[ Page 2965 ]
Routine Proceedings
Assessment Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Couvelier
Introduction and first reading –– 2965
Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Veitch
Introduction and first reading –– 2966
Private Members' Statements
Forest policy changes. Mr. Miller –– 2966
Mr. Bruce
Kaon factory. Ms. Campbell –– 2968
Mr. Lovick
Privatization and "human capital." Mr. Williams –– 2970
Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm
Mr. Rose
Non-traditional health care. Mr. Crandall –– 2971
Mrs. Boone
Open Learning Agency Act (Bill 58). Committee stage. (Hon. S. Hagen) –– 2974
Ms. Marzari
Ms. A. Hagen
Mr. Miller
Mr. Lovick
Mr. Rose
Insurance Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 48). Third reading. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier') –– 2982
Mr. Stupich
Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 60). Hon. Mr. Couvelier
Introduction and first reading –– 2983
Cooperative Association Amendment Act (Bill 65). Hon. Mr. Couvelier
Introduction and first reading –– 2983
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987 (Bill 68). Hon. B.R. Smith
Introduction and first reading –– 2984
The House met at 10: 10 a.m.
Prayers.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce a young gentleman from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing who is in the members' gallery, Mr. Keith Baldwin. Keith has received his second award for suggestions that he has put forward to streamline the system and save the taxpayers of British Columbia an awful lot of money. I was pleased this morning to congratulate Keith and give him a cheque for $1,500 on behalf of all the people of British Columbia. As I said, it's his second such award, and I think he sets an excellent example for our public servants.
I would like the House to congratulate Keith and make him welcome.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: I notice with some pleasure an old friend in the gallery this morning, Dr. Wee Tan, who was on the faculty of the Pearson College of the Pacific and who has very successfully opened a private sector school in greater Victoria for the purposes of liaising more effectively with the People's Republic of China, in the sense that he brings students to British Columbia and trains them in English and our lifestyles and customs. Dr. Tan is here as an observer, and I ask the House to welcome him.
MR. G. HANSON: I wonder if we on this side of the House could join with the Minister of Finance in welcoming Dr. Tan and the eight economics students from Beijing. He is a good friend of ours as well.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: From time to time, this chamber recognizes unique events in the lives of some of those who are associated with the chambers. I am pleased to stand this morning and ask that the House recognize the unique achievement of one of the close observers of our perambulations.
I understand that the Vaughn Palmer family had a birth — a daughter. Insofar as Mr. Palmer, by virtue of his intelligent comments about our deliberations, serves the purpose of elevating our profile and clearly is useful in the area of public debates around the province, I would ask the House to join me in congratulating the Palmer family for this great event.
MR. BLENCOE: I rise to introduce a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity we have had to bring this matter to the attention of the Legislature vis-à-vis the $8 million granted by special warrant and the admission by the Premier in the last day that no details or plans exist and that no emergency or urgency exists for the special warrant. The Premier has admitted that he has no details for the spending of the $8 million and that everybody is groping and guessing what to do with the program, that there are no plans and therefore no emergency and no urgency. In our estimation it is a flagrant abuse of the Financial Administration Act of this Legislature and this province.
I would remind the government side of the recommendations in 1981 changing the Financial Administration Act to be extremely careful on the use of special warrants. Indeed, it had to be — and I look at the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) — an urgent and immediate need.
Mr. Speaker, there is an offence to our parliamentary traditions going back to the very beginnings: the rights of parliament to oversee the spending of the Crown. We have a clear abuse of this House and the privileges of all members: our basic traditional right to control, debate and examine the expenditures of the Crown. If we undermine that fundamental pillar of parliament, we destroy the entire fabric of our parliamentary democracy. British Columbians believe in those traditions. They believe and uphold the law, and when the very....
[10:15]
MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Could I ask the hon. member to take his seat for a moment. If I could read you the procedure on raising a matter of privilege, it says: "a brief written statement of the matter which the member reads to the House." We shouldn't be getting into debate on the matter of privilege. If the member could raise his points on the matter of privilege to the Chair, the Chair will make his decision.
MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we believe that the privileges of all members of this House have been breached and the public trust has been violated. If you find that I have a prima facie case, I have a motion prepared to appoint a select committee on privilege. The motion is to appoint a special committee on privilege to examine whether the privileges and traditions of this House were breached by the issuance through order-in-council of $8 million in special warrants for ministers of state before such ministers were approved by the House and when no emergency existed.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his notice, and I will make a statement later.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order. first of all, I believe this is not the first opportunity that this member has had to raise this subject. In fact, he has raised it on numerous occasions during question period in the last few days. I believe that Standing Orders state that it must be raised at the earliest opportunity, so I would respectfully point that out to Mr. Speaker.
Secondly, I — and, I'm sure, some of my colleagues on this side of the House — find the member's statements to be incorrect, to say the least: most exaggerative; and offensive to this side of the House. I believe that most of what he said in his mini-debate in the last few moments is incorrect, highly irregular and, to repeat. offensive to this Legislature.
MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister for his comments.
Introduction of Bills
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Assessment Amendment Act, 1987.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am pleased to introduce this bill. It legislates a method for the assessment of industrial property based on cost less depreciation in order to stabilize the municipal tax base; it arrests further erosion of industrial property tax; it restructures the Assessment Appeal Board;
[ Page 2966 ]
and it alters some aspects of the Assessment Appeal Board procedure. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 67 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.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES
AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
On behalf of Hon. Mr. Veitch, Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1987.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: This bill clarifies the authority of the Board of Internal Economy, which, as the members know, is a statute that was passed last spring. It also makes reference to salaries of the executive council. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 69 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
Private Members' Statements
FOREST POLICY CHANGES
MR. MILLER: My topic for today, and not one that can be done justice to in the brief time we have, but one that's nonetheless important, is the announced change in the forest policy — changes announced in September by the minister called "New Directions for Forest Policy" — which would increase or expand the TFLs from their current level of 29 percent of the AAC in this province to 67 percent. It is my view that this is every bit a privatization of the forest land in this province.
It is as well a major policy change in forestry, and I'll just cite the minister's news release in that regard: "The minister said the changes are the result of several ministry reviews and input from numerous individuals and groups over the past few months." So in a couple of months the ministry is bringing about a fundamental and major change in forest policy in British Columbia. I of course have some argument with that, because if you look back in history to see how we have addressed changes in forest policy, it hasn't been through this kind of cursory review over a few months. It has been through the method of royal commission: the Fulton report of 1910, the Sloan report of 1945, Sloan again in 1956, and 20 years later, in 1976, the Pearse report. So we do have some concern about the manner and the method in which these changes are being introduced without having the benefit of that kind of study, and in a sense it's characteristic of some of the moves that the government is making. They seem to be going with great speed, sometimes without really having the benefit of adequate study.
The release also claims that the move is strongly supported by industry, and I can imagine that some elements of industry do indeed strongly support the change. However, I don't think that all elements of industry support the change.
Specifically, I refer to a document presented by Mr. Mahood at the truck loggers' convention in May 1987. I'm going to read a quote. If I'm not mistaken, I think this one has been read in the House before. It's from H.R. MacMillan, and he talks about the problems as he perceives them in terms of monopoly control and corporate concentration, which I believe these moves will further exacerbate:
"A few companies would acquire control and form a monopoly. It will be managed by bureaucrats, fixers with a penthouse viewpoint, who, never having had rain in their lunch-buckets, would abuse the forests. Public interest would be victimized because the vigorous citizen business needed to provide the efficiency of competition would be denied logs and thereby prevented from penetration of the market."
I think the government would be wise to heed the words uttered quite some years ago.
In a general sense, the policy is an attempt to satisfy everybody and in the process hope that everybody will benefit, including the province. By increasing the TFL level from 29 to 67 percent we'll satisfy the large operators, and presumably out of that the public will get improved administration of the forest land and more investment in new plant and technology.
Yet if you look at the history of TFLs, although some might argue that they were necessary in terms of spurring the investment that was required in the pulp side particularly, there has been a downside as well. Certainly, if we look at the forest land base in British Columbia and the state that it's in and the fact that we have recently had to provide some $300 million of taxpayers' money to deal with just one problem, which is the NSR problem, we can conclude that there have been some major failings in terms of the policy of granting huge tracts of Crown land to major forest companies.
I'll make a prediction here and now, in somewhat of an aside, that $300 million will not do the job; that much more money is needed and there will be major infusions of tax dollars to deal with the very serious problem we have in our forest industry in terms of NSR.
So there have been some major failings in the policy of giving the big boys the land, using that as their security so they will make these major investments.
On the other hand, I think the policy purports to satisfy the small business operators. By giving them the expropriated portions of TFL lands, you in a sense will get them off your back because there is a growing mood in the forest industry from the small operators that they've been shortchanged, that they haven't got access to timber. Also, I think you're hoping that by giving the 5 percent of the TFLs to the small operators you'll gain more revenue, because it's clear, if you look at the kinds of revenues we're getting from the small business end of it as opposed to the TFL end of it, that there are substantial revenues to be gained.
Although the policy seems to be simple, it may be just a little bit too simple. I've already talked about the problems associated with the TFLs, and I have no reason to believe, despite the glowing words in the minister's news release, that we are going to fundamentally change that problem. We will still be dealing with that problem down the road.
I think we're at an ideal time to take a new direction, to take a different look at the forest industry in British Columbia. To repeat the policies of the sixties and fifties by further increasing the amount of Crown land given to large companies is not appropriate at this time. It's clear to me that the
[ Page 2967 ]
resource has become, to some extent, a dwindling resource, and the only way that we can extract further value out of that resource is by value added. Although some would argue that in the short term there will be a spurt in investment through this policy, over the long term we simply could be repeating the problems that I have just talked about.
Additionally, I want to talk about the problem of corporate concentration. Increasingly in British Columbia — most recently the Fletcher Challenge, and there was another acquisition outlined in the financial pages the other day — we're seeing that we are developing an oligopoly in the control of the forest industry in British Columbia. That is not healthy; it is not competitive and will not lead to the diversity and value added that we really require, the competition we really require in British Columbia if we're finally going to get some true value out of our forest industry, out of our forest land base, and to provide the jobs that have been lost over the period since the recession.
MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the member for Prince Rupert has raised this subject. Certainly near and dear to my heart is the issue of forestry, and any debate that we can have within the legislative chamber dealing with forestry is a good one, not only for all of us to hear and talk more about the forestry issues, but of course in raising the issue, the consciousness throughout the province, the awareness of forestry issues as a whole. I think it's important.
The new policy that has been presented by the government is, I believe, a good policy. It's somewhat interesting to hear the member speak about the fact that he feels the government's policy is again going to give the big companies more control, a stronger hold on the forestry base, and then in the same instance also claim that we're going to require a greater infusion of tax dollars. Of course, by the process that has been taking place with the new policy changes.... Albeit that there will be an increase of the AAC to 67 percent through the TFL process, at the same time some of the things that major operations have been enjoying — such as section 88 — will no longer be there, with of course greater responsibility upon them to do some of the very major things that are needed within the forestry sector.
[10:30]
As the members note, throughout the last few years we've had a tremendous increase in the planting process throughout British Columbia. I believe some five years ago we were looking at planting some 65 million to 75 million seedlings. This year I believe we're around 185 million to 190 million, and hopefully in the next few years we'll be up over the 200 million mark. That, of course, is extremely important. But it's interesting to note that not all of it results completely in acreage. As the member has mentioned, there's the aspect of value-added and the aspect of greater utilization of the fibre that's already being grown in the crops today. That is probably more important than any other aspect of forestry policy. By the increases — by the changes of this forest policy act — you will find a greater utilization of the fibre that's grown today within the resource through better utilization by the major companies, but also because of the changes that will allow greater competition, more involvement by the smaller groups — the truck logger association groups and so on: greater involvement in that respect. You will find, I believe — and I think this will be borne out — greater utilization of that fibre by those particular companies and operators.
A situation that we are faced with today is that there has been increasing public awareness, which is a good thing within the forestry sector. This government has taken steps called for by the opposition in the past to improve the forestry management, which is occurring: to improve the number of seedlings being planted in a year, which is occurring; to provide greater access to that forest resource through the small business program, which is occurring: and to provide a greater overall forestry management of the resource throughout the province, which is occurring.
I find it somewhat difficult to understand where the opposition is coming from when they say on the one hand that they think this policy will result in less control by the people of British Columbia. Through this policy the people will have as much control if not more control in the forestry sector than in the past. It will result in greater and more efficient planting, in greater and more efficient silviculture applications within the forestry sector, and in greater access to the people of the province. In fact, going back to the words that were quoted by H.R. MacMillan, this is the type of action that H.R. MacMillan would have endorsed wholeheartedly, and the fact that the government is now taking very direct and strong action in forestry policy.
It's interesting. as we look at what's going on in the forestry sector, that all of what has taken place in the last little while has been good for the forestry sector. I think the most important point to make is that it's good that the opposition say what they say, because we know in the final analysis, with them coming out with the different comments that they make, that we are on the right direction. We have heard from some of the big industries that they don't like what we're doing; we've heard from the opposition that they don't like what we're doing; so we know we are doing the right thing.
MR. MILLER: The member has revealed the basis for the development of the Social Credit forest policy: anything we suggest, they oppose, and they're going to put it in legislation and think they've done the right thing. It's pretty simplistic.
I'm amazed that that member would sing the same old song. I can hear the violins. I'm amazed that he would have so much faith, because that member knows the devastation in his region. That member tried to put together a municipal program to take care of the devastation caused by the forest industry. So he should be a little more cautious in terms of defending the interests of his region.
I really am amazed that the party opposite, which purports to speak for small business and competition, is so anti-small business and anti-competition and in favour of monopolies. You're sending the most confused signals out that could possibly be.
Let's listen to Peter Pearse. TFLs are issued without competition for long terms. They are renewed periodically without competition, and the timber is sold to the licence at non-competitive stumpage rates. Let's see what the real agenda is in terms of the large companies. The latest Westar magazine. You say that the policy will lead to the small business guys getting more of a piece of the action. Let's listen to Mr. Ken Voight, the senior vice-president of Westar, when he talks about tenure and what he has to say.
He said: "With regard to the government's intention to create more TFLs, we're delighted." That's what they wanted, he said. He has some concern about the transfer of 5 percent, but he sees a way around it. "The resource is not
[ Page 2968 ]
being reapportioned to other operators. It will still be available to us through the small business enterprise program."
So there's the rub, Mr. Member. The big boys can still belly up to the small business enterprise program, and you should be aware of the abuses that have taken place with regard to that, where people are coming in and bidding on behalf of the large companies. The end result, really, is that the province of British Columbia, the workers in the forest industry, are the losers.
What I'm suggesting, and it's not a negative statement, is that there is room for some real innovation in the forest industry in British Columbia. I don't see that the announced policy, the simple transference of a significant portion of the forest land base to an industry that has become increasingly concentrated to the point where it's an oligopoly, is going to do anything fundamental in terms of what we really need, in terms of finding that diversity, getting more value added and getting more competition. Because I fundamentally believe that competition produces a better product for society.
KAON FACTORY
MS. CAMPBELL: I rise today to address the House on the subject of the proposal to build a kaon factory at the site of the TRIUMF research centre at the University of British Columbia. I address this topic because I think it is an extremely important one for all British Columbians, and the decision made by the federal government with respect to the support of this project will have implications for the future economic development of this province in the coming decades.
When I made my maiden speech in the House, I made reference to the TRIUMF facility: the remarkable spinoffs from that facility and what it has represented in terms of the development of the province. I would remind the members of this House that the TRIUMF facility is unique in Canada — it is Canada's meson-producing facility — and that the kaon factory, which will involve an upgrading of TRIUMF, or an upgrading of the meson-producing capacity, will be unique. Only one such facility will be built in the world. Therefore only one area of the world will have the opportunity to enjoy the technological spinoffs from such a facility.
An evaluation by the National Research Council of the proposal to build a kaon factory was extremely positive in terms of the quality of physics and physics research that would result from the construction of such a facility. The only reservation which the National Research Council expressed was the concern that the funding of a kaon factory should not monopolize the federal government's support of pure scientific research and that the money spent on a kaon factory should not result in the impoverishment of other scientific research in the country.
I should point out that the National Research Council is not immune from regional and political considerations in its evaluation of projects, but I think it's important that the kaon factory should not become an object of contention and that it should not be part of a beggar-thy-neighbour philosophy in terms of scientific research in Canada. I believe that the construction of the kaon factory is an essential component of the economic development of British Columbia, the west and, in fact. Canada.
We have already established in this province, in all parties and in all political outlooks, the need to diversify our economy, We've discussed the importance of high technology. I have before me a report of a task force on economic regional development, the Federal-Provincial Task Force on Regional Development Assessment. They make the very important point:
"A range of measures to promote innovation and technology pursued in a proactive way to encourage existing and new areas of regional specialization needs to be awarded high priority on the regional development agenda. This means a much closer interaction in developing regional strategies among traditional development agencies and national and regional research institutions, universities and the private sector."
They go on to say in their conclusion about the future of our economy in Canada that, first:
"Over all, the resource sectors will account for a declining rather than expanding share of the contribution to earned income and employment growth in Canada's regions." Second: "The critical factor in international competitiveness will be the application of technology to product and process." And third: "The most pervasive trends in the structure of output and employment are the emergence of a dynamic and expanding service sector and of a vibrant small business economy."
High technology, in order to develop as a sound aspect of an economy, must have a natural base. In British Columbia the high technology developed out of the forest industry has put us in the forefront of the world in forest applications of technology in the same way as in Saskatchewan, where a similar dynamic has been created by the application of high technology to agriculture. In British Columbia we are faced with the question of how we can create a new natural base or generator for high technology. By that I mean a base which grows naturally out of existing economic capabilities and market needs.
As I speak against a constant barrage of heckling from the opposition, I am reminded of how often in this House we sacrifice quality for quantity.
Mr. Speaker, in seeking a new natural generator for high technology development in British Columbia, we already have such a source in the TRIUMF facility. The industrial and practical applications of the TRIUMF research results were unpredictable when the facility was built. It was originally built as a facility to do research in pure physics, but while it was being constructed the decision was made to do applied experiments with the pion beams. The results have been extraordinary. Very briefly, they have included advanced cardiac diagnostic techniques, new medical radioisotopes to enhance diagnosis and therapy, new methods of imaging, pion beams to kill cancer tumours, robotic devices to aid the handicapped — which were developed initially to handle radioactive materials — information-processing techniques to handle vast bursts of data arriving in tiny fractions of a second, and enhanced abilities of Canadian companies to compete effectively in high technology manufacturing.
Many of the other key research directions at the University of British Columbia and other British Columbia universities are also linked to TRIUMF. I look in particular at the research in superconductivity and advanced materials. These have incredible potential for industrial application.
There is perhaps no single area of pure research with as much potential for industrial development and economic spinoff as particle physics. It is particle physics research that is being done at TRIUMF. A recent conference at Bristol
[ Page 2969 ]
University which reviewed the high-energy physics industrial link and the spinoffs from such facilities in Europe had a catalogue of small business, high technology applications which have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity in Europe.
It's been suggested that instead of building kaon, we should participate in the American supercollider facility. If we do that, we will have no control over the economic spinoffs of that research. For the same financial investment, we would seriously reduce the long-term economic opportunities for Canada.
[10:45]
MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Nanaimo.
AN HON. MEMBER: Now the learned one.
MR. LOVICK: I'm intrigued to hear the member opposite say that now the learned one is about to speak. I had no idea he was so perceptive.
This is a kind of swan song for me as science and technology critic, and I'm delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the comments of my learned colleague opposite — in only five minutes. Which reminds me of the point she made about quality versus quantity, and I think she made the point rather well when we bear in mind that she had seven minutes, while the rest of us on the quantity side only have five. However, I don't want to belabour that point.
Instead, I want to put just a little pressure on some of the claims that were made. For example, to argue that particle physics is going to generate some spinoff activity and be the economic saviour of the universe or some such twaddle is a leap of faith that makes Kierkegaard look like a piker. I'm sorry, but that is simply going too far, and I suspect that any self-respecting scientist would also be embarrassed by that kind of claim.
When we hear claims about spinoffs, we must recognize that it's a rather after-the-fact kind of reasoning. Remember, that's how we justified military expenditure in the United States. If you'll recall, they said that without that military expenditure we would never have got Corning Ware. That was the argument, and I'm afraid that what we're hearing here is rather analogous.
I have difficulty arguing against pure research. As an academic and one who has spent a considerable part of his life pursuing academic matters for their own sake, it's difficult for me to speak against pure research. However, the magnitude of this particular project is mind-boggling. We're talking about $600 million. We're talking about something in excess of $25 for every man, woman and child in this country. We're talking about a period of time when the scarcity of resources, we are told, is with us and will be for a long time. For heaven's sake then, surely we ought to pose the question whether it's responsible to be talking about doing this much in one project. That's why the National Research Council stated very clearly.... Let me read into the record a statement made on December 2, 1986, by Dr. Kerwin, president of the NRC: "Projects of the magnitude of the kaon factory cannot proceed without major and widespread disruption of excellent ongoing research." That's the problem. Would that we had sufficient money to undertake all of these wonderful projects, but we don't. It seems to me that to leap directly into something of the magnitude of kaon is inevitably going to squeeze out some other very worthwhile projects.
Let me in the few moments I have list some of those things. First, we should recognize that we are confronted with two major crises in the western world — for that matter, the whole world. One, of course, is the possibility of an AIDS epidemic that could effectively decimate the human population. We are spending almost nothing on that so far. That's one area. The other is this: every demographic study done points to Canada's predicament with an increasingly older population. Coupled with that demographic trend, we have the predicament of Alzheimer's. We have not done the research. Alzheimer's has the capacity to bankrupt this society. We should be putting money into that kind of project. So I'm concerned about those things.
Some other areas. Let me quote to you from an eminent scientist in British Columbia, Dr. Jasper Mardon, who suggests a couple of others. I'm sure my colleague for Point Grey knows Dr. Mardon. And he simply, for the record, offers another few suggestions of the kinds of worthwhile things we might do if we don't crowd out all other science because of kaon. He suggests, for example, that we could be planting trees. We don't have to give up on the resource-based economy. We could be using some money to plant trees, and we could be exploring, of course, new developments — improved tree species. Secondly, we could be doing something to restore the cuts to the National Research Council that have gone on for the last few years. Thirdly, we could recommence an energy program that we've had to shelve.
I see I'm out of time, and I thank you for your patience.
MS. CAMPBELL: I'm relieved to hear that the hon. member for Nanaimo is retiring as the critic for science and technology, because he's clearly over his head in that portfolio.
I agree with the hon. member that there is a great deal of work to be done in this society in applied research and in the area of Alzheimer's disease. He may be interested to know that positron emission tomography, also known as the PET scanner, was developed at TRIUMF as one of the most important tools for brain imagery, and is one of the reasons why UBC is a leader in neurological research, including research on Alzheimer's disease.
It's of great regret to me that my seatmate in Vancouver–Point Grey has not stood up to defend this particular project, and that the opposition is so blind and so ill-informed as to the potential of the research coming out of that facility. It is really shocking.
I should also point, notwithstanding the hon. member's quotation from the president of the National Research Council, that the National Research Council did support the expansion of TRIUMF to build the kaon factory, but it was on the condition that it did not beggar the other scientific research in Canada. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that our government and the federal government and the TRIUMF facility are scanning the world for foreign investment in the kaon factory. There are other countries that wish to participate financially in this project, and I believe that they are in fact getting excellent response, and that Germany has already committed $35 million in order to participate in that project.
Mr. Speaker, we have the first step of a kaon factory in Canada at TRIUMF; only one will be built in the world. We have the physicists. We have the need and the desire to use the
[ Page 2970 ]
applications of this particle physics research as a major generator of economic diversification. The greatest folly that we can commit as a country is to see the kaon factory as simply an issue of the priorities of scientific research. High technology must have a natural base. We have this in TRIUMF. TRIUMF provides us with that base. Kaon will keep us in the mainstream of the most important technological developments of the coming decades and give us a proprietary interest and control over the results of those efforts.
The expansion of TRIUMF into a kaon factory does present serious challenges to us. If we build kaon, we must be prepared to meet the challenge, to develop and promote the spinoffs that come from it, just as we must be prepared to develop and promote the full economic and social benefit of the research spinoffs from TRIUMF. But if we fail to build kaon, that is a profligate waste of an investment of the people of Canada. I urge all of the members of this House to inform themselves on this issue and to use whatever influence they have to support this project and to urge the government of Canada to see this as one of the most significant aspects of Canadian economic development, and an opportunity that will not come twice.
PRIVATIZATION AND "HUMAN CAPITAL"
MR. WILLIAMS: The most incredible vote-buying in the modern history of Canada — $25 for every man, woman and child to build a kaon factory at UBC. That has to be in Point Grey the most expensive vote-buying in the history of mankind or womankind.
You talk, Madam Member from Point Grey, about profligate waste. There is profligate waste of human resources day in, day out under Social Credit. In the small interior towns of British Columbia, we waste the human capital, the potential, of young people, because they don't go to university. We have the most abysmal dropout rate in the nation, in terms of going on to university in the small towns of B.C. That's profligate waste. That is a waste of human capital.
It is indicative that your brains trust, those that would aspire for cabinet, would give the kind of speech they give today, Mr. Premier, because I want to talk about the waste of human capital, and the fact that you don't seem to understand what human capital is all about, you people over there.
What we have under this Premier — the most radical Premier in the modern history of British Columbia, bar none — is a person who wants to rebuild British Columbia in his image, mixed up as it is. He is determined to rebuild the provincial economy. He doesn't really understand our roots in this province. He doesn't really understand our history. I say that as one whose grandparents and great-grandparents were here and worked in the Dunsmuir coalfields on this Island, and who worked to establish working conditions that should become the envy of the modern western world. I have those kinds of roots. I suggest there are not strong roots over there on the other side of the House.
There has been a tradition in the west and in this province of building toward human dignity, so that there are decent wages and working conditions, and that we can build up our human capital and the ability of our young people to do more important and worthwhile things.
I tell you, if there is one twisted thread in the activity of this Premier, it is to destroy wage levels in British Columbia. We saw that with Bill 19. That is the real goal: to lower wages in British Columbia. You check the wage structure in his operations. You just think about it. There has been a consistent pattern in terms of driving down wages. That's what Bill 19 was about, and I suggest that in the end that's what privatization is all about too, Mr. Speaker.
The roots of privatization and attacking the public sector are not consistent with the real history of this province or this nation. The building of the CPR across this nation was a joint effort and to a very great extent involved government.
I get excited when I think about what the small western Canadian provinces have achieved, Saskatchewan in particular. At an earlier stage in my development, Saskatchewan puzzled me, in terms of how this small province, with limited resources and a limited number of people, could achieve what they have. They achieved it through a cooperative system and through public enterprise and the development of human capital in a sparse region. They did that because the regular economic capital was not interested in this so-called marginal region. In this area that was at one time a dustbowl, they have evolved as one of the most modern local administrations in North America: an incredible achievement against great odds. But they did it with the development of human capital, because they were ignored by Upper Canada and the central capital people that controlled the funds and insurance money and banks in this country. They did it themselves, but they did it collectively, in a way that set a standard for the rest of this nation in countless fields.
Interjection.
MR. WILLIAMS: My friend, the people in this country, who have medicare and are not destroyed by the cost of health that scares the Americans, would not say what you are saying today.
But they were entrepreneurial as well in the public sector, and you people don't understand that. You are not entrepreneurial at all, you so-called businessmen. It is ironic and twisted that you don't believe in entrepreneurship in government. That is a kind of madness.
This radical Premier does not understand this whole idea of the building up of human capital. That's why we've seen what's happening in the Highways department. You read a letter like the letter from Mr. Zapf, who was 35 years in the Highways ministry, who talks about human capital and the building up of expertise, and who is proud of what he and his colleagues achieved in Highways in British Columbia.
[11:00]
The civil servants who have served understand well the idea of human capital, and they know that this Premier is heading the wrecking crew. You are the front-line radicals, the wrecking crew, the advance league for the Fraser Institute. That's who you are.
You think of the people who are going to be dropped out of the civil service in the next couple of months with your golden handshake. Thirty-five hundred people will qualify — 10 percent of the public service. And you people have no idea where they will come from, those that will go. Will it be 60 percent of an expert group in one sector? Will it be 40 percent of the expertise in the Highways department in some region? You simply don't know. You dismiss it.
The attitude of this Premier is that they're all equal in a sense. All of these people are just lackeys in a way, and we can hire more of them anywhere, in any style. It doesn't matter. He doesn't understand the whole idea of building up a
[ Page 2971 ]
group expertise. That's why you can throw away the R and D group at B.C. Hydro, which is a whole group that has evolved with some considerable skills. Sure, your voting people in Surrey, my friend — you can dismiss them, and I hope you pay the price. And so with the Highways department and other skills — all of these ignored.
It's appropriate that this Premier should be attacking the Highways department, because he's a detour in the modern history of this province.
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, Mr. Speaker, we hear the arguments of public versus private and the public sector carrying on with the various activities in the province, as opposed to seeing it turned over to the private sector. In all of these arguments, continually as we heard it now, statements are made such as that these people presently employed in the public sector will somehow become a part of public waste or human waste, in that they'll be shoved aside, pushed aside and forgotten. I'm sure that most of the people in this province — and I guess it's so throughout the country — have worked in some private sector company, and from time to time they've gone from one company to another, or to another job within that same company. But somehow the members opposite are of the opinion that once persons are employed in the public sector, they somehow can't be employed similarly doing the same thing in the private sector; that because they've been a part of that public sector activity, because they've been a part of government and government control, they can't then perform equally as well and do the same job in the private sector. How sad to realize that we have those who are of a philosophy that once locked into government, people must somehow always continue with government; that they can't perform equally well — perhaps even better — in the private sector; that people might be considered human waste if they're not involved with that public sector activity; and those who choose, as a part of the process, to take early retirement from the government sector, from the public sector, to find some time for themselves or to be involved in some other activity — that this too is somehow a waste.
The argument obviously will continue, because we are philosophically opposed in this whole debate. The NDP, the opposition, wants to see the growth of government forevermore, continuing on with all things — and other things — being done by government; that what was many years ago and what still exists in many other countries.... Countries like Britain, New Zealand, the U.S.A, and others are going back to doing things in the private sector, but that this can't be done in British Columbia. I think it's sad, but the debate will continue. I'm sure that at the next session — or in another year — we will look back and realize that people are well able to perform in a competitive private sector and provide services to the people of this province in a very effective and competitive but productive manner.
MR. ROSE: I thought the Premier wasn't going to get up. I'm always glad to have him involved.
I'm sorry, Mr. Premier, but you come across sounding just a little bit like the Herbert Hoover of British Columbia: if we cut everywhere, contract out, beat down wages, somehow we're going to have prosperity. It doesn't work that way. The costs will probably be no less; they just won't be paid to a public service that gets decent wages and can spend money in the small businesses of the community. Instead of having a flag person on the road at maybe $10 or $11 an hour, it will be $3 or $4 or $5. What you're going to get are McDonald's hamburger jobs instead of good jobs.
MR. WILLIAMS: I do wish the Premier was more a genuine student of modern history, because we are paying the price in British Columbia for the fact that he is not. I don't think he really understands the tradition of western Canada. I don't think he really understands the idea of a pool of human capital, and that once you break it up and drop these people and push them out the door, you've lost something; that the sum of the parts is worth more than the pieces individually; that collectively they mean something special. I think Saskatchewan has proved that again and again, and that's why I used the example.
I think there are elements of it here. In Vancouver city hall we have probably one of the finest collections of public service talent in the west. They make this administration and — I'm sorry to say — the public service of the province look frail in comparison. That shouldn't be the case. So the city of Vancouver has great benefits as a result of that pool of human capital in the building at 12th and Cambie.
What we have here is a radical restructuring of British Columbia in the eyes of this Premier who is not a good student of history, and that is very disturbing. You know, we have it with the free trade, as well — the readiness to leap. We might agree on that in common areas, but there are others that are devastating, and I don't think the Premier has done the homework or the reading, or has the understanding. We've seen it in our fishing industry, in terms of what it's going to mean there. Just in that specific tight area, there hasn't been that kind of homework done.
There is a real need for homework; it has not occurred. That's why the people of this province are worried and concerned that you don't really understand the nature of British Columbia. You are determined to make it into something like south of the 49th. We are a free and independent nation. We have a different view of our role in the world. We do not see it as the fifty-first American state, Mr. Premier. We stand for Canada.
NON-TRADITIONAL HEALTH CARE
MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, my topic this morning is non-traditional opportunities for improved health care. I can't help but think that the topic I'm going to speak about is also along the lines of the previous speaker's, when he talked about the issue of human capital.
I want to say that I fully support the comments that our Premier has made about human capital. I know that in my riding, as we took at the issue of privatization and what advantages it might hold out for human capital within this province and within the public service.... I support the issue of privatization and I was enthused in the last couple of days at how a constituent of mine who is an employee of the Ministry of Forests has come to Victoria — not at our invitation, but on his own initiative — to present to the government a proposal for privatization of part of the Ministry of Forests which we in Victoria had never even thought about. He has come down here to present a proposal which will save the government a million dollars a month, involving a group of about 200 employees. This is the kind of thing that this government is encouraging. It is encouraging the human capital that's out there within our public service to look
[ Page 2972 ]
constructively at government operations, to put some initiative into their occupations, to put some initiative into the daily tasks that they work with, and to try to find better ways of doing things. So I'm sure that as we proceed with privatization, we're going to find that the human capital that we have is going to rise up and productively contribute to this province in a way that they never have before. They will be more efficient and more enthusiastic than they've ever been before. So, despite what the opposition says, the public service longs to be a more enthusiastic and more productive part of the human capital of this province, and they will contribute in a greater way.
I want to talk this morning, though, about another issue: health care. We all know that health care is a major component of the budget of this province. It's an issue that will grow to be even greater in the 1990s. I am concerned that while we are spending a third of our budget on health care now, we may spend half of it in the 1990s and even more as we turn the century.
Most of the solutions that we have to health care problems in this province are what I would call the traditional solutions. Most people that have health care problems go to the medical doctors, they are treated by the nurses in our hospitals, and most of that service that's rendered by the doctors and nurses is extremely good and extremely competent. I think we can hold our heads high when we think of the service that the doctors and nurses in this province provide. However, while we have fought wars and economic battles through the thirties and through other times, we have a problem in this province, and throughout the country and the world, and I think we may need to enlist a greater degree of non-traditional solutions.
I especially want to focus on the drug and alcohol abuses that are happening here and abroad. I'm very encouraged to see that this government is taking an active part in non-traditional health programs to treat those difficulties we are now facing with health care in this province. One thing that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) has encouraged is an inventory of the drug and alcohol problems that we have in this province. This just recently came to my attention, with the publication of the adolescent survey in November. I'd just like to mention a few things from it, because I think it has brought some things to my attention, in that we can see that we have a very definite drug and alcohol problem.
The survey that's highlighted in this publication goes right across the province. When I see things like 74.4 percent of adolescents having used alcohol in the last 12 months, I know that we've got a significant problem. I also see in this report that 55.5 percent of those in grade 8 consumed alcohol in the past year. The report also talks about the use of tobacco: 28.5 percent of adolescents used tobacco in the last 12 months. I might be impressed that that number is as low as it is, when we compare it with the 74 percent for alcohol.
[11:15]
I see similar high percentages using drugs, and I think it's of interest to note that there is no great variation by gender. It's also interesting to note that the use of drugs and alcohol increases by grade, so that while we have a high percentage of grade 8s and 9s using drugs and alcohol, it gets worse as they grow up and go into grades 10, 11 and 12. When we think about the problem increasing, it's likely to assume — and I'm sure it's true — that this use increases as they get out of high school and into college or the workforce.
We also find in this report that drugs, alcohol and tobacco are, of course, very easy to obtain; that's true right across the province in the small towns as well as the large towns. I'm glad to see that our government is taking inventory, as we're doing, in order to know how big the problem is.
The next thing that we're doing — and I'm encouraged to see this as well — is taking....
MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time under standing orders is up.
MRS. BOONE: I'm very happy to see that the member from the Kootenays actually read that report. I read it too, and the adolescent survey, and I was as appalled, although not surprised, by the results, because I've known about these results for some time and the fact that we do have a tremendous alcohol problem in this country and in particular in this province. If you get into the northern half of the province, it gets even worse.
One of the things that was mentioned in that report is that adolescents found that alcohol was easily accessible. Yet this government, as you say, in doing something to stop this, is actually going against the Jansen report, which was touted as being a very good report. They are going against that and actually selling off some of their liquor stores. They're doing exactly the opposite of what that report indicated. In fact, if you talk to the alcohol and drug education society here, they will tell you that they are very worried about the possible selling off of liquor stores and the implications for the people of this province and the young people, because alcohol is going to be more accessible.
We are concerned about some of the moves that we see happening right now. The Logan Lake youth drug dependency program has not received any funding. How is that attacking this problem? The government is not funding the very agencies that are out there attacking these problems and giving support. I heard from a gentleman from Cassiar, who says that they have been encouraged to promote employee assistance programs, yet they have no place to refer people to. They have no alcohol and drug program.
We have an alcohol and drug program system in Prince George. It services the entire north, from 100 Mile House up to the Yukon border. How can that one small group of people adequately serve an area that large? How can they give those people the support they want? There is not the support out there for these people; there is definitely not the support out there for the young people of this province. If you go to Kamloops or Cranbrook or any of those places — and you've been to Cranbrook, I'm sure — and talk to the people, they'll tell you that young people are falling through the cracks out there. There is nothing out there to assist them. There is no help in this society, with this government, for young people.
The government is saying that they are doing things, but nothing is out there right now. The government program down on Dallas Road is in jeopardy. They may not get any funding there for the residential program. Instead, they have to move into a day program.
What is this province doing? They're doing nothing. They're giving lip-service to things; they're talking about things they're going to do, but we are not seeing any action out there. We're not seeing anything to help the people of this province. The people out there need it; they need that help right now, as that survey indicated.
[ Page 2973 ]
You talk in terms of alternative forms of medicine which you say you're going to need. We agree. Yet this government has put user fees on the alternative forms of medicine. They put user fees on the very things that are keeping down our drug costs, the areas that are going to keep people at home, keep them out of hospitals. You have user fees on chiropractors, physiotherapists, massage practitioners, and there is talk now that you may even eliminate naturopaths, massage practitioners and some of these from the Medical Services Plan. What sort of support is that for the alternative forms of medicine? Once again you give lip-service to these things, and yet you do not in any way help to promote any of these forms of medicine in this province.
We need to review some of these things. We need to take a look at what we have in our medical services. We need to approach things from a different angle. We need to put our money into the prevention end of things, and we're not doing that. We are constantly putting band-aids on it. We have the Premier out there sticking his thumb into the dam, constantly stopping flow so that it won't overflow, but we don't have any long-term program. We don't have anything to save this province from the disaster that's going to come about. And there are going to be disasters in this province if we don't take a look at some other alternatives.
The alcohol program and the drug program.... The drug abuse problems in this province are massive, and they haven't come about overnight; it has been there for a long time. Yet this government has constantly ignored the problems of these people and the problems of the youth.
MR. CRANDALL: I can't help but be reminded of the comment of the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) when she talked about the quality versus quantity issue this morning. The member for Prince George North talked about Cranbrook. I would like to know if she could give me an inventory of Cranbrook's liquor outlets, because if she would add up the private liquor outlets — the restaurants, pubs, wine and beer stores and, indeed, the private liquor stores that are operating there now — she would probably find it's already very well privatized. In Golden, the area I'm most familiar with, we have two private liquor stores already operating. So when we talk about quality versus quantity, we've heard a lot of quantity. I'm not too sure we've had too much quality from the other side, but so be it.
Let me talk about something else that I'm concerned about on this issue, and that's that I'm proud of the work we are doing in the schools of this province. I'm encouraged by the employee programs that we have with Workers' Compensation. I want to talk about one other aspect, and it's the aspect we're going to need if we're to be successful in dealing with the drug and alcohol problem in this province: that is, an even greater involvement of the citizens. We've seen some recent involvement with the commercial side of this province in the airlines, where they're doing some very good work keeping tobacco off the airlines. We know that the best work that has ever happened in alcohol treatment is with the Alcoholics Anonymous program. I've been encouraged as I've seen a program enter B.C. in the last month with treatment of drug abuse. An organization called PRIDE Canada, which is based in our sister province of Saskatchewan, has come into Powell River and put on a program there working with the young people, the high schools and other interested people in the community, such as the parents.
What I want to say is that if we are going to be successful in dealing with this drug and alcohol abuse problem in our province, we are going to have to mobilize the people that we mobilized in times of war, the people that we mobilize in times of economic recession: the citizens across this province, the parents, the students. If they will take a real active part — and I encourage them to do so — in struggling with this drug and alcohol abuse problem, we will be successful. We've seen a start already in Powell River, in a different, non-traditional way, and as that moves across the province we possibly will become successful in dealing with this drug and alcohol problem.
MR. ROSE: At the beginning of the last session, before the summer break, the House Leader and I agreed that he would give an indication of House business for the coming week. That was to take place usually after question period on Thursday. I don't think it was done this time.
The reason I ask the question is that this side needs an indication of what might be coming forward in the coming week, especially relating to the business of the bilateral free trade negotiations; because I understand it's to be signed on January 2, and if this House doesn't address it before that time, it would mean there would be no debate on this extremely important subject.
Now there are two resolutions standing on the order paper. They tend to contradict one another, but they are number 69 and number 70. I wondered if either of those motions was contemplated as a possible target of debate for the next week.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: With respect to the business of next week, I have in private conversation with the opposition Whip and, to a lesser degree, with the opposition House Leader, who was away.... It was on very important business; I'm not criticizing that. But I have communicated the progress of next week, the two bills which have been tabled today, and the official opposition is aware of two more bills that are coming.
With respect to Resolutions 69 and 70, I cannot at this point give any commitment to that debate. I will perhaps editorially advise the House that as we know, the free trade agreement and ratification is clearly a federal matter and totally within the power of that government.
MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could just clarify. One of these motions stands in the name of a cabinet minister, one of the most experienced, venerated and venerable ministers in the House. Since it was clearly not put on the order paper because it was federal, and in view of the fact that this House would have no other opportunity to debate it before it's signed if we don't do it next week, I wonder if the government might reconsider. Clearly this is a massive change in our relationships with our neighbour, and has profound implications for us provincially, in terms of provincial powers and rights. So I would ask the indulgence of the House Leader to at least give this very urgent and earnest consideration.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to go to orders of the day, Mr. Speaker.
Leave granted.
[ Page 2974 ]
Orders of the Day
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 58.
OPEN LEARNING AGENCY ACT
The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 approved.
On section 3.
MS. MARZARI: I rise to begin my discussion and my questioning of the minister around the area of the purposes of the new agency that is going to replace the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network of British Columbia; in fact, it actually removes one of them from section 82 of the University Act and gives it a new definition altogether.
[11:30]
I will begin by saying that here we are in a sea of privatization in this province, with our human capital being sold off and the fabric of our society and our civil service being ripped apart, and here, in this last moment before the House prorogues, we have a new public agency being introduced onto the scene — a new public agency which, if I can read my figures correctly from the estimates, is costing the taxpayers this year $9 million. The opposition looks at this act and says: "All power to the Open Learning Institute, Knowledge Network and distance learning." But we have to say at this point that, were we living under normal circumstances, where our post-secondary institutions were living without fear and outside a blanket of restraint; were we in this province experiencing fewer pressures on post-secondary education; were we in this province not having to face a continuing restriction of resources expended on post-secondary education, the opposition — this side of the House — would feel a lot less concerned.
We would say wholeheartedly that the negotiation and development of distance education in this province should go on, and we would help you develop it. We would be there. We have discussed and spent many years discussing with OLI, with distance-learning people and with Knowledge Network their structures, how they're going and how it's coming along.
But we have to come back to the fact that we're not living in normal times in British Columbia. Your government has made sure of that. Your government for the last five years has cut back our community college budgets by one-third. We have witnessed a severe tightening of budgeting around our universities. We have seen minimum increases in accessibility to universities and colleges in our province. We have not seen the kind of opening on the part of the government as a whole towards what post-secondary education can mean for the province. We haven't seen a human capital plan for this province. We're not living in normal circumstances in British Columbia today.
Were we to see universities functioning autonomously, with a good contract with the government properly established, with a stable civil service — which had a five-year plan, for example, for capital and core budgeting; were we to see the province establishing standards for accessibility for people in the north, for people in rural areas, for women; were we to see those standards; were we to see a standard for financial investment in universities and post-secondary education and a plan for capital expansion on the campuses that exist now, this opposition and I would feel a lot more comfortable with the bill before us today.
Were we to see a human capital plan, we would feel more comfortable with what's before us today. If a plan was put in front of us that showed that the department had worked closely with the universities and colleges, their administrations and their faculties, to talk about the real dilemmas facing faculties and administrations today — that dilemma being, of course, the fact of an ageing faculty, which by 1995 is going to have to be replaced.... I think the numbers range up towards 50 percent facing retirement of faculty by 1995, in such numbers that a plan must be instituted now.
Let me go on from that particular concern to the concern that the opposition has: is this bill — the new Open Learning Agency — your answer? Is this your plan? Is this the way your government wishes to deal with the fact that so many faculty are going to be retiring within the next ten years? Is this your government's way of dealing with the need for capital expansion for the universities and colleges in this province? We know that UBC alone needs $60 million over the next few years to replace old post-Second-World-War huts. We know that at UVic the arts school is operating out of Quonset huts, poorly ventilated, poorly handled, which could be considered firetraps. We know that at UVic the library operating budget has been cut back considerably in the last year.
Is this our way, this government's way, of dealing with those very real problems — financial problems, economic problems — that face post-secondary education? Because if the Open Learning Agency is to be used to answer those kinds of questions.... My colleague from Burnaby North put these questions forward yesterday, using different language, phrasing them slightly differently, but you can see from both his questions and my questions that our concern is that this new agency, which should be born with praise from both sides of the House, is not. It's being born with suspicion, and not just from this side of the House. I must say, from my contacts throughout the province with both administrations and with faculty and with students, that their suspicion is that this new agency, as small as it is, with a budget of $9 million, could threaten them, could threaten our notion of what an education is — that is, teaching people to think — could threaten that capacity inside our existing system and could replace future expansion, both capital expansion and operating expansion. If that is the case, or if there is any hint of that, I would suggest to your side of the House that you have a long way to go in terms of consulting with all facets of the postsecondary community, and pulling them into some kind of consultation with the proponents and the founders of this new movement.
Turning to section 3, the purposes of the agency are, in collaboration with universities, institutions, boards of school trustees and other agencies concerned with education, to provide a credit bank, to coordinate development, to use open-learning methods, to carry out research and to operate one or more broadcasting undertakings. Excellent! Where is the collaboration? Where is the consultation to this point? Because this is an agency which is partly there to develop these collaborative tools, to develop cooperative education. And yet the B.C. faculty association for community colleges
[ Page 2975 ]
has not been approached about this bill, it has not seen a copy of this bill. In fact, although many of us were aware that a new agency was being created, nobody.... This side of the House certainly did not see the provisions of this bill until it was put on the floor the other day.
So you can see that the questions remain, and aren't going to be easily answered, especially since, I should add, in my reading of the Blues yesterday I noticed that the member from North Vancouver, who took over when the minister left, made some suggestion that 1,000 to 2,000 students could be properly educated with a television set. I know; the minister is flinching. I can see him wince. I can hear the wince across the floor. He's not speaking for his colleagues at this point, obviously. But I caution the minister that this is further indication, if this in fact is the attitude of your side of the House, that we have reason to be very concerned that the new agency will not be ushered in with praise from both sides of the House.
On section 3, can you talk to me, then, a little about the collaboration that has gone on? Who is talking to whom about this new agency right now?
HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member from the other side. I'm sorry that she wasn't here yesterday to hear my response to a couple of the issues that she raised, but I'm pleased to go through them again.
In answer to some of her first comments, I'm pleased — and I know that she's pleased also — that we were able to address the budgets of the universities and colleges and all aspects of post-secondary education in this year's budget, much to the happiness of people involved in the system. One of the areas that we addressed was the student financial assistance program. She made reference to participation rates, and I'm sure she's happy to see that our participation rates and first-year registrations are up substantially this year, particularly at the universities. I think the University of Victoria is up something like 16.5 percent, which shows that we're carrying out our commitment to post-secondary education.
With regard to consultation and meetings with people in the system, I think that I can stand here and say quite honestly that there probably hasn't been another minister — at least for a number of years — who has consulted as much with people in the system as this minister has. I have met constantly with the university presidents, with the faculty associations whenever they have asked, and with the students when I am on the campuses.
She made reference to the need for a five-year plan perhaps. I have in fact asked the three university presidents for a ten-year plan for capital requirements, for their growth estimates, and for their requirements with regard to the ageing faculty question. They have been very positive with regard to that request, and I know that I'll be receiving that information very shortly.
With regard to capital, of course we're continually addressing the need for capital at the campuses. We just announced, as you know, a $16.5 million chem-physics building at UBC, which is presently under construction.
Her main question was relative to section 3, with regard to what consultation had taken place, who we were talking to and who was talking to people. This Open Learning Agency Act has certainly not been a secret. The people in the system have been asking when I was going to bring it forward, both last session and this session. I didn't bring it forward last session because our consultation process was not completed. In fact, we did an extensive process with one of my assistant deputies starting last February. As a result of that process we arrived at the description under section 3 of this act, and it was done through a consultative process. The consultation has in fact gone on over a year and a half.
[11:45]
I can assure the hon. member that the Open Learning Agency Act is not here to replace other delivery methods in education but in fact to work together with other delivery methods to provide what we on this side of the House want to provide, and that is the best quality education system in this country. I think that we're well on the way to doing that.
So I would say that there has been considerable discussion, considerable involvement in developing this act. The people in the system look forward to the act, look forward to the chance to work together with the colleges and the universities, the training institutes, the Knowledge Network, and the Open Learning Agency.
MS. A. HAGEN: First of all, I just want to comment on the matter of consultation. I certainly accept the minister's comments about the fact that consultation has occurred, but I do regret the speed with which this bill is possibly going through the House. The community of universities, colleges and institutes will not have had, I think, an opportunity to see a final copy of this bill before deliberations on it in the House have been concluded. I think that that is unfortunate, even if the bill reflects the results of the consultation and all the parties are happy with it. I just think that a bill of this importance in setting up another institution in the province deserves to have an amount of time that allows the academic community an opportunity to peruse it and to review it before it passes the House.
I'm not necessarily presuming what the result of today will be, but if it should complete committee stage today, then it will, except for third reading, have gone through the due process of the House.
I have but one relatively brief question on section 3. Since the minister has noted that this agency is really a new institution in the province, what kinds of articulation does he anticipate will occur and by what processes will that articulation take place, particularly with the colleges but also with the universities in terms of the educational credit banks for students and the kind of coordination that will exist between the colleges and the Open Learning Agency?
It seems to me we have a potential here for some change in the roles of colleges, particularly in the interior and northern parts of the province and the northern part of Vancouver Island, and the role that they fill. It seems to me that the working relationships between the Open Learning Agency and those colleges is going to be critical for the educational future of the students who will be using either or both of these means of educational opportunity in their regions. So could the minister talk about articulation?
HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be pleased to do that, but I just want to get back to the consultative process and this constant referral to the speed at which this bill is proceeding. I'm just having a little difficulty with that. The consulting has gone on for a year and a half to two years, which means it started before I became the minister. During my tenure as minister
[ Page 2976 ]
we've spent nine months developing this bill, together with the colleges, universities and institutes out there. The other thing is that the Knowledge Network and the Open Learning Institute have been operating in this province for many years. What this bill does is coordinate their roles. So it's not as if.... I did not say that this was a brand-new agency. It's coordinating something that has already been taking place.
Before I get into the credit bank, the planning councils talked about in the bill are going to play a very major role. I said yesterday that not only will the board members be appointed from various regions of the province, but the planning councils will also be appointed from various regions, because it's very important to me that the information that comes in from the planning councils be representative of the needs in the various areas of the province.
The colleges in particular in this province have for many, many years been playing a major role in the delivery of distance education, as I'm sure the other side of the House knows. Colleges that I mentioned yesterday, particularly North Island College and Northwest Community College, have played a major role in developing the distance education delivery system that we have in this province, which is recognized around the world as one of the best, and it's one we are very proud of.
I just want to make some comments on the credit bank, which is a very important aspect of this bill. The credit bank will enable students to accumulate credits gained from courses taken at various times in various institutions, and complete program requirements leading to degrees, diplomas or certificates. Through the cooperation of the universities, colleges and institutes, the Open Learning Agency will enable students to receive recognition for course completion and provide students the option of formal certification from the institution of their choice. For example, a student may complete a bachelor of arts degree at the University of British Columbia with several credits gained from prerequisite courses taken at the Open Learning Institute, Simon Fraser University and several colleges. Each institution awarding the appropriate certification — degree, diploma, etc. — must be satisfied that the respective student has met the academic performance criteria and the requirements determined by its governing board.
I think this act will enable people to take programs where they can take them at the time, and be assured that they are going to get full accreditation for these programs. I think that's very important, and I'm sure that members opposite will agree with that.
The bill is a good bill. It will assist in the coordination of delivering education to the various areas of the province, which we as a government see as very, very important for the future of the province.
MR. MILLER: I will divert my mind from the Pearse report, which I was trying to educate myself with, and talk about....
AN HON. MEMBER: Distance education.
MR. MILLER: Thank you. My colleague says I'm going to talk about distance education — from the distance across the way here in the House.
You mentioned Northwest Community College. Perhaps to preface, I have some concerns about the introduction of this kind of technology as it applies to education, because I have a very strong belief that education is not simply a matter of imparting facts or figures. In that regard, I guess we can all remember, or should remember, teachers who had particular influences on us as human beings in terms of their character.
I recall that the Chairman got me during debate on Bill 19, when I tried to close my remarks with a quote from the Bible, and he very cleverly finished the quote for me when my time was up. The reason I recalled that and was able to apply it to debate, whether other members think it was good or bad, was that a teacher in grade 8 happened to chastise me for always being talkative and disrupting the class. He was a kind of bookish Englishman, but he impressed me. I recalled some 30 years later — or however many years — this little exercise where I had to write out the quotes from the Bible.
I think that's very important in education. Although I've never been to university, I would think that it might be even more true there that professors represent ways of thinking, and that direct contact and things that rub off.... That has certainly been true throughout history, going way back to Aristotle and some of the people of that time.
I do have a concern. One of the things that did come up with respect to Northwest Community College was the move to replace live instructors with television screens or telephone hookups. Although from a budget point of view it may be more efficient, I'm not certain that it's a better education. In fact, I'm not certain that anything you learn from a television screen is all that good; you're better off reading, I think. I just have a caution, I suppose, that if there is some attempt in terms of moving into the Open Learning Institute concept that could be justified in terms of budget cutbacks and the replacement of live instructors....
I just want to voice some concerns that I think I've raised with the minister before, that in those small communities in British Columbia, the access definitely.... I don't care what programs the minister has brought in to improve it; there is definitely a barrier to access to post-secondary education. I think that that's of great concern, because having lived up there for a good part of my life, I know the kinds of deficiencies we have in terms of professionals and others. I know that lots of the people, if they grow up in that community and are able to get educations, come back to the community. They put something back into the community and we're all the richer for it.
So I would like some assurance — and I know of other members who have canvassed the point — that we won't see this used to further justify budget cuts at the community college level and replace instructors with television screens. Over the long term I don't think it's a saving, and I don't think it's real education.
HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to address this for the fifth time during this debate. I appreciate what you've said, because I have visited Northwest Community College. I've spoken to the instructors, and they indicated the concern that they had about five years ago with regard to being replaced by television. But they haven't had that concern for a long time, because they understand now how the process works.
With regard to budget cuts, I guess I have to reiterate that we were able to put more money into the system this year — in both community colleges and universities.
I guess I could say again that the Knowledge Network and Open Learning have been operating for many years. What we're doing is bringing them together in a coordinated role.
[ Page 2977 ]
We expect that this will improve the interactions between the colleges, universities and technical institutes.
MR. LOVICK: Clearly, when I discover that the issue is post-secondary education, I can't take a vow of silence or some such thing. I have to offer a few observations. I'm going to be relatively brief in my comments.
What I want to do apropos of section 3 is to deal particularly with one subsection in there, namely 3(c): "The purposes of the agency are, in collaboration with universities, institutions, boards of school trustees and other agencies concerned with education, to.... use open learning methods to provide educational programs and services...." Fine; no problem. The difficulty I have with this particular section — and indeed with the concept of distance education — is a legitimate concern, I think, given the history of post-secondary education for the past decade or so. The minister can, in all honesty and sincerity, say that suddenly, apparently, money has been found and we are now able to provide services; we've been able to improve the system somewhat. The predicament, however, is that some of us have a longer memory. We recognize how fragile indeed is the health of the educational community. We are therefore prone to be perhaps overly suspicious of ways of approaching education that are, by all calculations, cheaper ways of approaching the delivery of post-secondary educational services.
[12:00]
As one who taught in the college system for a number of years, I can tell you that most of my colleagues and I recognize the value of, and indeed the need for, distance education. We welcome the advent of the Open Learning Institute and of the Knowledge Network; but we do so with a couple of reservations and a couple of conditions. The primary one is that we never lose sight of the fact that education means a great deal more that simply assimilating X amount of information: what we in the field — and I am sure the minister is now familiar with the nomenclature and terminology — like to refer to as something called an education experience. An education experience is, as I say, not just a simple matter of ingesting X amount of information; rather it's a process of being subjected and exposed to influences that come not merely from a book or a television screen but from an environment.
My contention, to put it as succinctly as I am able, is that we are doing a disservice if we in any way encourage a system of post-secondary education that makes it possible for people to acquire university degrees without having the benefit and the advantage of a university setting.
I would just like to suggest, Mr. Minister, that what we ought to do is guarantee that every student who has the requisite qualifications and the desire and the ability ought to be guaranteed an opportunity to spend at least one year in his or her academic career at a university. If that means a loans program or a grants program or travel vouchers or whatever, so be it.
I don't think that that is a luxury. I don't think it's a question of saying, well, here's the chance for the kid from down on the farm to see the sights of gay Paree — to allude to a line from an old song, as the minister did the other day; rather it's an opportunity to go and experience something, whatever the other blessings and attractions of small-town British Columbia might be, that small-town British Columbia does not have.
I'm talking about the concentration of resources and people with expertise that one simply can't find anywhere but at a major university.
MR. WILLIAMS: Human capital.
MR. LOVICK: Human capital, my colleague from Vancouver East says, and he's absolutely right. It's a variation on a theme that we discussed earlier this morning. Let me, if I can, try again, albeit briefly, to sketch out what that means.
I recall, for example, when I attended university my first year in 1963, after having taken a year out doing the European voyage.... Of course I thought that I was incredibly sophisticated, very knowledgeable. I came from east Vancouver, so clearly I had all the benefits of a cosmopolitan upbringing. I had all of those things, but what happened was that I went to university and suddenly was exposed to influences and ideas that, frankly, had never crossed my mind before.
I was literate at the time: I had read some books, I had travelled, I had some experience. It sounds horribly egotistical, but I think I was reasonably worldly-wise for 19 years old. I think I had that, but the fact is I went to the university and suddenly the world exploded. À la Milton: "The world was all before me; where to choose...., and Providence my guide." It was marvellous, a tremendous opportunity.
I recall, for example — allow me to be just a little bit anecdotal, Mr. Chairman — vividly the first day of going to the university and sitting down in the cafeteria to have a cup of coffee. The guy sitting across from the table looked rather stern and a little bit imposing and intimidating, and I mustered my courage and said,"Well, hi, how are you doing?" or some such witty question.
The comment, of course, came back, slightly disapproving, that my question was really rather silly, given the context of where we were. Now the guy, as it happened, was a little bit pretentious, a little bit pompous. But I discovered this was a man who had spent the last three years doing a postdoctorate on nuclear physics. I had never met a nuclear physicist in my life.
I spent the next hour talking with that individual and learning something about the subject — an opportunity, to be quite blunt, I would not otherwise have had, because I was not in a science curriculum. It was a marvellous opportunity, and I'm suggesting to you that what happens is that that university environment produces and generates just those kinds of things. What we do, it seems to me, if we fall into the trap of suggesting even for a moment that education equals nothing more than passing X number of courses and writing X number of exams, is effectively to deprive people of real education. That's the problem.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that individuals who go and do the requisite number of courses, and get the appropriate nods and ticks and so forth that one needs for a degree or a certificate or some such thing, are necessarily ill-educated. I'm tempted to say that, but I won't conclude that; I recognize that there can be exceptions. What I am arguing, however, is that we have invested considerable dollars in the physical and intellectual capital of our institutions of learning. If, for the sake of a relatively few dollars, we allow people to get degrees without taking advantage of those marvellous facilities, we are really missing the point, it seems to me.
[ Page 2978 ]
I therefore want to suggest, to conclude this rather rambling discourse.... I see that the Chairman is looking at me, saying: "Where does this lead, Mr. Lovick?" He always asks me for that guidance — that was meant to be a subtle witticism, I hasten to point out. Where I'm leading with all this is just to offer an admonition, a caution that we do not become fixated and hung up on the notion of distance learning or alternative delivery systems to the point that we lose sight of what is clearly the most exciting and significant aspect of post-secondary education; namely, the interaction of human beings in a setting designed to promote and foster that kind of interaction.
MR. ROSE: I will try not to be an equally rambling rose. But I do have some thoughts about education, since I spent considerable time doing one thing or other in schools and colleges, and I've been through a considerable number of periods where we felt we had something revolutionary in education that was going to change the world.
We were going to knock down all the walls in the classroom, and everybody got mixed up together; we lusted after that for quite a while until we had to put all the walls back up again. We went through the period where we thought that it would be just wonderful if we had teaching machines and everybody could proceed at his or her own pace. And we went through all the philosophy of Skinner, instant reinforcement: if you were a pigeon and you pecked in the right pattern, you'd get a reward of some grain, and you could learn to do all sorts of things. That was to be transferred to children.
Then we went through this whole business of television in the schools, and what a wonderful thing that was going to be. But nobody could see the small screens, so that didn't work very well, and we had to have the teacher standing at the back of the room with a lash to make sure that discipline and proper decorum was observed at all times.
I hope this is not another trap. If we think we can take distance learning or open learning, as it's envisioned — and it works very well in the unitary state, in a small country, in Britain — and transfer it holus-bolus to this country, I think we'll be disillusioned and disappointed. I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea. I think we have to address the fact that a rural student has half the opportunity to go to university of one, say, from Point Grey or the lower mainland or Victoria. I think that's the thing we have to grapple with.
I'm not sure, though, that this is the answer; it may be partly the answer. Although my colleague spoke eloquently about how his intellect and understanding were broadened and improved by a chance acquaintance with a nuclear physicist in the coffee lounge, that doesn't necessarily mean bringing every rural student down and putting him in a university. It is possible, though, to take a university and put it in the rural community. That's possible, and I think that should be the case, because I think it is important for students to rub shoulders with ideas other than the ones they hold. Frankly, many of them come into schools and higher education indoctrinated, not educated at all.
I watch the Knowledge Network — that and CBC and Channel 9, which is PBS, are about all I do watch — and I think it's amazingly good.
HON. S. HAGEN: Amazingly good?
MR. ROSE: Yes. Is that not right? It's an adverb modifying an adjective. That's permissible if you're not too pedantic; I prefer to leave the phrase, and I intend to.
One of the problems, though, is what Skinner pointed out with the pigeons. In distance learning there's a lack of feedback. The lack of feedback is due to the fact that the student doesn't often enough have an opportunity to check with his or her tutor. I've been up in the interior, out of Smithers and Prince George, and have learned from students that often the tutor in a particular area is not even versed in the area; that he's supposed to be a generalist. That isn't what you get at a university, and quite frankly it's not good enough. There are all kinds of transportation problems associated with even getting to a tutor, and babysitters and all the rest of it. I'm not saying you shouldn't be doing what you're doing. Never give somebody the dickens for doing what you wanted them to do in the first place. I think that's a reasonably good maxim.
We don't want a diploma mill. We want to move more of the universities to the students if we can't move students to the universities. The pure, dry, teaching-machine approach — the television approach — is, I think, somewhat less than what we need. We know there's a problem in rural education, but we also know there's a problem in education per se. If you've demeaned and battered education.... You've undervalued the work of teachers now for the last five years; it's hardly fair to expect students to be enamoured with learning. If there has been a systematic government policy of demeaning the work of teachers, cutting back in the universities, then regardless of the admirable qualities of the minister, I don't think this is going to change overnight.
My view is that our participation rate rurally is too small. The minister agrees. Our participation rate in B.C. totally is too small. It's about half what it should be and half of what it probably is in our sister province of Ontario. I don't think we're doing enough. We should be decentralizing through our colleges, if necessary — a real university experience for these students after they've had the delightful taste of the Knowledge Network and the Open Learning Institute. So we like what you're doing, but we want you to do some more.
MS. MARZARI: I'd like to do a summary of section 3, Mr. Chairman. You have heard from my colleagues basically an expansion of how I opened this discussion on section 3. I think you will find that this side of the House is interested in — it's eager for, it's anxious for — seeing this new child that is being created here do something appropriate and fulfill the functions that you claim you want to see happen.
[12:15]
The comments that you made yesterday and today and that attitude of "trust me" aren't necessarily instituted in the bill itself. The words are not terribly clear. They are ambiguous. They do leave a lot of room for interpretation. With that proviso, you will see this side of the House voting for this bill, but you will see this side of the House challenging and questioning the definition of this agency as it evolves. So I leave section 3 where it is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been advised that the second member for Richmond would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
[ Page 2979 ]
MR. LOENEN: It gives me a great deal of delight to welcome to the House a constituent, a longtime friend and a member of our church in Richmond, Mr. Geert Vandermeulen. Please, would the House welcome him.
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
MS. MARZARI: I rise on section 4 to ask a question. Section 4 suggests that an agency is going to be established establishing three components: the Open University, the Open College and the Knowledge Network. I'm a little confused here. In section 17 in the bill you're basically closing down the Knowledge Network and Open Learning Institute. You're removing from them their capacity and their definition under the University Act and creating three separate components here. How is that structure going to work? How is the board going to deal with these three components? Are they going to operate in a coordinated fashion, in a unilateral fashion? Are they going to be mushed into one? Are they going to be operating out of three separate physical locations?
HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, you know what the Knowledge Network is. It delivers television programming. The Open University will be responsible for the coordination and delivery of university credit and non-credit open learning programs in the province. Programs and courses will be acquired, adapted, developed and delivered on a systemwide basis and in collaboration with the universities, colleges and institutes in the province.
The Open University planning council will be established, comprised of representatives from the universities and colleges in the regions, and will be responsible for the education policy as it pertains to the Open University. Through partnership with universities, colleges and institutes, the Open University will provide greater access to university courses to all regions of the province.
The Open College will be responsible for the coordination and delivery of career, technical and vocational open-learning programs in the province. Programs and courses will be acquired, adapted, developed and delivered on a system-wide basis and in collaboration with the colleges and the institutes in the province. The Open College planning council will be established and comprised of representatives from the colleges and institutes in the regions, and will be responsible for the education policy as it pertains to the Open College. By working with the colleges and the institutes, the Open College will be able to increase career, technical. vocational and training opportunities to people in all regions of the province.
MS. MARZARI: Item (b), the establishing of any other component this agency considers necessary or desirable for carrying out its purpose.... I want to bring in this business of marketing our good stuff overseas. It is my impression over the last few months that your department and the government were flirting with the notion of establishing some kind of Knowledge Network Commonwealth centre here, so that in fact we could be distributing some of the stuff that we can produce — some of the tapes we can produce and some of the programs and courses we can put together — around the Pacific Rim. I heartily endorse that, as a matter of fact. I think that that would be an excellent way of joint-venturing with our colleges and with our educational community: to take the courses that we've got overseas on a fee basis. That's what I would call good public enterprise.
I don't see any mention of this kind of activity in this bill. I had hoped that from the fanfare that was given — during the Commonwealth conference, I believe — something like that would have been incorporated in this bill. It would have given us something to look forward to, at least in terms of cost retrieval for the expense of the program overall.
HON. S. HAGEN: The initiative of which the member opposite spoke is an initiative of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The British Commonwealth of Nations and the committee that's been working on this initiative examined the distance education delivery systems around the world and chose Canada as having the best experience and the best ability to deal with this subject. We were fortunate — because British Columbia has the best system in Canada — that British Columbia was chosen to be the headquarters for this Commonwealth agency.
As I mentioned yesterday, it's the first time in the history of the Commonwealth that an agency of the Commonwealth has been located outside of Great Britain. So it certainly will be a benefit to this province, to the educators who work in this province, to people who develop programs and also to people who deal in the technical aspects of the delivery. It not only is and will be an opportunity for us to have our programs transmitted outside of our province and our country, but of course it's also an opportunity for us to receive programming from other Commonwealth countries.
Because it's a Commonwealth initiative, it's not specifically referred to in here, but of course the purposes of the act give the Open Learning Agency the ability to participate in the Commonwealth distance education initiative.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
MS. MARZART: I'd like to introduce former Judge Tilly Taylor, who has just taken her retirement from family court in Saskatchewan, and has come to reside in Victoria for the next few months, just to, I think, breathe the fresh air and feel some of the rain on the west coast, after a long and distinguished career as a judge on the Prairies.
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
MS. MARZARI: Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty of establishing a board. We've talked many times from this side of the floor about the nature of appointments of college boards in this province. It is with some regret that we look at this board and see that the government is going to be selecting the board from persons nominated by the minister. It is once again, in our opinion, going to be a politically appointed board. We have said a lot over the last number of months about what's happened to the community colleges and our perceptions since the college boards ceased to be elected,
[ Page 2980 ]
ceased to be representative, we feel, of the broad political spectrum of the communities they represent.
Here we have another situation where the board is going to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor by nomination by the minister. I am very concerned that this sets a precedent for this agency: appointment by the minister. It's a post-secondary institution, and there is no mechanism here for even the minister to structure appointments or nominations from communities.
Neither does it establish what we have come to expect in post-secondary institutions across the country: something of an arm's length between those who run post-secondary institutions and those who provide core budgeting to them. We've had that discussion around the abolition of the Universities Council. We have felt and expressed time and time again that the arm's length between post-secondary institutions and government should be seen. It should be apparent, so that when you get involved with a board establishing educational objectives, guidelines, accreditation procedures, credit courses and its core budget, it's doing it at arm's length from government.
Would the minister comment on yet another board in the post-secondary system being directly appointed, being directly the handmaiden — if you can put it that way — of the provincial government?
HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be pleased to address that question. With regard to the community college system, I believe that we in this province have the best one in Canada. I appoint the board members of the community colleges. If the member thinks that they are not representative of the community from a cross-sectional point of view, from what they do for a living, from how they participate in the community, then I think she should let me know the particular areas she has a concern about. I've taken special care to make sure that a broad cross-section of each community that the college is located in is represented on the board. I've taken special care to ensure that each city, town and village, wherever possible, is represented on the college board. I've looked for representation on the board from various cultural and ethnic groups. I've been very conscious of that and have worked very hard to get good cross-sectional representation on these boards. I think the fact that we have what I consider to be the best college system in the country supports the way that the appointments have taken place.
With regard to the appointments on this board, I will ensure that not only is there a cross-sectional representation from the business community and other areas of the community — we don't want just lawyers, for instance, on the board; we want a cross-section of professions — but that there is good regional representation. I have no interest in having all these people from Vancouver or Victoria, and as a matter of fact, under the present boards of the Knowledge Network and the Open Learning Institute, there is good provincial representation.
MR. WILLIAMS: How many Quebec colleges....?
HON. S. HAGEN: Well, we're talking about British Columbia here. I'm not sure what....
I will ensure that there is good provincial representation on these boards. The chairman of the board of the Knowledge Network, for instance, comes from Port Alberni.
Interjection.
HON. S. HAGEN: Port Alberni. It's in my region, as a matter of fact. Seven out of eight regions in the province are represented on the present boards of OLI and Knowledge Network. I will ensure that all eight regions are represented, and I know that they will be represented well.
Sections 5 and 6 approved.
On section 7.
MS. MARZARI: I want to come back, because this relates to the question I asked previously about the board. Here we have the duties and powers of the board in subsection 7(e) saying: "...on the recommendation of a planning council established for a component, determine the courses of instruction or programs to be offered...for credit towards the requirements for a degree, diploma or certificate, or determine the courses to be cancelled by the component...."
[12:30]
Once again, this board has no arm's length from the department itself. It is acting directly in concert with the provincial government's wishes. There is no separate planning arm separated by legislation or by statute. The planning arm is subsidiary to the board itself. There is no distance, in this distance education program, for the planning function. You are basically saying that this new institution is going to be reflecting the values and educational priorities of the government itself.
It establishes a precedent, you see, for the university system, for example, because although right now there is no statutory body that sits between the universities and the minister, there is something that people are reasonably comfortable with: the president's committee, the advisory committee. Here there is no separation, and if the universities and the colleges sit down and decide what they need out of distance learning or what they need out of the cassettes and the instructional programs that you're going to be able to offer, and you, the government, decide what is going to be available despite what they request.... Can you understand that the stuff you are producing might be skewed and might not reflect what they're asking for, might not respect the autonomy of the existing post-secondary network? The universities and colleges might be asking for one thing and you might be providing another and at the same time cutting them back in their core budgets because your programs are available through Open Learning. They are asking for other courses, perhaps in arts and sciences; you're giving them what your priorities happen to indicate for the year, and you're preventing them from expanding their core budgets.
I put it forward to you because I think it's a real concern, and it's certainly going to be back on our desks. Well, I'm sure it will be back on our desks when we're on the government side of the House, and we'll try to rectify it then. But I'm asking you: do you understand what that does to a university curriculum — how it can skew a curriculum?
HON. S. HAGEN: The planning council is going to play a very real role in this operation. On the recommendation of the planning council, the board will make certain decisions, but there will be other areas of input. The distance learning
[ Page 2981 ]
aspect of our education system is represented on the University Advisory Council, and this is another coordinating arm of the universities, colleges, institutes and distance education. I believe that the ideas that come in from the University Advisory Council and the needs that are addressed by that council, together with the needs that come in to be addressed through the planning councils, will then be acted on by the board.
I don't have the concern that the member opposite expresses with regard to courses. The objective of the entire education system is to deliver the courses that the students need to get their degrees, or to upgrade themselves in their job training. I fail to see the problem.
MS. MARZARI: It comes up later in section 17, but I'll just elaborate on it here.
This board is basically going to be able to do much more than hand out baccalaureate degrees in arts and science, which the old system did; that's what it was confined to, as a matter of fact. It was well understood that baccalaureates in arts and science could be handled. This new board will be accrediting courses and granting degrees in anything it chooses to accredit, not just baccalaureate degrees. The same body that's accrediting is granting. The same body that's accrediting and granting is directly related to you, and from the structure I can see here, the planning advisory committee is not supreme in this setup. It's not a funding agency. It doesn't sit in a special status to you. It basically is advising the board. It can't withhold funds. It can only advise, from what I hear. So you've got an agency that's operating directly for the provincial government and what you deem to be educationally appropriate this year in our post-secondary system. This board accredits its own programs and grants degrees. There is no separation here between an accrediting body and a granting body, an advisory and a funding body. Am I making my point about checks and balances inside a post-secondary system that gives credibility to an agency or to a movement — or to a system?
HON. S. HAGEN: I suppose that you could establish any amount of bureaucracy you wanted, but the system has in fact been working under the present operation of the Open Learning Institute. There have been no problems that I've been made aware of. Therefore I just don't see problems for the future.
Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.
On section 11.
MS. MARZARI: I would like some guidance on this from the minister. Section 11 suggests that to cover a liability or expenditure under section 10 you're able to increase the grant for operating expenses. Does this increased grant come out of your ministry, Mr. Minister, or is this a contingency reserve grant? Does this come out of the special contingency fund in Treasury Board? Where do we find the increase in grants for operating expenses, and what is your estimate of the budget for the agency? We know it's $9 million in the estimates for this year. But where do you see it going in the next two or three years?
HON. S. HAGEN: This section is consistent with a section in the College and Institute Act. If there were an instance where I approved that, it would, of course, come out of my budget, the Ministry of Advanced Education budget.
Sections 11 to 16 inclusive approved.
On section 17.
MS. MARZARI: I'm going to choose section 17 to do something of a wrap-up here, Mr. Chairman. We said before that this act introduces a new agency, a coordination of old agencies. It gives that agency new strength: the ability to hold land, to grant degrees, to accredit courses and basically to establish a new level of post-secondary education in this province, which many of us feel threatens the core budgets and the stability of existing post-secondary institutions. In all good will, we must give a blessing to this agency, but we must make the following comments.
Despite what the minister has said about there being intense collaboration, I can name at least one group which should have been consulted and wasn't. Despite the minister's assurances that this agency is going to be a facilitator, we can see many opportunities in this bill for it to be abused and used to replace the existing system of teacher-student learning in this province.
Quite frankly, I would have liked to have seen this bill go through a committee of the House, perhaps the social services committee or a special education committee, so that it could have been debated around a table and we could have hammered out some of the concerns over the last few months of people from the post-secondary community. It would have made a difference in how we approached this bill. It would make a difference in terms of how the faculties of community colleges and universities would approach this new agency. It would have given them some assurance that consultation had been there and had been publicly done.
We don't have such a committee system in this Legislature. It would be useful. Let me reiterate: it would be more than useful. It would do the public's business a lot more good to have given us an opportunity to sit down with the draft of this bill some time ago, to look it over and take a look at section 17 and express our concern about the agencies losing their status under the University Act and their specific legal abilities, and being thrown into a very general or embryonic framework for a new agency that's going to take some time to work out and work through.
I can assure you that there would have been a lot of assistance throughout this province for this process. It wouldn't have been negative: it would have been positive. It hasn't happened. I would hope that post-secondary education is important enough to the members of this House.... It certainly is to this side of the House. I would have thought it would have been important enough to your side of the House to have taken this to a special committee stage. It's at least as important as anything else that has come across the floor of this House. This is a major investment we're about to make here, even though it's an embryonic agency.
I would like to end the debate on this bill, Mr. Chairman, and say that we have a lot of problems with the bill because of its ambiguities, and because the possibility for abuse exists. We also understand, though, that open learning can provide a lot of opportunity — if we use it properly — and that it can be used as a venture tool that we can actually take to the market around the Pacific Rim, turning it into something that will reap a benefit and real profit, if I may put it crassly, for this
[ Page 2982 ]
province. I leave it there, and I encourage the minister to incorporate more people into his list of advisers and helpers. I encourage the minister to use the existing structures — faculty, student and administrative — in his consultations. I advise the minister, as he develops this board and the structures of the board, to take a look across the political spectrum for his appointments.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health has asked leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. DUECK: I'm very pleased to learn this morning of the agreement that has been reached between UBC Health Sciences Centre Hospital and Shaughnessy Hospital. With us today in the gallery we have Mr. John MacKay, chairman of the UBC Health Sciences Centre Hospital, and now the interim chairman of the University Hospital; also Mr. Charles Nash, trustee and former chairman of Shaughnessy Hospital. Would the House please make them welcome.
MS. MARZARI: I would like to add to that welcome to the gentlemen from the university Health Sciences Centre. I know it's been a long and difficult procedure. The university Health Sciences Centre has provided such an excellent quality of care for the province as a diagnostic centre as well as a treatment centre. It has provided such an excellent quality of treatment care that these gentlemen are to be congratulated for coming to a good conclusion in the negotiations, and I hope that the quality of care and the excellence of the diagnostic treatment facility will not be diluted in any way, shape or form in the course of amalgamation.
[12:45]
Sections 17 to 23 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the minister, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 58, Open Learning Agency Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call report on Bill 48.
INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
MR. STUPICH: There are a couple of issues I want to raise. When the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) spoke in this debate, he raised a concern about the way in which this bill leads towards consolidation of the four pillars of finance. So I'm talking simply about what the bill does — at least as it did in his eyes.
The minister said that he would respond during committee stage, and in all fairness, I didn't ask during committee stage, but since committee stage was completed, I've had correspondence from individuals — independent insurance agents — raising these concerns. I expect the minister is probably getting the same letters and is answering them. I wonder if he would share with the House at this time, in closing this motion, how he is dealing with these concerns that are expressed by independent insurance agents about the increasing concentration of the four pillars of finance into one, or at least fewer than four.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
The other matter I want to raise is one that I've let the minister know I would be raising. I believe that the minister's remarks have been misleading to the House, and I'm saying this very carefully. During discussion of section 31, I think it was, of Bill 48, I raised concerns about the fact that people who are hurt in any way by this legislation will not be able to recover, will not be able to sue the Crown. The minister, on two occasions in responding, said: "There's nothing new or different here." I'm reading from Hansard now. Later he again used the words: "nothing new or different." The minister also said — and this is a quote — "There's only one word that has been changed," then later on in this same paragraph: "with the exception of one word." The minister also said that the act is written in a way that in the absence of good faith, anyone can lodge a suit. I have talked to a lawyer — I've had an opportunity since — and I find out that simply listing all of the ways in which one cannot raise a suit does not mean that if you can find some other way around it, then you can do so. So in spite of what the minister said, I believe — my argument in this case is — that the bill is not written in such a way that one can raise a suit in the absence of good faith.
But my concern is rather with the minister's emphasis on the fact that only one word has been changed. In the first place, I knew that the word "minister" was included in this section and had not been originally. I assumed that the one word the minister was talking about was the inclusion of the word "minister." But beyond that, the bill before us also brings in the words: "or for any neglect or default in the performance." Those are all new words in the section as rewritten. So there is the new word "minister," which I was aware of and which I expected. I felt that the minister was dealing with that one word when he said twice that there's only one word changed. But this section has been rewritten to include the words: "for any neglect or default in the performance."
Now there might have been something inferred. The minister might argue that the inference was there previously. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in saying only one word had been changed, the minister's remarks were misleading to the House.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. first member for Nanaimo made two points. The first one — that is to say, the concern of the independent insurance agents about a collapsing of the traditional separation of the four pillars of financial institutions — is a valid one. My ministry and I have been involved in numerous conversations with the trade on that subject; the superintendent of insurance has been similarly involved. As a consequence of those discussions, we will be bringing forward, as soon as we can, definitions of "financial
[ Page 2983 ]
adviser" and attempting to inject some discipline into the industry. Clearly the concerns expressed by the independent insurance agents are indicative of legitimate concerns of many present practitioners in each of those four pillars.
In examining the problem and discussing it with my peers across the rest of western Canada.... We are presently involved in drafting proposals that would tend to clarify the issue. It is a difficult issue. The difficulty comes from and is focused on the definition of "financial adviser." Indeed, this issue might well be referred to one of the committees of this House to consider. At the moment, it is being researched at the staff level, background data is being prepared, and the attitudes of our colleagues across western Canada are being canvassed, so that, to the best of our ability, whatever remedies we bring forward would be supported by the other western Canadian provinces — as a minimum at least. Hopefully all other Canadian provincial jurisdictions would follow; but given the difficulties of getting national consensus on any subject, let alone one as difficult as this, we thought we would focus only on the western Canadian Finance ministers. I'd like to inform the House that we are actively working on that aspect. I can't say today that we have an answer, but can only assure my hon. colleague that after many staff discussions I am satisfied that it will take more staff work before we are ready to deal with it.
Dealing with the second point, which I think is a valid one, I'd like to express my gratitude to the hon. member for two things — first of all, for the considerate way in which he has raised the issue. He not only served notice to the government House Leader, he also had the courtesy to send me a personal letter, which I much appreciate.
It is common during our exchanges across this floor and during the heat of the moment that we might appear to be fractious and, to the casual observer, the most bitter of enemies. I'd like to express my personal gratitude to the hon. first member for Nanaimo for the way he has traditionally conducted his role of critic and the gentlemanly way in which he relates to me and my ministry. I use the word "gentleman" in both of its connotations. He is not only a gentleman in the sense of following the proprieties, but he is also a gentle man.
So he has raised the issue, then, of my misleading the House. The second reason I am grateful is the opportunity to correct any misunderstandings. I certainly had no intention of misleading the House. The main principle which was changed in the act was the question of the minister now being added to the list of those protected — quite properly, as was mentioned by the hon. member.
The second question — the addition of the other phrase dealing with negligence — is contained in a section of the Securities Act. When I mention that the issue has been in the public domain, I should have referred specifically to the Securities Act, where that is true and that is the case. The Securities Act has been in the public domain since December 1985. As I mentioned during the debate, neither that section nor the relevant section in the Securities Act has been challenged by the trade.
Notwithstanding the fact that the act I referred to or the phrases I used might have implied that I was referring to this act, I should have made it clear that they referred to the Securities Act. The point made, however, is still valid: the phrasing has been in other legislation. Normally when we rewrite legislation, legislative counsel roll into the new pieces of legislation those phrases that are already in place in historical legislation.
I am indebted to the hon. member for his points, and I move third reading.
MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Nanaimo on a point of order?
MR. STUPICH: Yes, I guess it has to be now, doesn't it, Mr. Speaker? I just want to make sure that I heard the minister correctly. He said that he meant to refer to the Securities Act, but when he was speaking.... It's merely a rewrite of an existing section in the Insurance Act. Is he telling us that he was mistaken when he said Insurance Act, that he intended to say something other than what he did say? Is Hansard in error? Did it record it wrong?
HON. MR. COUVELIER: I think the hon. member, with his usual generous heart, will agree that I was responding to a question asked by another member of the House. It goes on; I guess there are about three or four paragraphs here. I agree — and would like to clarify the record — that in terms of the phrase being historic, I was referring, to the Securities Act. I can agree with the hon. member that I should have so stated. I did not. The hon. member is correct that when I rose, I talked about the Insurance Act.
As I say, given the member's usual generosity of heart, I would hope that he would agree I was responding to a three-paragraph question put to me by another member.
Bill 48, Insurance Amendment Act. 1987, read a third time and passed.
Introduction of Bills
PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act. 1987.
HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill will improve the Property Purchase Tax Act by providing eight new exemptions; by expanding, clarifying or amending five existing exemptions; by extending the property purchase tax to corporate amalgamations not recognized under the Company Act and to Crown grants and leases. Furthermore, the act provides alternate procedures for filing tax returns and remitting tax where the Crown or a municipality applies to register a taxable transfer on behalf of a transferee, and it amends several other definitions. It makes changes to several administrative sections of the act, including the assessment, refund, confidentiality and regulation sections.
We believe this bill will improve the fairness, clarity and administration of the act. I'm pleased to table Bill 60 for first reading.
Bill 60 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.
[1:00]
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cooperative Association Amendment Act, 1987.
[ Page 2984 ]
HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's intention to introduce the bill now and consider it at some later session for in-depth discussion and debate. The bill itself, in my judgment, does not contain anything of a major contentious nature; however, insofar as it is fairly extensive and the time available for considering new bills is getting limited in this session, we intend to leave it at first reading for the moment.
Bill 65 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.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 5), 1987
Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll make a brief statement on behalf of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) and indicate to Members of the Legislative Assembly that this bill will be debated. It is our intention to debate this bill next week.
The contents of the bill are generally of a housekeeping nature. For the information of this House I wish to briefly outline some of the most significant proposed amendments.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment of the Debt Collection Act is consequential to the government's repeal of the Investment Contract Act. Previously the revocation of an individual's licence under the Investment Contract Act was grounds for the revocation of his debt-collector's licence. The repeal of the Investment Contract Act necessitates the removal of this ground from the Debt Collection Act.
The amendment to the Insurance Act is also consequential to the government's repeal of the Investment Contract Act. In the past it has been an offence under section 316 of the Insurance Act for an agent to induce a person to cancel an investment contract for the purpose of entering into a contract of life insurance. With the repeal of the Investment Contract Act and future regulation of investment contracts under the Securities Act, this offence is no longer required in the Insurance Act. Accordingly, the provision dealing with investment contracts is being repealed.
Amendments to the Municipal Act and the Vancouver Charter respond to initiatives of municipal councils and local businessmen in many communities to create business improvement areas — BlAs. A BIA is a self-help organization which may undertake promotional activities on behalf of its business membership.
To my friend the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), it is proposed that the Park Act be amended to extend the statutory authority for the management of recreation areas established under this act.
The County Court Act is to be amended to ensure that there is permanently resident within the Peace River Regional District a county court judge to service that area.
The Supreme Court Act is amended to reinstate a provision which requires that at least one Supreme Court judge be resident in the Victoria judicial district.
The Pacific Bible College act is being amended to confirm that property tax exemptions which commonly apply to property used for educational purposes will also apply to the educational use property of the Pacific Bible College, even though legal title to the college property is held by an affiliated society. The amendment restores the exemption as retroactive to the original adoption of the act in 1985.
School Act amendments clarify the application of amendments to the School Act, and permit a board to incorporate a company for the purpose of operating an independent school outside British Columbia. There's a subsequent School Support (Independent) Act amendment which further permits this.
An amendment to the Social Service Tax Act is required to counter the implications of recent court decisions which threaten to severely limit the ability of the government to tax fuels and projects purchased for their energy content. This amendment will clarify the original intent of the legislation, and it will apply retroactively in order to minimize the government's revenue loss.
There are amendments to the Family Relations Act which help applicants who do not know the whereabouts of the respondent to obtain custody or access orders, by allowing them to request an enforcement officer to conduct a search.
Amendments to the Home Owner Grant and Municipal Acts enable the collector to apportion taxes to land subdivided during the period of August 31, 1986, to May 31, 1987, so that owners of subdivided land under the normal assessment cutoff date qualify for the 1987 homeowner grant.
There's an amendment to the Vancouver Charter to allow the city of Vancouver to use the proposed provincial voters list to update its own voters list, and you will recall that we had a similar amendment to the Municipal Act in another miscellaneous bill.
The Real Estate Amendment Act was passed during the last session. It was found to be inadequate to some degree for the industry to regulate itself, so there are amendments dealing with that.
That's the extent of my notes. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 68 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. STRACHAN: I will advise the House that we will be sitting Wednesday next.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 1:06 p.m.