Carl Sagans, the David Suzukis, and all the rest do a very good job of continuing to popularize in a credible way some of the fundamental principles and approaches of science.

That's very good, and it should be nothing but supported, respected and enhanced. But I think a great deal more could and should be done by way of developing a competent science policy in this province that begins to reinstate and reinvigorate a fundamental commitment of western learning to the scientific approach and the scientific attitude. I think we've lost some of that, and we're in danger of losing some more if we allow it to casually fall by the wayside, if we continue to ignore all of the social evidence around us that suggests that in times of enormous social stress, environmental failure and human disease that is inexplicable there is a failure on the part of many people to recognize the logical approach and logical explanation, and they retreat instead into the superstitions of the Dark Ages to find any explanation — the more comfortable, the better. If we allow that to continue unchallenged, and if we don't recognize the portent and the danger of this failure of the public will to be tough-minded about human dilemmas, then I think we will inevitably have to yield more and more to the greedy and selfish manipulators of human fear and to the fundamental causes of human fear as well, suffered by people who see, they think, the promise of science diminished, who see, they think, the promise of the scientific attitude failing. It concerns me a lot. There are a lot of people, especially people of my own age who came up through the mid-sixties with all of that promise and who now think they see it dissipated, who retreat instead to those ridiculous havens of superstition and false magic,

I think there's some need for a public statement and policy. There's some need for the leadership, spoken throughout the whole of this Legislature, to stop yielding this ground to dumb and pointless superstition. Instead, to reanimate the fundamental conviction that western knowledge has enjoyed for centuries, that the scientific method has value, merit and worth, I think is an important policy. I think it's a philosophy of some strength, and I'd be grateful for the minister's comments on it.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member has made a very eloquent speech and a powerful plea. I'm not sure that our ministry is going to be up to the challenge that he suggested. I can speak philosophically for a moment or two and perhaps suggest some of the ideas we have for proceeding in a practical way to achieve some of the objectives.

First of all, the scientific method, of course, is one of hypothesized test and proof. On that basis we move ignorance back bit by bit. The problem is that it's a very small bit. Our capabilities and knowledge stand tall only by the standards of the past. Therefore there are so many things we want to know and which we need to know, but which we are denied knowledge of simply because the scientific method is not revealed as truth yet in those vital areas.

How do you deal then with the unknown? I suppose people psychologically deal with the unknown as they have always dealt with the unknown: they resort to whatever comforts the mind can produce in terms of faith and magic and all of the other exercises that we go through to cope with this discomfort of ignorance. Where we have contempt for it is when the scientific method has produced some truth and where people, nevertheless, persist in ignoring that to their own detriment and often to the profit of charlatans. That's particularly what you want to get at. Of course that's something which is indefensible and which we should always try and suppress. I'm not sure what we can do to provide any comfort using science as a faith, because it's only going to yield bit by bit and you're going to be left with that hopeless void of ignorance which can never be overcome. I suppose that one will always have a large part of one's self reserved for magic and faith and non-scientific themes.

The member asks what we might do to try and get a reasonable proportion in the non-scientist's mind about what science can or cannot do. What can we develop in the way of respect so that they won't seek succour from crackpots and ignore truth in science, which is obviously going to be to their benefit during their lifetime?

Well, these are the policies that we're thinking about for the future. First of all, we now have a knowledge network by which we can widely dispense to the general public things that they never would have had an opportunity to see before. What we plan to offer through the Knowledge Network is an opportunity to peek into every laboratory or classroom of interest anywhere in the world, where people won't rely for their evening entertainment on Archie Bunker but will have

[ Page 4812 ]

displayed before them the accomplishments of science, which have come about through the scientific method. There will be a reasonable emphasis on that in the future. We're one channel now, reaching a minority of people in British Columbia, but there is no doubt in my mind that in the future there will be 30, 40, 50 or 60 satellite channels and perhaps a whole variety of educational channels, which will offer a much richer fare. The days when it cost an impossible amount of money to start up a television network have passed. We're squeezing three television channels onto one transponder; Anik C will go up probably next year. There will be 12 or 14 transponders that will be available. Some of that will be rationed out, but the next generation of satellites will have digitalized signals whereby one will be able to condense the band width, and instead of having three on a transponder you might have 30. So it's not going to be very long before we'll be able to multiply what we can do with that particular device.

The second thing that I hope we can get started here is a science centre along the lines of the Ontario Science Centre and two or three others which exist around the world. Every single one of these things is either a commercial success or could be a commercial success. They turned out to be an enormous tourist attraction.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, there is a group called the Arts and Science Society, which right now is looking over potential sites and will probably approach the government at some stage. I'm persuaded, personally, that these things can be a success from a financial and tourist point of view. The dividend you get is that you can run youngsters in the school system through these by the busload, as they do in Ontario.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't like the term "museum." When the Science Centre started in Toronto the original idea was to make it a museum. They bought up old farm machinery and classic stuff and it's all there. If you go into any one of these where they've got the old bicycles, cars, irons or whatever, there's never anybody at those displays. But have them on a display of laser beams or in a mini-planetarium and it's always jammed with people. The ones who go want to be exposed to the principles of science and have little demonstrations of how it works. That, it seems to me, is the kind of thing you can bring your high-school youngsters through and give them an opportunity to get an exposure that they're not able to get in the laboratories of their own classrooms.

I personally think one of the problems with people who've passed through our school system in the last 15 years or so is that there's been such a proliferation of courses at the secondary school level. Whereas science used to be one course out of ten and just about everybody took some, now it's one out of a hundred — or physics, chemistry and biology are three out of 110 courses. Many people are going through our secondary school system without having the basis of knowledge to understand technological changes. We've got to find ways of giving them an opportunity to make up for what they lost during that period. Things like a science centre and the Knowledge Network can do a little bit of remedial teaching in that respect. I think it's important that we do this, simply because a lot of social decisions are made on the basis of technological advances that people really have to understand to make proper social decisions.

The other thing we're contemplating is starting a science magazine in British Columbia so that people can become familiar with what our science community in the province is achieving. We've got a remarkable number of front-rank scientists in British Columbia. They're known around the world. They'll be known in New York, Boston, Stockholm Sweden and Tokyo but they aren't known in New Westminster, Chilliwack or Victoria. So there is an opportunity for us to develop excitement about what we're doing right here in British Columbia if there was only a way for that to be known. So that's another service that we're thinking about. With our Science Council we do use them as a vehicle by which we funnel crackpot notions and schemes to try and provide sober and respected answers. They're certainly not going to get that out of any office in government, but the Science Council will recognize a possible source of objective information. That serves a bit of the purpose that you see.

If you have other suggestions for me, I'd be delighted to receive them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.