[ Page 4607 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Education Statutes (Fiscal Year) Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 27). Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Introduction and first reading –– 4607

Oral Questions

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 4607

Pornography. Ms. Brown –– 4607

Emergency aid for village of Ware. Mr. Passarell –– 4608

Education minister's speaking engagement. Mr. Rose –– 4608

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Mr. Passarell –– 4608

Increase in bankruptcies. Mr. D'Arcy –– 4608

Child abuse. Mr. Barnes –– 4609

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 71: minister's office –– 4609

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Rose

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1984 (Bill 24). Committee stage

On section 10 –– 4627

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Blencoe

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No 1), 1984 (Bill 21). Committee stage

On section 30 –– 4628

Mr. Passarell

On section 35 –– 4628

Mr. Nicolson

Human Rights Act (Bill 11). Third reading –– 4629

Elevating Devices Safety Act (Bill 15). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 4629

Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 28). Hon. Mr. McClelland

Introduction and first reading –– 4629

Appendix –– 4630

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery above you today we have the pleasure of having eight students from Lewis and Clark College in the beautiful city of Portland, Oregon, under the guidance of Donald G. Balmer, a professor of political science. I ask the House to welcome the students and their professor to Victoria and to this House.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are two legislators from the state of Washington. They are here to liaise with us regarding Expo 86, and we had a very productive and informative meeting this morning. I would like the House to welcome Mr. J. Vander Stoep and Mr. Roger Van Dyken, congressmen from our neighbouring state of Washington.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to please extend a welcome to Jessie Lundahl and her daughter Susan, who are old friends of mine from Coquitlam visiting in the gallery this afternoon.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a good friend of mine from Kelowna, Norman Holmes, and I would like the House to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

EDUCATION STATUTES (FISCAL YEAR)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. Heinrich presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Education Statutes (Fiscal Year) Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MR. COCKE: Before I address a question to the Minister of Tourism, I'd like to address you, Mr. Speaker, as to where all those ministers are who should be here to answer questions. Absolutely ridiculous! Shameful!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are your guys?

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: Possibly they haven't questions to ask.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address this question to the minister. Beautiful British Columbia magazine is now in the hands of the Jim Pattison Group, through its division Mainland Magazine. Is the minister now prepared to stop hiding the contents of the agreement for sale regarding Beautiful British Columbia magazine, so that the public may be aware of the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in this whole question?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The contents of the contract will be made public in due course.

MR. COCKE: Does that mean that the minister wishes to make that contract public in due course? Is he actually going to do that in due course? Because I can help him; I have the contract, and I'll make it public if the minister doesn't.

Is the minister aware of the contract provision which would limit the rights of the Jim Pattison Group to dispose of Beautiful British Columbia magazine, along with its assets, and will he explain the behaviour of his hiding these facts from the taxpayers?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I'm aware of the contents of the contract.

PORNOGRAPHY

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Attorney-General. In 1976 and again in 1980 companies owned by Mr. Jim Pattison — Jim Pattison International — were convicted in Ontario under section 159(l) of the Criminal Code of Canada for distribution and possession of obscene written material. In view of this record, will the Attorney- General advise why he continues to promote a self-policing model for this pedlar of hard-core pornography?

HON. MR. SMITH: It is somewhat amusing to hear a spokesman here for the rights of citizens under the justice system — people to be presumed innocent, people who require legal assistance — and to hear in this chamber, as I do day in and day out in connection with legal aid and other contexts, how you should not in any way judge what someone may have done in the past, and then I have a question posed to me with that kind of preamble: because someone owns magazines in some part of the country, and the corporation is found to have distributed obscene magazines, therefore that's relevant to their conduct here today. That's really a double standard.

MS. BROWN: Maybe the Attorney-General will tell us how it will be possible for criminals — offenders under the Criminal Code — to be expected to write their own laws and to police themselves and at the same time be expected to protect the public interest.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. SMITH: One would have hoped that a bit of credit would have been given to Mr. Pattison for trying to bring about some reforms in an industry which appears to be dominated by blanket contracts of distribution so the distributor has to take Hustler and Penthouse in order to get Ladies' Home Journal. That's why we have such a proliferation of Hustler and Penthouse in some cases: because everybody wants to buy Ladies' Home Journal. Mr. Pattison has tried to do something about this. He's tried to bring about some consensus on the part of church groups and women's organizations to recommend that we have a review panel. I welcome that recommendation. I don't think it matters whether the review panel is set up, and whether it is set up on a voluntary basis or whether we set it up. What does matter is

[ Page 4608 ]

that we can find a way of a policing system working without a lot of regulation and bureaucracy. I would support that.

MS. BROWN: The Attorney-General continues to misrepresent Mr. Pattison's position in this House. Mr. Pattison has made it absolutely clear that the industry is not qualified or capable of policing itself. Mr. Pattison has called on the Attorney-General to take come responsibility for this task. Now that the Attorney-General knows exactly what Mr. Pattison is asking for, and bearing in mind Mr. Pattison's previous convictions on this particular issue, is he prepared to take an active role with this review panel in terms of dealing with the continuing proliferation of hard-core pornography in this province?

HON. MR. SMITH: I am pleased to see that you are taking such an interest in what Mr. Pattison says and are representing his point of view here so well. I, too, have been in touch with Mr. Pattison on this issue, and his recommendation to have a review panel does not preclude that review panel being a panel composed of other than government appointees and representatives. There are many ways that that can be brought about. I think it's a good recommendation, and I'm going to give it close attention. But, you know, you are not the representative of Mr. Pattison; indeed, you certainly aren't when you go into his previous record in Ontario.

EMERGENCY AID FOR VILLAGE OF WARE

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Attorney-General said he would look into the matter of famine and disease among the Kaska-Dene people of Ware. Has the Attorney-General decided to investigate the low level of compensation by B.C. Hydro for the flooding of trapping, fishing and hunting grounds of the Kaska-Dene people and is he aware that only $37,000 was paid by B.C. Hydro to the Kaska-Dene for the destruction of their aboriginal land?

HON. MR. SMITH: No. Not being the policeman of the federal Indian Act, I'm not aware of it either, but I will give an answer to your question of yesterday. The answer to your question of today is no.

EDUCATION MINISTER'S SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, while browsing through a tabloid known as Christian Info, I noticed that the Minister of Education is scheduled to address a fundraising event for Coquitlam Christian School in my riding on May 19. That is published here, and I wanted to ask the minister whether he could confirm that he expects to be on hand for this fundraising event and whether or not he would also be available for fundraising events for the financially strapped public schools.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that particular invitation, and when I reviewed my calendar for the balance of May I don't recall that coming up. So you've got me nonplussed. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I always believe what I read in a Christian newspaper. It says definitely that you are expected to show up there on May 19. I wondered, if you are, if you would also be prepared to assist the public schools in a similar fundraising event. I'm planning a dunk-tank in two weeks to raise money for the Coquitlam school system in Coquitlam Centre, and I wonder if the minister would care to come and offer himself as a target.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I would imagine that the member is prepared to increase the surplus from $1.1 million to an even greater amount with his efforts. I repeat that I'm not aware of that particular invitation. I certainly am not aware of making a commitment to be involved in a fundraiser for any particular school system.

[2:15]

MR. ROSE: The minister has raised this phony issue, the spectre of some sort of surplus because of the good management of the school board in Coquitlam. He keeps raising that, but he fails to admit that the surplus is less than 2 percent of their total budget; furthermore, that no school board can be expected to budget closer than 2 percent, nor can this government. I congratulate that school board for doing that well.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have said on a dozen occasions.... I've offered my congratulations to the school district for coming in with a surplus; and in response to your earlier questions during this session, Mr. Speaker, I have so advised the member.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for the sale of PCL. On several occasions, most recently on April 30, 1984, the minister promised to table the agreement of sale of the Pacific Coach Lines to various buyers. Why has the minister failed to table these documents?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In answer to the member's question: because they're not ready to be filed yet.

INCREASE IN BANKRUPTCIES

MR. D'ARCY: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. National statistics show that B.C. continues to have the worst record in Canada for personal and business bankruptcies, which is the dubious distinction we have had ever since the government brought in its economic package nearly a year ago. Further, these bankruptcies continue to rise in British Columbia while they're falling in the rest of Canada. Has the minister decided to make an investigation into this alarming increase in business bankruptcies in British Columbia? Can he tell the chamber what steps he and the government intend to take to improve the business climate in British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, first, with regard to the positive side of the business community, I could advise the member that there are a considerable number of incorporations that take place every month in this province. Rather than look at the negative side all the time.... There is activity out there, and companies are coming onstream. I'd

[ Page 4609 ]

also refer the member to the comments made by the Premier of this province just in the last two days with regard to the economic strategy of this government in order to assist for a future economic development in British Columbia.

CHILD ABUSE

MR. BARNES: Question to the Minister of Human Resources. The ministry's annual report of 1982-83 shows an alarming 94 percent increase in reported cases of child abuse over a three-year period. In view of this rather alarming increase, has the minister decided to reconsider her decision to eliminate child abuse assessment teams, to terminate family support workers involved in the child abuse therapy and to slash contracted services to agencies dealing with child abuse?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, there are several misconceptions in the question posed by the member.

First, the increase in child abuse is reported as an increase in child abuse, but I'd like the member to understand that it's an increase in reporting of child abuse, and there is a difference. It is only in the last four years that we have had proper and detailed reporting of child abuse instances. It is the sophistication of the reporting that has improved. Frankly, we have nothing to compare it with five years ago or six years ago or seven years ago. Our history of reporting child abuse only began in this province in the last, frankly, 40 months. The increase is due to the increase in awareness.

I'd like to give credit to our staff. The money spent by this government in public awareness, our Helpline for Children and the kind of advertising.... That has given that awareness to the public which makes it not only possible but mandatory under our legislation in this House to report child abuse. That, too, has only been going on for a short time in this province.

Are we ready to reinstate the child abuse team? The child abuse team, as I have explained, Mr. Speaker, was a small unit. None of them was involved in direct services; all were involved in training or secretarial work for those people who were called the child abuse team. Only 13 members in all served the Vancouver and lower mainland region; they were not throughout the province. That is one of the specialized teams which have been cut out because their services — or the dollars — could be best used elsewhere, and they will not be reinstated.

There are 900 social workers in British Columbia, all looking after and attending to child abuse programs throughout the province. They will continue, and any consideration at all that the child abuse program in this province is in any way diluted or poor is a misconception that should not be given throughout this province or this nation, or even throughout this city, because it is entirely untrue. The child abuse program in this province is the best in the nation.

The other program which the member has asked about is the family support worker program. That program, which is about four years old, is the largest program discontinued because of a decrease in revenues to government. It will not be reinstated at this point in time, because the dollars flowing to government have not been reinstated at this point in time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, for the little good it does, it strikes me that a filibuster in question period by that minister, who didn't even refer to the question asked, is most uncalled for. We missed you when you were away, Madam Minister.

Hon. Mr. Brummet filed answers to questions standing on his name on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS
(continued)

On vote 71: minister's office, $127,518.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, before adjournment the minister responded to a question I had put to him on whether we should take an optimistic view for British Columbia — that is, that British Columbia does have a future. I asked him what his remedy would be for that future. Would it entail supporting the concept of post-secondary education? The minister replied by saving that if indeed post-secondary education led to economic success, we would be enjoying economic success today because of the education programs of the past. Then he got into a very lengthy economic debate and brought us some of the predictions of the Salomon Bros.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Kaufman, yes, Certainly those fears are ones that are echoed by many others. I share with the minister the very same fear: that is, that Mr. Kaufman is probably right in his fear about the return of high interest rates. However, to blame our current economic malaise on...and say that education obviously isn't the answer, as the minister seems to imply by pointing to our current depression.... One has to remember that the economic indicators are weakest here in British Columbia. We have been placed lower than just about any other province by the Conference Board of Canada and other independent institutions. At best we rank about eighth among provinces in Canada and at worst we rank tenth out of ten. We rank very poorly in terms of the fact that economic recovery has not been coming to British Columbia.

Some of the things we have to look at.... The minister didn't say a word, though, about monetary policy in terms of supporting the Canadian dollar. Should we be supporting the Canadian dollar? Should Ottawa be borrowing foreign funds in order to keep the Canadian dollar up around 80 cents? I wonder what the minister's response to that is.

HON. MR. McGEER: Obviously debates of this kind in our own Legislature are nothing more than hot air, because the government of Canada and the federal Minister of Finance are going to make their decisions, I'm sure, without consulting either myself or the member opposite. We are, of course, in Canada on the horns of a dilemma. If we try artificially to support the Canadian dollar, then we're building in a problem that has to be solved at some future time. What you're doing is alleviating the present and exacerbating

[ Page 4610 ]

the future. Really, when one thinks about it, the most important thing that we can do in Canada is get back to the business of producing things which the world wishes to buy.

Unlike many countries of the world, Canada per capita trades for a larger percentage of its gross domestic product than any other nation in the world. Something like 32 percent of our gross product in Canada goes for foreign trade, compared with a country that many believe is an international terror — Japan — which trades for something like 4 to 6 percent of its gross product. What this means, of course, is that we're going to buy many of our goods from abroad — computers, television sets and automobiles. You all know the broad range of products that you enjoy as consumers that are built in foreign lands. It's part of our standard of living. If we wish to enjoy that, obviously we are going to have to produce in this country things which people wish to buy in those other jurisdictions.

Jobs are something that come behind — and I'm talking about the vast majority of jobs that our society provides — that fundamental requirement of the economy. It seems to me that our great mistake in this Legislature, and particularly in the national government of Canada, is that we don't recognize that there is a hierarchy to jobs. Those at the top, the pinnacle, are the ones related to primary production, particularly in a nation like Canada which must trade abroad those goods that can meet the test of foreign competition. At the very bottom of the pyramid are the kinds of things that governments provide: make-work projects, service jobs, all of the things that people here are demanding we do to create jobs. In my view it's nothing.... I see the wan smile on the former Attorney-General, who is the first to stand up and demand this sort of thing. It's not economic reality at all. We can produce as many jobs of that kind as they can in Newfoundland or any depressed jurisdiction. The difference is that there is more primary production in British Columbia to support that kind of thing than there is in the relatively poverty-stricken Maritimes.

[2:30]

MR. MACDONALD: Is teaching a make-work job?

HON. MR. McGEER: It's a make-work job when you get down to 15 to 1. It's a make-work job when you triple the number of administrators. It's a make-work-job when you pay a school superintendent more than the Premier of the province. That's not related to primary production, is it?

MR. BLENCOE: How's your tenure?

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't believe in tenure; I've told the member that many times. I don't believe in tenure in universities, because the good ones don't need it and the bad ones shouldn't have it. I don't believe in tenure in the teaching system. I don't believe, as the members opposite believe, that there ought to be tenure in the civil service.

MR. BLENCOE: So give your tenure up.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't need any tenure, my friend. You might have, when you worked for the city of Victoria. In fact, with the record of that member, I would have struggled hard for it anyway. But I don't want to be distracted from what otherwise would have been a serious discussion.

The members opposite, of course, do differ from the members on this side of the House as to what constitutes a valuable and necessary approach to economics in our society. This means getting behind the people who really produce in this country, because the rest of us ride like pygmies on their backs. When you undermine those people with your ideas of making work and paying school superintendents more than the Premier of the province, you undermine the ability of those people to compete in world markets and destroy the very economic basis of our society, taking away the privileges that you wish to hand out. None of those socialists over there have been creating genuine wealth-producing jobs. No, they take away from that segment of society, punishing the resource industries. That's what they did when they were in power: they punished the resource industries, taking away real employment so that they could give more work for civil servants and tenure in the civil service. That's what you people went for. No wonder the province was in economic trouble when you were in power.

MR. BLENCOE: How's the mining industry today, under you?

HON. MR. McGEER: I can tell you that the socialists, the twentieth-century alchemists, the people who can turn ore into rock with their policies.... That's what they did when they were in power. They created despair in the mining industry at a time of record world prices.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, just a moment. It's getting just a wee bit noisy in here. We are in committee. All hon. members will be allowed to participate if they wish, but only one at a time.

HON. MR. McGEER: I find those....

MR. MACDONALD: Is lawyering make-work?

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I've said many times — and I say it with some apologies to the member, a veteran and learned member of the Law Society — how much better it is for a country to educate engineers who can invent and build things in the world than to train lawyers to give legal aid to the unemployed. The member well knows that the province of Ontario alone has more lawyers than the whole country of Japan. Perhaps one of the things we might think about is putting more effort behind engineering in Canada so that we will be able to compete in the future. After all, this is what we did in encouraging the commencement of two new engineering schools in British Columbia, one at Simon Fraser University — engineering science — and the new engineering program at the University of Victoria. A few years down the road those programs will encourage industry, wealth, opportunity and income, and all those things that the socialists like to have so that they can spend.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister and I share a different view of the purpose of estimates. I feel that the purpose of estimates is to seek information. I sought to ask a very closely defined question about the minister's philosophy on monetary policy for Canada. He launched into a rather full-fledged sampling, I suppose.... We were

[ Page 4611 ]

treated to a sort of smorgasbord of estimates. I didn't know if I was in mining estimates or just what. This morning I outlined that last year in the faculty of engineering at UBC only eight out of 32 in chemical engineering graduates had jobs at graduation time. When I checked in April, only six out of 42 in chemical engineering had jobs. I have asked the minister: are we to take an optimistic view and encourage people to still take engineering and other professional courses? I want to engage in some sort of a philosophical discussion.

If we want to talk about the economic ills of this country, I think we should look at monetary policy. This particular province is contributing to the maintenance of a high Canadian dollar by embarking on projects such as the northeast coal project. Is the minister aware, for instance, that the success of North Sea oil exploration by Britain led to an increase in the British pound of some ten percent and put workers in the Wedgewood pottery factory and in other intensive manufacturing out of work because of that high currency? The very success in one sector of their economy caused problems in another. Is the minister aware of the fact that even if northeast coal is a success, it might create tremendous pressures, as that kind of investment tends to buoy up the Canadian dollar? First of all, we're borrowing foreign currencies, bringing them into this country. That immediately has that effect. The fact that we're increasing our balance of payments — if we are increasing our exports — also happens to buoy it up.

All of those things are going on when, at the same time, we also want to become part of a technological society in which there is a role for engineers, in which there is a role for other types of professionals in a highly developed society, in which there is a need for people with a university education, whether it be in engineering or whether it be in fine arts. We are going to need actors, writers, sociologists, lawyers, teachers and everything else in the future if we are taking an optimistic view.

I really want to know where this minister stands. The concept is this: how do we really get started into this technological game? Do we somehow beg and coax and get a firm such as Dynatek to locate here in Sidney or do we create a dollar environment in which it is economical to produce things here? Is that the way we come to reality in British Columbia — by having a realistic dollar? And then we start to produce things here in British Columbia because we are in tune with the rest of the world economically.

HON. MR. McGEER: There are three separate questions that are posed in what the member said. I'm going to separate them out, answer each one of them and avoid the temptation to respond to interjections here.

The first of these is with respect to resource developments in our province and in Canada. Historically, the way we have opened up our country is to locate areas in which a rich resource exists in a relatively confined geographical space, which makes it economically viable to build the infrastructure to provide a general community and civilization for our people. We could go on the rest of the afternoon naming examples of that kind. This is really what has happened in northeast British Columbia. It has happened because a great many jurisdictions have shifted from oil to coal as a result of OPEC demands. Therefore it gives us an opportunity to take that resource, something like eight billion tons of coal, and to provide an infrastructure that will allow the resource to get out, people to go in and a community to arise. There's not the slightest doubt in my mind that over the long term this will be regarded as another hallmark development in our province. Many other areas of British Columbia will emerge in much the same fashion. The whole of the northwest of British Columbia, as the member for Atlin well knows, will one day experience that kind of development — looking primarily to copper ore and power potential of the Iskut region.

The member may or may not agree with that — that's just a prediction — but we've still got that quarter of British Columbia which is lying fallow. We've got a region, which I've described in the House before, which I call the great inland empire. South of Highway 16, less than 250 miles from this very building, it is larger than half the countries of western Europe, without any habitation at all because there are no roads into it — nobody lives there.

MR. PASSARELL: I live there. A lot of people live there.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not in the region I'm talking about. It's virtually deserted — country half again the size of Switzerland. It's just another part of this province that will be opened up by enterprising people in the future. It is going to require the development of resources to do that. So that's one aspect, and that's the first question.

The second one was: what are we going to do about our dollar? The Canadian dollar fluctuates for two reasons. First of all, it fluctuates because of our relative inflation rate. So we've experienced a steady decline of the Canadian dollar, based on the fact that we pay higher wages, give greater settlements — not related to total wealth. That just forces the dollar down relative to other exchanges.

You say that gives us an advantage because we can now manufacture and export.

MR. PASSARELL: I didn't say that. It gives us a disadvantage if it goes down.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's a disadvantage to buy, it's an advantage to sell, but it's really masked if all it amounts to is inflation of the currency. That's one of the factors that we have to face and one of the principal reasons why our dollar has dropped in value. The other is really related to the movement of capital. When the Canadian dollar was $1.06 American — members can remember that in 1975 — that was when Canada was still regarded as a good place for foreigners to invest.

We've fouled our nest in Canada. Not because of anything that's been done in British Columbia, but as a result of the National Energy Program and other federal initiatives, Canada is not regarded internationally as a good place to invest at the moment, and so capital doesn't come here. We're struggling to maintain in Canada the capital that we've accumulated. Therefore we don't have the benefit of capital movement in our favour, and the dollar goes down. That's the second thing. Do you want to make the dollar go up? Just say yes or no. He doesn't know. If you want to make the dollar go up, create a good investment climate in Canada. People will send money here from all over the world, because we're stable politically. I'm not going to get into the history of elections this afternoon, I promise — if you don't tempt me.

The third question is one related to how we are going to develop high technology in this province. We're going about this in a number of ways, but all of these are directed at two

[ Page 4612 ]

things: (1) to develop the genius of our people, believing that our greatest resource is not minerals, trees, oil or gas, but people; and (2) putting in place, where there is a lack, those necessary industrial skills for areas of great opportunity in terms of new markets. The whole essence of high technology can be described as being in a situation where people sit around the swimming pool with straws, because the market is that big, and the capacity for any one manufacturer to take a section of it is so small that the market seems almost infinite. That's the circumstance you're in if you start first of all to come along with mini-computers having the capacity of former mainframe computers.

[2:45]

The difficulty with established resource industries is that if you're shipping lead and zinc ingots, and suddenly everybody is making smaller cars, or they're not buying cars at all, and therefore you don't need the batteries, the demand for lead and zinc goes down. If mortgage rates increase, and people aren't building homes, the demand for 2-by-4s goes down. In many of these resource industries, we're the supplier of last resort. We top the market up, particularly in the United States. Therefore technology makes us competitive, but it doesn't influence the market. The market is saturated all the time. If you're going into something new, like next generation computers, there's a vast market out there. Because you can move into a vacuum, the opportunities for industrial expansion are enormous. But one must remember this: we may not have the skills that are required for an industrial opportunity of particular significance. How do young people learn it at the universities if there isn't a professor out there who has the slightest idea about it? Of course, you can't get anywhere if you don't know what you don't know.

We have moved into those areas where there is a conspicuous deficiency in a high technology field with enormous opportunity. We tried to seed those skills into British Columbia, because if people can gain their experience industrially, then you have the opportunity to form new industries in a spinoff fashion. The number of high technology firms in the Silicon Valley area, near Stanford University, has been going up geometrically. It goes up at that rate because the new industries there are learning from the old industries. They say the way to get a new job in that area is to turn into a different driveway in the morning. Much of the basic groundwork was supplied by the incomparable engineering school at Stanford University, but that became only part of the mix. As more and more firms moved in and developed their own technology, they were spinning off their own industrial offspring, if you like. You can't begin to get that spinning off of industries until you reach a sufficient critical size that the necessary industrial skills exist in your community. Part of it we can do through our own existing industries; part of it we can do through our universities; but part of it we must do through recruitment of the necessary industries. They don't have to come here. The high technology industry doesn't depend on resources. By definition, it can go anywhere in the world. Therefore, if you want it to be here, you'd better provide an attractive home and climate for that industry. Otherwise, you don't get it.

We're competing now, not with Quebec or Newfoundland or some other part of Canada; we're competing with the world. It's something that is not unheard of in western Canada; since Confederation our industry has been built on world competition. In terms of foreign exchange, we carry the rest of Canada on our backs. We make it possible for the protected industries in Ontario to survive as branch plants. Competing internationally is something that western Canada understands, so why don't we take that next stage and try to foster some of these new high technology industries? As a group, these industries are now about the fifth-largest industrial sector in British Columbia. The firms are growing, on average — as far as we can tell — at a rate of about 20 percent per year during this recession. We have now begun to feel the impact of the policies we introduced three or four years ago. There's an acceleration there. I've said — and I still believe this to be the case — that if we persist with these policies, high technology industries will be our major employer in British Columbia by the year 2000. In California the major wealth of that state is carried by a relatively tiny segment of their industry and their population, and we will have that here in British Columbia. However, it won't happen overnight. I think all we could have wished for in British Columbia is that we had started doing this ten years ago.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction and welcome some guests.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: We have in the gallery today a group of students from grades 8, 9 and 10 of Thornhill Junior Secondary School near my home town. They are here visiting the gallery, along with Mrs. MacDonald. I wonder if the House would welcome them.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to hear that the minister is quite willing to give up his time. I'm sure the university will be extremely pleased to hear that — a useful bit of information.

I want to relate a little bit today to an institution that's very important in the community. It's one that I was to relate to not only in terms of constituency work, but of course an institution that I have attended myself and where my wife is also involved in post-graduate work — the University of Victoria. The University of Victoria is indeed a very important institution in this community, one that is overwhelmingly supported. Most recently, when a petition was done, within a half-hour in the downtown area over 7,000 people indicated their deep concern over the current direction of the government in its policies and the implications for that institution. I want to really get a feeling from the minister today what is going to transpire down the road, because if the current funding policies continue, it's my understanding that that institution, which I know the best — I cannot speak for others — is going to be in serious trouble. There is a distinct possibility, Mr. Chairman, that a complete faculty at the University of Victoria will have to be eliminated because of the serious funding cuts to that institution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not engineering.

MR. BLENCOE: Engineering is not a factor, I know, and I have already indicated in this House that the government has made a good move in that area. It's the other parts of the university that I'm talking about, like computer science, which the minister is talking about in terms of the future. Those kinds of faculties or endeavours are indeed jeopardized by the current direction of the government.

[ Page 4613 ]

The portion in the provincial budget is indeed decreasing steadily not only, of course, for the University of Victoria but for other post-secondary facilities. Like, I think, many in British Columbia we have to join those who really deplore that kind of direction. It's certainly my belief, Mr. Chairman, that support for post-secondary institutions, particularly those post-secondary institutions which now are more and more coming in tune with the common direction of society, joining the community and participating in the community and training people to find a meaningful place in society not only as a citizen but also as a fully employed person contributing to the community.... I have to indicate that I think it's false economy for us in British Columbia and for this minister. He can talk all he likes, but what his fine rhetoric is hiding is the fact that of the western provinces British Columbia now is one of the worst off in terms of support for post-secondary education. Mr. Chairman, in my estimation and I think in the estimation of many people, it is false economy; it's short-changing our younger people and it's not looking to the future, because the very thing the minister is talking about.... There's no question that society in the industrial world is changing dramatically. We've got to have the institutions and we've got to have the support for our younger people to be able to find employment and to compete in that changing world.

For instance, in the University of Victoria we have seen since 1972 a 30 percent drop in operating grants per weighted full-time-equivalent student. Now that is having a dramatic effect on that fine institution, an institution that has turned out excellent graduates in a number of areas. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that those who are responsible for that university are ringing the emergency bells for this government. There will be havoc. There's no more fat in that institution, and we're looking at damaging that institution in the long term. I'm not talking about the engineering at this time; that's another issue. That is a 30 percent drop in operating grants per weighted full-time-equivalent student in the University of Victoria since 1972. I want the minister to try and respond to that, because it's having a dramatic impact on that institution.

I also have to indicate, Mr. Chairman, that one of the principles that we certainly support and I think the majority of Canadians support for their children is the ability of our younger people to acquire a university education at a reasonable and affordable cost. We know that in some parts of the western world.... The part that I know very well is the United Kingdom, where it is indeed very much an elite that manages to achieve a post-secondary education in many regards; there are some exceptions to that. But in Canada I think the direction has been to try to find an egalitarian philosophy whereby our young people can achieve a university education. Now, Mr. Chairman, in the last five years the fees at the University of Victoria have doubled, and a full-time student, say, in the arts and sciences next year will be paying $1,170 per-year- that's just fees. Then for those who don't live in Victoria or the environs, there is the additional expense of finding accommodation. It is becoming a very expensive business to achieve what I believe is virtually a right: British Columbians at least having the opportunity to achieve a post-secondary education. Affordability is becoming an issue, and I am very scared that we are going back to the days when only those who have private sources of income or who have parents who have the ability to support one or two children in the university system will be able to attend university. It is an issue. It may not necessarily be an issue for some of my constituents, who happen to live in Victoria and can stay at home, but I know it is an issue for the constituents of many of my colleagues who come from rural areas, and I think we have to be very careful. Already those rural areas don't always get the best things in terms of services, education and support. It is the urban areas that often get the best kind of services. I really have to put in a plea for that issue — affordability.

The president of the University of Victoria has gone on record and stated quite categorically that because of the slippage in terms of funding and support, and being able to entice, if you will, or encourage the best people in the particular faculties either to come or stay, certainly at the University of Victoria we are now losing some of the senior experienced people. It is my understanding that in the last six weeks there have been a number of people that have left the university because they are being attracted to other parts of Canada. After discussing this with people at the University of Victoria, it is my understanding that people in computer science are moving on because they are just not getting the support that they can get elsewhere.

[3:00]

My concern for British Columbia and for the University of Victoria is that we are going to become second-class institutions in terms of the kind of people that we attract. What happens is that because you have major financial restraints, you hire the younger — which is okay — inexperienced people to replace those who have years and years of background, not unlike the minister himself, who has all sorts of skills in certain areas. We bring in people who can't offer depth to the inexperienced student, and therefore depth to our province in terms of giving us some direction and sense of future, and the president of the University of Victoria is very concerned about that. He even said on April 21 of this year in the Times-Colonist: "The perception is that the B.C. university system is disintegrating." I am sure they can get by this year: they'll have to get by, but the bells are ringing and the warnings are there.

I certainly do not only have an interest in post-secondary education because I happen to have attended university at an undergraduate and a graduate level. I happen to know that we do need better support for that kind of facility. We have abandoned that knowledge and the ability to give our younger people the best training in all these areas that the minister is talking about — the technological and industrial development areas that are galloping so fast. If we get off track we will be in serious trouble in the province of British Columbia.

One of the other areas that has come to my attention in terms of the cutbacks, Mr. Chairman.... We do get research and development support from the federal government, and often the prerequisites of federal support for research and development.... The University of Victoria has many areas that are becoming nationally and internationally renowned. One of the prerequisites, however, is that there be some financial support from the university itself in order to receive that federal money for research and development. It is now becoming extremely difficult for the university to be able to come up with its part of that agreement for research and development funds. The very thing that the minister was talking about in terms of British Columbia getting on the wagon for the technological revolution that is happening, or the post-industrial society that is being created.... Because there is no question: we are in a new

[ Page 4614 ]

industrial revolution, Mr. Chairman. It has been talked about for a long time, but I think it is just slowly coming home to politicians. If we don't back up institutions like the University of Victoria, which I think has started to grapple with the new industrial revolution.... There is one area whereby the federal government still maintains research and development funds, but if the university itself does not have the mechanism to participate, we're going to miss another boat. It's another issue that I hope the minister will address.

The other concern, of course, is the question of rising fees for the young people of British Columbia seeking to achieve a university education. It's getting further and further away for many of them; either that or they go into a huge debt to get there. There are some Socreds who believe that you should come out of university with a $20,000 debt, because it makes you a better person if you've got a debt on your back.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: "It builds character." I don't support that philosophy at all. I think they should pay a reasonable fee, but I think we're getting into the position now where it's becoming extremely onerous. It's too high. As I say, I think it is the right of every British Columbian who so desires to achieve a post-secondary education. Postgraduate is another thing. The issue, not only with fees, is the whole question of student aid. I won't go into details, but the minister knows exactly what I'm talking about. That whole area has been changed dramatically.

The student aid system has been reduced dramatically, and there's no question but that many of our younger people are going to go into serious debt to achieve an education in order to try and get a job that the minister says will be there. If we don't have the support for these institutions such as research and development, so that we can get into that new technological age, it's a short row. I think it's creating great frustration and consternation. We are not being fair; we're being somewhat hypocritical. I'm very disturbed at the process of student aid and the way it has been changed around and the regulations set up. I'm not going into the details, because I think the minister knows exactly.... He'll have a rationale for it, I'm sure. But it's something that we have to address. I don't like the possibility of a young person having to attain a $15,000 to $20,000 debt for a four-year degree in a particular faculty. There's the distinct possibility they won't have a job, Mr. Chairman. We've got to address this problem.

We've got a philosophy by this government that government must remove itself from being capitalist in terms of the future industrial development of this country. Privatize. It's the private sector that must do things. Mr. Chairman, I have given many speeches and documented clearly where government and the public sector has been involved for hundreds of years in stimulating the economy and being a capitalist and a creative change agent. That word "creative" change agent.... We don't talk about creativeness in this Legislature enough. Government can be creative. Unfortunately, we've got those in power in government, particularly in this province, where the thought of government being involved in the economy or helping young people is an ugly word. It's very sad. If you know your history and what government is all about and why it's there.... It's not just there to check the cash register. It's important, I agree. I was chairman of finance for the city of Victoria for a number of years, and I know that that's important, but there are other things involved. Our province has to have a government that believes in those younger people and that can give them a start, a lift. Oh, sure, initiative is important, and that's what the minister will be talking about — the rampant free enterprise kind of system, whereby if you don't have your bootstraps big enough you'll fail and fall apart. I don't know what those jungle days have created. I suspect one of the reasons that we're in so much trouble today is because predominantly we have that jungle mentality. We've had that so-called approach to our society. One of the reasons, I think, we're in so much trouble today is that we haven't maintained that.

Mr. Chairman, I started talking about the University of Victoria. The minister has gone in a philosophical and conceptual approach. Obviously this issue does revolve around a philosophical approach. Suffice to say that the University of Victoria, like other institutions, is in serious trouble. There is a distinct possibility that we will see the elimination of one complete faculty and, of course, we're not sure what that will be. I think that could be just the start. I'd like the minister to respond on where he is intending to go with the whole question of post-secondary education, particularly for the University of Victoria, because there is great frustration on the part of those who are working in that particular facility — and in other facilities. As I have said, some of the best people are packing their bags.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it would be a wonderful thing if the member from Victoria and I could remake an ideal world. But it's populated with human beings with all their assets and liabilities, and neither he nor I will change the world. I wish there were enough money so that fees not only didn't have to be raised but could be eliminated. But that's not the circumstance. We don't have enough money to go around. The circumstance that we have to consider is what is fair and what is best when you're faced with the reality of an economy which at the current time cannot support the salad days of the public service which characterized the seventies and the early part of the eighties. The students today, odious as the increase in fees may be, are only covering about 14 percent of the cost of operating the university, and the rest is paid by the taxpayer. Our fees in British Columbia are far from the highest in Canada, and when you compare the fees in Canada with other parts of the world, they are a downright bargain. So wonderful as it would be to reduce or eliminate fees, just occasionally there is the harsh reality of economics, which creeps into this whole matter and can't always be avoided.

The member should recognize, however, that the greatest deterrent to a student attending an institution is the cost of withdrawal from the labour force. During periods of unemployment, people quite appropriately go back to institutions, because there is no longer that tug: "Do I go out and try to earn $20,000 to $30,000 this year or do I become a student earning nothing and paying a few hundred dollars in fees?" If there were any doubt about what the greatest deterrent actually was, that doubt should have been removed by the experience of the last couple of years. What it really says is that for a young person making a decision, whether or not to forgo that period of earning and get a university degree is the great decision they have to make. If you're going in for something like medicine, the seven years you spend you can earn back in a single year. It's a good investment. There are other areas where they say the marginal cost will never be recovered.

[ Page 4615 ]

One of the things that we try to do here, for good reason, is give opportunities for people to get their degree without having to withdraw from the workforce. That's why we encourage cooperative programs and evening and weekend courses. This is why we established the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network — to make it easier for people in that circumstance. But don't ever think that fees are the thing that stand in the way. No, it's the beckoning of the workforce and the opportunity to learn. That's the thing that you really have to think about.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Now I would say to the member that I'm kind of an insider in this university business, having tenure. So I'm less likely than many to be persuaded that the university system is disintegrating in British Columbia. You don't honestly believe that. We have a recession. We have reduced the size of our workforce in government by about 30 percent. We did have a great big demonstration on the lawns last year, but not from the people who were receiving the services — they never said the sky was falling in. It was the people who were delivering the services who said the sky was falling in; they were the ones who demonstrated. Listen carefully to the people who are receiving the services. Remember, the idea of putting money into education isn't to make the educators wealthy; it is to give the students an education. The objective of our health system isn't to make the doctors wealthy; it's to treat the sick. The idea of giving assistance to the poor is to alleviate their suffering, not to make social workers wealthy. So what you've got to separate all the time are the self-serving statements of those who deliver the service, rather than those who are on the receiving end.

[3:15]

I looked very carefully at this matter of universities disintegrating and faculty members deserting by the trainload. Baloney! They've never had it better than today in British Columbia. When you consider the relative circumstances of those who are not fed by tax money but who have to go out and earn, and cut it in the marketplace, what a wonderful place to be. No, a single tenured person.... We've been through this one before. That's for being there six years. Oh, yes, you have to pass a few standards.

MR. BLENCOE: Publish or perish.

HON. MR. McGEER: I wish it were that way, because I think we'd have more productive people. It's not that way at all. There may be exchange of faculty. There always is. It's the good faculty who are the hardest to retain, no matter what the circumstances.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. McGEER: No, I'm saying this very seriously. Listen carefully: the way you keep your outstanding faculty is to pay them more. You reach the marketplace. I say to the person who's the president, about anybody who has a bona fide offer from another institution: "Make the choice. If you want to keep him, give him a 20 percent raise. If you really don't want to keep him, shake his hand and say 'Good luck.' " What percentage of your faculty would be in that circumstance? Everybody knows that only a very small percentage have an international reputation. We've got plenty of money in our university system to support the excellence. The problem is, can we support the mediocrity? I say to our presidents: "If you're worried about losing that brilliant professor, pay him more. That's the way you should do it. Wait until there's a bona fide offer, and talk."

MR. BLENCOE: What do you pay him with, though?

HON. MR. McGEER: If you could pay a university quarterback $40 million to sign for a Los Angeles football team, why shouldn't a faculty member who is a brilliant international scholar be paid in six figures? Why shouldn't he be paid more than the president of the university? When you pay the president of the university $120,000 and give him a house and car, if the star of the faculty is earning an international reputation for the institution — if he's a Nobel prizewinner — should he be paid less than that? I don't think so. I don't see what's wrong with paying him more, if he's that good.

The trouble, of course, that one has in recruiting in a university is not the problem of tenure or of salary, but of trying to bring a top man into a department of mediocrity. He doesn't want to be there. Tenure is not a way of keeping people; too often it's a way of deterring them — that is, if you really want to have the great faculty stars. So I say that the way to keep your outstanding faculty is to pay them what they're worth; that is, the good ones. There are others who are going to be paid according to the faculty standards.

So there are many ways, even in times of restraint, that our institutions can build academic excellence and strength. Some of the things I'm saying here you may regard as heretical, but I've lived inside universities for most of my life, and I think I know their strengths and weaknesses pretty well now.

Despite all of that, of course I wish for the same things that that member wishes for: that there were an infinite amount of money, or at least a generous amount of money that we could give them. Today that's not possible. When the economy of British Columbia improves, the universities are going to get more than their share; they always have. But right now everybody has to tighten their belt just a little bit. The private sector has had it in about six notches; the government has taken it in about three. I don't think it's out of line if we ask the universities, just for a year, to take it in one.

MR. BLENCOE: I give you five out of ten for a reasonable coverup on what's happening in universities in terms of faculties. Not bad. However, if he wants to make a phone call tomorrow to the University of Victoria computer science department, one of the departments that is on the cutting edge in terms of what the minister is saying about the direction in which British Columbia is going, to see what's happening in that department.... You're good, but we've got problems. There's not as much money as you would think there is to continue to pay these extra people. Certainly at the University of Victoria, where they are stretched, they are now seriously considering eliminating an entire faculty.

I'll just give you one example in the computer science department. A number of resignations — going off elsewhere.... They're losing senior people who could be giving our young British Columbia students this particular area of expertise in high-tech. We're losing them.

I have one comment to make about where the money is to come from. I'm going to ask the minister a question. Maybe

[ Page 4616 ]

he'll be straightforward about the answer. We all know that politics is about priorities, assessing those priorities and trying to achieve priorities that reflect what British Columbia will be in 25 years hence. I happen to believe that post-secondary education is something that we have to support more. I want to ask the minister: did he support the nearly half-billion-dollar bailout to buy up the debt of BCR this year?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It's not. Mr. Member, when you react like that, I know we've got to you. Half a billion dollars to a railroad, basically to bail out the B.C. coal.... That's a priority. When economists on all sides criticize....

Don't rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, because the minister was talking about economic direction, interest rates, deficits and everything else, and I'm getting to that very thing right now. This is the nitty-gritty of this particular issue: the priorities and the direction of where they're going to go in this province. We have a government that is trying desperately to rationalize the attack of economists of all persuasions who could not understand what the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) did in terms of half a billion dollars in one year to that particular institution in this province. It was money that could have gone to British Columbia young people this year to save the computer science department, to get us into that high-tech field that the minister keeps talking about. It's a debt that's not going to mature for a number of years, and the economists are wondering what....

You're asking for order, but earlier on before lunch the minister was talking about the economy and the banking institutions and what was happening. I'm talking about that very thing now. Where are the priorities of this government? Where is the priority of this minister? Did he support that half-billion-dollar bailout? It was money taken away from the university students of this province. Did he support it?

HON. MR. McGEER: We leave it, by and large, to universities to set their own priorities and decide what programs are in the greatest public interest. We give them an enormous block fund, which they can spend as they choose. It's done that way in most provinces in Canada; the one I'm thinking of is Ontario. Some years ago the University of Waterloo, in a comparable circumstance, I would say, to the the University of Victoria, decided that computer science was where the future lay. If you go to the campus of the University of Waterloo today, you see one absolutely enormous building. That building is the mathematics and computer science building. It's a small university, in a small Ontario town, with the largest mathematics and computer science department in North America. They're world-famous. One of my sons took advice from me only once. I said: "Go into computer science, because there'll always be a demand for people." He did. I suggested he go to Waterloo, and he did.

MR. BLENCOE: That's two pieces of advice — misleading the House.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, that is. But the point that I'm trying to make for the member is that the University of Victoria could have made that same decision years ago. If they had, they would have the strength, muscle, reputation and future that you see at Waterloo University.

We have a very fine president at the University of Victoria. He came from Waterloo, but he came after the kinds of decisions that were the making of Waterloo University had been made. They were made by the board of governors of that day. I have said to the president of the University of Waterloo, "I'm your number one fan and advocate," because I think they took their public dollars and got their priorities for the future right. It's paying off for the university, it's paying off for Ontario, and it's paying off for Canada. There would be nothing to prevent the University of Victoria from making many of those decisions today, and I would support them.

If you're going to emphasize one thing, what you're going to have to do, of course, is give up the alternatives to someone else. No institution can be all things to all people. But if the University of Victoria wanted, as the member wishes, to concentrate more on computer science, their strongest factor in British Columbia would be myself. But there's only so much money. If they're going to put it into that, they have to decide not to put it into something else. That's their free choice. We could urge them....

MR. BLENCOE: Half a billion dollars? Where's the railroad. You were talking about the railroad before lunch. I've asked you a question.

HON. MR. McGEER: He's anxious to go on to railroads, and I'm happy to go on to railroads too. But it is the members opposite who have correctly pointed out that what you're dealing with here is a bookkeeping entry for the government. You are either going to take that money and apply it to the debt — borrowed money that is already on the books — or take the same amount of money and buy more debt with it. The decision really isn't how you want to do your bookkeeping entry with B.C. Rail; your decision is whether you want to borrow $500 million more this year. It was more than $500 million, wasn't it?

MR. BLENCOE: It was $470 million.

[3:30]

HON. MR. McGEER: So the decision really is: do we want to go $470 million more into debt? There are many debt instruments that you could use, but you would be abandoning the principle of cash flow in order to borrow money. It's the decision of this government — rightly or wrongly; the people will decide at a future election — that we shouldn't go more into debt; we should bring the books into balance. We're unique in Canada in that respect, but we think we're correct. We think the public are supporting us, and I don't know how you people read the polls.

MR. ROSE: We don't have any polls.

HON. MR. McGEER: You don't have any polls? Well, Broadbent has polls. It was one of your own former members who analyzed, I think correctly, the problems of the New Democratic Party, because he said that on the three great issues in Canada the New Democratic Party has had nothing to say. One of these issues was bilingualism. Well, why, if you've got no base in Quebec? I can understand that, and it's excusable. The second was inflation, because the remedies of the NDP have historically not been ones to cure inflation but to exacerbate it. I'm not offering this as my analysis; I'm

[ Page 4617 ]

offering it as from one of yours. Do you want to hear the third issue?

MR. ROSE: Yes.

HON. MR. McGEER: This is from him. This guy has more credentials than just being an ex-NDP member.

MR. BLENCOE: Like being an ex-Liberal?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, he's got real credentials — he's a professor.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no. Here it comes.

HON. MR. McGEER: It gets worse — a professor of business administration. Now I admit that there is a paradox there, but he's obviously a reformed character. He said that the third issue is that the NDP had nothing worthwhile to say about decentralization. I think a little bit of translation is required, because when he was questioned, he revealed that this really meant smaller government.

So the NDP have not had anything to say about reducing the size of government; they have not had anything to say about the worldwide problem of inflation; and if you can't meet the major problems of the day, is it any wonder that their popularity has slipped to 13 or 11 percent? I don't think it's got anything to do with Broadbent's charismatic leadership; I think it's got to do with basic philosophical thinking on the part of the party. Here is the chance to pick it all up and start a new course of action for your party. Repent your sins; acknowledge the necessity of business, the need for us to be competitive, the requirement for investment — all of those things that bring wealth and prosperity, as my friend from Omineca understands. Why can't the NDP understand it? The public is deserting you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before we continue, we seem to be talking about almost everything except the estimate that's before us. Now that we have discussed the B.C. Railway, I might suggest — if you'll pardon me saying it — that we get back on track and discuss the estimates.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, you will perhaps permit me one short comment on the minister's last remarks. It was interesting to hear him speaking about the things that the New Democratic Party had made no statements about. I would say the number one problem here in British Columbia is jobs and unemployment, and we had from his government a throne speech and a budget that completely ignored the whole problem of job creation. Not one mention of the words "employment" or "unemployment" in the whole budget — nothing. So if the reason our party has slipped at the polls is because we haven't dealt with the issues, then I would suggest that his party must be really slipping drastically. That is the one big issue out there and yet his government makes no mention of it in any of its budget material or its throne speech.

I want to deal with the minister's estimate and his responsibilities for universities, science and technology, and communications. He's the minister who has been doing a lot of talking about high tech, about Dynatek. He mentioned as a glowing example the situation around the area of Stanford University, where great things had been accomplished and jobs were to be had just by driving into a plant. There is one side of the high-tech industry that I have not heard him discuss, and I have not heard it discussed on the floor of this Legislature. I think it's critical that we get into the record some of the other side of the high-tech industry. I'm basically talking about what that high-tech industry involves in the way of hazards, both in the workplace and to the community. We have had no mention of that from this minister. I don't know if he's even aware of it, but there are two areas that I want to raise with him today.

In the Silicon Valley, one of the first instances that sort of brought the thing to a head was a field in the San Jose Valley. Instead of being the beautiful agricultural soil that it is, over a period of time it developed a red, mucky colour and consistency. That was the first time anybody realized what was happening. The high-tech industry, Mr. Chairman, is a high user of chemicals. Trichloroethane, one of the main chemicals used in the high-tech industry, is used to clean the chips. It is stored underground in great quantities because of the fire hazards involved with storing it above the ground. In that area around Stanford University, a residential and university area, there were 49 underground tanks storing trichloroethane. As a result, they discovered that the red soil leak was a leak from those tanks. When they started to investigate, they discovered that 36 of those 49 tanks had been leaking for a period of years. That extremely hazardous chemical had seeped not just into the soil but it had seeped into the wells and the water system. Residents had been consuming that water over the years.

There was one particular instance by one company — I think it was IBM — where it cost something like $200,000 to clean up the damage that they had created, and they had appealed to be forgiven from any further cleanup. That is just one example of the things that have been happening and are still happening in the Silicon Valley.

Some of the comments that have been made, and mostly by attorneys who became involved in dealing with these problems as a result of the high-tech industry there.... Armanda Hawes, a San Jose attorney who specializes in lawsuits against companies accused of spilling hazardous chemicals, said: "It is completely crazy, this rush by everyone to hustle high-tech. People are falling all over themselves to give these companies what they want, but you don't see anybody stopping to ask what some of the problems are." Another attorney who heads a coalition that sprang up as a result of the situation there said that it was "absolutely nuts" to allow this high-tech industry to move into the area without sufficient research, knowledge and safeguards to ensure that it was the clean industry it is supposed to be. When you can't see that smoke coming out of the smokestack, you assume it's a clean industry. But perhaps the smoke out of the smokestack is a lot less hazardous than the exposure to the kind of chemicals that are used in the high-tech industry.

It's not isolated just in the Silicon Valley; it has been a problem in other areas. It's been a problem in Massachusetts, where, in fact, there is a fringe area along a highway near Boston where high-tech has grown up. The same kinds of problems have developed, and there is waste from those chemicals. Those companies have been dumping massive amounts of waste into the various areas provided — and not properly provided, incidentally.

Your colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is presently trying to work on some kind of a safe waste disposal facility. But it was those hazardous waste

[ Page 4618 ]

dumps in California and Massachusetts where all the problems were created and where a lot of the waste was coming from the high-tech industry.

In the California situation they finally had an audit and it showed that 58,400 gallons of waste solvents, including 13,000 gallons of the trichloroethane could not be accounted for. They were just lost — gone. The points I'm making, Mr. Chairman, are certainly for the edification of the minister and to stress the need for research, for water-tight — or should I say chemical-tight — agreements with high tech, with Dynatek, whatever industry is coming in here. And Dynatek poses some very definite concerns in that it's coming to an island. How do we get those chemicals onto the island? What do we do with the waste? How do we dispose of it here? Are we going to run it into the sea? Surely not. What safety precautions?

[3:45]

If the local town planners in the Silicon Valley area had had any idea, any forewarning, of the things they were facing when high tech came into the valley, there certainly would have been some precautions. What they found was that their legislation was not adequate to control it. They have introduced a bill down there — it was passed, I think, in September 1983 — which strengthened the control of underground storage of chemicals: the storage, the type of facility, the monitoring, the whole thing relative to this. It didn't get too much into the waste disposal, and I'm not sure that they've resolved the problem. Surely we can learn by the experiences of the Silicon Valley and experiences in Massachusetts to ensure that we have proper precautions before high tech comes into this province in any extensive way.

There's another aspect: that is, the health of not just the community.... I'm sure that the members of the community who had well-water polluted with those chemicals must be very concerned about their health.

I want to read you an excerpt from the Sunday Times, July 31, 1983. The title is: "The World's Cleanest Industry Can Damage Your Health."

"When Mary Lou Lujan went to work in California's Silicon Valley making microchips for the Fairchild Camera and Instrument Co., she was told what the various chemicals used in the production process would do to the chips. What she was not told, she says, was what exposure to the chemicals might do to her. The early symptoms were bad headaches, drowsiness and an almost constant thirst which frequently sent her to Fairchild's drinking fountain. Then, while she was in the early months of pregnancy, she began to notice 'horrible spots around my mouth; my mouth went very cold.'

"Her child was born on June 15, 1981, with a perforated stomach. He died after five days. Six months later, Fairchild discovered that a chemical called trichloroethane had been leaking from one of its underground tanks and had contaminated the local water supply. 'I can't say for sure it's their fault, I can't prove it yet, ' says Mrs. Lujan. 'But in myself I know my baby died because I was exposed to those chemicals and because I drank that water.' "

There was a long period of time after those high-tech companies first began in California when they did not realize the need for adequate ventilation. Employees were all experiencing drowsiness, but it wasn't recognized that that drowsiness was being caused by the exposure to chemicals.

Acids are also employed. The tetrachloroethane is used to clean the chips. This is an excerpt from a little book that was published: Silicon Valley — Paradise or Paradox? This is again a quote from an assembly-line worker. This is at Siliconix, Santa Clara:

"We work with acids. One woman was asked when she was hired if she knew anything about acids. She said no. The supervisor said: 'Good, then you won't be scared by them.' Also it's crowded and things aren't organized. Just recently a bottle marked, 'acetone' was filled with waste acid, and a woman poured it and it all started steaming. The vapours are very dangerous to breathe in and are caustic. We work with solvents, too, which are dangerous. I get headaches from all this, as do other people."

From a machinist who worked there: "Since I've been at Lockheed I've been laid off a total of five times in nine years, for a total of three years. Layoffs are real severe problems...." That's a separate issue; it doesn't relate to safety. Those are the kinds of issues which are being raised.

When the industry started in California, it was certainly a new industry; it's still in its relative infancy. There has been an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others. We have to ensure that the dangers to the health of workers and the dangers in the community are circumvented, that before high tech establishes itself in British Columbia in any extensive way we have legislation or regulations in place to ensure that we are not faced with the kinds of problems that were faced in California.

A little information on trichloroethane. It's known to cause liver damage to humans. It's very possibly the cause of birth defects and miscarriages, because of the fact that so many of those occurred at the time of the leakage in the valley. Also, there is a problem with caustic burns from working with the chemical. Arsenic is used. It's a documented carcinogen and is used in the makeup of the chips.

I hope that the minister takes note of what I have said. We must prevent the kinds of occurrences in British Columbia that have taken place in California and other areas of the United States. We must learn from their mistakes. We must ensure that we have complete and thorough research and that we have adequate and extensive safeguards in place before we expose British Columbia workers and citizens to the kinds of hazards that have been experienced in Silicon Valley.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think I can deal with these matters very quickly.

We have in British Columbia extensive experience with handling toxic chemicals. On Vancouver Island, for example, every community of any size outside of Victoria has got a pulp mill. One pulp mill would handle more toxic chemicals than you would find in the whole of the Silicon Valley area. We have faced the chemical industry and its toxic products, not the broad realm of experience, for many years in this province in far more significant measure than have most places in North America.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I don't know about the industrial solvents. It sounds to me like the material that's used in every dry-cleaning establishment. If you want to send me what it is, I would be quite happy to look at it. But I think this is what you find is used to

[ Page 4619 ]

get the grease spots out of your suit, and we see a lot of that, too, around British Columbia.

With respect to knowing about acids and materials like acetone, we're trying to get high school science upgraded. It may be that this sort of thing is not sufficiently taught to people who are not going through the university stream. What is underway now with my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is trying to make grade 11 general science compulsory. If we can get most of our high school population up to at least the grade 11 level of science, many of these perceived difficulties that are written about by journalists, who aren't up to that primitive level of science, would disappear. I really think that scientific literacy is a must in our society. It was one of the things that was abandoned during the years when the basic program in our secondary school system was abandoned, producing people who haven't the slightest idea about the simplest things in science, so they get all worried about things they don't understand, which they really should understand. I don't know what more I can say than that.

With respect to Silicon Valley itself, the way we have got converts from the worst skeptics.... I can only advise the member to do likewise. Go down and see it, and say: "Would I like some of that in my community?" We have never taken a single person down to that area, to see it with his own eyes, who hasn't come back and said: "Please, can we have some?" That includes people who are far to the left of the member who has just spoken. I can only say: go and see it for yourself, and look at the problems we have in our communities right on Vancouver Island. None is more severe than in the member's own riding, where obsolete mills are closing down and people are unemployed. You can leave them unemployed forever or you can begin looking for alternatives. If you want to find an alternative, take me anywhere in the world that will show you anything more attractive in the way of industry. That's why when we take people down there, they never come back making speeches like the member opposite. They come back, saying: "Get me some of that for my community."

MRS. WALLACE: The grade 11 science course is not going to ensure that the companies coming in here to produce high-tech equipment provide proper ventilation, properly installed tanks for the chemicals, provide proper monitoring and handling of those chemicals, and proper safeguards in the workplace for the workers. No grade 11 science course, no matter how knowledgeable the workers, is going to cause a company to provide those things. I'm asking the minister to ensure that when high tech comes to B.C. it is under terms that are good for all British Columbians and not just for the high-tech industry.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the minister. I might add that it is quite rare that I get up under this particular ministry and ask questions. However, this question relates to a constituency matter. I don't think it should take too long. I wonder if the minister knows a Mr. David J. Saxby?

HON. MR. McGEER: You bet I do.

[4:00]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just to give you a bit of background.... This is no earth- shattering matter. Mr. Saxby, as well as being the former president and current executive trustee of Discovery Parks Inc., is also president of a private company called Aqua Foods. I wonder if the minister knows that Mr. Saxby previously operated his private company from his office at Discovery Parks, and that he now operates this company from the office he occupies as the president of Pacific Isotopes and Pharmaceuticals. It would appear to be — and I'll tell you why in a moment — a bit of a possible conflict of interest; I'm not sure. But I'll get into a couple of details just to clarify it for the minister.

The conflict is presented by the fact that Mr. Saxby is the largest oyster leaseholder in a place called Trevenen Bay in my riding, near Okeover Inlet, which is some 20 miles north of Powell River. It is one of the prime aquaculture sites — certainly for oyster-growing — in all of British Columbia. Aqua Foods Ltd. is the largest leaseholder in the area at the present time, although a large Chinese company called Wonder Resources has applied for six huge leases in the area. Two have been granted and four more are being considered and will almost certainly be granted, which is fine. Mr. Saxby has applied for four more leases in the area apart from the Wonderfoods leases. Hopefully in the future we should have a flourishing oyster and aquaculture industry in that area and provide a number of jobs for people living there.

However, the Discovery Foundation, through their Nanaimo research and development office, has acquired the surplus forestry station at a place called Finn Bay, very near Lund — a very beautiful site with large acreage and good buildings — as a research and development centre. Once again we find the strange anomaly of Aqua Foods Ltd. being the sole occupier of that facility, although we have the situation where there are a number of smaller leaseholders for oyster culture in the area as well paid for at government expense through this ministry — the Discovery Foundation.

It does appear to me that there could be the possibility of a conflict of interest, and unfair advantage to a person who is directly involved in the Discovery Foundation and other agencies funded by this ministry. Mr. Saxby could in fact enjoy a preferred position. In terms of research and development that may take place in that facility, that other people, who are not aware that the facility is available to them.... I don't know whether it is or not. One of the questions the minister could answer is: will that facility be made available to other private companies as well as to Mr. Saxby, who is currently running his private business out of foundation offices funded by government and ministerial funds?

I don't want to make a big thing of it, and I'm sure it's not, but I raise this question because there has been concern — and the minister is probably aware of it. He or the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) must have received correspondence on it over the possible conflict of interest, where we have a senior person, an official who is working for or at least indirectly and directly being funded by this ministry, taking advantage of the situation. Perhaps he's not taking advantage of the situation. I shouldn't put it that way, because I really don't know, but it would appear.... And certainly there is some concern, particularly from the smaller leaseholders for oyster culture in that area, who will now have access to those possible leases denied to them in the future, because the areas are obviously going to be leased out.

I would like to clarify one point: the people living in the surrounding area are not averse to research and development. I think that facility at Finn Bay near Lund is a fine facility for

[ Page 4620 ]

research and development, and I think people will generally agree with that. Because of the peculiar nature of that area, one of the finest areas in British Columbia for oyster-growing and culturing and other aquaculture pursuits, the industry should be encouraged. Let's do it fairly. I'm expressing this concern not to embarrass the minister, Mr. Saxby or anyone else, but it is a concern that may be legitimate, based on some information I have received from other lease-holders in the area. Perhaps the minister would care to respond to some of the queries, if he can.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, David Saxby is not a full-time employee of the Discovery Foundation and Pacific Isotopes. It's been recognized by the directors that he works part-time in those duties and then part-time in his own business. As I understand it — although I've not attended the meetings — all of the holdings have been thoroughly disclosed to all the directors of the foundation who have at least satisfied themselves that there is no unfair advantage, no government subsidy and no time belonging to Discovery Foundation or Pacific Isotopes used by Mr. Saxby. I'd be quite happy for the member to meet with those officers of the foundation. If people have complaints, please air them and we'll look into them thoroughly and give them a report. But this isn't something that was done without anybody's prior knowledge. In other words, Mr. Saxby was, as far as I'm concerned, a very honourable man who made quite certain that all the people in the foundation knew exactly the circumstance before any arrangements were entered into. So everybody did this with their eyes open. Perhaps if that has not satisfied some, we should go back and look at it. I'd be quite happy for the member to....

Having said that by way of explanation, I'd like at the same time to pay enormous tribute to Mr. Saxby, because he had done a fantastic job. He doesn't work for the government; Discovery Foundation, as you know, is an independent society, although my ministry does give annual support to it to help it to get high-technology industry going. One of the particular things that Saxby has championed — and I think it might be of particular interest to the member — is the whole idea of the aquaculture industry in British Columbia. Perhaps because he's a participant himself, he's been a passionate advocate. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) knows something about this. We have difficulty selling so many of the foods we produce in British Columbia on world markets. We can't sell our eggs, turkeys, lettuces — well, we've had the discussion, Mr. Minister — because they're not in demand at the prices we're able to provide to the world market.

Our fish products are in a different circumstance. We sell our salmon and all the food from the sea in international markets. The opportunities, particularly for salmon farming, are absolutely enormous. The reason we have set up these research stations on the coast, away from our university campuses, is that if you're going to learn how to farm oysters or salmon, you've got to be where you're going to raise them. That's why these research stations have been set up in the ridings on Vancouver Island and in the riding of the member on the coast. I would think that because of the high potential and the high unemployment that exists in many of these coastal ridings and on Vancouver Island, this is an area you might take an extremely keen interest in. If we could establish salmon farms all up and down the coast — or oyster farms or other seafood farms — it could be a very big export industry for us, but it's got to be done properly. But if there is a problem here, which I don't believe there is, I'd be quite happy to look into it with the member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, the object of getting to my feet in the first place was not really to discuss — and I agree with the minister — the aquaculture potential we have here in British Columbia, which I think is enormous if properly pursued. In fact, Mr. Saxby and Aqua Foods Ltd. may be of great benefit to the community in the future — I don't know those things at this point — but that wasn't the reason. I'm not even implying, as the minister said, that Mr. Saxby is not an honourable gentleman; I don't know the gentleman. I've never had the pleasure of meeting him, but I hope to, since he is apparently going to be operating in my riding on a large-scale basis in the future.

The only reason I got to my feet was that I would like to see every oyster lease applicant or owner and operator in the area have the same access to the research and development at that centre. I do agree with the satellite research and development centres. I think they're very good, particularly in an area that has the potential the Okeover Arm area has in British Columbia. So I'm saying: equal and fair access. Let people know that this facility is there and that other companies should have equal access to that facility, which, I'm told, they don't have at the present time.

Further, for example, when you phone Aqua Foods Ltd., the phone is answered as Pacific Isotopes and Pharmaceuticals, and it's obviously the same office. You must admit that if you were another leaseholder in that area and phoned Aqua Foods, and the person answered, "Pacific Isotopes" — which is tied in with your ministry — you would be a bit suspicious. I'm sure you'll have a look at it, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: What we should do is have the member come to Victoria, meet with the member and satisfy yourself. If we need to do more, we will. No problem.

[4:15]

MR. ROSE: I always enjoy the debates of, and with, the minister. I understood earlier that there was some disposition to get through these estimates with greater alacrity, but the minister seems determined to filibuster his own estimates.

HON. MR. McGEER: By mutual agreement, shall we bring it to an end now?

MR. ROSE: Well, I would have no objection to that, but I'm afraid that my colleague, who is sitting here with a veritable fistful of issues — a mailed fist — would object strenuously. I can hardly suggest that we leave it, even though we want to use our time more efficiently and productively.

I can hardly let go the minister's assertions about some outstanding NDPer making certain kinds of charges as to the so-called failure of our particular party to attract a great deal of interest across Canada. One that he mentioned was the lack of a great commitment to decentralization. I think that's hardly fitting, especially from a government that's just made every effort to centralize — certainly in the educational field — and put total control in Victoria, as opposed to having autonomous districts and college boards. It's all right to be self-righteous, but you also have to be a little bit credible on that ground.

[ Page 4621 ]

Furthermore, I'd like to suggest to you that in terms of productivity and size of government, the government of Alan Blakeney had, per capita, the fewest civil servants at the time. It could have been outstripped by all those recent so-called advances — taking government off the backs of the people — recently undertaken by our own government here. I'm not certain about that. The minister talked about those people who are the consumers of public services. They weren't parading; only those people who were losing their jobs were parading. You might call that enlightened self-interest.

My second point is about inflation. Yes, we've expressed some concern, as a federal party, on the matter of inflation, but we haven't become preoccupied with it because we were preoccupied with protecting people from the ravages of inflation. We felt it was unfair, if they were faced by 12 and 13 percent inflation rates and a 23 percent interest rate, that their salaries shouldn't be adjusted accordingly. We didn't go through the double-think such as this government did: that the only way to hold down inflation is to put a lot more people out of work and make certain there are zero-percent increases in wages. We didn't think that wages were necessarily the cause of inflation, but that inflation was frequently imported. It wasn't as a result of rapacious demands on the part of working people.

My third point is bilingualism. We had nothing to say on bilingualism — not recently. But just ask Howard Pawley; he still bears the scars on that score.

Another point I want to raise has to do with this business of the high school science program. We're now considering changes in the graduation requirements. The minister put forward the proposition that improved science courses might make people more environment or safety or waste-disposal conscious. I'm not certain that that's so, but the fact that high school science courses need to be improved is not a new thing. The science teachers in this province have been calling for it for at least five years that I know of. The fact that it's going to be inserted for all students, at the jeopardy of fine arts programs such as music and drama and other things — because you're decreasing the number of electives — I don't think is a fair trade-off. It would be much better to produce a better science program in the elementary schools, and to be prepared to equip it, which the government has not done now. Dr. Stuart Smith, a member of the party that the minister once belonged to, said that he didn't blame the teachers; it was the wrong kind of science programs. The science programs in the high schools now were of the type that prepared people for university science, and that wasn't the reason the kids weren't taking science. They were not taking science (1) because many schoolteachers weren't trained in it — agreed — but (2) the science programs in high schools and universities, as presently constructed, were of little relevance to them. Maybe, such as we have in the music programs, we could introduce....

Paul De Kruif, who wrote The Hunger Fighters and The Microbe Hunters, encouraged me to be interested in science, because in his two or three books he dealt with what amounted to — or was the equivalent of, in the fine arts program — a science appreciation program. What did Pasteur do and how did that benefit us, and what did other people, such as Wassermann do and how did that benefit us? Or Leeuwenhoek? That is the kind of program that is needed for many people, not the university-bound science program. That's why we have lots of problems: everybody takes piano lessons but nobody learns to play the piano, because the piano courses have always been directed to the one out of every 10,000 who might become a concert performer, and that was the fare for all. Okay, that deals with those things, I think, attempting to elaborate or rebut the minister's assertions of a few moments ago.

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is back, looking at his watch as usual and making interesting and witty ripostes to put us off our train of thought across the hall here. I suggest to him, if this is fantastically boring to him, that he go back to his reading, and I will try and lower my voice so he will remain undisturbed as he usually is.

Mr. Chairman, a little actuality from the UBC faculty of education, just a little one. They were dropped this year over last year $1.5 million in their operating budget. That's 8 percent, the largest of any faculty. Now that could be justified perhaps on the basis of the minister's priorities. The university has decided to make a science and mathematics and computer centre perhaps; I don't know. Maybe there are no jobs for teachers, so that's a good thing. But the results of it may not be so good even in the short run, because what's happened at UBC and one example of what's happened in the college of education alone.... The special education department included 14 people. About half of them are on leave or retired or sick; that leaves seven. Because of their being at half-strength, they have to suspend the program in special education. Now this is one of the outstanding programs in western Canada, if not the outstanding one in all of Canada. It is a contract program. It serves, as does the vet school in Regina, the four western provinces. If you cut that faculty down the middle because you can't replace the people who have left because you have a hiring freeze, what's going to happen? It isn't just the same as when you abolish or suspend another program. You suspend a five-year program, a five-year degree Bachelor of Education special education program, not just for British Columbians but for all the people who are interested in that training for western Canada. This is a very serious matter.

The obligations continue, because once a person starts the program, if he's in second year, he thinks he has every right to continue. They have not been able to do that. The best UBC has been able to do in that program, because of the cutbacks, is to make certain that the fifth-year people are allowed to complete their program in order to qualify. The others are going to be transferred into other programs which may or may not be equivalent but probably are not. They're not necessarily generic equivalents. They're probably less specialized and less the kind of thing we need.

This is what you do when you start cutting university programs without warning, not phase-outs without warning. That might be something that merits the minister's attention. He should talk to the dean about this and what he might be able to do, because the dean is stuck. What's he going to do? He's got a hiring freeze.

The other thing that I wanted to mention at this point was the general mood at the universities. The minister said that he understands universities; he's been in them all his life. I think that he may exist in a somewhat rarefied atmosphere. He is not kicking his feet under the table with all the rest of the faculty — you know, the drones. He occupies a relatively lofty position; a special position, I would suggest. He might not know the feeling, the general morale of faculty people. But apparently there is an air of uncertainty. This requires people, I think, to think about their futures and consider offers from other places. The minister's solution to that is that

[ Page 4622 ]

if you want to keep these people — there are only a few outstanding ones anyway — why don't you just pay them more? Well, how do you pay them more if you've got a budget freeze or a budget cut? You break your contracts with those other members, the mediocre ones that the minister talks about? I don't know how you find money to lavish on a few to pay them more, because they're not just the one or two in each faculty that are going to go. There will be more than that. Sure, I think they're worth more than hockey players, except that they don't have the same market value. They don't have the same ticket potential. So I think that we have to look around at how we're paying people. The marketplace doesn't operate at universities in quite the same way. I'm not suggesting that it does not operate at all. The marketplace operates at the university as it does in other spheres, and no one denies that. But just simply to pay them more....

Anyway, the business faculty has lost I don't know how many at UBC, because they are quick and able to move. Again, it's similar to the University of Victoria. Computer science is a hot item. Those people may not necessarily –and don't know them — be outstanding people. But they are in demand because they are rare people, and they are considering offers to move.

Education. There are two of them, and possibly another of outstanding international renown. It isn't just a case of their being there and contributing and providing the leadership. They bring a great amount of national research funds into the university that aren't provided by this government. That is a concern I have.

One of the things the minister asks when he talks about universities and why we can't do more.... Yes, in the salad days we had all kinds of money. But now that we don't have any money, the question is always asked: "Where is the money coming from?" My colleague suggested there might be a little mine of money in the railroad bag — I don't know about that. The minister doesn't know about that either, but he shakes his head intelligently.

A better question is: "Where has the money gone?" Post-secondary budgets have been cut $27 million this year from last year, and that has caused a lot of things to happen. Enrolment is cut, ceilings are put on enrolments and there are cuts in loans and grants — at least the grants. Where has the money gone? I was interested in where the money had gone since a member of the minister's former party, the Minister of Finance, was out here about two months ago and made what I regarded as some pretty profound assertions. He said that the EPF money that would normally have gone to health is up this year over last year by $100 million. Further, he said that the EPF money earmarked for post-secondary education — I don't want to go into all this business about block funding, because everybody is sick of that anyway, but it's a mixture of cash and tax transfers — increased the Ed budget by $27 million this year over last year. If you've got $27 million extra, why is it necessary to cut university and post-secondary funding by $27 million, making a gap of something like $54 million? That is what has caused your courses to be cut, teachers to leave, classes to be enlarged, grants to be gone and fees to be hiked. That's what I think. It's not "Where is the money coming from?" It's "Where has the money gone?"

I asked the Minister of Finance this question, and he said: "You're wrong. I've got my own figures. I'll provide them to you." He did. After a lot of teeth-pulling, weeping and wailing and all this stuff, I finally got them about a month or six weeks after. He said: "No, that's not right. According to our figures the funds have only gone up $108 million, not $127 million." In other words, I'm out $19 million — or Lalonde is.

Let's do it proportionately. Let's say that we've got $90 million more for health. Does that mean we need to continue user fees and add an 8 percent health tax, or is that just another form of tax in disguise? Supposing we didn't get $27 million extra, that we only got $20 million extra. Does that mean we have to raise the fees, put ceilings on the enrolment and do all these things that causes us to lose profs, when we only got $20 million more? In addition, we cut the budgets by $20 million. So it's $40 million instead of $54 million. So what! The principle is the same. The reason we don't have the money for the things we'd like to have, as we had in our salad days, is that we're diverting it into other priorities. That's it pure and simple, and I don't see how anybody can deny it. Not only do I have Lalonde's words and figures for this; I have the Minister of Finance of the province of British Columbia saying: "Oh, no, you're wrong. We only got $108 million more." It's like the story of the Alberta hospitals making money and having large surpluses and at the same time wanting to increase fees. What fraud! What utter nonsense!

[4:30]

Another problem having to do with post-secondary education is the ability of rural students to get there at all. My colleague is going to discuss the problems of loans, grants, access, room and board and all these things that make it more difficult. Something like 8 percent of rural students in British Columbia are getting a university education, whereas there might be closer to 17 or 18 percent from the urban areas where universities are located. I was thinking of the member for Vancouver-Point Grey just nipping out there to the university from his Lord Byng or Magee, or wherever it was he went. How much easier it was for him than it was for this poor little rural type from Mission, who had to board to get there. He couldn't go out with the gang. He had to ride the streetcar and all these things, while the minister breezed out there and went home every night. He didn't have any homesickness, none of those emotional problems. Rural students have a tougher time. What's the response of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) to this? He's got a list for junior colleges. Here are local program priorities. That means these can be continued or cut by the colleges. Then we have another list called provincial priority programs, and these must be offered.

I'm not going to read the list. I used that another time. But I'll tell you one of the last ones. As a matter of fact, it was even forgotten and had to be penciled in on the list I have. The last one is university transfer; that is, if the colleges have to cut anywhere, they are even encouraged to cut university transfer programs. I wouldn't have thought that would be possible. I would think it would be a priority of the province to have university programs as widely available as possible to rural students through their local colleges. That's not the case. It is no longer a provincial priority. You might want to look into that if you don't know it already. Then I began to wonder: why is this? Maybe we don't want so many of those rural burnpkin kids going into the colleges, like the member for Coquitlam–Moody was. Maybe you really don't want them. I don't know. But I will assert this: all the things that must be offered — biological science, aquaculture, forestry, even dental assistance, early childhood ed, programs for the

[ Page 4623 ]

handicapped.... Terrific! I have no objection to that. But why on earth would you start cutting university transfer programs? You say: "Well, we're not starting to cut them." You control the boards, because you appoint them all. What you've said to the local colleges is that you don't really have to do this.

In British Columbia we've got one of the lowest participation rates in Canada in post-secondary education. How that is consistent with the high tech revolution I don't know. I'm suggesting there are some serious things that the minister should examine. He has the power to do something about it. If he fights for the universities, if he gets into cabinet and fights for these things, then we're going to preserve the universities. I'm not suggesting that they're going to disappear or disintegrate overnight; I think that's perhaps pejorative, exaggerated a little. Nevertheless, the funds are there, and I think they should be employed. I think this is the kind of thing upon which our future is built. We Canadians have spent too long importing our financing, our investment and our skills. I think it's bloody well time we got down and made an honest effort to do more of it here.

HON. MR. McGEER: To respond to the member in a number or ways, I'll go back in reverse order. First, we revisited the budget briefly here. As the member knows, the government is still running a deficit in cash flow. Let's not talk about B.C. Rail, which is a bookkeeping entry. One isn't going to persuade a government of our philosophy that it's desirable to continue building up a debt. You can do that pretty easily at the federal level. But we take a different view, as we've expressed many times. However, within that constraint, if the member opposite can persuade anybody to give up expenditures and see it directed towards the universities, I'll buy him the best dinner in British Columbia. Obviously one would like to see more directed to them.

With respect to high tech and participation rates, we have to strip off a certain amount of rhetoric and baloney and get down to some hard facts. Those aspects of our university programs that bear on industrial development, particularly high technology, are a very tiny portion of the whole thing. It could be bigger; I wish it were bigger. But to suggest that it's a major part of it, and that all the programs of the universities are central to this is absolutely incorrect.

When you get to rural students, it's this dilemma of how you produce a range of program offerings in every community in British Columbia. Once you go from the major size down to the next size, like the Coquitlam area or greater Victoria, you're into communities that are so small that from their own commuting range, they never produce sufficient people for even the barest kind of university programs. This is why we set up the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network: to provide a vehicle through which a variety of programs could be taken to every small community. My new deputy and I have recently met with the Universities Council, the Open Learning Institute, the Knowledge Network and all of our universities to set up a comprehensive program whereby a person taking one of these credit courses can have it apply in the other institutions — in other words, a program of banking credits for all distance-learning programs in British Columbia, so that we genuinely can take this smorgasbord of opportunities, if you like, into every small community. It's really a problem of numbers and delivering a broad quality to small numbers in any given location.

Now the member drew attention to the faculty of education at UBC and the fact that the administration there had decided on an 8 percent cut for that faculty. That perfectly illustrates the dilemma that the government and the public face, because that faculty — I'm talking now in terms of students — dropped about 35 percent with almost no reduction in the numbers of faculty in the institution. Therefore when students, quite properly, vote with their feet and decide they don't want to be in the surplus teacher pool and should maybe be going into engineering, although there are problems of jobs when they graduate there, and when the enrolment drops and the faculty remains at very high levels, as it has done....

MR. ROSE: No, it hasn't. They've cut their staff.

HON. MR. McGEER: How many did they cut? I'm going back now four or five years — eight faculty when your student population drops by about 800. It's when you don't make these adjustments that the difficulties occur, because you carry on funding year after year after year for programs that have vanished, because students shift. We don't attempt, within the university, to set their priorities, but if a faculty or a service at the university can't make it internally with their own allocations, they don't have a great deal of sympathy from me by complaining to the public. You can't have it both ways. If you want your institution to be autonomous, then the people who live within that institution have got to accept the priority determinations that are made by that institution itself. If they decide that the least important thing is two extra people in the Crane library, that's their decision. If they decide that the special education program is the least important program, with $12 million worth of public money in the faculty of education, that's a decision the people in that program must accept. The problem is, of course, that they don't. They don't want to admit that their own institution, which received $170 million of public funding, has decided they're the least important.

Now maybe the institution has made a mistake. Maybe you and I could find other things that were less important. I know that the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) thought maybe the tennis bubble was less important and the subsidy to the faculty club was less important.

MR. ROSE: Do you belong to the faculty club?

HON. MR. McGEER: Automatically. It goes with tenure.

I don't agree with the subsidy, but I honestly would like the member just to consider this, Mr. Chairman. He and I may disagree with what the priorities ought to be, but I think that he would want to agree with me that the institutions themselves should be the ones that establish those priorities. Again, I would like to see more money go to the universities, but I don't think the universities are being asked to make sacrifices that most others in society have had to make. You may point out that the schools haven't made equivalent sacrifices, and I don't think they have. The colleges haven't made equivalent sacrifices. The doctors certainly haven't made equivalent sacrifices, but people in the civil service universally have and those in the private sector certainly have and are paying the bill. They're the ones that pay the taxes. They've certainly suffered a lot more. So maybe the universities haven't been the best treated. I wish they had been, and

[ Page 4624 ]

I think over the years they have. Certainly they're not the worst hit. We have to have a little bit of balance, and we might disagree as to where that might come. But if you can persuade anybody that the universities ought to have a little more, count on that big dinner from me.

With respect to the science programs in our schools — and we don't want to revisit the Ministry of Education estimates — I agree with you. We shouldn't be trying to teach people in high schools university-level science if they're not going on to university. On the other hand, what you must try to do, it seems to me, is give people some scientific literacy, because what separates us from Third World nations is our abilities in technology.

[4:45]

If you leave people, having gone through the school system, not understanding even the rudiments of the technological society in which they live, you really have left them permanently handicapped. They don't understand the language that they read in the newspapers — anything technical — because they don't know the meaning of the words. They don't understand what they hear on television. They don't understand the new advances that are taking place, because they don't know the foundation upon which it's laid. They become terrified, and they go into the media and write anti-technological and ill-informed articles about how our society is going to hell in a basket and the sky is falling in. I take that as a failure of our high school science system.

I think media people should be forced to learn a few of the rudiments of science. I hope they never attend these debates. I hope they're listening up there in the press gallery. I think it's a problem that can be overcome with a good science-appreciation course. I think it's fundamental. I don't think you are making an unfortunate tradeoff if you say it comes before fine arts. I think it's fundamental, every bit as fundamental as English and mathematics.

MR. ROSE: I would just like to say that I hope the dinner that the minister has promised me will take place, hosted at the UBC Faculty Club, where he is a member. We will both benefit by the subsidy.

I'd like to clarify one thing. I'll be very brief about it. I don't think the faculty of education was wailing — or snivelling, as it might be put — because some priority of the university downplayed their contribution. The problem was because of the policies, an accident of policies, where they had a lot of people on leave, sick or retired that they couldn't replace and who couldn't complete their contractual obligations. It wasn't that they were concerned only with the fact that they had been somewhat ignored and people weren't voting with their feet. The students were there, but because of the hiring freeze they couldn't replace the lost profs — outstanding, mediocre or otherwise.

Another thing I hope is that before this debate is over I can check the figures that the minister gave, such as the drop of enrolment of 35 percent. I wouldn't doubt that it had dropped some. Down only eight faculty in five years.... I just don't believe those figures. I don't think the minister is deliberately misleading. I think he's in error on that one. I'm going to try to check that out, bring him up to date and enlighten him before the whole thing is finished.

The other thing is that we all make priorities. The minister made priorities. He wanted more funds for the Knowledge Network, and then he dropped the contract for all the industrial education people only last year. It made it very difficult for them. This was because he forgot to include the Knowledge Network in his estimates, and he had to find the money somewhere. We all make these little mistakes.

I'm pleased that the minister has enlightened us on his views. I felt that I had certain things that I had to say as well. I'll let somebody else have a go at it now.

MR. NICOLSON: There are certainly some other areas to be covered, and I'd like to talk about the B.C. student assistance plan. I think that there are a lot of questions. It is my understanding that the government went to the chartered banks, and the chartered banks said no. They went to the B.C. Central Credit Union — and they've been very receptive to the idea of handling the assistance program — but no deal has been struck yet. So one of the questions is: what provisions can students make who will be attending summer school programs and applying for these loans?

Also, the minister earlier raised the spectre of high interest rates. While responding in another area, he said that Mr. Kaufman has predicted interest rates — what? — in the low 20 percent range in two years. That certainly coincides with fears I've seen expressed by others. In certain newsletters, some of the alarmists are predicting even higher interest rates, so this is more or less a conservative kind of estimate. Accepting interest rates in the low 20 percent area, is the minister aware of the rate of default under the Canada Assistance Plan for students? I happen to have a figure for the United States, based on a U.S. Senate subcommittee on appropriations, of 15.3 percent. The figure of 26 percent or 27 percent kind of sticks in my mind for Canada. What is going to be the default rate?

Another question for the minister on these loans: which will stand in first place, the Canada loan or the B.C. assistance loan? Has that question been resolved? Therefore, what will be the default rate? It is my information that in the short term there will be a saving to the people of British Columbia by adopting this program; in the long term it is anything from a saw-off.... Or it goes even beyond that and could be very, very expensive to British Columbia in terms of the kinds of problems with high interest rates being anticipated. These are usually at prime, plus some nominal figure. Even if they're at prime rate, the default is going to be very high.

I also draw the minister's attention to the directive from Treasury Board on financial administration policy — this is October 1983 — which gives guidelines for loan guarantees. It says: "Unless otherwise provided for by an act or regulations, a guarantee must be approved by the minister for an amount up to $100,000." And that is before it is issued. That's what we have at present. It says that an underlying risk of any guarantee requested shall be assessed and the assessment included in the documentation submitted for approval, and that all submissions shall include the following minimum information: name and address, the amount of the guarantee, the conditions attached to the guarantee, and the collateral held or assigned to secure a guarantee. Also an analysis of the risk. Will this policy be extended to the student assistance program? Has that been decided?

I'd also like to draw the minister's attention to part E in that same directive, the grant option. It asks whether or not it is possible to provide a grant as an alternative to the indemnity or guarantee and, if so, how large a grant would be required. In other words, it is suggesting that perhaps it is better to make a grant than to take on that long-term liability of a loan which may or may not be repaid. This raises several

[ Page 4625 ]

questions as to what we're asking students to get into. It has been mentioned that in this area student indebtedness after graduation could be some $21,000. I would assume that a similar amount could also be owed to the federal government.

The government, in the grade 9 and 10 consumer education course, identifies the six C's of credit. They talk about capacity, capability — the individual's ability to repay debts owing judged by an individual's earning power, present and future, and the government's current financial commitments. Students graduating from grade 12 have absolutely no way of arriving at an informed judgment of their ability to repay, or of their earning power four years hence. Qualified graduates in all disciplines are currently out of work, and many unemployed are middle-aged — part of the new unemployed whose occupations have traditionally been fairly well insulated from the economic cycle. So how can a student graduating from grade 12 determine, upon entering university, his capability or capacity to repay a loan?

"Conditions" is another C: an individual's anticipated job future security and possible future expenses. Again, how can a student just emerging from grade 12 look at that?

The government policy violates a third one of the C's — common sense. Students are being asked to assume debts that they cannot reasonably be expected to repay, and particularly in the present economic uncertainty this is more difficult, I think, than ever before. There is no economic forecasting agency really willing to give four-year projections on interest rates. We have canvassed a few just to see what they have to say. Janet Drummond of the Conference Board of Canada says they will only speculate about 1985; Mrs. Caine, an economist with the Economic Council of Canada, said that they have a recently developed model incorporating U.S. data, but that too many variables can change between now and 1987 to give any prediction of interest rates; the economists with the Employers' Council say that mid-'84 is as far as they're willing to go in predicting interest rates; the B.C. Central Credit Union officials, with whom the government is negotiating to handle these loans, say their predictions deal only with 1984 and 1985; and Alec Thompson, chief economist of the Bank of Montreal, says calling anything dealing with 1987 forecasting is presumptuous, far too difficult and too many unknowns. We do have the predictions of Mr. Kaufman, who says 22 or so percent.

Given all of this, given what students are taught in grade 9 and grade 10 in the consumer credit course about taking out loans, I go over the questions again with the minister. What can be done for students in summer school this year? What progress is being made with B.C. Central Credit Union? Do you know what the experience is of default of loans in the federal government program? What is the anticipated default rate of the provincial government program? And if we're going to have a very high default rate, is not the grant program the most sound program and should it not be continued in keeping with government policy directives?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm going to do my best to answer the member's questions, though he should recognize that the program is actually administered by the Ministry of Education, and the negotiations with the lending institutions have been by the Ministry of Finance. I am advised that good progress is being made with the Central Credit Union and I can assure the member that there will be performance on behalf of the students in time for summer school.

The banks refused. Wouldn't you know it from the banks. They'll lend money to Argentina and Mexico; they'll lend money to Dome Petroleum, but will they lend money to British Columbia students, upon whom their future depends? No, they won't lend money to British Columbians; not those national gouging banks.

[5:00]

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, I feel exactly as frustrated as the member opposite about the banks.

With respect to the loan program, that is really based on the experience in Alberta. The failure rate in Alberta is 6 percent. One of the things that we have not said anything about, but which does take place in Alberta, is a forgiveness of the loans for people who perform in the institutions. I wish our program could be more generous, and I know it's been more generous in the past. At times it's been extremely costly. With better days I'm sure we'll have better programs.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to switch fields now to the area of communications. The minister has made statements.... I could quote from March 26, 1981, in Hansard, where he was responding to my colleague the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). A question was asked about this government's policy toward jurisdiction over B.C. Telephone Co. The minister said: "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." Now I would like to contrast that with your reluctance to negotiate as part of a package in the process of developing constitutional accord, as reported in the Vancouver Sun. It means that B.C. Tel remains indefinitely outside of the control of B.C. You took one approach some time ago, and you made some headlines, and yet last month — and I don't have the exact date — with no announcement and no ministerial statement, the province requested that your court action over jurisdiction on pay TV, which again was opened up with great fanfare, be postponed indefinitely. I'd like to ask the minister: what progress has he made in negotiating provincial regulation of B.C. Tel? Have you withdrawn your court action because you're making substantial progress? Are we going to hear an announcement very soon? Because we support that direction. Why did the province drop the suit against the CRTC and the federal government? We also supported that action. What undertakings did the province give to the federal government and the CRTC to secure an agreement to an indefinite postponement?

HON. MR. McGEER: We asked for that postponement because there were one or two improvements we wished to make in preparing our case. We are going to get that into court just as soon as we can. Unfortunately, if you seek a delay, sometimes it gets to be a long one, but we'll be asking for that court action to be initiated in the not-too-distant future.

I want to assure the member that we haven't in any way slackened our will in this matter. I wish I could say that there had been some negotiation on the matter of communications with the federal government. Far from it. They remain fanatical zealots and ideologues on the matter of regulation and, indeed, have attempted to strengthen their hand by bringing in new legislation. But it's my view, at least, that legislation

[ Page 4626 ]

will not affect the fundamental thrust of our court case, which is based on the fact that if you do have legislation you didn't have the right to pass it as a parliament. Ultimately that's going to go to the Supreme Court of Canada, whatever happens in the initial court trial, and everybody agrees to that.

With respect to B.C. Tel, it's a federally chartered company, and since it is under the laws of Parliament, legally so, we're only in the position of saying that we think it right and proper that our telephone company should be on the same footing as many of the provincially owned telephone companies in Canada. Prime Minister Trudeau stated on public television: "We will not trade freedom for fish." There was to be no negotiating, so the Prime Minister said on public television, yet while this was being stated publicly by the Prime Minister his government, I presume with his knowledge, was in the process of bartering the B.C. Telephone Co. to the province of British Columbia in exchange for other constitutional provisions.

I will say this: our negotiators, who were under the leadership of the Premier, who was then president — or whatever they call the leader — of the interprovincial ministers, and our own Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) were not bartering under the table. If there was anybody in Canada that wasn't trading freedom for fish, it was the people right here in the province of British Columbia. Again and again we said that under the constitution the whole field of telecommunications should be properly discussed and a political solution should be reached. No sir, as soon as we didn't want to bargain away B.C. Telephone Co. for something else, all of those discussions ended, and there has been nothing but absolute intransigence on the part of the Minister of Communications federally, on the part of the CRTC, and on the part of all those ideologues that populate Ottawa and Hull. I wish it were different, because I don't think the public of Canada, particularly the public of western Canada, support Ottawa's ideology in the matter of communications.

I don't think people in British Columbia, whether it's their telephone service or whether it's what you pay a part-time announcer on a radio station, want to have these things determined by lawyers from Quebec, employed part-time by the CRTC to have hearings in Chatham, Ontario. That is the sort of thing, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) well knows. It's a preposterous situation in Canada, something that should be entirely ended. That is the basis of our court case against the federal government, and I'm glad that the members opposite support it. In the meantime, what can we do about B.C. Tel? They're intransigent.

MR. NICOLSON: One could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to point out a couple of things.

The minister in some of his earlier responses pointed to the very good co-op program. I know it is a very beneficial program, because my son managed to be on it for a while. But one of the things about that program is that it's becoming a bit of a panacea. The fact is that in this time of very few employment opportunities and with many different faculties competing.... For instance, BCIT is competing with faculties of engineering for co-op opportunities. We really do have to look at that.

I am very concerned about predictions that were made about the so-called head-hunters coming to campus. The minister has said: "If they can get a better job elsewhere, so be it." Quite frankly, I think that when UBC lost a Nobel laureate in Dr. Neil Bartlett from the chemistry faculty, way back when he was the first person to prove that inert gases could be made "ert," it was a shame to lose an individual like that, who had attained an outstanding reputation from having performed those experiments at the University of British Columbia. Now we see that the head-hunters have invaded the UBC faculty of commerce. It is a faculty that is very highly regarded, and it is very active. It's no longer speculation. It was speculation last session when we were going through estimates, perhaps. Certainly it was speculation last summer when we started this parliament. But that has become a real problem. Where people suspect there is trouble and the environment is not conducive to the best academic pursuit, people will come along with better offers. And it won't be just for money. It will be for a more settled environment — one freer of conflict and one in which the goalposts are not being constantly moved. The minister had to inform the University of British Columbia — I suppose, after the major part of the academic year, which had started in September — that there would be further budget cuts. That kind of an atmosphere is as responsible for head-hunters coming and picking off the cream of our faculties as any rate of pay. It isn't just saying: "If they're going to offer you more money, go and God bless you." There are other reasons why people are making those decisions.

I would also like to point out to the minister that, as we speak here, Epson of Canada, the largest manufacturer of computer printers in the world and a major.... They developed the computer printer for the Olympics. Even as we speak, they are packing up their B.C. warehouse and consolidating it to Calgary. They will be distributing out of Calgary, the reason being that sales in British Columbia are not keeping pace with what they're doing in Toronto, Calgary and other markets in Canada. That is a sign of a malaise in British Columbia. In that high-tech field we are.... How many jobs would we be actually losing there? I can tell you that we'd be losing maybe three jobs. But we're losing the immediate availability of a tremendous range of printers, software, computers, services, parts and so so. It is just one incremental diminishing of our ability to participate in the direction that the minister apparently wants to go.

That is caused by the fact that every time we take on another group in this province.... I don't want to trivialize the very serious tragedy of this century, the persecution of Jewish people. But every time we take that kind of direction, where we single out a group of people as the non-Aryans of our society, whether it be labour, construction workers, teachers, doctors, or whoever we're singling out for persecution at that moment.... It has been described to me in very serious terms by business people who are sick and tired of this government setting up a new whipping-group to set the rest of society upon. It is damaging our business credibility; it is causing decisions not to be made. I am finding this in the computer industry when I talk to people who are retailing and trying to make sales, to people who are wholesaling or even trying to develop small companies. Something has to happen in that if we are going to create what this government campaigned to create: the so-called climate in British Columbia in which investors can invest confidently. That is a very serious problem with our economy. I'm sure others could express it better. I've tried to kind of clean up the language that's coming to me from administrators, from small business

[ Page 4627 ]

people, from wholesalers and people in business. I think that is very serious.

In conclusion, I might also say that I do recognize the very positive efforts that the minister, his deputy and others made on behalf of David Thompson University Centre. I'm sure I regret as much as he does that he was not successful. I cannot let that go unmentioned.

[5:15]

HON. MR. McGEER: Again to the member, what the universities should do is meet the marketplace. If a few of their faculty members are in demand — they're not going to be a large percentage of their faculty; they're only going to be a very small percentage — then meet the marketplace; they're not going to break the institution. One of the problems with doing that is that by meeting the marketplace for the very best ones.... That's so untraditional for a university that you'll have a lot of consequent problems. Again — and I say this to my colleagues at the university — please don't take the disappearance of three faculty members out of a large faculty as the sky falling in. I think one of the problems consequent upon that sort of thing is that it undermines the credibility of the person who makes the claim, and really makes the public, who should support our universities, feel that much less inclined to get behind those who scream at the slightest perception of injury. We've gone at this pretty endlessly.

With respect to the high-technology field, sure, computer sales are slowing down a little bit. Do you know why? A lot of people think the price is going to come down and they're going to be able to get a Macintosh for less than 3,000 bucks. Because the technology is changing so fast, and because there's a business slowdown, people are waiting a little bit. There's going to be another shakeout in the computer industry, and probably another shakeout after that. What we're attempting to do, as the member knows, is to get our share of the new production — the swimming-pool-and-the-straw syndrome. The nice thing about high tech is that there's room for everybody. The technical innovation in one field doesn't harm the technical innovation in another, so there's really room for everybody — until, of course, you start to saturate a field, like the $3,000 personal IBM computer. Then it starts to slow down. The guy who can do the same thing for 800 bucks is going to move into the vacuum, and the other guys are stuck. Well, computers is a tough business, as anybody who manufactures them will tell you. A company like IBM, with enormous success with their PC, flopped with the PC Junior. They are getting demolished. Apple took a bath with Apple II; they come along with the Macintosh, and it's absolutely sensational.

So who can predict which will be the next billion-dollar bend in that particular road? We're not in the business of manufacturing the computers, or we'd have a lot nervous investors around here.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm only pointing out symptoms, not that one particular company is doing badly. They're not doing badly in Toronto and they're not doing badly in California; they're just doing badly in British Columbia. When they look at the sales figures in British Columbia, they cannot understand those figures compared to other areas in which they're operating. That is, I think, a symptom of something that is characterized by the war which seems to be waged against various groups in this society. It might be having some of the effects that government wants it to have, but it is also having very serious side-effects. I urge that we look at those side effects.

Vote 71 approved.

Vote 72: ministry operations, $11,923,515 — approved.

Vote 73: government telecommunication services, $10 — approved.

Vote 74: universities, $328,248,700 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT
ACT (NO. 2), 1984

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. BLENCOE: We support this bill, Mr. Chairman, and we can proceed.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have an amendment to section 10.

MR. BLENCOE: What's the amendment?

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member will refer to page 14 of Orders of the Day, he will find the amendment. That will be of some assistance. We will give you a moment, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: Speaking to the amendment, it is a whole string of numbers amending this, this and this other thing. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to explain the intent of the amendment.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, you see I have my deputy with me at the moment. Because of the complexity of this particular amendment, we're just reviewing the notes.

Mr. Chairman, just conversing with my deputy here, that is just changing so that it gives us the freedom in changing some of the regulations. As you would understand, in some cases it's necessary that we would designate where the homeowner grant would apply. It could be a building where only some of the units qualify under a 99-year lease. It is not necessary that all of the units would be under a 99-year lease.

[ Page 4628 ]

MR. BLENCOE: From what I can determine here in the regulations, the section you are taking out refers to a handicapped person's eligibility under the regulations. That's the section you're striking out. That's what it says. It says: "...amended by striking out 'and 3(3)(a.1)' and substituting...." Can we get some clarification? This is most confusing, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, repeating again, the correction is dealing with the regulation portion, and not the handicap portion. The handicap portion has not been repealed. There's no change to the handicap portion.

Interjections.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, if the opposition feel uncomfortable with this, and because of the technical nature of it, I would be quite willing to let this rest and go on with other business until we have this clarified.

[5:30]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1), 1984
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 21; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 30.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, when I moved adjournment of this yesterday we were in a bit of a quandary here concerning striking out "7 days" and substituting "14 days," in the minister's closing remarks. The last few words of section (c).... We were talking about the postmark and saying if it comes from a rural.... This is just a clarification of yesterday's debate. The minister says that sometimes the postmark isn't legible when we mail a letter disputing a traffic violation. But in section (c), which you've added, it says "...to have been delivered on the date, which it was mailed." That would give the intent that the day you mailed it would, so that would answer the question we were discussing yesterday. So we have no opposition to that section.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Sections 30 to 34 inclusive approved.

On section 35.

MR. NICOLSON: I think this Section is one of the most questionable pieces of legislation ever presented, probably, in a legislature in Canada. This Section is certainly wielding the fullest force of government. This is government, having signed an agreement, having signed a covenant — and a covenant is an agreement which binds two people together — and it having been signed by ministers of the Crown, duly witnessed and the seal of the University of Notre Dame having been affixed to it, an undertaking having been taken to present this to the Legislature — and the Legislature did agree to this.... It's that kind of an agreement; if there could ever be a more secure kind of agreement made between one party and the government, it couldn't really be imagined. Yet the government is going to use the power of the Legislature — if it has that power, and that might remain for a test in the courts; certainly the government of Quebec has been tested in the courts in somewhat similar circumstances — to set aside the Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, 1977. That act set aside Notre Dame University Act and repealed the act of 1963.

I've already asked this question of the minister in private and warned him of some of my concerns. One of the questions is: if this 1977 act is repealed, does it mean that the Notre Dame University of Nelson Act, Statutes of British Columbia, 1963, chapter 57, is thereby reinstated? If we repeal this act, does it put that back into effect? But even more than that, I would like to say that this comes at a most inopportune time, as the chancellor of the university is in a Vancouver hospital. I understand he's made an almost miraculous recovery so far, but he's certainly not one who can be bothered at this time even about a matter as serious as this.

Mr. Chairman, there is a legal entity; the parties that signed this agreement, which is a schedule to this act, then will be repealed by this. I believe that given the proper circumstances it could take some action, which I think would be much more positive with this government than the repeal in this manner. But this action which the Legislature is being asked to undertake creates some real problems. We can say that the University of Notre Dame no longer exists, but in this agreement the government agreed to terms, covenants and conditions. It agreed to transfer real property to the government, and that certain properties there were to be reserved for post-secondary education. The government agreed to assume the liabilities of the university.

The province, in article 3 of the schedule, agreed that the province "acknowledges that the Notre Dame student union building located on the lands was erected by the student union, and recognizes the student union investment in the building, and agrees that in the provision of future post-secondary education on the lands, similar arrangements to the ones now existing between the union and the university will be made for the benefit of the student organization functioning, and for its use, enjoyment and operation of said building." A question for the government is: if this should pass into law and if this law cannot be challenged, what happens then to that student union building? Under this agreement — signed, I might say, by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, and also by the current Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — there is also a section 5 of the schedule which deals with some of the chattels. The furnishings, fixtures, and equipment, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, were appraised at a value of $425,000, according to Thorne, Riddell. There was also the transfer of personal property to the Crown of approximately 75,000 volumes of the university library, valued at $450,905 in the Thorne, Riddell report at that time. What is to be the disposition of those 75,000 volumes?

If the government is reneging on this agreement....

Maybe government has the power to cancel agreements; maybe government has power even to cancel convenants

[ Page 4629 ]

which bind the two parties together. I don't know how members who I have heard talk in this House about the sanctity of contract could possibly get up and vote for this particular section. There should certainly be a hesitation in voting for it, based on the morality. There should be fear in the heart of every British Columbian. I don't know how many people in this province realize the very serious step that is being taken today. There isn't a contract in this province with this government that is worth.... I suppose I could resist using language that I think would be most descriptive. But certainly there is not a contract with this government that is worth the paper it's written on. This government has signaled to business people in British Columbia, to labour, to the medical profession, to associations and to anybody with whom they do business that a contract can be revoked or reneged upon by this government, simply by using the force of its numbers in this House.

Just think about this for a minute before we do this. I notice some members laughing. Well, it's not very bloody funny.

AN HON. MEMBER: Watch your language.

MR. NICOLSON: It's not very bloody funny, my friend. When this House has sunk so low that we can pass a piece of legislation that says that a so-called "honourable" member is not honourable enough that his word can be trusted, even when it's been sanctified by passage through this House.... When we have sunk that low, then I'm telling you that no business person in this province should ever rest easy if they're doing business with this government. No association, no profession.... The doctors, if they make an agreement with this government.... It can be reneged upon, it can be spat upon, it can be ridiculed and laughed at, I suppose, by people who don't take the sanctity of contract very seriously.

How members of the bar could get up and vote in favour of such an action in this House.... It is really stretching the powers of this Legislature, the powers of parliament, to do such a thing after an agreement, a covenant, has been duly signed, sealed, delivered and confirmed in the Legislature. The sanctity of contract is one thing upon which I thought all members of this House were agreed, and this government is saying that they don't believe in sanctity of contract. With this government it's caveat emptor in terms of anyone who wants to do business with them.

There are some very real problems then. Who owns the 75,000 volumes that were donated largely by people in the community, from funds raised by people in the community? Who indeed even owns the buildings if the government is going to revoke this agreement? There is also a special term and condition.... I suppose that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) might find this really uproarious, but there is a chapel on that campus. The province agreed in the schedule to "retain the existing chapel on the campus as a place of worship to be made available to the religious denominations in the community of Nelson, as represented by the ministerial association of Nelson, and to require the educational lessee of the campus to be responsible for maintenance and repair of the chapel." Who is going to be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the chapel, and is it going to continue to be open? Is it going to be changed around?

I have a message, and I will accept that invitation. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

[5:45]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I call report on Bill 11.

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

Bill 11 read a third time and passed.

Introduction of Bills

ELEVATING DEVICES SAFETY ACT

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Elevating Devices Safety Act.

Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LABOUR CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Code Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

[ Page 4630 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

24  The Hon. W. S. Ritchie to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 24) intituled Home Owner Grant Amendment Act (No. 2), 1984 to amend as follows:

SECTION 10.1, by adding the following section 10.1:

"10.1 Section 14(2)(d) is amended by striking out 'and 3(3)(a.1).' and substituting ', 3(3)(a. 1), 3.1(3)(b) and 3.2 (3)(b).' "