[ Page 6089 ]

CONTENTS

Amendment to Adoption Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, c.4 (Bill M210). Ms. Brown

Introduction and first reading –– 6089

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

(Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 75: minister's office –– 6089

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Blencoe

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1985

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to send greetings to 50 grade 11 students from Chemainus Secondary School in the Cowichan School District. They have been looking forward for a long time to coming to the Legislature today; unfortunately they are not here because of budget cuts. I would like the House to send them greetings in recognition of the fact that they wanted to come.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to make a statement regarding the shortfall of seedlings in British Columbia and the distribution of seedlings to tourists in Japan.

Leave not granted.

Introduction of Bills

AMENDMENT TO
ADOPTION ACT, R.S.B.C., 1979, c. 4

Ms. Brown presented a bill intituled Amendment to Adoption Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, c. 4.

MS. BROWN: In introducing this bill, I just want to say that it will allow the Ministry of Human Resources to establish an adoption information register. This register would assist in the reunion of mutually consenting adult adoptees and their natural parents. It would also allow for the reunion of adopted adults and their adult sisters and brothers.

I know that this is a controversial area, and the bill is really just a means of opening discussion in this area and helping the province come in line with eight other provinces in Canada. Just in closing, I want to add that a resolution to this effect was passed at the Social Credit convention in 1984.

Bill M210, Amendment to Adoption Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, c. 4, 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.

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 75: minister's office, $127,740.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I can see that the treasury benches are alive this morning. I think they're so pleased about the new government in the Yukon last night. The NDP formed the government and the Tories lost.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: What did I start, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing yet, hon. member. I was hoping we could get into Committee of Supply.

MR. PASSARELL: I've been so rudely interrupted here, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, please proceed. Vote 75.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss an aspect of universities in regard to my alma mater, Notre Dame University, which this government closed to set up a similar institute called DTUC. I'd like to extend an invitation to the hon. Minister of Universities for the first week of August to go to Nelson with me — we can take my motorcycle there — because it's the first reunion of Notre Dame alumni. I think it would be great for this minister to go with me. I think I have a spare helmet that he could use and we could....

MR. HANSON: Extra small, is it?

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, extra small. We could go up together to Nelson for the reunion.

I think most of are aware of the history of Notre Dame University in Nelson. After it was closed it was set up as DTUC and operated out of the University of Victoria. Now it no longer exists. I guess restraint cuts. The government had justifications, wrongly, but they closed the university, Mr. Chairman. Now we're faced with a fourth university, Trinity Western in Langley. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand how the government, in their restraint program, can justify closing DTUC and a few short years later state that they're going to open up another university, the fourth university on the mainland, called Trinity Western.

[10:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't cost the government any money.

MR. PASSARELL: Certainly it does, any time you set up a new university.

Now I'd like the minister to answer a few questions if he will. How can the government justify opening up another university on the mainland — the fourth university — while they've neglected the Kootenays, the interior and the far north? If there is another university to be placed, it should be in the far north. It should be in an area such as Prince George, which is central to the province, where residents and students alike can attend a university without having to come down to Vancouver or the mainland, where there are already three universities. If this government is going to justify expenditures of money for a fourth university in this province, put it into the rural areas, into the interior, I would use, as an example, Prince George as where this university should go, but not the mainland where there are three other universities already,

The second question I'd like to ask the minister is in regard to education programs that are conducted, particularly out at UBC, for native students — native education programs in regard to teaching. I'd like to ask the minister what percentage increase has been given to universities in regard to this worthwhile program of teaching the teaching profession

[ Page 6090 ]

for native students graduating and going through the native education programs.

Those were two specific questions. I know the minister has a dual portfolio with Communications, and later I would like to discuss some issues that we've discussed before in regard to communications and the big, bad federal government that has come down on a number of good British Columbians. But those were two specific questions that I've addressed to the minister in regard to Notre Dame University, DTUC and Trinity Western and the native education programs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, I will advise the committee that it is not competent for Committee of Supply to discuss matters which involve legislation. Now, we have a bill before us, PR406, which deals with part of the topic the member discussed, and it would not be appropriate, nor would it be in order, to discuss Bill 406 or its ramifications. It offends two rules: the rule of discussing legislation during Committee of Supply and the rule of anticipation. That matter will be coming — or may come — to the Legislative Assembly at a later date. With respect to all of the arguments that the member has put forward, they are by and large in order. With respect to the implications or any discussion regarding private bill PR406, that debate would be out of order in Committee of Supply.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think I can deal with the member's questions without offending the rules of the House, because the difference between DTUC and Trinity Western is that one requires taxpayers' money and the other doesn't. The original Notre Dame University that was established in Nelson was a private university. In my view, they took the first step to ruin when they asked for government support, because there always is this anticipation: once something is subsidized, the sky is the limit. If something must finance itself, you then understand that if it can't carry the burden, it collapses. That's the way it is with a business. But once you decide that it's justified that the taxpayers support the particular interest group, whether it's a ferry that's being subsidized or an educational institution, there is then no limit to how much people should put in to support that special interest. Because a subsidy can never be too large, you can never satisfy the appetite of those being subsidized.

The difficulty comes when you sum up the total of the subsidies that go all through society. Any individual subsidy may not be too much, but the subsidy gets to be too big a burden for the taxpayer to carry, and you find that society in general begins to erode. I would submit that this is a general problem that we face in Canadian society today. Too many things are being subsidized; the demands are too great. The pressure to enlarge a subsidy or continue a subsidy for a special interest, however desirable that interest may be, is never weighed against the general damage that every subsidy does. There is no subsidy which does not do some general damage. It requires taxes, and every single tax inhibits business. So one has to recognize that at some stage every subsidy becomes an undesirable thing.

I'm giving a very bad discourse on economics instead of dealing with the vote. But this really was the problem with Notre Dame. As much as I personally wanted to see an educational enterprise succeed in that particular part of British Columbia, for the very reasons that the member raises, the great difficulty is how you do this without requiring an unreasonable subsidy. The people at Trinity Western have managed that; they have got a draw that permits them to support themselves. Far from criticizing Trinity Western, as Pacific Press does.... Only yesterday the media were attacking Trinity Western university, a self-supporting institution singled out for attack. That's the kind of media that we have in British Columbia: demanding subsidy, never thinking of the general good, and attacking those who can support themselves.

Setting that aside for a moment....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that there is a bill before us on the order paper, a bill submitted by Trinity Western College — not Trinity Western university — who desire to be a university. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey has already given them that status. Nonetheless, it's on the order paper, and it shouldn't be debated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. I thank the hon. member for his point of order, and the Chair has brought that point of order to the attention of the committee.

HON. MR. McGEER: I was not speaking to the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We cannot address a bill that has been sent to a committee of this Legislative Assembly, because that offends the rule of anticipation. Also, the general rule in Committee of Supply is that we do not discuss legislation or anticipated legislation, so any discussion of any matters involving private bill PR406 are clearly out of order. I think the committee is well aware of that.

HON. MR. McGEER: But that member was defending the media again.

Anyway, I hope the member will understand the spirit of it. I wasn't intending to insult; I was merely drawing to attention that the media don't need defending, especially Pacific Press.

MR. LAUK: No self-respecting MLA would defend the media.

HON. MR. McGEER: I certainly would never make that accusation of the member for Vancouver Centre, or the member for Atlin.

Mr. Chairman, the last point. Really, if it's a question of subsidy, which is what you have to provide to create an interior university.... The draw in the local community is never enough to support that; there has to be some attraction from a wider area, even if it's all over the interior. If you were to pick Prince George, and the person in Williams Lake would rather go to the coast than to Prince George, you've got a local problem. So desirable as it would be, in setting up an interior university you have to have some system by which a draw from a larger geographical area can result. If the member can explain to me how that can be done I would like to know it, because I've been unsuccessful in attempting that.

With respect to teaching natives, if we can develop better methods for doing that, certainly the member will find a very receptive minister and ministry. Some years ago — my colleague the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) will know this — we set up within the secondary and primary system a special office for bringing in appropriate

[ Page 6091 ]

curriculum to the reserves and to the Indian communities around the province. You would have to tell me in retrospect whether that effort was worthwhile or not. If the universities can do more, I would do what I could to encourage them. But the member should recognize that the universities protect their autonomy very jealously, and the attempts that we might make, even to recommend to universities, would be attacked by your members opposite, as indeed some of them did yesterday, saying that the governments were instructing the universities to do what they said. On the one hand it's wonderful to attack the ministry for allegedly saying what's good and bad in the university curriculum, but when you turn around and say, "Why don't you instruct them?" there's just a little bit of a paradox there.

I believe in university autonomy, but at the same time the taxpayers are paying 85 percent of the bill for universities, and there must be an accountability. I just want to underline this. There must be an accountability of the universities to the taxpayer — not to the government, to the taxpayer. The universities have a very solemn duty in this respect: a duty, I submit, that should be taken far more seriously by the universities than they perhaps have to date. It's so easy to come and ask for more money from government and blame all of the ills of universities on the fact that more government largess was not available to them. But it cuts both ways. If you're going to have the bulk of your support coming from the taxpayer — and it has gone up from about 60 percent to 85 percent in the last 15 years or so — then there is a heavier duty to be accountable to the taxpayer. That would include responsibilities towards native Indians. But it's too much to ask that the government, even through the Legislature here, should try and get heavy with the universities in telling them what they ought to do or what they ought not to do.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, listening to the minister's economic dissertation and because of Bill PR406, which I can't mention.... But hypothetically, if there is a fourth university in British Columbia, are you saying that there is not going to be one penny of public tax dollars going to this fourth university? You were saying in your economic dissertation in regard to the closing of Notre Dame that public subsidies were going to it. Are you saying that if there is a fourth university in British Columbia in the next six months or next year, there will not be any public moneys going to it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, we have an anticipation problem, hon. members. Further, the records will show that that debate has been discussed in another forum.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's correct: there's no provision, and as far as I'm concerned, there will be no public money going to Trinity Western except what we provide in the way of student aid. Student aid is not to the institution, it's to the student. Students at Trinity Western, I think, have quite rightly asked that they be put on the same footing as students from the rest of British Columbia. These are British Columbia students. They are eligible for Canada student loans. You might have a different view, but it seems to me that in fairness, if they are British Columbian and the subsidy goes to the student, they should be entitled to the same subsidy as those attending public institutions.

[10:30]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Minister, I don't think you'll find anybody on this side complaining about B.C. students receiving student loans in regard to how student loans have been cut back over the years. That's a misnomer on your part, if you believe that the opposition is opposed to B.C. students receiving financial assistance.

My last question to the minister: you haven't answered if you're going to go up to Notre Dame with me in August on the back of my cycle.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anticipation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Anticipation. If the member had asked me a week ago I might have said yes. But, Mr. Chairman, after the experiences of the Speaker last week, I want to do my driving in armoured cars. In any event, while I will decline the wild adventure of a motorcycle ride with the member opposite, I'll certainly give thought to the general invitation.

MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to change the topic now and deal with the area of medical research, which I know has always been of prime importance to the minister whose estimates we are now debating. I think everyone in this room and elsewhere in the province would agree on the great importance of finding cures, particularly for cancer and many other deadly diseases.

I want to discuss my concern over the manner in which the minister has involved himself in this whole area of medical research. My concern is that the minister has done a sort of one-man show on this, with very little consultation with the UBC and the researchers who were there. I suppose if everything went smoothly, since this minister came into office in this area, we could perhaps leave it alone, even though I would still be concerned about the lack of consultation with other researchers and scientists in British Columbia.

The minister's record from back in 1981, I believe, when he first made his original announcement about a purification lab at UBC, seems to me to be rather chaotic. The minister, whether he did this on his own or had bad advice, has kind of imposed upon the province — and let's face it, they're the people who paid for this — what is, perhaps, a waste of money because of the way he's handled this.

I hope the minister can clear it up for us, because we have now embarked on a $31 million disease fighter at UBC. I would like to follow it through from the beginning with the minister and ask him a few questions so he can put to rest some of the concerns that have been expressed to me by people.

The minister, I think, went right ahead on his own and space was allocated in the UBC Health Sciences Centre lab a few years ago for this first move into the study of fighting cancer. I think the minister was involved in bringing a man by the name of Robert Oldham up from the United States. I don't believe, from the information I have, that this Dr. Oldham survived very long at UBC.

One of the first things I'd like to know is who the minister consulted with. Was this on your own initiative to bring up this Mr. Oldham, who lasted, I understand, a total time of six weeks in this lab he was to be in charge of? I understand that in the time he was up here there was a certain amount of alienation with other researchers. At one stage I believe Mr. Oldham actually suggested flying in patients to be used. 60

[ Page 6092 ]

patients from the United States. I find that almost unbelievable.

I'd like to ask the minister if this was actually a recommendation of this man. I understand that some of the things he did antagonized the Cancer Control Agency of B.C. I understand also that at another time Dr. Oldham was even offering high-paying jobs to American workers. Anyway, he lasted six weeks at UBC. How did this man ever get here? Just what did it cost the taxpayers of British Columbia to have Mr. Oldham in this position at UBC for six weeks?

Yesterday the minister had a great time condemning the federal government for their waste of money, saying that we all must pull in our belts and that the greatest scourge in this nation of ours, if I recall, was the problem of debt. The implication was that he alone was concerned about the wasting of money. I throw it back to the minister right now. Will you please stand up and tell this House how much money was spent on Dr. Oldham, who lasted for the grand total of six weeks at UBC? That's my first question to you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member asked how much taxpayers' money went into the payment of Dr. Robert Oldham when he was in British Columbia. The answer to that is zero. Dr. Robert Oldham was head of the testing program for new biological agents in treating cancer at the National Cancer Institute in the United States. It was really Dr. Oldham who inspired the idea of a biological therapy institute, and originally suggested to the Welcome Foundation in Great Britain that such an institute be created somewhere in the world.

The concept behind it, Madam Member, is to seek out new methods for treating cancer, remembering that cancer therapy has gone through four stages in its evolution. The first was simple surgery to cut out the offending tumour, something which has very limited curative value because, as we know now, cancer cells are distributed through the body, and cutting out the tumour, while it reduces the tumour burden, seldom by itself succeeds in a cure.

This was subsequently supplemented by radiation therapy, originally starting with radium when people first began to learn to use various forms of radiation for therapeutic purposes. Sophistication in that respect has tremendously grown so that now the favoured method of radiation treatment is cobalt therapy, something which is produced in the nuclear reactors that my friends opposite are so greatly opposed to.

Coming after that was the field of chemotherapy. About 500,000 agents have been tested as chemotherapeutic agents. Of these about 20 have reached the market and about ten are widely used. The hit rate in taking synthetic chemicals or those that are obtained from various plant and other sources is about one in 50,000.

More recently, Mr. Chairman, people have developed newer techniques for characterizing and synthesizing proteins — an extremely difficult field of chemistry that until recently had eluded the best in biochemical technology. But now methods are available for characterizing proteins, particularly those that are produced by the body in its own defence, and then incorporating these in various ways into in vitro systems — that is, outside the whole living organism — that then can be be made in quantity and tested. Because the hit rate with the body's own products is obviously going to be far better than one in 50,000, it creates a totally new horizon for the treatment of this dreadful disease.

Nowhere does there exist a dedicated facility for exploitation of this particular possibility. The person who had the original concept was Dr. Robert Oldham, who persuaded the Welcome Foundation that this would be a desirable thing to do. Because of the existence of outstanding facilities in terms of a teaching and research hospital at the University of British Columbia, something my friends opposite, particularly the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), also opposed.... It was opposed, I might add, as well by the Pacific Press — both the Sun and the Province — in their interference with what is good by their own brand of politics. The suggestion was made that of all the places in the world, this was the most promising. Dr. Robert Oldham, the person who originally conceived this idea and who is head of the testing of these new agents for the National Cancer Institute, was engaged to explore the possibility and to try to get this institute established.

Thanks largely to him, this will go ahead. I will not deny, Mr. Chairman, that there was considerable resistance on the part of those who did not think of the idea first. No place is beyond its local politics, and unfortunately some of that exists right here in British Columbia. But I can say that the project is going ahead with the cooperation of many groups who originally had opposed the concept. So I believe everybody is now on board.

[10:45]

The project has been announced. The financing has been obtained. It's a joint project involving the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation and the Welcome Foundation. It will be financed privately. It will be carried out at the University of British Columbia, which will be a tremendous addition to that institution at no cost to the institution, at no cost to the taxpayer, and one which we hope will produce not only cures for disease but commercial opportunities which will bring additional moneys into British Columbia, all of which will be dedicated through the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation to further medical research and science. So there's no private profit involved. There's every prospect of having one of the outstanding institutes in the world that will be devoted to progress in one of the hottest fields of medical research, dedicated to one of the most dreadful diseases afflicting mankind.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for the dissertation he just gave to the House; it was most interesting. But he has very carefully avoided a couple of basic answers to the questions I posed to him.

The minister said there was no taxpayers' money involved at all. Surely the minister, as the minister in charge, was responsible — or the university was — for a budget to accommodate Mr. Oldham, and surely that would involve taxpayers' money to some degree. Was the money all private then — everything — at the university? No money was involved at all from the university?

HON. MR. McGEER: No money from the university. The money came from Pacific Isotopes and Pharmaceuticals, which is a subsidiary of the Terry Fox.... Or it may have come from the Terry Fox Foundation. But in any event, that is not taxpayers' money; it's the money of a private foundation and its commercial subsidiary.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page 6093 ]

MRS. DAILLY: It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, how as the years go on people accommodate their thinking to whatever area they're involved in. I can remember when that minister was on the other side of the House, in opposition, and he was one of the first to point out that if you're using public facilities there's a certain amount of taxpayers' money that is involved. I think that for the minister to suggest that no taxpayers' money was involved when this was set up at UBC leaves one open to question that answer.

However, I'd like to ask the minister, carrying on from there.... He claims that Mr. Oldham left because of professional jealousy; that's really what he's saying. I would just like to get on record that my understanding is that it wasn't a question of professional jealousy; I think it was the Canadians involved — the people rather at UBC, whether they were Canadians or not — being concerned about the minister unilaterally imposing into this major area of research someone from the United States, who apparently did not turn out to be satisfactory. I think there are certainly two sides to that story, Mr. Minister.

However, I don't think to belabour that point is going to gain us anything. I think that at this time we're all concerned about the advancement of cancer research; certainly we would support that part of it.

My concern, though, is that this minister, with his unilateral approach to all areas of his ministry, is in the long run, I think, open to some criticism. Through the years, if one could analyze it, I would say that he was also involved in a waste of taxpayers' money in a number of his special projects that he himself unilaterally involved this government in. Somehow or other he seems to get the government to go along with him. I think that this lack of consultation is very poor. I think that, in the long run, it's the people of the province who suffer.

I would like to say to the minister that I understand that in other countries there are consultative committees set up when it comes to medical research. I simply want to ask this minister: why do you persist in always moving entirely on your own, without involving some of the top brains and researchers we have in this province, who I'm sure would like to be involved before you make these major decisions of millions of dollars in research — only with your own private feelings and ideas being concerned? Why don't you involve people?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, that's a "When will you stop beating your wife?" type of question. Let me just give two answers. First, with respect to UBC, rental was paid by these private foundations to the university for the use of the facilities, and a similar financial arrangement will be made when the biomedical institute is established. In other words, facilities that the university would otherwise not have will be available, and appropriate financial consideration will be given to the university. So they not only have the opportunity to have outstanding scientists in an important field that would not otherwise be there, but they'll also make money on the deal.

With respect to scientists and involving scientists, unfortunately you can't guarantee for every project that you will consult every person who will be insulted if they aren't consulted. Of course, the NDP has friends in the scientific community who will be very quick to point out that they're Canadians and they weren't consulted. But I can assure the minister that there were very wide consultations around the world about this particular project. Science is international. It knows no geographic boundaries, nor does it recognize race or nationality in the people who contribute. Therefore, if we're to practise science competitive with the world, then we ourselves have to join the world community without prejudice to nation, race, colour, creed, but only respect for the people's scientific achievements and their ability to contribute.

In this particular case, the individual who was sought, Dr. Robert Oldham, had a very influential position with the National Cancer Institute in the United States, and he didn't get that post by accident. The people who worked on his team did not arrive because they were Americans or because they were near Fredericktown, Maryland, where the institute happened to be. They came there because they were capable scientists devoted to this particular field. The reason Dr. Oldham is not here now is because he decided he didn't want to try to do that job here, and he left. As far as I'm concerned, he is a very capable individual who did a great service to us all. I'm sure he will continue to do service wherever he happens to be.

I very much regret that we have small-mindedness in our scientific community in British Columbia, and I think the member has revealed some of that today. However, I can say that in the case of who will direct this institute, an international advisory committee has been established which involves some outstanding scientists in the field from the United Kingdom, the United States — particularly Harvard University and Stanford — and Australia. And there are local people — British Columbians, if you like. One is Dr. Smith, who I'm sure is known to the member, and who came to British Columbia some years ago from the United Kingdom. I don't know whether you would want to call him a Canadian and a British Columbian; I would. I point out that many scientists in British Columbia did not originate here. That includes Dr. Patricia Baird, who is on the board of governors at UBC — she also is not a native British Columbian but is a British Columbian now — as well as other people from British Columbia and other parts of the world.

When you're doing something like this, there's no substitute for competency. You have to go for the very best, wherever they are in the world, and this is what's being undertaken right now. I should give the member fair warning that the world is a big place. Canada is a small country in the world, and British Columbia is only a part of Canada. Therefore, if one is seeking the best in the world, it may not be that the best person in the world is from British Columbia or from Canada. As we have been fortunate in the past in being able to bring the Michael Smiths from the United Kingdom to British Columbia, so that process may need to continue if we're to have outstanding science and make suitable progress here in our province.

MRS. DAILLY: One final comment on this matter. A point I'd like to leave with the minister — and it's a basic concern — is that we do have good people in British Columbia, and the minister knows that. I'm sure you're quite right that across the world there are other excellent scientists and researchers, but as the minister well knows, we also have at UBC people who have won awards — in fact, someone very close to him. We have some very outstanding people.

My concern is that this minister, in his unilateral way of developing policy and new programs, is setting a dangerous precedent. Let us say that government allows the minister,

[ Page 6094 ]

who can be so powerful in this area, to do entirely what he wants, without setting up any consultative committees throughout the province. We could conceivably end up with someone who is embarked on dangerous research. This minister is certainly not, but what I am trying to say to him is that he doesn't seem to have any.... There's no shield here to protect the public from, say, a politician who wanted, for his own devious purposes, to move into research that could be dangerous. I'm just saying to the minister that I feel he has a responsibility to see that he has around him a credible consultative committee, so that all the people of British Columbia feel that when his moves are made, they are made not just unilaterally, on whatever may be his particular desire at the moment, but with the best interests of all the people, using the best brains in this province and elsewhere.... I'm saying to the minister that I think we'd all be more comfortable, and those who work at UBC who have expressed concern would also be more comfortable, if the minister could get off this kind of one-man show bit and get down to doing this thing in a more, shall we say, defined, consultative manner. So I just say to the minister: will you please give consideration to that? Otherwise it's a very bad precedent to set in this province.

[11:00]

HON. MR. McGEER: I just want to give the member some reassurance that that's exactly what has been done. I'd be delighted — without taking the time of Committee of the Whole — if the member would come down to my office, and I'd show her all of the local people who are involved and the whole procedure that has gone into setting this institute up.

I want to assure the member of two things. First of all, it's not done with taxpayers' money; and it's not done by the minister. The one thing that I did, Madam Member, was help draft the articles for the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation. What the Premier did was make the government's BCRIC shares available to that foundation, which I thought was a very fine and appropriate gesture. I just wish the BCRIC shares were worth more.

Everything that's been done since has been done by that foundation, and I'd like the member to have the articles of incorporation of the foundation. We have been in touch with the Fox family. The foundation has outstanding people on it. It does have a scientific advisory committee. This committee has local people on it, but it's also international in scope. I've been around science long enough to know not to do the very sort of thing you're suggesting. It has to be international, and because you can't have an advisory committee of 100, every local scientific person who might like to be on the committee can't be on it. But we do have local people, and it is international in scope.

I'd honestly like the member to be aware of all that. I'd like not to take the committee's time, but to give her reassurances. Then if you want to ask me questions after you've seen it all, I'll answer them in the House.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to turn the minister's attention to the so-called scholarship program. I think that's what it was called in last year's budget. In this year's budget it's called the loan remission program. I'd like to ask the minister if the academic criteria for this program have been defined. And how is it to apply? Is it to apply equally to all programs? First of all, I guess, have regulations or guidelines been established? Is it going to apply to 1985 graduates — this year? Looking at the minister and trying to read his body language, I think maybe he'd like to ask the same questions.

HON. MR. McGEER: We have, as the member knows, made provision in the budget for a program. One of the members opposite said we had the worst program in Canada. At the moment that's correct. But we've made provision to adjust for that. When the details of the program are known, they'll be announced. I personally feel badly that our old program couldn't survive the financial holocaust that British Columbia has been exposed to with the collapse of world commodity prices. We're trying to work our way back to a level of generosity that was second to none during the halcyon economic years in British Columbia. We obviously have got to improve our program. That's why provision was made in the budget, and we're going to do that.

How best to spread the money that's made available in this budget is undecided, but we'll be making announcements before too long. I can give the member the general principles that we think are appropriate. I would invite his comments on them. First of all, we think that people who live in the rural — that is, the non-metropolitan — areas deserve special consideration. We've done our best to get facilities into smaller communities all around the province, but obviously we can't give every program in every small community. Those who want to go on to specialist training are going to have to go to the extra expense, compared with the person in the metropolitan area, in order to get their program. We believe that should be recognized.

The members opposite may not concur in this, but we also believe that merit should be recognized: the student who works hard and does well in his program deserves a greater reward in terms of government support than the one who doesn't. That's a difference, I think, between the NDP and Social Credit.

These are the two factors that will play a role: one is academic performance, and the other is geographic location.

MR. NICOLSON: I certainly have no objections to recognizing merit, but also I would hope that there is a bursary aspect to this which recognizes need. With $1 million, I don't know that you're going to have to worry about finding too many eligible people, because until it becomes a larger amount of money it certainly isn't going to fill the needs of everyone.

I would like to ask the minister if it's going to be different for different programs; or are students in all programs, at least all baccalaureate programs, say, going to have an equal opportunity?

HON. MR. McGEER: The idea would be to apply it equally to all programs.

MR. NICOLSON: Will it be in effect this year, for '85 grads?

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't make that promise. When we cancelled the program, those who are graduating in 1985 had partial benefit of the old program.

Of course, the reason for saying that we have the worst program in Canada is that at the present time we have no program, and you can't get less than that. I think it is fair to say that the money set aside in this year's budget, whatever program is introduced, will obviously have to grow as it

[ Page 6095 ]

becomes locked into the several years that people are in a post-secondary program.

I'd be very pleased to have the opinions of the members opposite as to the features that should be incorporated.

I'd just like to make a little philosophical comment, because I wish there could be more general consensus on this subject. If people who had the ability to pay were prepared to take on more of the burden of the cost of their education from their own resources, that would leave a great deal more money that could be applied to people in need, because the whole objective of education is to take advantage of the human resource regardless of the ability to pay. Whether it's universities or whether it's broader programs in Canada, the middle-class entitlement, where people who can pay themselves are relying instead on tax funds, leads us to the problem of balancing budgets that can't be balanced with the income from taxes.

If you say it's only a transfer payment, and therefore we might as well have it on taxes, you find your businesses can't compete internationally. New businesses have the burden not only of taxes but of past debt. Therefore you supply so much baggage for your industry to carry that it cannot be world competitive.

Now if you've got an entirely internal market and don't rely on international trade, then perhaps you can say it really doesn't matter, because all businesses are in the same boat. But per capita, Canada trades more than any nation on earth, and therefore we are extremely international in our outlook. Compared with other nations, we are very ill-suited to have a skewed tax structure. I just pass that off as a general problem, of which the universities are just a tiny part.

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

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: It gives me great pleasure to welcome from the most dynamic suburb of greater Vancouver, a group of students from Burquitlam Elementary School. We are fortunate to have a number of grade 6 and grade 7 students with us, and along with the two classes we have their teachers, Mr. Ralph Davies and Mr. Brent Robertson, and also the principal of the school, Mr. Donald McDonald. If I want to make sure I don't get into the bad books with one of my daughters, I also have to give a very special welcome to one of her good friends, Miss Tanya Jacobs. I ask the House to join me and make them welcome.

MR. STUPICH: The minister mentioned the gift of BCRIC shares to the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation. As I recall it, at the time there were strings on those shares to the effect that they could not be transferred.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. The problem was that this was a very large block of shares, which.... Had it been sold as a block, that would have had two effects. It would have given control of the corporation to the purchaser, whoever that might have been, or it would have flooded the market with a large group of shares, which, if they had to be dispersed without there being a block buyer, would have had a depressing effect on the value of the shares. That's why restrictions were put on at the time.

The problem with having done that, and why changes were subsequently made, is that the shares, under those circumstances, were valueless to the foundation. The foundation wasn't getting any dividends. They couldn't sell the shares. Because there were no dividends and because they couldn't be sold, they had no value as collateral. Therefore, to try and make something of the asset, which was all the Teffy Fox Medical Research Foundation had to act upon, the change was made to remove that restriction. The foundation still didn't want to sell the shares, for all of the reasons that we've discussed, but the shares did have some collateral value.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: They can be transferred and sold, and they now have collateral value, but the collateral value is in a pretty dismal state of affairs. The combination of the collateral value of the BCRIC shares plus SRTCs has made possible Canada's share — British Columbia's share, if you like — of the joint venture with Welcome Foundation for this research institute. It really has been made possible because of the SRTCs.

MR. STUPICH: I wasn't aware that that change had been made, and certainly from the point of view of the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation, I'm pleased that it has been made. I expressed the concern at the time the government had announced the gift that it was rather an empty gesture, in that the possibility of BCRIC paying dividends in the medium term are something worse than remote. If the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation could make no use of the shares, by way of selling them or using them as collateral — and you can't use them as collateral if ownership can't be transferred — then it wasn't anything more than an empty gesture at the time.

It's rather a shame that these revenue-producing assets that were owned by the Crown at the time the present Social Credit administration took over, and that were indeed producing revenues annually, were turned over to private enterprise — or at least a public corporation operating in the private sector. The results have been anything but good since that date.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying is that the shares....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. We are in the estimates of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, and the ownership or subject matter of a private corporation — a public private corporation — is, I think, beyond the estimates of a minister.

MR. STUPICH: My point, Mr. Chairman, is that if the government hadn't so badly mismanaged these assets that were Crown assets, then the Terry Fox Foundation would have benefited much more by the government's action. That's all; it's simply government mismanagement that has hurt the sincerity of this gesture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your comments dealing with....

[ Page 6096 ]

MR. STUPICH: I made my comment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the first time I have had the opportunity to discuss the university estimates, and in particular, of course, I am concerned about the University of Victoria. The minister and I have had, since my arrival here, a number of discussions in estimates and during question period about this institution. Of course, I, along with my colleague from Victoria, am deeply concerned about the impact of his priorities and his policies on this fine institution. We have, over the last few months, Mr. Chairman, seen the serious erosion of very competent, highly recognized and well-thought-of academics, research people, who have decided....

AN HON. MEMBER: You?

MR. BLENCOE: And others, many others, who are now seriously seeking or looking elsewhere because of the climate. We all know, as one example I introduced to this House, the comments from a highly recognized mathematician at Purdue University who is clearly not coming to the University of Victoria because his primary consideration was the perception of the adverse political climate with regard to higher education in this province. Not only are we losing some critical people to research and development, a key area for the future of this province, but we also are getting people who are just not going to come and take some of these jobs.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You use filthy language, Mr. Member, but it's not. It is absolute truth, Mr. Chairman, that what's happened to the universities in this province has become a scandal, not only in British Columbia but in North America. We are the laughing-stock of North America in terms of how we treat our universities in this province. The universities have tried diligently to deal with this Alice-in-Wonderland government in terms of its attitude toward universities, and we continue to see erosion of some critical programs. Of course, I think it's going to take us years to recover in these areas.

Yesterday I heard the minister defending what he obviously considers one of his pet projects — the Open Learning Institute. He made some comments which I think reflect the sad state of affairs with this government: that it's city slickers who are trying to attract rural students to universities; that there's something wrong with going to universities and those of us living in the urban areas are trying to attract those students to get a higher education. Doesn't that reflect where this government's coming from in terms of higher education? According to this minister, the attitude really is that those students back in those rural areas are far happier not getting a higher education; that they'd rather stay home and not get a proper education. Somehow it's the city slickers who are trying to entice these poor young people away from their rural communities to go to university and maybe learn something. And do you know what? Maybe they'll learn what this government is all about and maybe start to see where your priorities are. You don't have any priorities in terms of higher education in British Columbia.

What an incredible statement by the minister: that the people living in the cities want to attract those poor rural students to come to university. I'm glad to see young people in the chamber today. What this government is saying to young people in those rural areas is that you really don't want to attend university and get a degree and a chance to participate in the twenty-first century in terms of job opportunities. Stay home. Don't bother with universities. Somehow we in the lower mainland or on Vancouver Island are trying to attract you students down to universities. I think that really says in a nutshell what this government's attitude is toward universities.

Mr. Chairman, if you really look at this government.... You've heard some of the comments over the last few years from some of the back benchers and some of the cabinet ministers about universities; that'll show you where they're at. They really have very little time for higher education in British Columbia. The future, in terms of participating in the new era, the twenty-first century and all of the technological complexity that has been generated.... Other jurisdictions are galloping ahead of us in terms of training our young people; it's astronomical. Much of our future is ensuring that our young people are trained in these critical areas. We all know, for instance, of a major resignation at the University of Victoria — one of the most highly respected people in the engineering field, Mr. Len Bruton. Mr. Chairman, we cannot do that. We've got to have stability in the university situation. We've got to have budgets that the universities know are going to be there for at least two, three, four years so that people can get on in an environment that is conducive to solid research, not only for the public sector but for the private sector.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This minister boasts about the Open Learning Institute. Those rural students, I suppose he says, can watch the television and learn a little bit. Well, Mr. Chairman, I did a little homework this morning and maybe the minister will speak to this. The budget for '84-85 for the Open Learning Institute was approximately $4.8 million; the budget for '85-86 will be cut by $627,000. This comprises $539,000 cut from the Ministry of Education and $88,000 from the university contribution. If this goes through, it is a higher percentage cut than at any other post-secondary institution. We have the minister, in so many of his answers as to what's happening in the regular university system, saying that they can go to the Open Learning Institute. Sheer hypocrisy. Here's the truth: he's also cutting the Open Learning Institute. So they get their programs cut, the good faculty people leave the regular institutions, and what do we find out? That the Open Learning Institute is also going to get a 13 percent cut.

I hope I'm wrong. This $627,000 is supposed to take up the slack, Mr. Chairman, in what's happening with our regular post-secondary institutions. If the Open Learning Institute is supposed to take up the slack, then why is the minister...? From what we can see, for 1985-86 it is going to receive a 13 percent cut. That really shows where this government is at: they remove funding, a 5 percent cut in the example of the University of Victoria for this year and a 13 percent cut that might be able to take up some of the slack, according to the minister, for those programs that won't be offered; yet he removes 13 percent from the Open Learning Institute. Mr. Speaker, I think it's sheer hypocrisy. I think the people of British Columbia, particularly those young people who are currently in university or about to go to university,

[ Page 6097 ]

are beginning to see through this strategy of this government and lack of support for our universities.

One other example is at the University of Victoria. The library of any post-secondary institution is the core, in many respects, to the education and to the research for those students to be able to do'their work properly. Libraries are critical not only to students but also to faculty and for research. Because of the current policies of this government, and what's happened to the University of Victoria and a 5 percent reduction in budget next year, it looks like the university, every single day next session, will have to close the library doors at 6:30 in the evening. At the moment it's at 11 p.m. Just think of the ramifications of shutting libraries at 6:30 in the evening, particularly for those students who are trying to get evening course work done, mature students.... Even students themselves have gone to classes during the day, and they can't get to their library in the evening. This is the result of these policies. The very focus of being able to get the background for your post-secondary education — to go in and do the research, to prepare your course work, to prepare for your term papers, or whatever.... It looks like they're going to have to close the library at 6:30 in the evening. That is scandalous, Mr. Chairman. That is going to curtail much of the work of the University of Victoria in the evening, and it's going to have a dramatic effect on those students who wish to get evening access to the library.

This is what's happening to our universities. The very focus, where students can actually, after their daily work in the classroom, with their faculty.... We still do have some very good ones left at the University of Victoria, excellent people — I have to say that. I hope they will stay under this current government. But after they have done their daily class work, they go to the library. Next year, if we don't have any changes, it's a distinct possibility that the library at the University of Victoria will be closed at 6:30 in the evening. That is probably one of the most critical things that could happen to a university. It's totally unacceptable. It cannot be tolerated. I hope this minister will ensure that that doesn't happen. The library must be open to all, at reasonable hours; otherwise, the university and what it represents starts to crumble; you can't get in to do your homework; you can't get in to do your research; you can't get access to the books and the information. This is the ludicrous situation we have at the University of Victoria, with this current government. It's got to change.

I have a few other things, if the minister wants to comment.

HON. MR. McGEER: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the member has requested that we intercede in the University of Victoria and run their library for them.

I think I agree with the member that it's a terrible, awful thing that the University of Victoria, with the same amount of money this year as last year, is unable to keep its library doors open. I don't know the exact number of millions of dollars the University of Victoria has, but I'll get that in a few minutes and give the number to the member. But it is many, many millions of dollars, and with all those millions of dollars, they can't keep the library open.

I think we have to ask some questions about the management, if that's the circumstance. If it is the wish of the members opposite.... The member said he wanted me to assure him that this wouldn't happen. If the NDP caucus wish interference with the University of Victoria in the millions of dollars that they've got, and if they want us to send a trustee in to run the library and order how the money should be spent, I would be willing to take that up with my colleagues, as a request of the NDP, and ask if we should go along with their request and interfere.

Perhaps we should look at it in another way and say that the member has found fault with the way the University of Victoria is spending its money and its priorities and say they should change them and put the library at the top of the list rather than the bottom. I would go along with that member's opinion, but not his methods.

[11:30]

The member has identified an American mathematics professor from Purdue University who might not want to test the political waters of a foreign country and perhaps would....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, fine and dandy. I can't recruit for the University of Victoria. You mentioned the resignation of Dean Bruton, but I think I explained to the House some time ago during question period that the government had given more money to the University of Victoria for engineering than the University of Victoria had been able to spend on engineering. Here we had a dean demanding of the university, and indirectly of the government, that they put money in a bank account for his future use at a time when the government is running a deficit of close to $900 million. I didn't find fault with treasury board officials and my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) when he said: "We can't be in the circumstance of borrowing money quarterly — or however often it has to be done — in the form of treasury bills to meet our daily expenses, and then do the same to fund bank accounts."

It was made very clear that the university would have the engineering money when it needed engineering money. The government has started building a new and expensive facility at the University of Victoria — I've forgotten what the amount is; I think it's over $16 million — at a time when money is hard to come by, to give an absolutely top-class facility to those places.

Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, we cannot deal with faculty members, no matter how valuable they may be in their discipline, if they make unreasonable demands of a government during difficult financial times. The university was told they would get the engineering money when they needed it, but that we weren't in a position to finance bank accounts. Does the member disagree with that? Does the member realize that there was engineering money given to the University of Victoria that was unspent because they didn't have anything to spend it on? It was sitting in a bank account drawing interest. It may be very nice to have an interest-bearing account, but that isn't proper in a time of difficulty.

The Premier has said to the universities and to the Universities Council that we have an overall problem on our hands, and you can't be the last ones to recognize it or pretend it doesn't exist at all. The ex-dean of engineering at the University of Victoria has done well for himself. He's got himself a raise in pay, and I suppose it would be a promotion to be dean of engineering at the University of Calgary, which is a large and well-established school. We can't fault him for accepting

[ Page 6098 ]

a promotion, but we can and do fault him for making unreasonable demands on the people of British Columbia, on the taxpayers, when he had money in a bank account — saying that he wouldn't stay unless this, that and the other thing is provided as cash in advance to a bank account for his use. No one can do that. With the greatest respect — and I believe academics should be respected and should have autonomy — there are limits beyond which no reasonable person can go, and I would with the deepest regret say that in this particular case those limits were exceeded.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you know, the minister can give all the various rationalizations, but the basic problem is that there is a feeling, a perception and a reality that the way this government has handled the universities has not been a healthy exercise. They are in trouble. The public knows that, the students know that, the parents know that, and the minister can twist and turn and try to put the blame back on somebody else, but the reality is that people know what's happening. You can't see these things happen in terms of critical people leaving the universities, expressions of deep concern and frustration, perceptions not only in our own province but also abroad in other countries — and what they're saying about the universities.... You can play numbers games as much as you like, but we've got some real problems.

The minister, for instance, can try to shift the blame for the library closing back to the university. But I would say to the minister that the reason they're coming down to that kind of situation is that they don't have the support from this government. They are now down, not to bare bones but to virtually raw bones, and it's so desperate that they're seriously considering closing the University of Victoria library at 6:30 in the evening instead of leaving it open to 11 o'clock.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tedious and repetitious.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm responding to the minister, who says he wanted to shift the blame back to the management, if you will, of the University of Victoria. They're having to deal with the crazy policies being put forth for the universities in the province. He can twist and turn and say: "Well, it's their problem. They can shift money here and there in the university." But there's no more money to shift. You know, another cut in the University of Victoria.... If we get one next year, it won't be just staff that are going to get laid off; we will start to see departments totally eliminated. That's a fact and will be stated by the people in charge of the University of Victoria. We'll see whole departments totally eliminated, obliterated, years of trying to establish some of these key areas. Because of the lack of support and belief in the future and belief in young people and investment, we're going to see departments totally abandoned at the University of Victoria.

It has been said over and over again: post-secondary education and research and development has to be on the cutting edge of the future. We can talk about partnership deals and tax relief, which has been offered by this government, but you ask any industrialist why they move into a new community and into a new province. One of the first things they look at is the state of the universities and the post-secondary education for research, for background help to their work. What's the support like? What are the dollars being given? Mr. Speaker, we are in a very sad shape in this province, and there's no question about that.

I cannot accept the minister's turning around and shifting the blame for things like the library. They're having to react to the lack of support. Where do we end? Close it at 6:30? Close it at 3:30 next time around? You begin to wonder what the point is of having a library in the University of Victoria, because unless you can get access to do your research and your background work, you're shortchanging those students who are paying good money for that education, and they can't even get into the library to do it, Mr. Chairman.

The minister can shift blame and do what he likes, but the reality is that the university is having to react to his priorities and his lack of support for universities.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister got up and talked about the engineering faculty out at the University of Victoria squirrelling away money. Yet when the university announced it was to have its own new campus, new buildings, etc., and people were brought in on the promise of a commitment — the word not just of the minister but of the Premier, who made the original announcement.... And then in a letter of 1983, under the minister's own hand.... I guess that the numbering system they use here would indicate February 8, 1983, because it refers to a letter of January. I would hope they were not so remiss in their correspondence that they would be responding to a letter on August 2. It's a letter to Dr. Petch, president of the university, in which he says he has:

"...examined in some detail your proposed phased approach to the development of a school of engineering at the University of Victoria, forwarded under cover of your letter.... In my opinion, it represents a well-conceived method of proceeding which is realistic in terms of today's economy.

"I am pleased, therefore, to give it my general approval and accordingly have requisitioned a cheque in the amount of $500,000, which has been set aside in this fiscal year to assist in this development. I hope to have an opportunity to personally present it to you upon return from holidays.

"On page 3 of your proposal you indicate line items startup costs for the faculty of engineering as follows. Year '82-83, $500,000; '83-84, $1 million; '84-85, $1.5 million; '85-86 and subsequent years through to 1988-89, $2.7 million. While costs of this order appear reasonable to me, I do not want the university to be under the impression that a final decision has now been reached to provide all of the required startup funding through line-item grants in the ministry's budget. It may be that the funding would be provided by a combination of ministry line-item grants and by money set aside by the Universities Council for new program development. It might indeed prove more advantageous to provide all of the required startup costs by the Universities Council through a reordering of new program priorities to reflect more appropriately the requirements of today's society. My officials are presently exploring this possibility with the Universities Council."

At that time, then, the minister was very flexible and certainly indicating three possibilities. One would maybe have been pretty accurate in anticipating the second.

[ Page 6099 ]

He closes with: "I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future I will have a positive response from the Treasury Board concerning the capital required for the project."

So that was in February of 1983. More correspondence, of course, flew back and forth, but then in 1984, the minister says:

" Operating Contributions — Other, Engineering Expansion. I am pleased to advise you that by January 4, 1985, the University of Victoria will have received a cheque for $750,000 as part of its engineering expansion grant for 1984-85. As you know, the ministry did not receive the total amount of funds it requested for engineering expansion in 1984-85. Accordingly, I have made a presentation to Treasury Board for the balance of funds. As yet, no decision has been made, and I shall contact you as soon as there is something further to report.

"As with other items in Operating Contributions — Other awarded to the universities, it is not the government's intention to continue indefinitely special funding for engineering expansion."

You know, this isn't what they said when the Premier made his announcement. It was a new project, there was new money. All of this changing of the goalposts, as becomes very evident in looking at correspondence, has been a backtracking from the original announcement of the engineering faculty at the university.

Very serious questions were raised at the time. Should we proceed with an expansion there? Then, of course, Simon Fraser University also had to get into engineering since it was allowed over here. Or should we have really brought UBC up to standard before expanding? Those questions were undertaken at that time. The government made a decision to go ahead and expand, but then it starts to talk about cutting into other operations of the universities and other funds.

[11:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

On December 13, 1984, Deputy Minister A.E. Soles wrote to Dr. Petch regarding implementation of the mechanical engineering program. He said:

"At this time I cannot say precisely how government may respond. As you know, the ministry is still awaiting a decision on an earlier Treasury Board submission which requested the balance of funds required for the UVic engineering expansion program in 1984-85. It is extremely difficult to assess the feasibility of introducing the mechanical engineering phase of the engineering expansion program when the total funding requirements for electrical engineering have yet to be approved by Treasury Board for fiscal years 1984-85 and 1985-86.

"I should note that, as with other items in Operating Contributions — Other, Dr. McGeer has continued to stress to all universities that it was not the government's intention to continue indefinitely special funding for engineering expansion."

So, again, the goalposts are starting to move even more, and indeed 1985-86 will be the final year in which special funds will be available.

So, you know, if you go back to the original press releases — and I don't have copies of them right here; I do have some copies of them in my office — it was a totally different picture that was painted. What the university has resisted is eroding other programs in order to assimilate what was supposed to be something new, something special and really something that was seen as additional in terms of programming.

The minister has talked about people having money in the bank. Well, there was supposed to be capital money at one time to build a brand new facility — a building — or I think there was talk about occupying the former CBC building, which eventually became the BCTV building. I think that there was lots of talk about this sort of thing. Well, they really cut back on the capital requirements for building, I think using some of those old army huts and things like that, which I thought I'd seen the end of. I don't see too many of them left around the University of British Columbia anymore, but there are still a few of them out at the University of Victoria. That's about what some of these programs ended up being housed in, so there was tremendous change in capital.

Now the ministry advanced moneys.... There was a program to bring in the second phase. It was not supposed to be a one-department faculty. It's almost a contradiction in terms: how can you have a faculty if you have only one department? That wasn't the commitment, and so what we have done.... I think that we've done very serious injury to the growth of engineering at the University of Victoria, something which the government embarked upon wholeheartedly and has ended up supporting faint-heartedly. I think it is an absolute tragedy. It's just one more example like the tunnel study — the other kinds of things that this minister starts with so much enthusiasm, and then loses interest in and abandons. We have made an investment there, and I think the only way to support that investment is to see this project through.

You know, this government is seeing so many other projects through, other projects which are not nearly as deserving or as promising and which bring us news each and every day of their ill-advisedness. Yet in this project, which does have promise and still has promise, the government has waffled. So we don't have a faculty of engineering; we really have a department of engineering. We have stopped in mid-stream, and there is nothing worse and nothing more inefficient and nothing more irresponsible in terms of the spending of public funds than to start something and then abandon it in mid-stream.

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

Leave granted.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have the pleasure of introducing a number of students from the Gibsons alternative school, who are visiting and in the galleries at the present time. I ask the House to join me in welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, in defending the activities of the Science ministry, I might say I'm terribly proud of that fixed-link study. The government got enormous benefit of free information from leading architects and engineers around the world, who produced a practical conceptual design for linking Vancouver Island with the mainland. That design is to have a Deas Island–like tunnel going through the shipping lane out just off the mouth of the Fraser River, and then a floating bridge that would go across the Georgia Straits and link in with the closest islands this side. For it to be self- financing the traffic would need to be about three times what

[ Page 6100 ]

the current ferry traffic is. Mind you, building that fixed link, of course, would partially end the isolation of Vancouver Island, and that in itself would open up traffic. So I think it logically could be built before the ferry traffic triples.

It's important to consider the isolation of the capital of British Columbia. I think that's a factor that all of us who sit in this assembly must recognize. British Columbia is half the size of western Europe, and having the capital on the very tip of this vast geographical area, isolated by water, is like having the capital of western Europe on the island of Sicily. Sooner or later people are going to have to come to grips with the capital city's being in an anomalous geographical position. It's difficult for the majority of British Columbia citizens. But that difficulty could be overcome by this fixed link, and that's why the Ministry of Science, looking far into the future, developed this practical — and I want to stress practical — plan for linking Vancouver Island with the mainstream population of British Columbia.

It turned out to be a disagreeable plan to some, the member for North Vancouver....

MR. DAVIS: They had that technology in the year 1800.

HON. MR. McGEER: They were going to build one across the English Channel. That's been under discussion for 186 years. But this will be consummated long before that. People will look back on this study and say: "Boy, did we get a bargain in those days." So I just want you to keep that in mind.

I agree that those in the Gulf Islands, who want their magnificent isolation — which I agree with and support — and their subsidies — which I disagree with and don't support — are not attracted to this idea. But it could be just a one step onto Valdes Island, which has virtually nobody on it, so that we could leave that isolation and still bring Vancouver Island, an economically depressed area of British Columbia, into the mainstream for the future. Now there are many who like the peaceful isolation of Victoria. I support that concept. But is isolation consistent with the capital city being the hub of government activity? I ask the members opposite to consider that question.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: We've got the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) who says: "Forget the fixed link and move the capital, because it's cheaper." Is that right? Well, you can't have it both ways. Do you want the fixed link or do you want to move the capital? I think that's the question for the future. The member for New Westminster says move the capital. I say build a fixed link, because I think the fixed link will bring other benefits, besides making the capital more accessible to all British Columbians.

Anyway, moving along, the question of UVic engineering. What we do when we set aside these special line-item grants is attempt to cover, for the institutions, their startup costs, because you've got to get faculty, you've got to get equipment, and you have to put everything in place before the students can come in. So the startup funds are for a limited period to cover this aspect. But you can't have a student taking engineering and biochemistry, or engineering and arts, at the same time. If the students are in engineering they're not in something else. That's why the university has got to be able to phase out old programs at the same time it phases in new ones. You have a student population, an age cohort, and if you bring in a new program you're not going to take entirely new students; you're going to give them a higher-level course that they prefer to the ones they're forced to take now because the first choice isn't available. That's part of a university setting priorities.

We like to leave it to the universities. And we like to think that if they're getting an operating grant of $51,029,767 and a total grant of $62,405,527, they should be able to keep the library open past 6:30 in the evening.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report very minimal progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.