[ Page 10355 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Energy Efficiency Act (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 10355

Private Members' Statements

Bone marrow. Mr. Long I –– 10355

Mr. Perry

Fair election practices In B.C. Mr. G. Hanson –– 10357

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Provincial government emergency response. Mr. Peterson –– 10359

Mr. Zirnhelt

Honest, open and fair government. Mr. Sihota –– 10361

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

University of Northern British Columbia Act (Bill 40). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10363

Mr. Harcourt –– 10370

Mr. Jones –– 10372

Mr. Miller –– 10374

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts this morning are 53 grade 5 students from Mill Bay Elementary School, with their teachers. On behalf of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), I'd like to ask the House to please join me in making them very welcome.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a good friend of mine from East Vancouver, Rob Burkart, a chartered accountant. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

Hon. Mr. Richmond, on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis), presented a message a from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Energy Efficiency Act.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce Bill 36, Energy Efficiency Act. This act will demonstrate government leadership by promoting the efficient use of energy in British Columbia. Increased energy efficiency provides a clean, safe, new source of energy at a time when concern is growing about the rising environmental costs of energy use and production. Regulations under the Energy Efficiency Act will set minimum energy efficiency standards and maximum energy consumption levels for new appliances and other energy-using equipment sold in British Columbia. Regulated appliances must also be labelled to show consumers that they meet minimum energy efficiency standards. By requiring new household appliances and other energy-using equipment to meet minimum energy efficiency standards, this act will lower energy costs to consumers, reduce energy-demand growth and buy time to develop new sources of supply, and it will send a clear message to British Columbians about the importance of energy efficiency. Minimum energy efficiency standards will be implemented through regulation after wide consultation with industry and consumer groups.

Bill 36 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.

Private Members' Statements

BONE MARROW

MR. LONG: Today I'd like to just bring up a refresher on a private member's statement I made a year or so ago with regard to the bone marrow registry. It was two years ago that people from the small town of Powell River joined together to form the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society, and it is still active and raising money today.

First I'd like to congratulate one of our members here in the House, Jan Pullinger, for her donation of bone marrow to her own brother. I know she's working very hard for the rest of the people in this province.

There are two different kinds of bone marrow transplants — related and unrelated. The case of the member who donated marrow to her own brother was a related marrow transplant. There are some who do not have the opportunity to receive marrow from family members, because of the match or because they are the only child. That is what this registry is for — those people with leukemia who must get a match from unrelated donors. This is what the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society is all about. It's about saving lives.

Today I'd just like to put on record a report from the Canadian Red Cross which gives an update on the status of the registry. The Canadian unrelated bone marrow donor registry was officially acknowledged and funded as of April 1, 1989. Approximately $3 million was awarded to the registry from the Canadian Blood Committee for a three-year period to establish a registry with 50,000 donors in it from coast to coast in Canada.

Prior to April 1, 1989, it had been operating on an ad hoc basis with funds provided largely by the Bruce Denniston Society of Powell River. Approximately $300,000 was given to the registry from the Bruce Denniston Society, and it was matched by funds from the provincial government of British Columbia. In addition, computerization of the registry has been accomplished with moneys donated from the Woodward Foundation of British Columbia and matching funds from the provincial government. Thus, approximately 25 percent of the funding for the registry, which is a national program, has been provided by the people of British Columbia.

Although the national office of the Canadian Red Cross Society is in Ottawa, the national coordinating centre of the unrelated bone marrow donor registry of Canada is located now in Vancouver in the blood centre, and the directors are Noel Buskard, manager, and Janice King.

As of this date, ten bone marrow donor recruiters have been hired within the registry to begin recruiting donors across Canada. Six more will be brought on board shortly, so that 16 out of the 17 blood transfusion centres in Canada will be recruiting unrelated bone marrow donors in the near future. Prince Edward Island, which is the seventeenth centre, will not begin to recruit donors at this time. Thus this has truly become a national registry recruiting effort underway from coast to coast.

Obviously this could not have been achieved without the seed money from the Bruce Denniston Society during the year of operating before the registry was formally funded, as well as the large

[ Page 10356 ]

contribution from the government of British Columbia.

The Red Cross Society blood transfusion service has been asked to take on this program because it is one of the few health care agencies in Canada which has a coast-to-coast network that is fully computerized. In Canada we feel that all bone marrow donors should become blood donors first to ensure that their health care standards are acceptable, and that their blood donations are free of any infectious markers. This has been well accepted by the Canadian public and ensures a high standard of quality to the bone marrow donors of this country.

The Canadian national coordinating centre in Vancouver has now established international links with the United States, Great Britain, France and the Netherlands, and is linked to these countries by modern electronic communication equipment, which ensures a turnaround time on donor searches of approximately 48 hours. This is made possible by the grants of both the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society and the government of British Columbia. It means that Canadian patients have access to over 300,000 donors worldwide, which would give us more than a 50 percent chance of finding a compatible donor for most patients.

[10:15]

Unfortunately the registry worldwide is 98 percent Caucasian, which makes it unlikely that many successful searches will be accomplished for patients of Oriental or non-Caucasian extraction. Efforts must be developed to increase the ethnic balance of the Canadian registry as well as of other registries.

The size of the Canadian registry is now over 11, 000 donors, with over 7,000 coming from British Columbia. Fifty-three unrelated bone marrow transplants have been performed to this date in Canada, which means that Canada has performed more of these transplants per capita than any other country in the world. This is largely due to the fact that there has been an effective registry in operation. Approximately half of those transplants have been carried out in British Columbia.

Although the registry has been operating for approximately two and a half years, it is only in its second year of official funding. Its accomplishments also include the provision of five unrelated bone marrow donors to the United States, and it is anticipated that Canadian marrows will be provided to other conglomerated countries such as Great Britain and France. Less than half the donors for Canadian patients have come from Canada, which emphasizes the fact that international connections are extremely important in satisfying the needs of Canadian patients. Further connections will be developed with countries such as Japan and China to try and address the ethnic inequality in the registry as it currently exists.

It needs to be emphasized once again that none of the accomplishments of the registry could have been achieved without the initial help of the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society and the government of British Columbia,

MR. PERRY: It's a pleasure to respond to a statement like this. I've had a long interest in this subject, perhaps first stimulated by MY contact with Doug Sokolowski, who was a very brave RCMP officer from Powell River who died of leukemia a number of years ago and whom I had the privilege to help treat. His family — particularly his wife — were also remarkable people. They left a very strong impression on me about Powell River, as well as the individuals involved. I've also been particularly honoured that my colleague the second member for Nanaimo donated marrow to save her brother's life last year. I have a personal friend, whom I had the privilege to meet at a public meeting last night, who was saved by bone marrow transplantation last September by a donation from her brother. Therefore I'm extremely interested in the unrelated bone marrow donor program that's run through the Red Cross.

I'd like to point out a couple of observations. It's quite exciting that two Chinese-Canadian children were recently transplanted in Vancouver for the disease of thalassemia major, which I referred to the other day in a question to the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen). It's important to recognize that none of the very exciting developments, from which people like the second member for Nanaimo's brother or the young Chinese-Canadian girl in Toronto who is hoping to receive a transplant for a plastic anemia None of the benefits they are receiving or hope to receive would ever have been possible without many years of basic medical scientific research.

In Canada we don't fund basic research as well as virtually any other industrialized country in the world. We can go back to people like Sir Frank McFarlane Burnet, the great Australian immunologist, Sir Peter Medawar, the great English immunologist and even to Soviet scientists back in the 1930s, 1940s and even earlier, who did important research in immunology that has made these advances possible.

I'd just like to remind the House that one of the major limitations still on the program is the difficulty in funding the Red Cross programs. I recently visited the Red Cross centre in Vancouver and saw the exceedingly cramped facilities where blood is stored, which are totally inadequate for a modern country. A major problem that the Red Cross faces chronically is achieving satisfactory, consistent government funding to meet the blood supply needs in British Columbia, let alone the needs of new programs like bone marrow transplantation. I think what's exciting about that is that it offers us an opportunity.

One of the most exciting things about bone marrow transplantation is that it ties people together in a sense of community. From our heritage, going back to the days of the founding of the CCF.... There's something wonderful about bone marrow transplantation in that it shows us again the interrelatedness of people not only in their own local community, but throughout the world. The very idea that somebody living on another continent might directly save the life of somebody in our country, or vice versa, and that, as in the case of my colleague from Nanaimo, part of that person will actually go on living as a new

[ Page 10357 ]

genetic entity in another person, is something that we never could have conceived of in the past history of human beings.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: As my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) points out, she has been cloned. What a marvelous experience! It transcends the science fiction nightmares and gives us some understanding of the real potential of science to benefit humanity in the world. I'm very excited about the programs. I hope they continue to expand, and I hope that all members of this House will consider encouraging their constituents and setting an example themselves by registering for the bone marrow registry.

MR. LONG: I think the people of British Columbia have shown Canada and the world where this registry is going and for what reason, and that is to help the people who are stricken with the disease. I would be remiss if I did not mention that without people's involvement to start with, and their donations to make this possible, it could never have started; it would never have been.

I also have to mention that in this case a total of $300,000 was raised by Powell River, a small community of 18,000. They had the RCMP and others working on it. After raising the $300,000, they asked me to come to the government of British Columbia and to the lotteries branch. I went at that time to the minister in charge, who happened to be my colleague on the other side of the House from me right now. I don't know whether I can mention names, but we thank him.

The $300,000 was given under special consideration by the minister administering the lottery grants because of the emergency of the bone marrow program. I thank the minister for the decision which he made for the bone marrow people of this province, and I thank our government for participating with the people of British Columbia to make this a positive, real thing for people all over the province and, in fact, with computer link-ups with that money, for people all over the world.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before proceeding with the next private member's statement, the Chair finds itself in a very awkward position today. The second private member's statement under the name of the first member for Victoria (Mr. G Hanson), located on page 16 of today's Orders of the Day, is listed as "Fair Election Practices in B.C." On page 18 is Bill M221, intituled Fair Elections Practices Act, in the name of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Firstly, I ask the member to go to his seat if he wishes to intervene. Secondly, I ask him not to intervene while the Chair is making a statement. Would you please return to your seat.

What is important here is that the standing orders we have today require the Chair to either ask leave of the House or to ask the member, prior to making his statement, whether this statement will be in conflict with the other one. The simple way to do it is to ask leave of the House for it to proceed, because the bill is not printed. However, I am bound by the standing orders that bind me. I would ask leave that the member can now proceed. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: On that basis, would the member please proceed.

FAIR ELECTION PRACTICES IN B.C.

MR. G. HANSON: I appreciate the members of the House doing that. I intend to spend most of my time on aspects not included in the bill — just to avoid any confusion. Again I appreciate the members' support on that.

British Columbia has made some major steps forward in election practices in this province in recent years. We have some major hurdles to overcome yet. We now have, as a result of justice Thomas Fisher, a fair redistribution for the next election. We're pleased about that. However, there are some holdovers from the bad old days which put us in much the same position as we've been prior to previous elections.

One is that that 500,000 British Columbians are now not on the voter list here in the province of British Columbia. That is a staggering number, Mr. Speaker, and it varies riding by riding. As you know, a while ago the ability of citizens to register and vote on voting day was taken away by legislation in this House. Unfortunately, that was not in the same spirit as the redistribution that occurred with justice Fisher. In my own constituency of Victoria, some 7,000 citizens are not now on the list. In some ridings, such as in downtown Vancouver, it is far in excess of that. It's estimated that 25 percent of the population moves every year. That's just a statistic. When we look at the number of people who voted in the last federal election, and look at the number of people who were enumerated as of April 30, 1989, when the enumeration was completed, and we extrapolate those numbers and deduct an estimated population of non-eligible citizens, we come up with a number of 500,000. That's totally unacceptable.

As you can recall, in 1986, when the ability to register and vote on election day was in place, after the votes were tallied and the statement of votes came out of the public service, it showed the following percentage of section 80 votes: Vancouver Centre, 16 percent; Atlin, 13.6 percent; Prince Rupert, 12.2 percent; Vancouver-Little Mountain, 11.3; Vancouver-Point Grey, 11.25; Surrey-Newton, 11.1; Surrey Guildford-Whalley, 11.05; Prince George North,

[ Page 10358 ]

10.96; and the lowest was Shuswap-Revelstoke, 4.5 percent.

As we turn on the television set every night and see people in all parts of the world fighting for democratic processes, the most fundamental of all is the right to choose the government that represents your interests, the one that can meet your aspirations. Easy and free access for eligible voters to exercise their franchise is the most fundamental aspect.

If the Premier of British Columbia were to drop the writ today, the legislation allows ten days to get on the voter list. But when you exclude the weekend days, the time when the phone is busy and the time it takes to ascertain precisely where a person gets on the list, you find out that the window of opportunity to exercise one's franchise is in actual fact substantially smaller than the ten days.

We don't want chaos at the ballot boxes and polling stations in British Columbia, where because of some administrative procedural rule, people are denied their right to choose the government that is going to lead us into the nineties. The election should be based on the issues and policies of the parties of the day and their ability, through force of argument and debate, to put those forward to the people. No eligible citizen should be denied that opportunity.

[10:30]

On April 30, 1989, 1,711,510 people were on the voter list. In the federal election, 1.9 million voters were registered. The current voting-age population is 2.2 million. With the number of people moving....

We've done research in our own riding, as I'm sure members opposite have. Let me give you the example of Victoria-Beacon Hill: the census population is 41,384; not eligible, 6,000; eligible voters, 35,384; voter list, 27,631; voters estimated not on the list, 7,753. This is a very small riding, equal in size to the new redistributed ridings. But just in the southern part of the Victoria precinct area, it's down 7,100.

Mr. Speaker, I know members opposite know that many constituents are tenants. They are more mobile. There are people coming of voting age, who are not registered. With the changes in the Election Act, the enumeration was done in the third year, rather than in the second. That gathered people up, but now they're falling away. The longer the time between now and the next election There doesn't seem to be the urge and drive to go to the people that we sensed in the spring. Now the momentum is rapidly going into reverse.

I want to comment also on a second substantial element of fair election practices in British Columbia which is ignored: that is, the need for election expenses legislation. The new commission to be established We now have time in this session of the House to introduce legislation

MR. SPEAKER: Time is up, hon. member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks), I'm pleased to rise and take my place today in the Legislative Assembly to respond to the thoughtful comments of the first member for Victoria and his concern about election lists and enumeration.

I think the member made part of the case that I'm going to make, when he indicated that he was doing some estimating of who may be on or off the voter list. But first of all, to the issue of section 80 and that type of voting, I would like to put on the record why we changed the legislation following the 1986 general election.

Election-day registration, of course, was intended to be used only by those people not registered anywhere else in the province. However, the post election analysis of voting records indicated that in some areas of greater Vancouver, over 83 percent of duplicate registrations were of the section 80 variety, and on Vancouver Island, over 71 percent were. It would seem' therefore, that many people used section 80 only to submit a change of address, rather than for its intended purpose.

In the 1983 general election, 69,552 votes were cast under section 80. That number had more than doubled in 1986 to 157,098. I also want to commend to the House the fact that this extensive use of election-day registration caused long lineups at polling places, resulting in congestion. This interfered with the voting procedures of voters who were already registered, and delayed election-night ballot-counting. The congestion also caused confusion on the part of all involved, leading to misdirection and errors.

The member indicated federal as well as provincial figures, but neglected one comment that the House should be aware of. I'll cite some numbers that we have gathered with the Ministry of Provincial Secretary. In the 1988 federal election, approximately 93 percent of the estimated eligible population were enumerated. The voter list for the 1986 provincial election totalled 92 percent of the estimated eligible population. This is a very favourable comparison, and I'll tell you why.

The federal list, of course, includes people who are 18, so there is a larger percentage of the population eligible for a federal election than would be for a provincial election. The member neglects to mention that. Also, there is no residency requirement for federal registration, and the federal system also lacks the provincial requirement we have for voters' signatures. That accounts for the slight difference in eligible people who were enumerated. But reaching 92 to 93 percent in a voluntary system, I would submit, is a very good record.

I'd also like to compare the voter registration period that we have now with other provinces'. We have a ten-day registration period following the issue of the writ and an additional six days of voter registration under section 80, so there are now a total of 16 days during an election period when qualified unregistered voters may register as provincial voters. Since the entire election period is only 29 days, voter registration is now possible 55 percent of that time.

Finally, I'll conclude with the registration periods in other provinces during an election and compare them as well with the federal system. The other Canadian jurisdictions fall considerably short of the

[ Page 10359 ]

mark of 16 days in British Columbia. For example, outside of an enumeration, Alberta has only ten days of voter registration during an election; Quebec, six days; Prince Edward Island, four; the federal system, three; Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Yukon have only two; New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories have only one day of voter registration during an election period.

I would argue, and I think the facts would demonstrate clearly, that British Columbia has by far one of the better, fairer election processes, certainly allowing for the widest general franchise that one could ask for without in fact anticipating all the problems that we had in 1986 with duplicate voting, which was indeed not a very fair way of treating the ultimate democratic process. When we had that type of abuse going on it was clear to government that we had to make our change.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit in closing that it's a fair process in B.C.

MR. G. HANSON: I think we're seeing, as a result of debates on other issues in the country, that process is as important as policy in this country. People are becoming aware that they want processes to be fair and just. There's no more important process than being on the voter list.

I think the card was a move forward. But at the motor vehicle branches in the province, as people renew their motor vehicle licences, there should be a voter list so that people can ascertain whether they're on the list. By simply filling out a card and leaving it there and having those cards go over to the elections branch, a person's residency could be brought up to date. That would not be a major administrative problem. The master voter list should be made available at every motor vehicle branch in the province, and people should be asked. There could be a sign at the counter: "Check if you're on the list. Get ready to make your choice for the nineties." That's a fair process, and I don't think it would cost any money.

I was going to mention election expenses. We're at the point now when we see the range of funds expended for elections in British Columbia.... It's time we had a fair evaluation of each electoral district to see what is required, given the geography and population and so on — what would be an appropriate amount of money. The last thing we want is big money purchasing elections and purchasing seats in this House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It doesn't work.

MR. G. HANSON: I believe it does work, and it's part of a fair process. You may not like who finally gets elected, but big money should not control who sits in this legislature.

We want disclosure of every contribution over $100 in this House.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: I don't think any member, including the member for Surrey-White Rock, should be afraid of that.

MR. REID: I'm not afraid of it.

MR. G. HANSON: Very good. Then you'll endorse that? I'll look forward to you taking that to your colleagues and convincing them that we want full disclosure, fair election expenses legislation, fair voter registration, a reduction of the voting age and a chief electoral officer appointed by an all-party committee of this House, who is to have the same status as the ombudsman and the auditor-general so that we can lead the world in fair processes.

When we turn on the television and find people fighting for the right to their franchise in other parts of the world, we won't have to turn it off in shame, knowing that there are 500,000 British Columbians who are not on the list, and that there are likely to be 20 percent who will turn up at the polling stations and be turned away for the first time in British Columbia's history, because there's no section 80 right for them to register and vote under.

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
EMERGENCY RESPONSE

MR. PETERSON: Today I wish to speak about how our provincial government is responding to the flood emergency which now exists in much of our province and how we're preparing for other natural emergencies and disasters. I stand to make these remarks not in a partisan way, but in the interests of informing the members of this chamber about the excellent work performed by the staff of several ministries.

The flood response procedures now in effect across the province have been worked out well in advance through interministerial protocols coordinated by the provincial emergency program under the Solicitor-General's ministry.

Basically, the response works like this: the water management branch of the Ministry of Environment continually monitors and forecasts water levels in rivers and lakes throughout the province. This branch is in constant contact with PEP coordinators in different regions and headquarters here in Victoria.

When water approaches the warning level, the public is alerted, and a decision is made to open an emergency operations centre in the community involved. An emergency information centre is set up adjacent to the operations centre, and a special number for news media calls is established. It is an important principle of our emergency response plan that the news media play a vital role in getting important and, I may add, accurate information to the public.

The various ministries involved in responding to the emergency are included in the emergency operations centre. It is through them that the resources of government are accessed to assist in flood response. The Forest Service has provided manpower in the Okanagan to help stack sandbags. The Ministry of

[ Page 10360 ]

Social Services and Housing helps find emergency accommodation, and in one instance, I am told, was even able to provide a distraught and exhausted women with a homemaker. Transportation and Highway crews are pulling out all stops to repair damage and keep our transportation lines open. Staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have assisted farmers whose livestock is stranded by the floods, and the Environment Youth Corps has been ready to assist as required.

Much of the work is undertaken by volunteers. I cannot say enough about the dedication and courage of British Columbians who volunteer their time and energies to help their fellow British Columbians in times of emergency. Much of the success of the provincial emergency program can be attributed to their work with volunteers from one end of this province to the other. I feel very proud to stand in this House and salute British Columbia's volunteers.

The provincial emergency response plan is coordinated with and supports the plans of municipalities, which give top priority to the safety of residents and the protection of property. On Wednesday, our Premier and the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) traveled to the areas worst affected by flooding, to view the problem firsthand and to talk to the local people who have suffered hardships as a result of the severe flooding. They brought back with them a deep sympathy for those who are suffering and a sense of urgency.

[10:45]

The very next day — yesterday — the matter of compensation was discussed by the Cabinet Committee on Planning and Priorities, and a decision was made to offer interim compensation under the Flood Relief Act forthwith. Further assessments of damage will be conducted continually until this situation has passed. The general concept of operation of this flood response plan is the same as that which forms the core of the province's overall emergency and seismic preparedness plans, the latter of which is in final draft stages and has been discussed extensively with emergency planners at the municipal level and with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, emergency planning is unlike other forms of planning, in that a great deal of effort goes into preparing for an event that may or may not happen in one's lifetime. Yet it is essential that we prepare even for the unthinkable, such as a catastrophic earthquake. We all saw coverage of the San Francisco earthquake and what it did to people's lives; yet that was not considered a catastrophic earthquake.

The goal of the provincial emergency preparedness plan is to have the people and the governments of British Columbia prepared to deal with the worst possible crisis, because if we are prepared to deal with the worst, which we hope will never happen, then we most certainly will be able to deal with lesser emergencies which inevitably will occur. This is the basic principle behind PEP, and I think their response to the current flood crisis demonstrates beyond doubt that they are living proof of the value of that principle.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm pleased to be able to respond to the statements, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the House also treat this in a non-partisan way, of course. We would like to extend our sympathy to those who have lost family members in the recent disasters throughout the province, and also to say that we are in deep sympathy with those who have extensive property damage.

I would like to commend the provincial emergency program people. In my riding of Cariboo they have reacted extremely quickly and have dealt with all the emergencies that have come up.

There are some areas of follow-up that could be improved. I know the Solicitor-General would like to hear some of these comments before he has to receive them in letter form.

We had floods in early June in the southern part of the Cariboo, in the Loon Lake area near Cache Creek. I visited the area the day after the flood and was able to monitor what was being done there. I'm pleased to report that the provincial emergency program has left me with very few phone calls, other than routine and follow-up and feedback for me to be able to know what's going on. I have identified a few holes in the system, but nothing that I would consider to be of an emergency nature.

I believe that's happening as the floods develop in other parts of the province: the quick response is going in. The provincial emergency program people, especially in our area, deserve incredible support from the public. The job they have done is nothing short of outstanding. I think that's consistent with their response to minor emergencies. They appear to be extremely well organized and can get support for people in very quick order.

I would also have to commend the utilities — the Hydro and telephone people — for restoring service and dealing with dangerous situations that have resulted from flooding.

It's really important also to recognize that the Ministry of Highways and some of their contractors have moved quickly to restore access to people, so if any other health emergencies crop up, communication lines are open and people can travel. In the monitoring that I have done, I have nothing but commendation for the people in the ministry and the contractors involved. The people in the area are quick to tell us about it.

I would like to point out an area of improvement that could be made. People should know their rights for compensation under the emergency programs. Here we are, two weeks later, in the case of the southern Cariboo, and people have had a person travel through and inform them basically of their rights, but he didn't have even a handout, for example, to tell them what compensation is possible. People have been left a bit in the dark that way. I've been trying to pass on that information, but I'm finding it difficult to provide the service that might be provided by an official of the government. I would

[ Page 10361 ]

encourage the government agents to be involved in distributing information quickly to people who are affected. I realize that sometimes the small areas that are affected earlier on are going to get less service, because of the large areas that are affected where there's loss of life and huge losses to property. I think that local officials who are not necessarily part of the Solicitor-General's department — for example, the government agents — could perform a much larger role and could subsume some of those services.

Again, on this side of the House, we offer our sympathies to those people who have been affected, and who have had a loss of life in their family and damage to their property.

MR. PETERSON: I want to thank the second member for Cariboo for his remarks. I would like to inform him, in terms of his critique, that he should tell his constituents to phone the PEP hotline. I'll give the number to him. It is 1-800-663-3456. The forms are available right now at their local government agent's office.

Although I do appreciate his remarks, I just want to indicate that our Solicitor-General, in view of very trying circumstances, most certainly has proven that this government is ready to assist immediately. No, it's not a perfect world. Let me assure the second member for Cariboo that our Solicitor-General will be continually improving the PEP plan, because we as a government will always be attempting to improve what we are doing in terms of helping British Columbians when they face some disaster that must be met.

All in all, I want to compliment the second member for Cariboo on his remarks with regard to this issue, because when people are facing disaster we should most certainly be pulling together to do what we can to help them. I know that members from the opposite side of this House, as well as ourselves, feel that way also.

If I talk about my own constituency in Langley, you'll read in the history books about the 1948 flood and what we had available to us at that time relative to what we have in the 1990s. The difference is like day and night. All I can do is compliment all the levels of government, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, for learning from those disaster experiences so that should such a disaster occur again, we will be ready to respond as soon as possible.

I really want to reiterate my congratulations — this government's congratulations — to all the volunteers, the ministry staff of all the ministers involved, the contractors and everybody who has pulled together for showing the real, true stuff that British Columbians are made of when it comes to helping each other when we face some sort of disaster in this province.

HONEST, OPEN AND FAIR GOVERNMENT

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to talk about open, fair and honest government for the time that's allocated for this statement. Mr. Speaker, the current administration in this province has gained a reputation among the population for being out of touch with the views of most British Columbians, for imposing its moral values on British Columbians and for favouring its friends and insiders. We've seen a number of incidents over the past few years that have served to reinforce that reality and those perceptions of this government.

Remarkably, as we sit here in a legislative session that is on the eve of the next provincial election, one would have thought that the government would have taken steps to address those failures that I've just enumerated. In fact, in the time that I've been observing politics, I can't think of another legislative session where, quite frankly, the government has functioned so poorly in terms of its ability to deal with the problems and scandals that have historically plagued this government. It has been remarkable what we've seen during the course of this legislative session and the criticism that has come to government as a consequence of the various scandals and examples of ineptitude that have been brought to public attention during this session. I am sure that as a consequence any election plans the government had in place in March for this summer have now gone, as we've seen the administration stumble from one issue to another — REAL Women, the auditor-general's report or some of the other issues this week.

Mr. Speaker, this week has in many ways been a remarkable reflection of the difficulties faced by this government and has remarkably reinforced the realities I referred to earlier that have plagued this government: being out of touch, imposing its moral values and favouring its friends and insiders. One only has to go through the events of the past week to reflect on what's happened with this government. We witnessed at the beginning of this week revelations that a cabinet minister was using government jets for trips to her constituency and then, when questioned about that, not agreeing to release, as of that date, the logs of ministerial travel and flights throughout the province. That is hardly either open or honest government.

We have witnessed in this past week the revelation that lottery grants have been approved by a secret committee of ministers - and until recently, the names of those ministers weren't even provided to the members of this House -and that lottery funds in British Columbia are being approved by this secret committee without enacting a legislative provision that allows for and calls for an independent committee to advise the government with respect to the provision of lottery funds. Those are hardly the attributes of a government that is open and honest with its citizens.

We've witnessed in this past week revelations with respect to hospital equipment being purchased without tender, and this at a significant cost to the coffers of government at the very time that we have people in British Columbia waiting desperately to get onto hospital waiting-lists to receive much-needed surgery. Again, that revelation of avoiding the public

[ Page 10362 ]

tendering process is hardly the quality of an open government.

[11:00]

We also this week witnessed, on Tuesday, the commencement of litigation dealing with a former cabinet minister and the matter of funds that he had some discretion over during his tenure as a minister.

Mr. Speaker, in light of these events, British Columbians are saying that they want open, fair and honest government. It is, of course, one thing for the opposition to point out the weaknesses and ineptitude of this administration, but it is also an obligation of the opposition to say what it would do, what its alternatives are and how it would bring open, fair and honest government to British Columbia.

I see that the first portion of my time has virtually expired. Therefore, in the second portion of my comments, I will be indicating to the government what the alternatives are: how we can build a regime of open, fair and honest government; how we can ensure that these types of scandals are put behind us and that they're not repeated; and how we can build a legislative and policy practice framework here in this Legislature to make sure that these things are not done again.

Mr. Speaker, I'll conclude the first half of my comments and allow the Minister of Environment to comment with respect to the events that have transpired during this remarkable legislative session Then I will outline what the alternatives are.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off by quoting something out of the Vancouver Sun of March 6 of this year, where it says: "The NDP justice critic, a lawyer, considered to be the most likely candidate for Attorney-General should his party win the next election, is keen to limit the mudslinging speeches that serve as government policy debate in the House." I find it amazing that he talks about open government, and then says that he's keen to limit the mudslinging in this House.

But let's talk about an open and honest, fair opposition. Let's look at some of the things that the Leader of the Opposition says. The mayor of Vancouver says in the Province: "I'm promising swift and tough action against any alderman or staff who leaks confidential council materials to the press. If I discover a staff person doing this, he will be disciplined or fired." This is what the mayor said — the Leader of the Opposition now. He also added: "If an alderman was involved, he or she is not worthy of office."

If we're going to talk about open and honest opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition feels that strongly.... I remember in the House the member for Vancouver East, or one of their other members, stood up and asked our Minister of Social Services and Housing if he'd received a meal paid for while he was on an expense trip and if he'd claimed a per diem. I would ask all the members on that side a question: on the day that they had dinner with the Vancouver Stock Exchange — probably a $40 or $50 dinner — did they forgive the per diems they're getting paid here? Did they do that? I doubt it very much. It hurts a little, doesn't it, when you try and compare things?

I heard the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) talk about jets. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition if he thinks it's still correct that he, as mayor of Vancouver, took corporate jets down to California when he was looking for a baseball team. It was paid for by the large corporations these people talk about. This is the open and honest opposition we have.

I want to ask those members of the opposition about when their member, who used to be leader of their party in this House, stood up in the House in Ottawa and said: "The convention in British Columbia was held in a facility owned by a close friend of the front-running leadership candidate, a man who paid off other candidates to drop out of the race." This story was an absolute lie, and he admitted later he may have made a mistake. Did they stand up in this House and ask the government if we were going to make sure that story was corrected? No. When one of their own tells a lie somewhere, they don't complain about it. This is the open opposition.

When Vancouver MP John Brewin decided not to resign after declaring bankruptcy, the Leader of the Opposition says: "That's business. Business is business." If he was in this House, he would have had to resign his seat. And he should have done the honourable thing and resigned his seat when he declared bankruptcy in this province. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew knows that — the one that wants to talk about honesty and integrity. Yet were they even phoning him privately and telling him what to do? I doubt it. They want open and honest government when they're in opposition, but they don't do it while they're in opposition. That same Mr. Brewin took a trip to New Zealand on the taxpayer, while owing the federal government $85,000 in back taxes. They talk about open and honest government.

I want to quote one of the statements from one of their members, quoted in the Alberni Valley Times of May 9, 1990: "The Socred government plans on applying the current 6 percent provincial sales tax on top of the 7 percent GST. By piggybacking their tax on top of the GST, the Socreds will take an extra $100 million out of your pockets." This was the Leader of the Opposition quoted on May 9. A month earlier in the budget it was quoted that we will not piggyback on the sales tax. It was stated here by the Minister of Finance, right in this House on one of the few days that Leader of the Opposition was sitting in his seat. Yet he can go somewhere else in this province and say something that his party knows is not true. This is open and honest government by the NDP?

I could go on and on. He goes on the "Rafe Mair Show" as Leader of the Opposition, puts it in his ad and gets chastised by the radio station. This is open and honest government? They talk about sleaze. This government, when people are sentenced in courts, takes the respect of the courts and lives with it. This party, when one of your former members was charged with a very serious offence — Charlie Barber — we didn't ask the Attorney-General....

[ Page 10363 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Fortunately the time has expired.

MR. SIHOTA: Nothing that the minister says excuses or explains why this government has not taken any action to remedy its failing. Nothing that the minister says excuses the favoritism shown by this administration to its friends and insiders. Nothing, more importantly, in what the minister says paves the way towards an end to this kind of stuff by the introduction of legislation and reform that would take action against ministers who engage in indiscretions. If anything, what the minister ought to have said is that he would support a regime that would have the following elements to it.

First of all, it is essential that we have, as New Democrats have proposed, conflict-of-interest legislation in British Columbia. Conflict-of-interest legislation is absolutely vital to ensure that ministers do not engage in activities that benefit them. The purpose of a ministerial office and ministerial service is to engage in activities that serve the public, not the interests of various ministers. We ought to have conflict-of-interest legislation in this House to make sure that family members — or ministers directly — do not benefit from any of the decisions that they make.

We've introduced legislation in this House that says very simply that if ministers are engaged in matters that amount to conflict of interest, they're gone — no pay, no pension, no seat. That's what the law should be in this province.

HON. MRS. GRAN: You're so self-righteous.

MR. SIHOTA: It is not self-righteous. It is the practice in other jurisdictions in Canada, and we should have it in British Columbia.

There should be freedom-of-information legislation in British Columbia so that the public has open access to airplane logs, violations of pollution permits and details of various government loans and contracts, such as the Expo lands agreement.

There should be legislation in place in this province that allows for televising of the Legislature. The courts in Nova Scotia have held that it is a fundamental right, and this government should fulfil its promise of the last election and ensure that the proceedings of this House are televised, so that people can have open access to what happens in the House and can see for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, there should be a system of review of the activities of Crown corporations in British Columbia. Right now I believe that approximately 40 percent of this province's debt is attached to Crown corporations, but there is no review mechanism for Crown corporations.

Legislative committees should be playing a larger role in the operation of this Legislature, so that there can be more open scrutiny of the activities of ministers, and their officials can be subpoenaed to give evidence on various matters. That amounts to open, fair and honest government.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN: In the gallery today are 28 grade 5 students from Sardis Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Knutson. Would you please make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you so duly noted this morning when the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) rose, he was speaking on an issue that was considered and could be considered at another time. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew — we know he is new and inexperienced and does not understand the standing orders — has violated the same standing order by devoting most of his discussion to an item which is on the order paper which could be discussed later. I think the House should have that brought to its attention, because private members' statements clearly have a purpose. However, if there's a bill or another anticipated manner which will serve this same purpose, then the use of private members' statements to discuss that issue is clearly out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the point raised by the member. However, as the session winds on, private members' statements become more and more restrictive in what we can discuss if we apply the rules absolutely, because virtually everything can be done under some other business. For example, with today's four private members' statements, the estimates of the Ministry of Solicitor-General are yet to come, which would deal with the third one, and the first one could be dealt with under the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

The original concept of private members' statements was so that members who did not have an opportunity at another time to bring matters forward could do so on Friday. As you well know, sir, as a member of the committee that drafted the regulations, it gets more and more difficult for the Chair to enforce them. Today we had a particularly difficult situation when both the title and a bill were worded exactly the same. However, the matter was dealt with by asking leave. Perhaps the committee of the House would like to address the whole issue of private members' statements. It is virtually unenforceable.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 40.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take my place today to move second reading of the University of Northern British Columbia Act. As I indicated during my comments at first

[ Page 10364 ]

reading, and as I'm going to be saying again, there's a long and very good history to the genesis of this legislation we're preparing today. I'm going to spend some time discussing the history of how this legislation came to be. I'll advise you that I will be designated speaker, because there's a very good chance that I'm going to go over my time-limit.

To begin, we have to give credit to a dedicated group of businessmen and businesswomen in Prince George who began in early 1987.... I'll name them now: Murray Sadler, QC, currently chairman of the interim governing council, Roy Stewart, another Prince George lawyer; Elsie Gerdes from the Northern Interior Health Unit; Tom Steadman, a Prince George businessman, Charles McCaffray, who at the time was the principal of the College of New Caledonia; Dr. McKenzie, and many others. The list goes on and on, but those are people who clearly have to be pointed out as being the critical people and really the genesis of finally putting this idea together.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Coincidentally in 1987, as that Interior University Society was formed, some of us on the executive council were given a responsibility and a budget, as ministers of state. In a while I'll describe how those two coincidental issues came together in a first-class fashion.

[11:15]

The Interior University Society, under the direction of the people I've just mentioned, went first with their Idea to the regional district and the economic development corporation of the regional district and asked for some small amount of funding so that they could print stationery and begin a membership and subscription list. I believe the request was for $1, 500 and the economic development corporation granted it. It was from that point that the Interior University Society began their very good work. With that bit of assistance, and with the stationery budget and other things in place, they began to gather memberships and assert their influence and spread their message throughout the north.

They came to me as minister of state. I then had a budget for this type of funding. I worked with my colleagues the Speaker (Hon. Mr. Rogers), former Minister of State for Nechako; the current Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), who was a minister of state at the time; and the current Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker). We were able to fund a $100,000 study conducted by a Dr. Urban Dahllof, a professor from Sweden whose field of expertise is rural education.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it's suffering from it, too, from the highest unemployment. The Prime Minister had to resign. It's not a very good example Did I tell you I just bought a Volvo last night?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The one I have is assembled in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. How did we get on to this?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I do. As a matter of fact, I'm soon to have two of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: What model?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a 740 and a 544. Back to the bill.

Dr. Dahllof is an international scholar dealing in rural education. He has done work for the governments of Australia, Finland, Sweden and Norway, and he was instructive. His work was extremely good, and it pointed out, first of all, that the population base was there to seriously consider a fourth university in the central Interior of the province. Certainly the employer demand was there to consider a fourth university in the interior of the province, and all the factors that we had to have put in place were in place.

Dr. Dahllof also suggested a method of teaching delivery that was not typical of what we would normally expect in North America, but it was instructive, it was unique and innovative, and it gave us a lot of food for thought.

In any event, it was on the basis of that study that I went to the former Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen), and took that work to cabinet and to his ministry. As part of his Access for All program of 1988 and 1989, he struck an implementation planning group, chaired by Horst Sander, a Prince George businessman and significant industry leader. They spent some considerable time with some ministry staff, clearly identifying demographics and the population base and the necessity and the need and how a university would look and what it would be if we were to have a fourth university in northern or central British Columbia.

The mandate given to the implementation planning group, the group chaired by Horst Sander, was that any degree-granting post-secondary institution should be autonomous. That was clearly indicated by all the people who live in the central interior and northern part of the province. There's a reason for that. I guess they sensed that anything else was a branch-plant mode and would not be acceptable.

Of course, as a community we have looked at the university college models that were being advanced and being put in place at Malaspina, Cariboo and Okanagan. But again, that was a model we didn't want to embrace. Clearly it was, as I said, branch plant in terms of its design. Although we have no argument with what is being done at Kelowna, Kamloops or Nanaimo, we clearly saw that we would want any institution in the north to be autonomous. We would want it to have its own board of governors, its own governorship and in many ways be unique to the central interior. Features of that come out in this

[ Page 10365 ]

bill, and I'll describe that as I further discuss the university.

The implementation planning group began in March 1989. They did considerably good work and reported to me. By that time I had become minister in the late part of December. They made significant recommendations, most of which are reflected in this legislation that we're discussing today. The recommendations were, first of all, that the answer is yes, there should be a university in northern British Columbia. That was good to finally get that answer — yes — and get it with some authority, considerable background, investigation and documentation behind it.

Secondly, if there was to be a fourth university in British Columbia, it would be similar to the North American model of a university in that it would have the general range of undergraduate programs, it would anticipate having professional schools and it would certainly anticipate having graduate programs as they developed. In other words, there is to be no limitation in any fashion of the function, ability, design, methodology and appearance of this fourth university.

We looked at some models. Lethbridge was a good example. Lethbridge went in place some years ago as a university that would offer four-years-only degree completion at the bachelor level and not go further The argument there, of course, is that it didn't attract the best faculty, because they wouldn't have the chance of working with graduate students. Also they didn't attract as many students as they had anticipated, only because students saw that as a second-rate institution. That has since changed at Lethbridge, and they have better enrolment figures now. Nevertheless, we learned from the experience at Lethbridge that there's no way you can short-cut the institution, nor is there any way you can second-rate it without having it suffering the consequences of that government action.

Clearly we had to put in place a recommendation to government that established a university that would be a full university in the North American sense of the word and would not be diminished or in any way different from what we know as universities.

During January 1989 as minister of state with a sincere interest in establishing a university, and then in January 1990 as Minister of Advanced Education, I spent considerable time touring Canada. I visited some very good institutions, most notably the ones I speak of now and the ones I want to have on the record. They were institutions that resembled what we would like to see in Prince George and for the north and were already in place in northern Ontario. Specifically I'm speaking of Lakehead University at Thunder Bay and Laurentian University at Sudbury.

Both those communities, as members of the House will know, resemble Prince George, with the city and peripheral population of around 100, 000 or thereabouts. They are both resource communities: Sudbury being mining, Thunder Bay being forest industry-pulp and paper. They resemble Prince George in terms of their population makeup and their resource industry base. They had universities, so they were interesting communities for me to see.

I might add that in the trip of 1989, 1 had with me our mayor, John Backhouse, from Prince George, and also the executive director of the Prince George Region Development Corporation, Dale McMann. We spent considerable time looking at Sudbury, how it had developed and, for our interests, the university. It was an instructive trip.

The reception I had in both the communities and both those universities was very good. They pointed out that in many cases, a smaller university has advantages over a larger university. First of all, although you don't enjoy economy of scale in terms of budgets and that type of feature in a smaller university, you certainly have some economies when it comes to getting through the red tape. You have the economy of a smaller bureaucracy where things happen with much more flexibility, much more ease and in a far more expeditious manner.

They pointed out that because of this flexibility and this ability to be quickly innovative, and because there aren't layers of bureaucratic administration or red tape, faculty were attracted in many cases to the smaller universities — particularly your good graduate faculty who could sense the ability to do something well, do something quickly and really be a leader at a small university. I guess it's the big-frog-in-the-small-pond syndrome, if I can characterize it that way.

It did establish in my mind that you don't have to be big to be good; you can be a smaller school and be good. I think that was important. It really solved a lot of the questions that I had when I looked at this. Not having had the advantage of attending a university, it was difficult for me to make that assessment at the time. But after visiting those institutions, it became clear to me that this was a very good way to go, and that in fact you could have excellence in spite of a small size.

I wanted to put. on the record how cordial, informative and genuinely interested the faculty, the students, the administration and the board of directors were both at Laurentian and Lakehead, and how supportive they've been of this initiative. As a matter of fact, there's a staff person we're now considering seconding from Lakehead University to come to Prince George to assist the board; that decision may be made within the week. But there is good, genuine interest in both those communities for Prince George, for the north and for what we want to do.

Following my return to British Columbia in January of '89, the work I had done and the other universities I'd looked at across Canada, we began putting this legislation in place. There are some interesting features of this legislation that are different from the University Act, and they're contained in the bill for obvious reasons, and I'd like to speak to them.

The implementation planning group, when it reported to government, had spent considerable time in the north. It recognized that if this was truly to be an

[ Page 10366 ]

autonomous university, it had to have special features in its legislation. It had to have advantages that couldn't be contained in the normal University Act. The other dilemma we faced, as we looked at the legislation before us, was that although the University Act of British Columbia is a good act, tells you how to run a university in an appropriate manner and is a good statute to follow for the operation of a university, it's silent on how you begin one. That was a dilemma we were faced with. We knew that we couldn't simply include a fourth name in the University Act; we had to draft genesis or beginning legislation for the University of Northern British Columbia to get it going.

Just to give you some examples from the act, Mr. Speaker, the University Act says that a board of governors shall be composed of the faculty, the students, the alumni, the staff and the senate. Well, if you don't have any of those when you're beginning a university, then how do you begin? So we had to look at a governance situation that was unique to a beginning university, and we had to put in legislation. This bill describes how we've done that: the ability to begin a university. And that's what we did.

The other thing we found out as we went through the implementation planning group report and as I toured the north.... I spent some two months — from 100 Mile House to Prince Rupert to Fort St John, Dawson Creek, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Terrace — meeting with people; I was out to the Chilcotin, Anahim Lake and that area talking to people about a northern university. I found out there was a genuine fear of Prince George in the same way that northerners, people from the Kootenays I'm sure, and people from other than the lower mainland have a fear of Vancouver being dominant and getting everything. Well, that same stigma was there with people who lived outside of the Prince George area.

Being a Prince George MLA, I was actually at a disadvantage in some cases. I'm sure the member from Cranbrook can understand that. I was seen as someone who wanted it all for Prince George and wouldn't consider anticipating what we had to do for the rural regions. So my appointment to this portfolio, although it was pleasant for me and I think a clear signal from government that we were going to do something, was viewed with some suspicion by people outside the Prince George area. In January and February I had to spend some time ensuring that I was going to produce an institution on behalf of everyone in the north and gather their support. For that reason you'll see certain features in the legislation that recognize that.

[11:30]

The message I heard immediately was, "Well, if you're going to have a board of governors regulate this university, the majority of them must come from an area other than Prince George, " which I agreed to if it's going to be a university that is developed on a regional basis, which satisfies the needs of the north — I mean the northern half of the province — you're going to have to ensure that your governance is regional. On the basis of that, you'll note that the legislation reads that governance shall be composed of members who are resident in the Northern Lights College region, the Northwest Community College region and the College of New Caledonia region. You'll also note that it says there shall be representation from the Cariboo Regional District. Essentially that includes the area south of Quesnel, so there will be membership from that area further south of the CNC region, actually going into the Cariboo College region.

It also indicated, because we had tremendous support from the aboriginal community, that there be a representative of the aboriginal community on the interim governing council, the board of governors and the senate. That was one of the things that I noted was absent in the NDP bill put forward. There was no recognition of regional or aboriginal representation on the board of governors. I find that a serious flaw, and I wonder why the NDP would draft a bill which does not recognize the aboriginal community or regional interests. It's curious, but I guess you had your own reasons for drafting it that way.

Clearly, as a responsible government, we knew that when we drafted our legislation, we had to ensure that there was regional and aboriginal representation guaranteed by statute. That's in the bill.

The bill begins by putting in place the governance body that's going to ensure there is appropriate representation in building the university, giving it a good start and ensuring that all factors and all members of the northern community are a part of its building, shaping, design, curriculum and of what it's going to be, and that it serves as wide and diversified a population base as it can.

The implementation planning group was quite good in that. As it surveyed'the needs of employers and those who live in the north, it made some substantial recommendations. It said that a University of Northern British Columbia should seriously consider a faculty of education, because clearly there is a need for teachers to be trained in the north to stay in the north. There is a need for business administration and for trained and degreed people in the computing sciences. Again the employer need had spoken. There is a need for social workers and for those who are trained in resource management.

A very good brief was put forward by a group calling themselves the Faculty of Forestry Committee. They are essentially a group of registered professional foresters from the interior whose excellent brief to the implementation and planning group argued — and I think quite convincingly — for a forestry program to be in place at the University of Northern British Columbia. That is something that I'm sure will be done by the board as they study curriculums and understand the needs of the area, the employer group and the students who want to continue in that discipline.

Of course, it's known to all that Prince George would be a very good place to have that type of forestry school, in that it is representative of the topography and species of the area.

[ Page 10367 ]

Resource management is a prime consideration. Of course, that's not just forestry but will probably include environmental studies that you can do in the north far better than you could at Point Grey, Burnaby Mountain or Oak Bay; the study of water resources, which have been a critical thing for the past couple of weeks; and the whole environment.

The mining industry has a sincere interest in finding out more. B.C. Hydro, for example, has indicated that they have a significant budget to spend on water studies. What better institution to spend that budget at than a University of Northern British Columbia — to do the research they are going to need as they continue to develop or plan their operations? So there's a lot of industrial interest in the University of Northern British Columbia. As I anticipate the matching grant system, which is another item that will come in next year's budget and is being considered now at treasury — not in this bill — I can see that being subscribed to by industry in a first-class fashion. The businessmen in industry that I've spoken to in the last couple of months have indicated that there is considerable interest out there in this university, a considerable amount of money that they would like to see spent on research in the north, and considerable research that they would like to have done in the north. There's a real advantage to us, to industry and to the province in general in having that university there.

That brings into play another interesting feature. It's another advantage Prince George has over other areas of the province. This is something I was advised of when I was at Thunder Bay. I nonchalantly asked the president: "How many of your students are from the Toronto area?" The answer was close to 50 percent, which I thought was interesting. They gave me the reasons why. Of course, the same will apply in Prince George.

First of all, there's always the greener pastures syndrome. I think people, when they go to university, like to go off to university; they don't want to stay in their hometown with their mom and dad. They're at the age of 18 or 19 when they're about to spread their wings and go on to do their things. They do want to go away.

MR. MILLER: They do it at 13 or 14 now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They can't get into university at that age, though. But you're right, they do leave early.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Is that right? That's remarkable. That was a young lady in New York; I remember reading about that.

Anyway, as to why Lakehead had that high percentage of Toronto students, there was also the affordability of accommodation. That is a clear advantage that the north offers over the lower mainland. The cost of accommodation in Prince George is a third of that in Burnaby or Point Grey. That is a large advantage. Victoria is not quite as expensive, but nevertheless Prince George is far less in terms of rental accommodation. Thunder Bay has that same relationship and advantage over Toronto.

The other reason there were so many Toronto students at Lakehead University was the courses offered. For example, outdoor recreation is becoming a very popular field, not only for students in the phys ed stream but for people who want to be in that field of studies. As you know, at Thunder Bay and equally at Prince George, you could do far better than you could in the lower mainland with programs like cross-country skiing, downhill skiing, orienteering and wilderness tourism studies. All of that could be done in a far better fashion in a northern university where you have that great outdoor laboratory for many things, as opposed to Point Grey or Burnaby Mountain, where it is just impossible to do that type of study unless you go on a major and rather expensive field trip.

No doubt we will find that the possibility exists for a university in the north to attract students from the lower mainland, and I would suspect from other parts of Canada as well as it begins to be put in place. You need courses, and courses which can be delivered better in a community such as ours as opposed to the lower mainland, and I think for many of the obvious reasons.

In drafting the legislation, we knew that we had to have what I referred to earlier: a genesis element. It had to kick-start a university, to put it in place, and to put it in place in a correct manner. It had to recognize that there are cost disadvantages to beginning a university. You don't have the economy of scale that you'll enjoy with a large school like UBC, which has 25,000 students. You have to build in a cost advantage and a kick-start preferential funding factor. You'll note, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation includes reference to that.

While there is a certain enrolment pattern at the University of Northern British Columbia, there will be a funding mechanism which allows funding of up to 135 percent of the normal university average. That does give preference to the beginning costs of the University of Northern British Columbia, which is a recommendation that came out of the implementation planning group— as a matter of fact, out of the ministry, through the mandate given to the group as to how it could assess the government contribution to such a beginning school, how effective and important that would be and how it would recognize that you have to give this university a head start and a preferential start. That's in the bill. I will point out that the NDP bill for a northern university does not mention that preferential funding formula, which is another criticism I would offer of it.

We also recognized that you cannot continue this preference forever. There must be a point where you recognize that the university can continue on its own, so it will become part of the University Act after some time. For that reason, we have put in place a feature which says that after two consecutive years of enrolment of 2,500 full-time equivalent students, this

[ Page 10368 ]

act will sunset, and the University of Northern British Columbia will simply become a fourth name in the University Act. I think that's appropriate as well.

MR. JONES: What year is that — 2010?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, you're being very pessimistic, but that's the nature of your party, I guess.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're pessimistic too. I'm being far more optimistic, and I'll tell you why. There's a pent-up demand for third- and fourth-year graduate programs in the north. I'm an example, as a matter of fact, of those who have completed two years of university transfer work but are not able to continue for a variety of reasons.

[11:45]

MR. JONES: After the election.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, after the election I'll be busier than ever.

One of the things we learned at Thunder Bay was that you should recognize.... This university has had this recommended to it. It's not in the bill, but I think in the debate on the principle I'll mention this. Thunder Bay said: "One thing you can do in a resource community like you have and like we have is give university transfer credit to those students who have diplomas in various technical programs We have done that, and the interesting thing about that is that the highest percentage of diploma people attending here for professional status are graduates of BCIT. They are forestry techs, business techs and engineering techs." At Thunder Bay, where they offer a bridging program and then put diploma students into third-year university, the largest take-up is from BCIT. That's not done anywhere in British Columbia by any of the current universities, so it's recommended that this university do that.

In response to the critic's concern about enrolment, I know we have pent-up demand out there from College of New Caledonia graduates for sure, Northwest College graduates and Northern Lights College graduates who have diplomas in a variety of disciplines. If they were given university transfer credit for those diplomas, they would do an exceptional job of finishing their program.

What we found at Thunder Bay was that, for example, engineering technicians have taken a wide variety of courses during the two years of their diploma program. They generally aren't of the depth of those you take in engineering at a university; nevertheless they have studied the field of the discipline they are interested in.

It was found at Thunder Bay that what was required was a bridging summer — taking those students and giving them some of the things they had missed at the diploma level or the institute level: more pure math; calculus at the 100 level, which would allow them to do third-year university work, and many other courses that broaden and deepen their education requirements to allow them to become full-fledged students taking third-year studies and well-trained for the classroom.

They have been largely successful in doing that, and I am advised that it takes one summer of bridging teaching to allow those students to enter into a full-fledged, third-year professional program. I would imagine there's an awful lot of determination too, as most of those students would be mature students. They would have learned a lot on the job and would be dedicated and really enthusiastic about achieving their professional degree.

In any event, that's one feature that I'm sure will be put in place by the University of Northern British Columbia board, and I think it'll serve that community well. I think the pent-up demand of diploma people out there will really swell the enrolment at the University of Northern British Columbia. It will be a very productive way of really assisting all those people who have those diploma credentials. That's why I feel a lot better about the enrolment pattern than others would.

As well, a university builds itself. We've already seen a real interest in Prince George. We've seen housing prices increase and the housing market develop again. We're seeing more and more industry become interested in our community as we seriously consider a university in northern British Columbia.

I was phoned a couple of months ago by the personnel officer of the school district, who said that he had received many applications from teachers — people currently teaching — who would like to move to Prince George to teach. The reason they were doing that was because they knew a university was going to be in Prince George soon.

You have to ask yourself why they did that, since of course a teacher already has a degree. Clearly what they were thinking was that a community which has a university is, first of all, a better place to live for a lot of reasons. A university offers a lot more than just straight classroom education. It has many other features to it as well.

But these people, in particular these teachers applying to School District 57, were also thinking of their children. That's clearly what makes for that type of interest. I think it's one of the reasons we and all of the community really became interested and Involved in this. It's a large community, from 100 Mile House to Prince Rupert to Fort Nelson; and McBride and Valemount, to round out the other part.

They saw that if a university would do anything, it would improve the quality of life and make the area a far more attractive place to live. That was the basis, the genesis, the urging and the gut feeling that we all felt back in 1987 when we put this project forward. It was just the ability to attract more people to our community.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 10369 ]

I'll share with you a feeling I had at an American parliamentary conference that I went to in 1986. The speaker there was T. Boone Pickens, who was at that time known for his reputation in greenmail and the hostile corporate takeover. He was a speaker at the state legislators' conference. He was told to come and asked to explain why, when he was doing his hostile takeovers, he was siting the firm that he'd bought from one place to another place — what made him make his siting decisions. He said:

"Well, I'll tell you. First of all, you have to understand my corporate philosophy. I look at a company, and I analyze it, and I see if a company is undervalued. And when I see that, that immediately becomes attractive to me. Then I have to assess why is this company undervalued. Normally a company is undervalued — their book value is below what it ought to be — because they have poor management. At that point I move; and sometimes I'm successful, sometimes I'm not. But remember that factor: poor management.

"Then after I've assumed control of that company, I'm looking at a number of things, one of them being: where am I going to site the operation? Maybe I want to move it, and what do I look at when I want to move an industry or corporation? Well, first of all, there's all the technical infrastructure that has to be in place, depending on what type of factory or industry you're interested in. There are the obvious things that you have to think of. Do you need to be on tidewater, natural gas, railroad? Do you need a skilled labour market in some specialty — tool and dye makers, for example? That's technical infrastructure that has to be in place. But that's 50 percent — 50 percent only — of the reason that I will consider moving to one town as opposed to another.

"The other 50 percent — an equal weighting to the technical infrastructure — is the social infrastructure. Does that community have churches, schools, a nice setting, a low crime rate, good weather, good social amenities, culture, a university? Is it going to be attractive to employees? Because don't forget the reason I've taken over this company in the first place is because they had bad management, and that's why in my opinion they were undervalued.

"So if I want the company to run properly, I need good management; I have to attract the best. Therefore I always look at the social side of the community and I give it equal weighting to the technical side of the community when making those decisions."

Hearing that in 1986 — and it was a great conference with your former member for Mackenzie and your current member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) at the state legislators' conference in New Orleans — it occurred to me that this is what we need to do for economic development. Economic development in the north is not just more pulp mills, chopstick mills, sawmills or hydrogen peroxide mills. Economic development is the social side of the community as well. Without question, the most important thing we need to sell the north, to make it attractive to investment, is to make it socially attractive.

We have many good things in Prince George. I would say on a per capita basis we have the best library in the province. I don't think anyone would deny that. Far better, my Vancouver friends, than you will have on a per capita basis. We have two of the most outstanding children's choirs in the world, believe it or not, in Prince George. They win international competitions. One of them was here just a few weeks ago. We have culture — a great little theatre group, a very good French immersion program, a very good Christian school, a very good Roman Catholic school system, excellent outdoor recreation and extremely successful sports clubs and recreation groups. We have just about everything a young family would want. We have four very lively seasons — and, boy, there are four of them and they're all different, but we have them. We have everything someone would want with a growing family, but we're missing one ingredient: that university.

I have a son who turned 17 yesterday. Then you really have to start thinking about your plans. I'm not as mobile as some. I'm kind of locked into my job, at least for the moment. Many people in industry have to consider that when their children reach that age they're going to have to move on, because they do want to see their son or daughter attend a post-secondary institution. And no matter where they go, they want just to be a little bit closer to them.

Clearly that was the one ingredient missing from making Prince George almost a perfect place to live. It was on that basis that a lot of us fought so hard for this university and for its beginning. It's been a long, good fight, I can tell you. I've had some incredible tussles, with my colleague the former minister, with the implementation planning group in terms of what they wanted to do. The arguments they had with each other about what fashion the university should take were lively, exciting and sometimes wrenching in terms of trying to put all this together. It finally came together and it's been exciting.

We're now at the point where we have legislation and, as the members will know, a budget, an interim board in place, one staff member already and another one soon to come. It has been exciting. It really does round out the one element that was missing in our northern area, and that was the ability to have your children attend school a little closer to home. No matter how you slice it, unless you've got a lot a money for air fares, you're always going to be nine hours away from the lower mainland in Prince George and, of course, further away if you're in Prince Rupert, Terrace, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John or Fort Nelson. Clearly this is seen as really the jewel that finally rounds out that crown of our northern British Columbia destiny.

I wanted to add that economic development note in my comments this morning because I think it is critical. I think all members should always realize that you can build all the technical infrastructure, factories, sawmills and what have you into your community, but unless you have that good, attractive, social side, you really don't have a complete and total city or community to live in. You will not be able to

[ Page 10370 ]

attract some of the industry you want. It's clear that this social side will pull economic development to it.

I think that's one of the reasons Vancouver has been so successful. First of all, it does have good culture. It is a very attractive city to live in. It's pretty. It's got a great lifestyle. From that followed many people who built considerable industry there. I think John MacDonald is one of them. John MacDonald and I were talking one day about siting a place. He said: "Vern Dettwiler and I decided to start our business here not because of any government grant, not because of the railroad or anything else" — they've got a high-tech business that could go anywhere and John MacDonald was lecturing at NUT at the time — "but we decided to start MacDonald Dettwiler in Vancouver because we're both from Vancouver and we liked to live there." It was just that simple. That's how you bring economic development to a community. You ensure that it's a nice place to live. That's what we're doing under this legislation: to ensure that the north is a far more attractive and far better place to live. As I said, from that basis and strategy, you will ensure that you have industry come. I think a lot of industry is going to follow the development of our university, and I think it's going to make Prince George and the north a really attractive place to live.

[12:00]

It's about noon now, and I know some other members wish to speak, so I am going to take my place. But I really have to thank an awful lot of people who have worked so hard on this: the former minister, the members of the implementation planning group and the 15,000 people who not just signed a petition, but paid $5 to sign a petition. I recall once a comment in cabinet: "Is there enough interest?" And I said: "Yes, we have 15,000 names." "Well, what do 15,000 names mean?" I said: "Well, they've paid $5 to sign that name." That made an incredible impression on my colleagues when they knew that there was some incredible determination in the north for this university to proceed. So those are the people who have to be thanked.

Again a comment to Murray Sadler, who is now the chairman of the interim governing council. He is doing a remarkable job and giving up a substantial income. Murray is with a very successful law firm, and as those of you who have been practising lawyers know, you get paid only when you produce. Murray is giving up considerable time for not a heck of a lot of revenue to ensure that this proceeds.

But there are an awful lot of other good people. As I said, 15,000 people have worked so hard to see this legislation that we've brought to the House today.

So with that said, Mr. Speaker, I commend second reading to the members of the Legislative Assembly. I thank them for their forbearance in my hour of speaking today, but I wanted to fully discuss the bill, its germination and its genesis with the assembly There's an awful lot of good thought in here.

I commend the legislative counsel who put this legislation together, because as I said, we were dealing with a clean sheet of paper. We were dealing with a current University Act that didn't do us any good, because it didn't tell us how to begin one. The innovative touches in this legislation are good and are going to ensure that we have a first-class institution, and that we have it started in the best possible fashion.

So with that said, my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker and to the members of the Legislative Assembly. I now move second reading of Bill 40, the University of Northern British Columbia Act.

MR. HARCOURT: I was listening to what the minister had to say about Bill 40, the University of Northern British Columbia Act. I was thinking back over the last three and a half years as this university has gone from a concept that a lot of people hoped would happen to actually be happening. I am pleased to be standing here in the Legislature to say that this bill will receive the unanimous support of the Legislature. It is endorsed enthusiastically by the New Democrats in the Legislature and more particularly by the New Democrats in northern British Columbia.

I expressed that support after I became leader of the New Democratic Party in 1987. 1 remember speaking to the Prince George Chamber of Commerce right after becoming leader and saying that what we need to do as a province is to have the growth of British Columbia far more equitably distributed throughout this great province of ours, and that one of the essential ways to do that is to improve the quality of life of the many communities outside southwestern British Columbia. One of the keys to that is the extension of post-secondary education and degree-granting universities in the north, the interior, the Kootenays and northern Vancouver Island. That is one of the many ways you could bring about a more equitable growth pattern in British Columbia as this province grows from three million to six million people over the next 30 or 40 years.

I expressed strong support in 1987 for the concept of the University of Northern British Columbia when I attended that chamber of commerce luncheon along with my colleague the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). I said that there were a number of reasons for our support. First of all, it offers opportunities to people in northern British Columbia, particularly to young people who find that in terms of education, aside from the two years that are offered at the college, they have to come to Victoria or Vancouver to receive their technological — in a lot of cases trades — and university education and training. This institution would offer access to young northerners or workers looking for a change of career or of activities. Not only would it offer opportunity; it would offer a more equitable cost for post-secondary education.

A lot of northerners, as you know, find it very expensive to come down to Victoria or Vancouver. They don't have the good fortune that we have of a ten-minute drive from our homes to the University of British Columbia. It is a very intimidating and expensive burden for a lot of northerners to have to pay the high cost of rent and transportation and all the other

[ Page 10371 ]

costs of being away from home and not having the support of your friends, community and family as you go through the difficult adjustment from being a big frog in a small pond to starting again at the bottom of the totem-pole and being just a rookie in your freshman year at a post-secondary institution. To do that away from home and not to be among your friends and family can be intimidating. I think, for a series of reasons relating to young northerners in particular, that the increase in access, the decrease in costs and the more friendly environs of your home community make sense.

As the minister has outlined, this is also part of the vision for the north and part of making sure that the next three million people who come to British Columbia do go north, to the Kootenays, to the interior and to northern Vancouver Island. It's that use of post-secondary education as an economic development initiative resource that is equally important, aside from the opportunities it offers northerners.

I expressed all of those reasons for my support and for the support of the member for Prince George North, our caucus and our party for a university of the north in 1987. Through all of the deliberations, I have not flagged in that support. The committee, ably led by Murray Sadler, as the minister has outlined, with the support of that very skilled educator from Sweden, Dr. Dahllof, who came up with a report that recommended a unique institution for the north with autonomy, so there isn't a feeling of being tied to UBC, the University of Victoria or Simon Fraser.... I supported those concepts, as did our member for Prince George North.

We have been quite supportive all through this process. As a matter of fact, because of its importance to northerners, we've been impatient for the university to get underway with due diligence and as quickly as possible. Its importance was reinforced to me as I travelled throughout the north, whether in the Charlottes, Valemount, Fort St. John, Cassiar or Telegraph Creek, or along the Yellowhead Highway. All through the north, many people I spoke to, from a young hitchhiker I picked up outside of Burns Lake, who felt a lack of job opportunities for himself, to the aboriginal leaders I met at the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, who felt that as we address their concerns of aboriginal self-government and land claims, it would lead to more opportunities if a university were in the north, if it had some representation and a focus on aboriginal issues and on the results of a settlement that could come out of our sitting down and negotiating with aboriginal people.... Many northerners, including young people who would like to become teachers, nurses and entrepreneurs and who want to stay in their own community and be part of the north, not to have to go south, reinforced our very strong support of this bill and of this concept all the way along.

I would like to say from an economic development viewpoint that we regard the university of the north as essential. It is as important as the railways, the highways, the hydroelectric development and the Macdonald report, which established colleges throughout this province, were in helping to create the range of resources and services you need if you are going to encourage diversification of the economy, more value-added activities and the high-tech and medium-tech industries that are flocking to areas around San Francisco, San Jose, the Silicon Valley, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, and around Boston, or in Toronto or Vancouver, where you have the synergy of a whole series of qualities that add up to people either wanting to stay and diversify the economy, or to come in the mobile, new-economy areas of biotechnology, of microelectronics, of the sophisticated communications, telecommunications and computer technology now growing by leaps and bounds in this rapidly changing world.

The minister mentioned that the quality of life of a community is as important as access to market, transportation, skilled workers, access to basic raw materials — all of those economic-location-financial decisions you have to make. The issue of quality of life is at least 50 percent, as the minister pointed out. I can tell you, as the former mayor of Vancouver, that that is something we stressed over and over again: you're moving into a high-quality community with low crime, with great neighbourhoods, with good educational institutions, with one of the best medical systems in the world, with recreational and cultural facilities to rival any in the world, and when you bring your industry into the Vancouver area, you are bringing that industry into a very high-quality place to live for you and your families and employees.

A lot of businesses now have the choice of going to many different communities in North America or throughout Europe or Asia. They choose, finally, the place where people want to live — where the owners and employees want to raise their families and to live and to retire.

I believe that this university will help the north become that kind of centre of excellence. Of the new-economy industries that are coming into this province, far too many are coming into Victoria and Vancouver. I want to see many of them looking at Prince George, Smithers, Fort St. John and other communities in this great province of ours that could handle a lot of the industries.

I think, quite frankly, this educational institution is going to reinforce the capability of industries moving into Prince George and the other communities of the north. When you combine its unique features with the other initiatives that need to take place in Prince George - like Discovery Place; development of a trade and conference and cultural facility; the new courthouse that should be going forward shortly, which will reinforce the redevelopment and the renewal of the downtown of Prince George; the northern forests institute I announced a few months ago that would deal with the unique challenges of northern forests, of replanting those forests, of reforestation, of getting more value out of those forests.... There's a whole series of initiatives that could come out of that northern forests institute. The

[ Page 10372 ]

aboriginal languages centre and the other activities that would take place around the settlement of land claims that we, as New Democrats, are committed to carrying out....

[12:15]

Those kinds of investments in Prince George are going to create a city, an urban place, that people want to move to. As the minister has pointed out and from my experience and the economic development work I did as mayor of Vancouver and the economic development commission that I established, quality of life is absolutely essential. This university will make sure that Prince George has the range of resources that will attract new industries to come there. Then Prince George and other northern communities will be able to say: not only do we have a place that has one of the best medical services anywhere in the world.... We hope to expand the health care facilities so more northerners can get hospital operations, heart operations and other more sophisticated operations in Prince George and throughout the north. They have the educational, the health, all the other resources I've just talked about, but they have other advantages over Vancouver.

I think, as the minister pointed out, there are very good advantages in terms of the housing, costing $80,000 to $120,000 for a good house compared with $400,000 or $500,000 in the Vancouver area. You live only ten minutes from your job, rather than commuting two hours a day from your house in the lower mainland to your job in Vancouver or Burnaby. You have the advantage of mobility. You have the advantage, as the minister said, in field trips — not even when you're on a field trip; when you're just going out to enjoy the wilderness. It's 15 minutes away, rather than having to go two or three hours outside the lower mainland.

There are a whole series of other competitive advantages, such as the lower cost of industrial land where you can get industrial land for $2,000 to $10,000 or $15,000 an acre, instead of $300,000 to $400,000 an acre. We can start to make that a part of the economic development partnership in British Columbia, having much more growth outside Vancouver and Victoria. The more that happens, the better.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Move industry out to the regions.

MR. HARCOURT: Absolutely. I think more decentralization could take place.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I was mayor of Vancouver — and I got elected on this pledge — I said that what my job was and what we needed to do was to help Vancouver go from being the third-largest city in Canada to the tenth-largest. And the way to do that is to have far more of the growth outside Vancouver. The more that happens, the better.

I believe that this university, along with a number of the other investments I've just talked about — Discovery Place, the new courthouse, the northern forest institute, the aboriginal language centre and other resources, and the programs with aboriginal people — will allow Prince George to eventually grow from the current 65,000 people into a community of 150,000 to 200,000. It will indeed be our jewel of the north.

It will lead the development in the top half of this province. People think that Prince George is way up in the north. Well, it's just starting to get into the north. I think that this University of Northern British Columbia, along with the other investments that British Columbians should make, are going to be well worth the investment that all British Columbia taxpayers will make.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the Legislature enthusiastically supports Bill 40, the University of Northern British Columbia Act. We may have some comments about some improvements that we think could take place in this institute and some linkages to other investments that need to take place in the north. But aside from that, this is a pleasant occasion for the Legislature, with us all positive and enthusiastic about the new institution that we are giving birth to here with Bill 40, the University of Northern British Columbia Act.

MR. JONES: I think this is an important day in the Legislature. It's an important celebration of our fourth university of this province. I am absolutely amazed that when the minister spoke and when he made the motion for second reading, there were only four members of the government side in the House. The only people applauding the minister moving that motion were members on the New Democrat side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be quite brief, because I made some notes in preparation for second reading some time back. In fact, I've been waiting so long for this day that I've lost my notes. So I will be briefer than I might have been otherwise.

One of the things that the minister talked about was the history of the university of the north, and his recollection only goes back to 1987. But the history of degree-granting status outside the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island goes way back, far before 1987; it goes back to 1962, in my understanding. The former president of the University of British Columbia, John B. Macdonald, produced a report in 1962 calling for degree-granting status in the Interior. I know my colleague from Prince George North has been calling for a university of the north since 1983. We jokingly even came up with a name sometime back for the university, and we were calling it "Boonie U" — jokingly only.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I've learned in my tenure as a member of this Legislature has been the diversity throughout the province. Nobody has brought that message home to me more than the member for Prince George North. In fact, in our caucus meetings she is constantly raising the concerns of northerners. She's beating up on us people from the lower mainland to the point where I have gotten quite tired of the repetitious speech: "You guys down on the lower mainland, you don't under-

[ Page 10373 ]

stand." In fact, I didn't. Even though I taught in northern British Columbia for two years, I really didn't understand the north.

I think that second reading of this bill today is not just a celebration for northern British Columbia; it's a celebration for all of British Columbia. We are adding to our family of universities by the creation of the University of Northern British Columbia, as we added Simon Fraser in 1965, which has been such an important part of my constituency. So we had John Macdonald in '62, the member for Prince George North in 1983 and our leader, as he pointed out, in 1987 calling for a university of the north, and that was something that took me a little time to get behind.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We also had my predecessor, Lorne Nicolson, the former member for Nelson-Creston, who was calling for degree-granting status in the regions of this province in 1985. So the history does not begin in 1987. But I quite agree with the minister that we have to compliment all those northern British Columbians who got behind the Interior University Society and brought about the kind of movement that produced the legislation we see today. I know the minister was a major part in that, and I want to commend him for his role in bringing about the creation of this today. I think it's something we can all celebrate.

I've been trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it's clearly a non-partisan issue, although I must confess I was partisan in one of my remarks earlier. I think we all celebrate second reading of this bill, and we want to give it speedy passage. We want to support the principle of this bill, and that we are going to see, finally, degree-granting status in northern British Columbia. I guess I've learned a lot through this process.

The minister and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Dahllof report. I know the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) will be interested in this, because while I criticized some parts of the Dahllof report, what I got out of that report was an understanding of the economics of post-secondary education. The illustration used in that report was the University of Victoria. The Dahllof report clearly pointed out the tremendous economic, social, cultural and intellectual benefits of having a university located in a particular region. It was the economic development benefits that the Dahllof report stressed, and that was something I hadn't really understood prior to that. So while I was critical of aspects of the Dahllof report, I must commend that report for educating me as to the economic benefits that can accrue.

That was further illustrated in the report of the implementation planning group, who pointed out that even just in the development of facilities there will be some $169 million over 12 years creating 3, 000 person-years of employment in construction and related activity. There will be expenditures of something like $12.3 million per year just on goods and services associated with the university. There will be an increase in the gross domestic product of some $200 million over a ten-year period. All of those economic development factors are critical to seeing the northern part of British Columbia, and particularly Prince George, develop a northern vision for this province, a vision that is going to add substantially to the economy of the region and also provide opportunities that were denied to northern British Columbians in the past.

I must confess I'm probably more interested in human development than I am in economic development. I am pleased to see that young northern British Columbians.... In the past, if they were motivated to take advantage of post-secondary opportunities, they were not able to stay at home and be trained to provide the skills needed in the region. They weren't able to train to be the nurses, teachers, foresters and librarians and to provide all the services that are needed in that region. The region desperately needs social workers, physiotherapists, degreed nurses and foresters. It's an accomplishment we can all be proud of that those opportunities will now be available that were not there before.

The sad fact about participation in northern British Columbia is.... I guess this is the kind of thing that partly prompts that anti-lower mainland attitude that I mentioned with my colleague. Something like 7 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds from Prince George participate in post-secondary opportunities, whereas it is roughly three times that in Vancouver. Clearly that's not good enough. I think the government has a responsibility to improve those participation rates. We're all very hopeful that the implementation of the University of Northern British Columbia is going to be able to do that. It's going to broaden the economic base; it's going to enhance the cultural, social and intellectual opportunities; it's going to allow for opportunities for human development that were not there before; and it's going to give those young people chances that I hope they will take advantage of in droves, and not only in northern British Columbia.

I echo the minister's hope that we are going to see British Columbians from all over the province, some of whom are denied opportunities in other regions of the province, flock to Prince George and swell the enrolment in that facility, so that the prediction of the implementation planning group of something in the order of achieving that 2,500-student level in the year 2010 will be surpassed at a much earlier date.

[12:30]

I am most pleased that at this time university transfer enrolment in Prince George at the College of New Caledonia is up 17 percent, and I think that's a sign of the desire for post-secondary opportunities in that region. But I'm incredibly saddened that the budget of the College of New Caledonia is insufficient to enrol those 100 students. There's apparently something in the order of a million-dollar shortfall in order to expand the opportunities that are required in that part of British Columbia. It's similarly true at Northwest Community College, which is some

[ Page 10374 ]

$600,000 short, so the desired expansion of opportunity for post-secondary education that I think we all so deeply care about in this chamber doesn't seem to be there.

There isn't funding for those colleges, although when I look at the budget it appears that the funding is there. Then we see that the budgets of those colleges are not sufficient to accommodate the expanded desire of northern British Columbians to take university transfer courses in college, so I put on my opposition hat again. I have to be somewhat skeptical about the commitment of this government when I see these kinds of things happening at the College of New Caledonia and at Northwest Community College.

Mr. Speaker, we want to get behind this bill; we want speedy passage of this bill; we want that university to be one of academic quality, one that has credibility and standing among the universities of this province. We want it to take its rightful place as the fourth university. We want its programs and degrees held in high esteem by all British Columbians, by this country and around the world.

We also hope that this post-secondary institution will operate on a sound financial basis. There are safeguards built into the legislation, I hope, to ensure that. I think that's an important feature, because this government, as we've seen, is the only government in North America ever to close a post-secondary institution.

We are very happy to see second reading of this bill today. We are happy to see the University of Northern British Columbia join the family of the other three universities in this province. We are supportive of the principle of this bill, which establishes opportunities and economic development in the north. We are very happy to give our support to second reading of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we proceed, the Minister of Government Management Services seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today, I believe, is the second half of the students from Alice Brown Elementary School in Langley. I'd like the House to welcome them on this beautiful sunny day in Victoria.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, as has already been stated, we'll be supporting this bill. In fact, we're pretty active in trying to promote the whole concept of having a university established in northern British Columbia. We think it's long overdue.

I want to comment, from the point of view of an MLA who represents part of northwestern British Columbia, on some of the constraints that we see, both in terms of the existing situation and in terms of the development of an Interior university in Prince George. I think it's fairly well known, but in case it's not, the participation rates for students from remote parts of the province are about half of what they are for students from the more heavily populated areas. In other words, if you happen to grow up in Vancouver or Victoria, your chances of going to university are 50 percent better than they are if you happen to grow up in Dawson Creek, Prince Rupert, Pouce Coupe or a lot of those very attractive northern communities in our province. I don't want to suggest that it's just the north at all, because I'm constantly impressed — and I think anybody who travels this province is — with the vastness of the geography. This is an amazingly large province with geographical differences that run the full range and with immense distances that people have to travel in order to come to the lower mainland. So it's not just the north; it's also people in the remote areas of southern British Columbia, who happen to be living near the Alberta border, as well as people in some places in the interior.

They have one thing in common: the participation rates are lower for students in those situations. Anything we can do to improve that access.... I've spoken out fairly strongly in the House in terms of improved. support services and improved grants and loans to students from remote locations, so that they can attend universities in the south. There has been some improvement in that; there can always be more.

We also have a problem with just the distance involved. I had the assistance of the minister's staff in resolving an issue where a student from Port Edward had to actually travel down to a community college on Vancouver Island in order to register. It was going to cost her $1,000, prior to my intercession and the minister's staff's intercession, simply to come down and register. That gives you an idea of the constraints that students outside of the lower mainland areas face. I would point out in that regard that northwestern British Columbia is just as far away from Prince George as it is from Vancouver or Victoria. So the constraints on those students, I think, will be relatively the same.

Now I'm going to move into some other areas which I think will tend to moderate that. But it Is clear that, in terms of the basic difficulty and the cost of travel, it's almost as difficult to travel from Prince Rupert to Prince George as it is to travel from Prince George to Vancouver. I want to be sure that the University of Northern British Columbia — and I appreciate the minister's interest — will have an understanding of that. I would expect that they'll have an understanding of that. I would hope that that would be part of their philosophy, since they are, in part, dealing with access.

Our transportation links are north-south. I see the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) in the House, and he can attest to the fact that the links in this province are north-south. They are not east-west, as in northern British Columbia. That is why I've constantly talked about the need to improve transportation and its infrastructure, whether it's the highway system or whether it's intervening at a Canadian Transport Commission hearing — as I did a number of Years ago -to ensure that the Via Rail

[ Page 10375 ]

passenger service was maintained in northern British Columbia, because that's another link to maintain the east-west link.

I think there are some ultimate benefits economically and in the sense of binding a community as well, in trying to maintain that kind of linkage. It requires an effort and, quite frankly, with the sparse populations, it requires government assistance. There needs to be more recognition of the assistance that should be given to all those infrastructures — not just universities, but transportation as well.

I want to comment briefly on the minister's reference to aboriginal representation. Certainly from my and my colleagues' point of view, it is also critical. I was very proud to be part of the government which created the school district in the Nass Valley. I think it has been considered a historically significant move. It was created a number of years ago and is the first all-native school district in British Columbia. It has allowed those Nass River communities to exercise the influence, control and direction that they think are important in the education of their young people. It was a very positive step. It allows control at the local level. Language, heritage and cultural considerations become part of the education of the people in that region. I think we have to expand in that direction as well, Mr. Speaker — not just in terms of setting up a university but in terms of all the steps that lead up to university The kind of education received by students in the school districts is part of that as well.

In connection with the setting up of the University of Northern British Columbia, I would not like to see programs suffer in the interim. I'll draw two to the attention of the minister. Currently Northern Native Broadcasting, which is a native-run broadcasting corporation with satellite transmission facilities in a number of very small, remote native communities in the northwest, and moving Into the northeast as well is struggling. They have really existed because of the federal support they've received. They have set up this network. They have set up training courses at the community college. They have trained native students In broadcasting both from the technical side and from the announcer side. It's proving to be a very worthwhile endeavour. There are some 15 or 16 different native languages within their broadcast range, and although not all programming is broadcast in those languages, there is an attempt to use them in the areas where they are spoken. It's a very important broadcasting system, and it needs to be expanded.

It's been caught in the dilemma of the federal cutbacks, particularly on the communications end. As has been noted previously in debate in this House, the people who suffered the most under those federal cutbacks were the people who could least afford to defend themselves and who had the least resources I'm speaking of women, who had their funding cut and have since had it restored, and native people who had their funding cut and have not had it restored.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I have written to the minister and talked to him. I've talked to the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber). I see them in consultation; maybe they are prepared to give me a yes answer. The Northern Native Broadcasting system needs the support of the Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Native Affairs to set up a new training program at Northwest Community College. That's not something that can wait while we establish a university in Prince George; it needs to be done now. We need to allow the opportunity to train these young native students to participate and to operate the broadcasting system, which has such very positive benefits. In fact, I think from an educational point of view it would be of assistance in promoting the establishment of an institute of higher learning in Prince George. So I am a bit dismayed that we haven't yet had a response from the minister in that regard.

I think we should recognize that the university that is being proposed is not a single-campus university such as the University of British Columbia or Simon Fraser. It's an expanded campus — a satellite campus — university. I don't like reading headlines in my local paper to the effect that Northwest Community College has had its budget slashed, and it's short $600,000 in terms of putting on training programs.

So the university doesn't exist in isolation. It exists because there's a network below it of community colleges and school districts that, hopefully, train and inspire students to want to go on. When we start to slash the budgets of the community colleges, then we are doing harm to those students and also to the establishment of a university in Prince George.

[12:45]

We would like to receive — and I would hope to receive it when the minister closes debate — some assurance that the community colleges that do exist will not suffer, and that we're not going to take resources away from those community colleges that provide the services and indeed require an expansion of services in their current operating area. A very serious issue of concern in the northwest is that the Northwest Community College will not suffer because of the establishment and the work that's going to be required in establishing a university in northern British Columbia in Prince George. I am sure I will get that kind of assurance out of the minister when he closes debate on this issue.

There are just a few more points I would like to make with respect to the university. One is that we have a continuing problem in northern British Columbia — and I am sure in other remote parts of the province — in attracting qualified professionals in a wide range of occupations. Health is where we feel it the most, and where it is the most visible. We can't get those audiologists, speech pathologists and other health care professionals.

We also see it in forestry, where we find for whatever reason.... I hope the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will stand up to extol the virtues of the weather in Prince Rupert, having enjoyed a very beautiful day there yesterday.

[ Page 10376 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Whenever I go there, the sun shines.

MR. MILLER: We could say that we would like him there more often.

Nonetheless, there's a false impression that some of those remote communities are not good places to go, and we have difficulty filling the district forest office, for example. The minister might want to consider that as a second career after this one is over.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I love it up there.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps you could relate this to the university in Prince George; it's some 500 miles away.

MR. MILLER: I'm trying, Mr. Speaker. But I wanted to make the point that with the establishment of a University of Northern British Columbia and the opportunity for northern students to attend that facility, hopefully we will develop a cadre of professionals who will be more prepared to stay in the north and offer that kind of service that is currently lacking.

Forestry, to my mind, is one of the areas that requires that kind of thing to happen. I think there's a very real difference — and I hope the university will specialize — between the coastal forests of this province and the interior forests. I think we need to develop ability and specialties in terms of looking at those interior forests. I see the University of Northern British Columbia as an ideal vehicle to do that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the concept of a university. I must confess to not having attended one myself, but I think it's important that we recognize that the university is more than a training ground to provide people with the means to acquire a job. There is something broader about a university that I think should be recognized. It's, I suppose, the intellectual approach, or the fact that a university is an intellectual bastion it should be, ideally, a place where ideas flourish. Some of the time we won't agree with those ideas, but that, I think, is very important. In any reading I've done, going back to the time of Sir Francis Bacon, there was always an element of radicalism that was part of the university. It's a real tradition. I think it's important that that also be established in a University of Northern British Columbia. I don't want to see a training ground for people in industry only; I want that kind of intellectual bastion as well. I think that creates a different aura. I think it enriches a community. I really stress that, Mr. Speaker.

I've also felt very strongly throughout my life that working people should have more than the ability to do the job; they should also have, ideally — and it's an individual choice — the appreciation of a broad range of things, like art, reading Shakespeare, music, paintings or whatever; those kinds of intellectual pursuits that I think fulfil the soul of people. I think they are as important, if not more important, than the basic skills to do certain jobs, particularly industrial jobs.

I hope I haven't ranged too wide, and I would hope that the minister, as I said, would particularly take into account the two points I raised with respect to the Northern Native Broadcasting and the need for support, and the concern that's been expressed — and reinforced to some extent with the budget cuts — that the existing community college in northwestern B.C. does not suffer and see cutbacks because of the project outlined in the bill: the development of a University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my place.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Visiting in the gallery today — and I ask the members to make them welcome — are Margaret Melee, here via Port Alberni from Fiji; and Bob Melee; and their children, Robert and Charles.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to get second reading.

MR. BLENCOE: You won't get second reading today. The member for Prince George will be here on Monday.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Your member should be here.

MR. SPEAKER: We have a motion before the House — it's adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House. I'd like to call the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:52 p.m.