[ Page 10517 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Special needs groups. Mr. Reid –– 10517

Ms. Smallwood

Open government: the people's right to know. Mr. Jones –– 10519

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Concern for our first citizens. Mr. Vant –– 10522

Mr. Guno

Improving mental health services. Mr. Perry –– 10523

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

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

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Mrs. Boone –– 10525

Mr. Vant –– 10527

Ms. Edwards –– 10528

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10528

University of Northern British Columbia Act (Bill 40). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 10529

Mr. Jones

Third reading

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Mr. Blencoe –– 10534

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. RABBITT: On behalf of my two colleagues from Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa and Mr. Chalmers), it is my pleasure to introduce today some students and adults from the Stlatlasumix School, which is a band school in Westbank. The young people in the group are Travis Swite, Rodi Big Eagle, Nikki Derickson and Dee Derickson. The adults accompanying them are Jim Doswell, Barbara Derickson and Audrey Wilson. I would ask the members of the assembly to give them a warm welcome.

MR. CLARK: On behalf of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and myself, I'd like to introduce to the House 55 grade 7 students from Sir Wilfred Grenfell Elementary School — about three blocks from my home — and their teacher Mr. H. Voth, who are in the gallery this morning. I'd ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before we go to members' statements, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to have the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services meet while the House is sitting today at 10:15 a.m.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Statements

SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS

MR. REID: I take my place today in this House to talk about special needs groups. In referring to special needs groups, I'm going to make reference, first of all, to the auditor-general's report of February 1990, in which he says: "...we found no evidence that grants were made to non bona fide organizations or were made for purposes that did not appear to have some community benefit. I have decided not to further extend our review of this issue." His conclusion was as follows:

"The Lottery Act" — which was passed by this Legislative Assembly — "gives the minister, currently the Provincial Secretary, broad discretion over the nature and amount of expenditures from the Lottery Fund. The fund is also specifically excluded, by government management policy, from expenditure restrictions and approval and reporting requirements set by Treasury Board under the Financial Administration Act. These circumstances do not, however, diminish the responsibility of the minister to be able to demonstrate that the grant approval process promotes equitable and consistent treatment of all applications."

Mr. Speaker, the definition of the word "application" out of the dictionary says: "the act of applying for, putting to; the act of making a request or soliciting, and the employment of means, close study and attention to the request."

Mr. Speaker, special needs groups require an enormous investment of time, energy and money in the requirements for very severely disabled children at home and in the community. Special grant funding is for projects or special events that the minister or the government decides are worthwhile, but which do not fit into any already defined program. Special needs groups are as follows: mainly handicapped and schizophrenics, physically disabled, elderly seniors, aboriginal community groups and special health care groups. If evidence of special needs was presented to the former minister, and the government responded to.... In the term of the office and as the minister responsible, I don't recall rejecting one special needs request in the province of British Columbia, but I referred those that were inappropriate to another minister or department for consideration.

First of all, the merits of the project were given serious consideration: who needed assistance the most and how government could help. Such items as the Special Olympics, wellness clinics, Rick Hansen funding, Variety centres for special needs persons, and disabled equipment such as wheelchairs, ramps, braces, voice communications equipment, blind equipment and so on.

Should the fund be used differently? The answer is no. Should all the fund be used annually? Yes.

In dealing with handicapped and special needs groups, the handicapped have a very special frustration in the community today. Eighty percent of them are underemployed; they have a 15.2 percent unemployment rate, twice the rate of other citizens in our community. Sixty-three percent of them earn less than $10,000. Disabled people require very expensive medical equipment and very special assistance equipment.

Last year the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) very dramatically brought to this House a young boy who needed very special assistance. We didn't hear from her at any other time of the year, unfortunately, but we did see one special case. She brought the young man to the House, and subsequently the government of the day, with assistance from the Provincial Secretary from lottery funds, implemented a program, because the demonstrated need was even more evident that day. We brought in the at-home program, and the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is laughing about it. We put $3 million into the program to assist people.

Do you know what we also did? We created a bureaucracy where.... Some people who had need could not meet the guidelines, which said that if you were over 18 — and a mentally disturbed person over 18 is a child — you couldn't get assistance. Somebody over 18 with a completely removed voice box could not get communications equipment. Do you know why? Voice box communication equipment is not included in the program. If the minister of the day approved voice box communication equipment, those members across the House who seem to speak about

[ Page 10518 ]

special needs groups would stand in this House and say: "You broke the guidelines. You broke the rules."

Interjection.

MR. REID: I'll tell you, you don't know what rules mean. You don't care about the people you seem to talk about on a day-to-day basis in this House. Each one of you across there at one time or another made special requests to this former minister for special needs groups. They were met on every occasion, and you know that.

I wish the member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) was here today. He talked flippantly across the House one day about breaking the guidelines, the regulations, the rules. At his request we provided special funding for disabled access to a brand-new park in downtown Port Alberni — $15,000 in total, the total request. Not $15,000 of $40,000, but $15,000, because they demonstrated right away that they were completing a park, and the only people who couldn't use this brand-new park were the disabled in the community of Port Alberni. The minister's discretion was to answer the need. If you didn't want me to do it, ask your member from Port Alberni to tell the people to send the money back.

Another program they had there, called the Portal Players Dramatic Society...

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm glad to be able to respond to the statement, although I found it quite difficult to follow at times. The minister talked about special needs groups, the process, guidelines and the government's attempt to deal with the needs of very worthy groups in the community that are working on behalf of special needs groups.

Unfortunately, the sad thing the minister failed to deal with is the reality that these special needs groups have in dealing with the so-called government guidelines. Those guidelines are not clear or open, and special needs groups have not been involved and have not been consulted in formulating many of them.

I was pleased that the former minister acknowledged the work I did last year in pushing the government to develop a program to address some of the needs of special needs children in this province. If he had been more in tune with what was going on at that time, he would have realized that those groups had been working on that specific problem for two or three years, bringing it to the government's attention, getting commitments from the government and actually seeing nothing tangible — no tangible support.

[10:15]

We didn't actually see a program until Ryan Bonson and Heather Van Egdom came over here and the government could no longer ignore the reality that the families faced — regrettably. I say regrettably because that program actually did not deal with all of the needs of the family and was not sensitive to their reality. It is a good program, but we have a long way to go. I would hope that the government would open up the process and be more responsive to the needs of families and special interest groups in the province.

I find it quite regrettable and confusing, as I respond to the member's wide-ranging statement, that the member did not use this opportunity to talk about some of the special needs in his own riding, never mind the broader area of Surrey. The minister did not talk about the infant development program that is at risk in his own riding. The large number of families that depend on that program are waiting for some action from this government to ensure the security of that program. The minister did not talk about the mental health situation in Surrey, where young children have to wait three and four months for counselling for sexual abuse. The minister did not talk about the fact that a growing community, like the community he represents, only has a fraction of the services available in a community like Vancouver. Our children and our special needs groups are just as needy, just as worthy and just as deserving of attention and support from this government.

I find it regrettable that the member has not used the opportunity — not only now, but in the past — to speak out in this House on behalf of his constituents and the constituents south of the Fraser River who are in very dire straits because this government has chosen to ignore their needs, to exclude them from the process and to make decisions behind closed doors. This makes them very vulnerable to decisions made for political reasons rather than for reasons more deserving of the taxpayers and the special needs groups of this province. I find all of that regrettable, and I hope that the member, since he has chosen this subject, will pay a little more attention to what the groups are really saying.

There's a tremendous amount of expertise reflected in the work that those groups have done over a large number of years in this province. This government would do well to open the process up.

MR. REID: What an opening! With leave, Mr. Speaker, I'll speak for twenty minutes. I haven't seen the member attend to the infant development program dilemma in south Surrey at White Rock in my constituency. But I'll tell you what the problem is today. It has nothing to do with this government, it has to do with union demands and the employees who don't want to serve the clients.

Talk about politics — boy, you really know how to handle it, don't you? If you'd get out, try to solve the problem and put the people back to work, those children would be looked after. So don't blame that on me. I've been there three times already and I can't get them to go back to work. So if they won't go back to work, we're going to have to provide the funds some other way to put the training out there. The employees are demanding something that they can't get because the organization doesn't have enough money to pay the 28 percent they demand. Anyway,

[ Page 10519 ]

Madam Member, don't you talk about special needs in our community.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if members would address the Chair, we would have a little less argument across the floor.

MR. REID: I haven't seen you attend to some of the special needs in your own community in Surrey. I haven't seen you at Variety's Treatment Centre on occasions when we were providing some assistance — outside of guidelines, but providing assistance — so that those therapeutic pools could be built. You weren't there; you were too busy doing something else — traveling to California on bonus points or something. Anyway, you were doing your own thing. But I'll tell you, in this House....

MR. SPEAKER: I'll listen to the point of order and stop the clock for a minute.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would ask this member to withdraw the statement that he has just made. It is a blatant untruth. If he does not withdraw, I'd like him to say it outside and prove that indeed it is a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The only time we can ask members to withdraw is when they make an unparliamentary statement. If a member makes a statement where there is a disagreement as to fact, no withdrawal can be asked for. There was a request the other day for withdrawal of a statement that was merely a disagreement of fact between the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) and another member.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On the same point of order, I find that statement offensive and, if the member is not prepared to withdraw, I again challenge him to say it outside. I would say that he does not have the courage to say it outside, and that is why he's not in cabinet today.

MR. SPEAKER: The member's interjection is not a point of order, merely an interjection.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale has made a statement which he knows is blatantly untrue. I find it very offensive to my colleague the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. I'd like to encourage the member opposite to do the honourable thing and withdraw something which he can't substantiate. If he can, then he ought to step outside and say it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again, members rising on a point of order should actually have a point of order. These points that are raised are disagreements of fact between members and not points of order.

MR. REID: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the information given me is not factual then I will withdraw until I get it confirmed.

Speaking of special needs groups in the community, there are some other members sitting in the House.... I wish the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) were here, because he had made a special request in respect to disabled-access ramps for some people in the Anmore area. I'm glad both the members for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson and Mr. Blencoe) are here, because it's important to talk about the special needs groups in the Victoria area who got special attention, as you may know, in last couple of years. The access for the disabled to the Crystal Pool in Victoria was provided with some encouragement from the members for Victoria. It was outside some of the guidelines, because the funds weren't provided for that purpose, but we met them. The second member for Victoria may recall the time he approached me for some special help towards the Garth Homer Society for the Handicapped — and if he doesn't recall, I can provide him with the notes of the times those were made.

In any event, I make no apologies as a member of this House and a provincial representative who has a special interest in special needs groups in the community.

I read the minutes of the Public Accounts meeting of the previous Tuesday, and I read with interest the comments made by the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones). I'd like to point out that the member made some reference to the facility for the disabled and mentally handicapped in Delta.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Thank you very much for your remarks.

Members may all wish to review the guidelines for private members' statements that are clearly laid out in members' handbooks. We have had some violation today.

The next member is the member for Burnaby North, who will be advised of the fact that he has a bill on the order paper which prevents him from speaking on the subject which he indicates he wants to speak to, unless he's very careful. I would ask the member to be cognizant of not making himself out of order on his own bill.

OPEN GOVERNMENT:
THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW

MR. JONES: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for that warning. I hope I have some thoughtful and constructive suggestions to make to this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, this is the thirty-fourth parliament of British Columbia. That means we have had 34 provincial general elections; only 33 groups of men and women have sat in this chamber before us to ponder and deliberate on the questions of the day. I would like to make some suggestions that may be of assistance to the thirty-fifth parliament.

[ Page 10520 ]

In this thirty-fourth parliament we have seen an improvement in the decorum and the operation of this Legislature. Much credit for that has been given to the Premier, to our House Leader and to the even-handed persons who have occupied the chair.

Despite the rancour this morning and yesterday, and despite the comments of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks), who said that everything that happens here is political, I'm still of the belief that we can do more. We are more than just a body politic; we are more than just a partisan group of men and women. In this process that we have here, we can act to improve our democracy.

We have before us the last full session before the next provincial general election, which I predict will be in early 1991. We are going to lose some colleagues: some colleagues who have already announced their departure and will be sadly missed; and other colleagues who have not yet announced that happening.

Coming to Victoria next week is a group of former MLAs who, I think, probably bring with them considerable wisdom. If we could talk to those members and take advantage of that wisdom, I think they would have some suggestions for us. I think they might say that we have a very creative opportunity before us right now.

We have an opportunity — or in the jargon, a window of opportunity — to do something to assist our democracy. We don't have to act in our usual closed partisan manner. We don't have to think totally of political advantage. We can think about the thirty-fifth parliament of British Columbia and look objectively at it in a fair-minded manner and think about the public interest and how the public might better be served by some changes to our operation here.

I would like to make three suggestions that I think would assist our democratic system in this province. I would urge the government to take advantage of this free advice. Clearly the government is flagging in its popularity with the electorate, and I'm convinced that these three measures would bring whatever party introduces them considerable support among the electorate.

Those three suggestions are: freedom of information; televising the Legislature; and making the committee system in this legislature work as it should work.

We had the ombudsman's report of this year that suggested that both the Premier's office and the Ministry of the Attorney-General "are actively considering introduction of such legislation in B.C." We have the federal government and six other provinces operating under such legislation and having the advantage of open access to information. I think it would be of considerable importance to the people of British Columbia to have such legislation.

In his 1988 report, the ombudsman said something worth reflecting on for a moment. It was very profound and very prescient: "Perhaps nothing is more disarming of public controversy than openness."

If we think of that comment in light of the recent controversy over the release of the logs of government aircraft — logs that were clearly released under duress and after much denial of openness on the part of the minister — we will see how foolish that whole exercise was. If we had an open process and open access to those logs, how would that affect the operation of government? I'm convinced that cabinet ministers under such an open process would be more circumspect — they would certainly be more careful to avoid any abuse of that system — in that the regulations would be clearly understood and that we would not have the kind of story that we've seen, where headlines are made out of the release of that information. That information should have been available anyway.

[10:30]

In addition, we saw television in this House yesterday. We see it in the Throne Speech and in the budget speech. There's absolutely no reason why the electorate should not see their representatives in action here in the Legislature. In addition, we should have real, working committees, including a public accounts committee that has resources, time and a mandate to really perform their responsibilities of looking at the spending of this province.

Those are three quick suggestions that I think would enhance our democracy. We do have a window of opportunity. We should look seriously at these.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I rise to make a few comments on the member's statement. I'll do the three items in reverse. Making the committee system work — it's rather interesting that you would come up with that point this morning, when this government has offered you the opportunity to do the estimates in committee, to start something new, something that is done in just about every other legislature in Canada and in the parliamentary system. Here we are, still in the Dark Ages. I remember, and some of you do as well.... For the last week I've been doing mine, sitting here with my staff, being the only member on our side with one or two members on the other side. We didn't even have a quorum 90 percent of the time. We could have been doing that in a committee room and letting this legislature get on with the legislation. That's something that we should all be ashamed of: that we can't sit down and come to an agreement that we should be doing estimates in committee.

Some members on that side know that it was offered. Sure, you wanted to be able to bring witnesses, but there are no witnesses in here. Why couldn't we start it at least in the committee rooms and get it going? Maybe over the years we could evolve into something more positive. We shouldn't all sit back and just blame the government, because the government did make the commitment this year to put the estimates in committee and offered it to your side. Some of your members — I would guess the ones who have been around for too long, which happens in politics — said: "No, no. Don't do that."

[ Page 10521 ]

I've listened to that same argument from some people on our side for a long time.

This government made the decision to do estimates in committee and allow that to happen. We could have been debating the nice legislation that's sitting on that order paper before this House right now, instead of sitting here day after day. It was 30 degrees outside yesterday, and what are we doing? In beautiful British Columbia, we're sitting in the Legislature. I'm sure you all get the same thing when you go home on the weekends. Your friends say to you: "Oh, you're still over there, are you? Your legislature sits in July? You must be crazy." Well, they're right; we are crazy.

Interjections.

If they're hanging on every word in your constituency, you've got one of the few, let me tell you. I can tell some of your members agree with that.

They talk about open government over there. I think that was the topic — open government and the people's right to know. There's one thing I want to bring up, because I didn't have the chance last week during another member's statement. The leader of their party, while he was mayor of the city of Vancouver, talked about promising swift.... I'll read his quote: "The Leader of the Opposition, who was then the mayor, is promising swift and tough action against aldermen or staff who leak confidential council materials to the press. 'If I discover a staff person doing this, he will be disciplined or fired."' The Leader of the Opposition, who was then mayor, went on to say: "If an alderman was involved, he or she is not worthy of office."

Mr. Speaker, I agree with that statement when it comes to leaked documents. I wonder how the Leader of the Opposition could have sat there a couple of weeks ago, when the member for Vancouver East was quoting from a comptroller-general's report to attack the then Minister of Social Services. How did that confidential document get from the comptroller-general's office into his hands? I don't care what kind of a freedom-of-information act you have, and no matter who's in government, no government or business could be in business if documents that are considered private and confidential — especially with an investigation going on pertaining to that document — are leaked.

I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition feels about his finance critic having a leaked document from the comptroller-general's office? Does he still have the same thoughts that he had when he was mayor of Vancouver? If he does, has he disciplined his finance critic?

I would ask also: are the police looking into that? People here are always asking: "What are the police investigating?" I would like to know why the other side hasn't been demanding to know. How do these leaks take place out of a comptroller-general's office? How did the member get that report?

We should have open government; this government is an open government. We've had more Fisher reports, Toward a Better Age task forces.... I could go on and name all the public hearings we have. We believe in that type of thing, but no government can exist when there are leaks coming from within ministries. No opposition should be proud to get up and use those leaks, because it's not a proper system, and they know it.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, if that minister doesn't want to be in the Legislature in July, he should have thought about that last March instead of waiting to call this Legislature in April. If that minister doesn't believe in freedom of information, perhaps he should look at the six other provinces in Canada that operate quite well under freedom-of-information legislation. That minister doesn't want to be here in July because he doesn't want to be accountable. He doesn't want a process that includes freedom of information to allow for that accountability on the part of his government.

The citizens in this province have a responsibility. In a complex society, they delegate much of that responsibility to their elected representatives. At the same time, that does not abrogate them of their responsibility to hold those representatives accountable. The only way they do that and the only way they can hold their elected representatives accountable is if they have access to information.

The citizens of this province have a right to know. They have a right to be an informed citizenry. They have a right to know the names of cabinet ministers on advisory committees. They have a right to the flight logs of the government air taxis. They have a right to know about those in non-compliance with pollution permits that are pouring pollutants into the atmosphere the citizens breathe. They have a right to know where PCBs are located in this province. They have a right to know who is getting their loans from this government; that is, the loans of the taxpayers of this province. They have a right to know the financial deals this province is engaged in on an ongoing basis. Clearly many of those deals have not been in the public interest. They have a right to that financial information. They have a right to medical reports such as the Dr. Keon report on open-heart surgery. They have the right to know the reports of the medical ethics committee.

We had a lot of promises in the election of 1986. We were promised a fresh start and an open government, We have not seen that open government. We were made many promises such as releasing the results of public opinions polls conducted by government. We were promised television in this Legislature. We were promised provincewide referendums on controversial issues. We were promised tough conflict-of-interest guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, this government has failed miserably on every one of those promises. We need the kind of government that was promised in 1986. This promise was not delivered on by the current Social Credit administration, and clearly it's time for that administration to move aside, call an election and let the people decide on the performance of this government based on the limited information they have.

[ Page 10522 ]

CONCERN FOR OUR FIRST CITIZENS

MR. VANT. I rise to speak about concern for our first citizens. I must say, first of all, that I am very proud that one of my constituents, Phyllis Chelsea, was here yesterday to be one of the first recipients of the Order of British Columbia. Further, I'm proud that no less than three out of the 26 recipients were born in the Cariboo constituency.

Even though the primary mandate for the care of our first citizens rests with the federal government, I must say this morning that I'm very proud of this provincial government's programs and initiatives for our first citizens. Our first citizens currently make up about 2.5 percent of our province's population. Indeed, there are some 77,000 to 80,000 status Indians in British Columbia. This is about 17 percent of the national total. Indeed, 75 percent of all the reserves in Canada are in this province.

The population of the natives has not always been as great. It declined for many years, to a low point of 22,000 in 1929. Unfortunately, back in about 1916, the federal and provincial governments decided to cut off lands from about 22 of the reserves. But I am very proud that the Social Credit government has restored and settled these cut-off land claims.

Twenty-two were outstanding and about 15 of those have been settled by restoring lands — about 18,000 acres, which would be worth today about $100 million. Also, cash in lieu of restoring actual lands cut off has been paid to the tune of about $7.3 million. Indeed, in my own constituency just this past year, 4,003 acres were restored to the Ulkatcho band in the west Chilcotin and 277.5 acres were restored to the Alexandria band, as well as $17,000 cash in lieu.

I'm very proud, too, of the programs for our first citizens. The founder of our great party in British Columbia, W.A.C. Bennett, founded the First Citizens' Fund, which since 1969 has provided bursaries for native students and $1 million per year for economic development and funding for no less than 22 friendship centres.

Recently we announced a program amounting to almost $5 million over three years for native alcohol and drug abuse programs, and $10.7 million over five years for language, culture and heritage programs for our first citizens.

I am also very proud that ours is the first province in all of Canada to establish a Ministry of Native Affairs. This was created in July 1988. This ministry is to coordinate all of the provincial initiatives for our first citizens — our native people. It has introduced new programs of education, provides loans for small businesses and assists in the negotiation of child care agreements. It has improved the justice system to meet the needs of our native peoples, and it involves native peoples more in provincial resource management.

Another major initiative of this government is the Premier's Advisory Council on Native Affairs formed just last year. So far that very high level council has met with seven tribal councils, the United Native Nations and other native groups. You couldn't get dialogue at a higher level than that.

Believe me, our ministers of this provincial government care about our first citizens. I am very pleased that the Hon. Jack Weisgerber has on more than one occasion visited my constituency to meet with the first citizens. Also, on many occasions the Hon. Claude Richmond, Minister of Forests....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I allowed the member to make the mistake once, but the member surely knows by now that we don't use the names of members in this House. You've been here long enough to know that. Please proceed.

MR. VANT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, the hon. Minister of Forests has met on more than one occasion in seeking cooperation with the native people in the harvesting of our forest resources, and he wants to fully consult with them.

Recently the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) visited the Toosey reserve and met with the native community to establish a local justice council. He attended these meetings and signed an agreement to begin funding that project, which will be an ongoing one. Also he very wisely made an amendment to the Jury Act, expanding the geographical radius from which they draw members of the jury so that those first citizens who live on our reserves will also be included in being called on juries.

[10:45]

These are very significant steps in the right direction to ensure that our first citizens can indeed be participating in all of the programs which the provincial government provides.

The reserve — the land — which was set aside at the time we joined Confederation is unfortunately what the status Indian calls home. In many instances there are very few employment opportunities because of that. So we are striving and working very hard to make improvements for them to fully participate and have the jobs and economic opportunities which they desperately need.

MR. GUNO: I want to start by commenting on the last member's continual reference to "our" first citizens. It reminds me of the joke about the time the Lone Ranger was surrounded by Indians and turned to Tonto and said: "What do we do here, Tonto?" Tonto said: "What do you mean 'we, ' white man?" I think the member once again shows his penchant for following the wrong highway signs.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I think he misses the historic significance of today: the fact that we have this situation in Manitoba, Ottawa and Newfoundland and the fact that for the first time an aboriginal member of a legislature has seized the opportunity to dramatize the plight of the aboriginal people of Canada. The member's statement shows that he is consistent in demonstrating this incredible blind spot when it comes to understanding the reality of the aboriginal peoples of British Columbia.

[ Page 10523 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

He talks about the fact that this government has initiated dealing with cut-off lands. That's really dealing with lands that were stolen illegally from the native people during the process of the McKenna-McBride commission. At any rate, he does not mention the fact that the more fundamental question of aboriginal land claims remains on the back burner. In fact, this government is consistent in denying that such an obligation exists.

We have a lesson to learn from what's going on in Manitoba. The country had three opportunities, when three constitutional conferences were called, to deal with aboriginal self-government. Each time, the aspirations of the aboriginal people were denied. In fact — I don't think the member is aware — in 1987 our Premier led the charge in stonewalling the efforts of aboriginal people to have their rights enshrined in the constitution. I don't think we can really accept the Premier's finger-pointing at the one lone aboriginal in the Legislature trying to seize a constitutional right to bring back the aboriginal agenda.

This speaker's getting up and parroting the old accomplishments is really an effort to make virtue out of necessity. I'm sorry, I'm not impressed. I think it's too late, and it ignores the reality. Unless this government learns the lesson that we're learning on the national scene, we're going to be going through the same kinds of problems that are occurring today.

MR. VANT: I certainly appreciate the comments of the member for Atlin. I just want to say that I've never followed the wrong highway signs. I was very pleased to follow the signs and drive up to New Aiyansh, the capital of....

MR. G. HANSON: Pretty dusty, eh?

MR. VANT: Actually, it was sprinkling rain that day, but it was well graded for some reason.

The member for Atlin has to give this government credit for settling, for the most part, the cut-off land claims. I agree with him 100 percent that when Sir Richard McBride and Mr. McKenna just arbitrarily cut off those lands, it was the wrong thing to do. I would remind you that between 1972 and 1975 the NDP government of the day did absolutely nothing about those cut-off land claims. We have made every effort to settle that.

When you get into the more comprehensive land claims, as I said initially, the primary mandate rests with the federal government. When we joined the Confederation of Canada — for better or for worse — back in 1871, under those terms of union the primary responsibility for the first citizens of this province rested with the federal government. We as a province alone cannot just enter into negotiations regarding the wider comprehensive land claims. You'd have to refer to those original terms of union.

Yes, I agree, there will be litigation going on, and that will have to be determined in time. But meanwhile you can't blame us as a provincial government for trying to do all that we can do for the first citizens of this province, given our mandate at this time in our history.

It is unfortunate, too, that the comprehensive land claims that I've been aware of.... Indeed, I've visited Kitamaat Village, the capital of the Haisla nation. The chief there showed me a map on the wall of their comprehensive claim, and it overlaps considerably the claims of the Chilcotin nation, for example. It is very difficult for me to comprehend that this overall claim would amount to about 125 percent of the area of the province, because they actually do overlap. So I think a lot of work has to be done in that regard before anything could be actually settled.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey seeks leave to make an introduction before he makes his presentation.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY: I'd just like to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the galleries of representatives of the Union of Psychiatric Nurses of B.C. and the B.C. Nurses' Union, who are here to make representations to the government today. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce today in the House the Minister of Justice from the Yukon, Margaret Joe, and her executive assistant, who have just arrived in the gallery. Would the House please welcome them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now the final member's statement for today.

IMPROVING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

MR. PERRY: "At autopsy, the body was that of a young white male about 5 feet 10 inches in height and weighing 176 pounds. He had brown hair and brown eyes. Both legs showed compound comminuted fractures. Both humeri also showed compound fractures with impaction. At both wrists there were transverse slashes with hemorrhage in the surrounding soft tissue." That was a 25-year-old man, Mr. Speaker.

I read from the official autopsy report, which goes on to list eight anatomical diagnoses, but fails to state the true cause of death of this young man, who died unfortunately from a chronic mental illness. Shortly before his death he left a long suicide note. To give you some flavour of how confused his thinking was, I quote only one, short paragraph: "I did make a promise to completely turn to God when I got over the depression. But is it right to bolster the self just so I can humble the self?"

A doctor in interior British Columbia wrote to me on June 6, stating: "I enclose for your study a tragic chronicle which bears mute testimony to the tragedy resulting from the extremely deficient psychiatric

[ Page 10524 ]

services under which the people of the province suffer." In the enclosures is a letter from the father of this young man, who writes in part:

"The evening before his death he spoke to us on the phone. He told me: 'Dad, I have a sleeping disorder; I can't sleep anymore. I haven't slept for four days. I don't know what to do. I'm going through a state of confusion and depression.' It was clear to me that my son needed professional help. Immediately I rushed over to your office, doctor, and I remember how you tried so hard to get help for my boy, spending one and a half hours on the telephone, long distance" — from an interior city — "trying to get urgent psychiatric care for my son. But all attempts failed. Nobody was available.... Nobody could help my lost, troubled and lonely son. During that same night he jumped from the twentieth-floor balcony."

Mr. Speaker, I raise this dramatic example to highlight the failings of our system to sometimes meet the urgent and desperate needs of British Columbians with mental illness. I have an intense personal interest in this subject. My father spent most of his research career in the search to understand the underlying biology of chronic mental illness, and he has experienced profound frustration at the difficulty of making progress in that direction.

In my own lectures at the University of British Columbia medical school, I teach medical students and dental students how to use drug therapy to attempt to alleviate some of the symptoms of chronic and severe depression and psychosis. I know from personal experience how difficult it is sometimes for people, including doctors and nurses and other health professionals, to confront mental illness and to accept the differences in people who are mentally ill.

I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that we have some very great achievements in British Columbia in this field. We have many dedicated people working in the field. Recently we've begun to show progress that puts us in the forefront of world developments. Recently we were the province where a genetically determined form of schizophrenia was first described by Dr. Anne Bassett and Dr. Barbara McGillivray at UBC, among others. In fact, the mother of the patient first pointed out the genetic syndrome to those doctors.

We are a province where there will be shortly — in July — a major conference entitled "Schizophrenia 1990 — Poised for Discovery," in which scientists from around the world will review the hope for meaningful achievements in the field of chronic psychotic mental illness.

But why do I feel we need a new vision for mental health in British Columbia? Mr. Speaker, if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, ignorance is the real enemy of mental health and of the mentally ill. If we look back at history and consider the puritanical Europeans or the American colonists who burned witches at the stake for the crime of suffering from the neuropsychiatric illness of Huntington's disease, we need look no further. If we look at the English, who confined psychiatric patients to Bedlam, and at the French reform of the nineteenth century — Pinel and the Salpêtrière — we see how little a distance we've really traversed from those days. Even if we look at the ignorance and bigotry of the fanatical Freudian psychiatrists who insisted that it was the fault of parents if their children became schizophrenic, we still have a long way to go.

[11:00]

My vision for mental health in British Columbia centres on five Es: empathy, education, enfranchisement, empowerment of those people with mental illness, and environment — not just the immediate environment of the mentally ill patient like the tragic young boy whose case I've just alluded to, but the increasing stress and alienation from environment and from family that breed mental illness and make life that much more difficult for the chronic sufferer.

Mr. Speaker, I think that we as legislators need to confront these issues. We need to show increased empathy for chronic mentally ill patients who are suffering in our province. We need to meet them and talk with them in the places where they congregate — in Triage and Lookout on the streets of downtown Vancouver, or even on the streets of any of the smaller cities throughout the province — and we need to talk to the parents of a boy like this tragic figure who died, perhaps unnecessarily.

We need education for the public at large so that they understand what it is to be mentally ill. We need enfranchisement and empowerment of those people who are mentally ill, and we need to reform our environment so that not only do we lessen the contribution of environment to mental illness but we provide the most favourable possible environment for people who are mentally ill to make a recovery or a meaningful adjustment to their lives.

Since we've heard recently about the native people in this province, let us for once learn from their experience, from their tolerance of the unusual behaviour of people who may have been psychotic in aboriginal cultures. Let us see if we can't learn something from them for a change.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, I respond today on behalf of the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen), who is unable to be here and who undoubtedly would be much better qualified to respond than I am.

Let me begin, though, by saying that I congratulate the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey for the very good presentation he made. I certainly cannot quarrel with any of the statements he made. He outlined the tragedies that go with mental illness. It's a tragedy that all of us are appalled at and that each one of us wishes there were a simple solution to.

He, better than I and perhaps better than most people in this Legislature, understands that the problems he speaks of are not easily resolved. It is not something for which there is a simple solution that government could enact which would relieve the problem in the short term. As he said, and as he appreciates, the problem is very complex and will require a great deal of time, thought and input from people like him for us to finally reach a solution.

[ Page 10525 ]

Can I just say, though, that the government is aware of the problem. I think it's evidenced by the fact that in February of this year the Ministry of Health announced a long-term commitment to the renewal and enhancement of community mental health care services. That initiative endorses the principles and philosophies articulated in the "Mental Health Consultation Report," which provides for a ten-year replacement plan for the Riverview Hospital. It provides $60 million in capital funding for new regional psychiatric in-patient facilities. The immediate impact of that, of course, will be felt in the lower mainland and in similarly high-priority areas. Over the next four to five years, approximately $20 million is being phased in to address critical service shortages.

In the immediate time-frame, in this fiscal year more than $5 million is being added to the mental health services annual budget to increase the number of services, staff and other important community mental health care resources throughout the province. These expenditures will enhance and develop the following services: over $0.7 million to reduce pressures on hospital emergency wards; over $0.7 million to increase the availability and quality of supported residential housing for people with mental illnesses; $0.6 million to develop specialized services for the elderly mentally ill; $0.5 million to increase rehabilitation services; and $1.5 million to augment assessment and treatment capacity in community health centres and agencies.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's an indication that the government recognizes the problem of which the member speaks and that we are trying to deal with it as best we can. Along with him and the members on the other side of the House, we share the hope that one day as a society we will find a better, more practical and more productive way of dealing with this problem, which causes a tremendous burden, suffering and hardship for many of our citizens. We look forward to that being resolved one day better than we're able to do today. But in the meantime we try to move forward and accomplish it as best we can

MR. PERRY: I appreciate the minister's comments particularly, because I know from his statements in this Legislature and in public that he's a very compassionate man.

I wish to turn to the issue of how we can improve the delivery of services to the mentally ill. Because of the events of the last week, I must draw some attention to the important role of the psychiatric nurse in the provision of services. I have a letter received just yesterday from a nurse in New Westminster, who writes to me: "I have been nursing for nearly 30 years and have never felt less appreciated."This is a nurse who works at Riverview Hospital. "It is hard to believe that after all these years, a newly registered nurse in a general hospital makes nearly the same hourly wage as I do." I quote from another letter received yesterday by the Premier from a registered psychiatric nurse, newly appointed as a shift supervisor at the Vancouver detox centre, who describes the voluntary work and the long hours involved in offering substantial improvements to government alcohol and drug programs:

"In return for this high level of involvement and commitment on my part, I am told by your government that I'm not worth as much as a nurse in the private sector, that I'm just a second-class nurse who must work for up to 30 percent less. I am told there is no security in my future, and I'm told I must take it or leave it — no binding arbitration, no independent third-party designation of essential services, no room to negotiate."

It's a very eloquent letter, but I will read simply from the conclusion, which I think holds a lesson for all of us — something we should bear in mind out of session as we travel the province. I quote again from this letter that was addressed originally to the Premier:

"So I invite you and your ministers to come meet my colleagues and me. See the kind of work we do. Witness how effectively we manage perhaps the most unfortunate and demanding members of our society: acute psychotics, the criminally insane, the profoundly mentally retarded, street kids, alcoholics and other drug addicts — to name just a few. I'm certain you will see that the nursing we do is not second-class, that we do not deserve to be treated in a heavy-handed manner and that we certainly do not deserve to be offered a second-class contract."

It's integral, if we are going to improve our services for the mentally ill in British Columbia, that we maintain the fundamental pillar of our treatment system — the nurses and, I might add, the psychiatrists, who are often rated as second-rate physicians in this province.

HON. MR STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 40.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

MRS. BOONE: I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on what I consider to be the most important bill of the session. I know others will differ with me, but certainly to me, and I'm sure to the member from Prince George South, this is the most important bill for our community. Support for the university has united my community and the people of the north just as much as the Meech Lake debate has divided this country. I would say there is unanimous consent and support for our university. It's been hard fought for by the people in our area, and I'd like to give a little thought to some of the history behind this.

When I first moved to Prince George in 1969, it was just at the end of the original boom for our area. We had at that time considerable growth with a lot of new industry coming in, and the city was very much at its infant stage with regards to becoming a city. I've seen it go through various growth spurts and growing pains throughout the years, and now what I see in our community is an adolescent, an adolescent that's waiting for maturity. I believe that the Universe-

[ Page 10526 ]

sity of Northern British Columbia will achieve that maturity for our community.

The university is wanted for a variety of reasons by different people, and support for this university crosses all sections. It knows no political boundaries, and it knows no professional boundaries. But the reasons behind people wanting the university are often different. Parents want it — and many young students want it as well — as they are anxious to see their children getting an education. The fact that we have one of the lowest participation rates in post-secondary education in the province is a concern to all of us. I think that a university in our area will serve to meet that need and help our students to achieve their education.

For our students to go to university in the southern half of the province to achieve their third and fourth year is very costly. It's costly in terms of dollars; it's costly in terms of emotional support that's often not there. It is not always easy for students who are taken away from their home support. I've heard of many occasions where students from the Burns Lake area, for example, or the Fort St. James area, have found themselves down in the lower mainland and have returned home within six months because of the pressures and the lifestyle and the lack of support systems to enable them to sustain their education.

The economic costs are obvious. It costs a lot of money to move people down here. It costs a lot of money for students to stay in residence, and for many parents that's prohibitive and makes it totally impossible for their children to attend university.

One of the important things that people don't often understand is that when our students leave our community, unfortunately they frequently don't come back. That's a great loss to us when we see our students leaving.

I think it's important for adults. The university will be providing all kinds of things for adults as well. Often we think only of the young students, but there are a number of adults in our community who want and need upgrading, particularly women, who, for various reasons — perhaps childbearing or what have you — have failed to complete their degrees and have been forced to move to the lower mainland and in many cases leave their families behind for a period of time or transport their families down to the lower mainland in order to complete their degrees. It's totally unnecessary and unacceptable. It's important for these people to have the opportunity to complete their degrees, to get themselves into a profession of their choice and to finish their education in their home community. That's really important.

It's important for those adults who find themselves in their middle years and needing to change professions. That's happening more and more because of technology. People suddenly find that the jobs they were in are no longer viable, that the jobs they were doing are no longer around and they have to upgrade, they have to change jobs, they have to change professions. Sometimes they do it just because they want to, just because it's good to have a change

That's certainly viable. For adults I think it's an important thing.

[11:15]

For business it will be a place for them to draw on for their employees, a place for them to further the education for their own employees. When new industry and new business are looking to move to communities, they often look to attract new employees, and what they look for is a place where their employees or their families will be able to have good education, where they will be able to get into various other occupations and where they will be able to draw their new employees. I think it's absolutely essential for business as well. I see it will be attracting new industry and new business to our community.

For our cultural community the university will be bringing with it the development of the arts. I see that it's essential to us, and something we often lack. A number of professionals over the years have said they enjoy our community, enjoy the lifestyle, but they miss the arts. I believe our university will be meeting those needs.

It will be meeting a lot of our needs in providing professionals in the areas of medicine, social services and education. In each and every one of those regions we need specialists. Those specialists are often not available in our communities, because people just won't move there. I've said before that if they come and stay three years, we've got them for life, because they can't bear to move back to the hectic pace of the lower mainland. But to get people beyond the lower mainland, to get them beyond Hope, is often very difficult to do.

We want to have the opportunity for our young people to be trained, to receive an education, to receive the professional training of their choice in our community, so that we can start to meet some of our needs for the specialists there.

I also see it as being a place that will provide special training for the forest sector. Research and development is something that is absolutely essential. The forest industry is changing so rapidly, and it must change even more in terms of getting more value out of our products because of some of the problems we have. Our timber supply is depleting. We can no longer continue to cut as we have in the past and to have what I call "spaghetti factories." We need to have the research and development to show us just what we can do, what is a productive way to utilize the woods so we can get the most value here in British Columbia and in our communities instead of shipping our timber elsewhere. I think that is absolutely essential, and I see our university as being one of the prime movers in that area.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I don't think I'd like to finish this speech without talking about the aboriginal people and the need to have a school of aboriginal studies in our region. It is absolutely essential. You've heard earlier today the speeches from the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), and he talked about some of the needs of the native

[ Page 10527 ]

community, the aboriginal community. I believe very strongly that that should be one of the prime parts of our university.

The holdout for the university of the north has been, for many, the question of a full university. They believe that other models would evolve into a university; and that might happen. However, it was felt very strongly by the community that we needed to recognize the unique needs of the north. It was not good enough that our university be patterned after southern universities. It was not good enough that our university be a satellite of a southern university. Quite frankly, we're a little tired of being controlled by people from the lower mainland who don't understand the needs of the north or the way of life of northerners. The university must bear the brand of northerners. It must meet our needs and must be developed to serve a diverse and sparse population. I believe our university will do that and will do it well.

Many look at our region and say that the population doesn't warrant a university. That may be true to some extent. We do have a lower population level. It is going to cost us more to have our university up there, and the funding is there to recognize that. But I don't think that's necessarily going to hold true for long.

My vision for this institution is that of a unique university that will attract students from across the country. Our studies will be such that individuals from the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and other northern regions will come to UNBC to participate in studies that are relevant to their needs. I very strongly believe that our university will grow, and grow beyond being just a university for northern British Columbia to being a university that meets the needs of all northerners.

Our university has been hard fought for by many individuals and groups. It's been a tough go over the years, and there's been many a time when people have thought that it wasn't going to happen. I've always said we would get it. I don't think any minister could ignore the populist movement that took over. The momentum that was established by the university society could not be stopped. The university society and the people of the north demanded a university.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the north have earned and deserve their university. I'm glad to have been a part of this movement. Northerners will heave a sigh of relief knowing that this legislation is passed and our university is a reality.

MR. VANT: I rise to support Bill 40 in principle. Certainly this bill provides for a special, unique university in just about the exact geographical centre of our province, so it can serve a wide area of the province.

I'd like to reminisce a bit about the vision that W.A.C. Bennett had for the north-central interior of our province. Indeed, having grown up in Quesnel, I can remember visiting Prince George in the early 1950s when it was a very small town, somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 people. Because of the vision of a previous Social Credit government, because of a vision of W.A.C. Bennett, there were built in the Peace River the huge hydroelectric power developments. I myself partook in the building of the three pulp mills and the oil refinery in Prince George.

With all of this vision being fulfilled, there was a lot of development, and it led to a lot of people moving into the area. I understand the city of Prince George itself now exceeds over 80,000 people, and that the university which will result from the passing of Bill 40 will serve an area containing in excess of 300,000 people. I understand further, Mr. Speaker, that this is the largest number of people in all of North America currently not served by an adequate degree-granting university.

I'd like to say that I served very happily on the regional development advisory council and under the very able direction of the member for Prince George South, the hon. Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who was then our minister of state. I can't help but recall that when regional development was first initiated by this current administration, some members opposite thought this was a humorous matter, that the money wasn't being well spent to fund the ministers of state. I ask the member for Prince George North where she was when meeting after meeting of the regional development advisory council was working very hard to get off the ground, first of all, a feasibility study which further developed into what we have before us today with Bill 40 so that this university will become a reality.

It was many years ago when W.A.C. Bennett had the vision for development of the north, and within that vision also was the development of a degree-granting university to serve northern British Columbia. Naturally, it had to have that necessary development so that there were enough people to warrant this.

I'd like to contrast too that during those dark days between 1972 and 1975, yes, there was a member in Prince George who was supposed to be responsible somehow, although he was a minister without — and he seemed to be without a lot more than just a portfolio. He seemed to spend a lot more on furbishing a fancy office in Prince George than actually getting things done.

Our current chairman of the regional development advisory council has worked exceedingly hard — I refer to the member for Prince George South — in getting this bill on the floor at this time so that this university can become a reality. It's exceedingly important for our young people in the north and central interior of our province that they don't have to continue to come to the lower mainland to get that necessary post-secondary education. Indeed, I can't help but note that perhaps the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) spoke out this morning against her leader, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt), because he has said many times that what is good for Vancouver is good for all of the province. Here's a situation with the University of Northern British Columbia where at long last

[ Page 10528 ]

we're coming of age and having the facilities we deserve.

I certainly agree with the member for Prince George North, and I appreciate that this has her wholehearted support. In fact, she seems quite possessive of it. She not only forwarded a private member's bill, but she spoke this morning about "my vision," as though she undertook this whole thing by herself. I too want to recognize all of those people in the Prince George area and in other regions, including the Cariboo Regional District. Many people got on board to work hard to make this possible. It's on that note that I very strongly support Bill 40.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks on this bill by saying that we're very happy in our area of the province that the people of the north are getting a university.

It is not a new thing for a regional university to exist in the province, as we well know in the Kootenay — or in the Kootenays; I should say both, because the university that was in the Kootenays served many people over the years it existed there. Even one of the recipients of the Order of British Columbia had an honorary university degree from Notre Dame University. It was an important institution in our area. It was designed to reflect the needs of the area, and it did. It never got very big. It was an institution that we liked; we felt quite at home with it.

The Minister of Advanced Education now says that he's all of a sudden learned that some programs can be better delivered in Prince George than in Point Grey. He has learned that there are some advantages to autonomous universities in small areas. He has looked at various ones, including the University of Lethbridge, which is another university that we have a great deal of familiarity with in East Kootenay in particular, because it's closer than any other university in the country. It's certainly closer than anything that has been offered in British Columbia since Notre Dame University was closed down.

The burgeoning growth in university transfer courses at colleges throughout the province is indicative of the fact that we have a great interest in university education. Lifelong learning, if we mean it.... If the people of the province who say that they believe in it and who can do something about it really look at it, they'll see that the idea of lifelong learning means that we want a much broader scope for university education courses. We need that to exist throughout the province if we want to assure that we have equal opportunity across the province.

Therefore when I say that it's great that Prince George has a university and that there will be a university closer to the people in the north, I also say that I hope it is only the first step towards establishing similar universities throughout the province which serve exactly the same needs that this university has been established to serve in Prince George.

A university creates a bit of a world of its own. It creates an economy of its own, in a sense, because it represents the investment of our province in its greatest resource: its people. I don't just say its young people, Mr. Speaker, because it invests in all of the people.

[11:30]

In areas such as the Kootenays there are specific problems of youth who cannot now become educated in their own area to the extent that they want to be, and therefore are led away off into other areas, as we've heard in the discussion of this bill. The very fact of having a university in an area will help to keep those young people in the area, but it will also help the people there who are not, by definition, young people.

I regularly have many phone calls from people in our area when programs are cut at our college, and I hear the story again and again. It is perhaps a younger couple or perhaps middle-aged or even older people who have decided to rearrange their lives in order to get to the regional place of education. The most recent one I talked to was a young man from Creston in his early thirties who wanted to take a two-year course at the college in Cranbrook and had managed to arrange that. When that program was cancelled, the young man could not afford to move anywhere else.

Believe me, it is not easy. Once you have established a university in Prince George, that doesn't say it's easy for any of us to get to Prince George. It's no easier to get to Prince George than it is to get to Vancouver. It's possible that many of the needs of Prince George are no more compatible with the needs of the Kootenays than are the needs of the lower mainland.

Education is universally valued. It is insidious: once people begin it, they find they don't want to stop, and it is greatly integrating. I think that all of those characteristics of education indicate that although we mouth it as a great value, we need to follow it up with positive action, such as has been taken for the university of the north now.

I support this university for the north, and in supporting it I have every expectation that the government of British Columbia, whoever it shall be, will follow along with universities in other parts of the province, and particularly in the Kootenays.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm pleased to stand in my place and close debate. I don't think there's much more to say. As you will note from Hansard, I spoke for 50 minutes last Friday. I was interested in the member for Prince George North's (Mrs. Boone's) comments. I had a sense of déjà vu. If the member had been here, she would have listened to me say the same things last week when I introduced the debate. But the member is right on one point, and that is that this legislation has really united the community.

I'd like to touch on something I said last week in second reading debate. When the implementation planning group report came out in January, I started to hear concerns from the three community colleges

[ Page 10529 ]

in the region, but, more importantly, from Northern Lights in the Peace River area and Northwest College in the western area. They were concerned about a couple of things.

First of all, they were concerned that this university would be Prince George–dominated in terms of governance and other issues. I think they saw my appointment as a Prince George MLA as a bit of a threat, and people such as Peter Lester and others spoke to me about this. So clearly what I had to do was assure the people from Prince Rupert to Fort Nelson that, in fact, this was a university of northern British Columbia, for northern British Columbia, and certainly would not be central interior– or Prince George–dominated.

One of the continual pressures put to me was that there be governance that really did represent the region, and that's why I was pleased to draft this legislation that reflected that.

One thing that this drafting and this wording did was bring the north together. After this bill was read for the first time and introduced, the people of the region were able to see that they were in fact truly represented by statute and that they would always be part of the governance of this act while the university is growing. It certainly gave them some comfort and established that this was a university which would reflect the needs of the whole region and not just those of Prince George or the immediate central interior.

I agree with the member for Prince George North that this has united the community, but I can tell you that at the outset, in January, it was causing a bit of division. Members may recall that the board of governors at Northern Lights, as a matter of fact, had voted against the establishment of a university, or at least had held up any formal support until such time as I was able to persuade them that they would be truly represented and that this university would reflect their needs.

It's interesting that members opposite pointed out that this was what they wanted all the way along. Yet I heard last year from the critic that the university-college model was to them a better remedy for a post-secondary institution in the north. It's interesting to see them change their tune on this one and recognize that we did not want to be a branch-plant institution, but in fact would have autonomy. That, of course, is contained in this bill.

I don't think there's much more to say about this. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we will have agreement on going immediately to committee. It would be most appreciated, inasmuch as we have had a bit of a delay, caused by the absence of some members opposite. With that said....

MR. JONES: You want a committee?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR. JONES: Don't take cheap shots then.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Listen, I was here last Friday.

So we will be asking for agreement to go to committee stage. With that said, I move second reading of Bill 40.

Motion approved.

Bill 40, University of Northern British Columbia Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. JONES: I would ask the minister, with respect to the interim governing council and section 5 dealing with the dissolution of that council on a date to be fixed by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council... . I certainly don't intend to ask the minister what date he has in mind, but I am wondering what level of development of the University of Northern British Columbia the minister has in mind that would trigger the dissolution of the council. I am sure that thought went into this particular process of establishing an interim governing council, and then at a certain stage in the development of the university, dissolving that council. I am sure the minister has some idea of what level of development of the university will take place prior to that dissolution. So I am wondering if I could ask the minister what he had in mind there.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a very good question the member raises, Mr. Chairman. This section dissolves the council, and, of course, the previous sections put the council in place. These are the genesis parts of the act. The member will know that the University Act of British Columbia does not contemplate beginning a university. It tells you how to run one once you have it, but it doesn't tell you how to begin one. So we had to put in place the interim governing council to give us a board, a governing structure, to begin making decisions, spending money, acquiring land — all the types of things that one does when one begins a university.

Then we knew that we had to get into the University Act model of governance, where we have a full board of governors and a senate. So we have to dissolve our council. That's sort of a basic explanation. The member knows full well what I'm talking about, which is why he has asked the question, but I just thought I'd put in on record.

To get directly to his question, I guess the best answer would be that when UNBC has a faculty, has students — it doesn't necessarily, I don't think, need

[ Page 10530 ]

an alumni association, although it's probably going to have some sort of an alumni association — and has a running, operating institution that is looking and functioning like any other university and has the ability to elect faculty members.... When it has staff members and all the people contained in the further sections — board-of-governor sections and senate sections — at that date we will dissolve the council. I guess that would be a couple of years, maybe three years down the road. As soon as we have the capacity in terms of the human resources to put in place a board of governors and a senate, then we would dissolve the interim council.

MR. JONES: Perhaps just a little clarification. I must confess I was trying to do two things at once. I think I got most of what the minister said, but he indicated that dissolution of the council would take place at a time when the capacity was there in terms of operating a board of governors as we see under section 9.

Again, under section 9 we have employees, we have students, we have regional representatives, we have a chancellor and president. I'm still not exactly clear what level we are talking about. Would the minister see two or three years to have those kinds of things in place in order to accommodate the desire? Certainly I wouldn't think it would take any longer than that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd agree with that. If you look at section 9, which is the board of governors, section 12, which is the senate, and the people and their job descriptions there, when all of that capacity of those people.... For example, the senate has four full-time students elected by the students. I'm sure we are going to have more than four students, but we need to achieve that type of election process. It'll have two senior academic administrators appointed by the president. When we have those people in place and just the potential of all the people mentioned in section 9, board of governors, and section 12, the senate, we will at that time dissolve the interim governing council.

Sections 5 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. JONES: I just have a couple of questions with respect to the board of governors. It's an interesting structure that really gives a northern flavour to the governing body. I would be interested in a couple of things, though. First of all, in section 2(d)(v) we're talking about persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council to serve on the board of governors. I think it's commendable that there be a representative on that board of governors from the aboriginal communities. However, the wording is such that the person appointed will be who the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council considers to be representative of the aboriginal communities. It seems to me that what we're talking about is a group of people who are quite capable of deciding themselves who they want to represent them on that board of governors, and it would be much more appropriate for them to name the representative to serve on that board, rather than the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I'd like to get the minister's reaction to that.

[11:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't want to be glib about this, but we're dealing with an area that's half the province. It contains probably 100 different tribes — native groups. I don't know if one could find consensus if one took that position.

The language you see here — and I'm amazed that the NDP didn't pick up on this — is right out of the implementation planning group. That was the language put together by the group, which included one member of the aboriginal community — Edward John. That was the way they described the board of governance to us, so that was what we accepted. In fact, one could say, with this subsection here, that it's written the way the implementation planning group asked us to write it. One of the members of that group was a member of the aboriginal community. He was quite satisfied with that language, so that's why we're doing it. But I can assure you that I think it would be quite difficult, time-consuming and even a bit wrenching if we asked a native community of that size to make a nomination. I think they'd find that difficult themselves.

What we've done in this case is follow what IPG asked us to do and ensure that we did have that governance and that representative there. It's a critical thing. I can tell you there were some serious concerns expressed about this subsection, but it's one on which I stood fast and insisted had to be in there. In fact, it was very difficult for me to ensure that it was in there, because there's really no other legislation around that sets out this type of specific, pointed representation. But I thought it critical.

The aboriginal community has been totally onside from the beginning. They have been most supportive. There is probably a population of 40,000 natives there, maybe more. They were solidly onside, and that's the reason the IPG report also recommends a certain curriculum that is designed for and by the native people.

I hope that explains the answer to the member. I think it would be difficult to have the native people select from themselves, when we've got a group that ranges from the Charlottes to the McLeod Lake Indians to Treaty 8 Indians in the north Peace. There's a very diverse interest. What we would do in that case is seek advice as we always do from the native community, and then have the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — or, in other words, cabinet — make that appointment.

MR. JONES: The minister says that it would be very difficult for the aboriginal community to come up with a representative on their own so that one will be appointed. The minister believes that will be quite

[ Page 10531 ]

acceptable to the native Indian community, and he may be right on that. It is a very large region.

At the same time, it seems to me that the appropriate process would be to give the aboriginal community the opportunity to do that, rather than have the problems we've seen with appointments in the past.

The minister says that the region is too large, so they will name a representative from the aboriginal communities. However, in section d(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), what we have are some very well defined areas. We have the regions established under the College and Institute Act for the College of New Caledonia, Northern Lights College and Northwest Community College, and we have a resident of the Cariboo Regional District. They are all very well defined regions.

It seems to me that, unlike the other universities in the province that represent the entire province, it would be very difficult to have elections to the boards of governors of those institutions because of the same problem the minister mentioned with respect to the aboriginal community However, in section d(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), we have some very discrete parts of the province named in this act. It seems to be quite proper, appropriate and not too difficult to have an election to determine who the representatives from those regions would be. I'd like the minister to comment on that part.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Again, a brief geography lesson. The Northern Lights College area is about a quarter of the province. It's pretty big. Maybe that's hard for someone from the lower mainland to fathom, but it's a huge area, and so it's difficult.

I'll answer the second question the same way I answered the question in my estimates about college board appointees and that type of thing. We have seen over the years — and I've been part of it as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for 11 years now — that when you are gathering people to form a board of governors you look for certain strengths. You design a board.

I'll give you a good example. At the College of New Caledonia, when we began a dental assistant program in 1985, we knew we needed a top-flight dentist on the board. I named Dr. Frank Lo. I don't know if Dr. Frank Lo would have come through an election process if there was one. Similarly, we've always had someone with good accounting skills. We had Brent Campbell before, and now we have Bob Buxton, who is a chartered accountant. You choose these people for the expertise they can bring to the board. Also at CNC is Reno Fornari, a very strong representative of the labour community and again my appointment. I don't think he's a member of the Social Credit Party; as a matter of fact, I'm sure he isn't. Again, we wanted someone who was a good labour practitioner, who had demonstrated that he was clearly aware of good labour practices, and Reno Fornari was that person.

In the case of the appointments to the interim governing council, I've made them in conjunction with my colleagues from Skeena, North Peace River and South Peace River; they are people who represent those areas. There are a couple from the community college system, a former school board chairman, a forester, an accountant, a lawyer, a physiotherapist from Terrace and a production supervisor from Kitimat. By making those selections, you in fact tailor-make and design a group of governors or an interim governing council that's going to best serve your institution.

I guess I've just answered the argument about free and open elections, Mr. Member. It will be the same argument I gave you when we discussed this issue during my estimates. I feel that it's better to chose the expertise you need for your board, to find the best people in the community and select them, I don't think that will come through in all cases during an open election situation.

MR. JONES: I'm sure the minister's own riding is very large too, yet we don't seem to have a lot of difficulty in our democracy in choosing a representative to sit in this Legislature. Maybe the minister would like to see the Legislature hand-picked as well. Maybe it would be nice to have a piano player for our parties; the minister would certainly well qualify under that criterion.

We know that one of the major criteria for appointment to boards of governors and to college and institute boards in this province is a membership in the Social Credit Party. I was suggesting, particularly for those regions, quite a reasonable approach: having the people decide rather than having the minister decide. The record of this government in choosing people, although I don't criticize the individuals.... The perception of that process is that it's very partisan.

I think you'll notice that the comments from this side of the House during this bill have been non-partisan. Sadly, I haven't seen that from the minister or from the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) this morning. This is an important bill, a bill we are celebrating, a bill we are giving speedy passage to, a bill we set aside the rules for and dealt with this morning rather than having the normal intervening period. We want to give it speedy passage. However, I'm suggesting that it is more responsible, more democratic, to let the people of the north choose who the representatives on the board of governors are going to be.

I'll leave that. If the minister has nothing to say, I have a question on section 10.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member and I understand each other clearly. We are not in agreement on this philosophy; nevertheless, I guess that's the way it's going to be.

MR. JONES: Just a small question on the drafting. Section 10 talks about the budgets and the minister's approval for those budgets. I think everybody understands that it's the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, although it just says "the minister." I don't know whether that poses a prob-

[ Page 10532 ]

lem; I'm certainly not a legal expert. Perhaps the minister is quite happy with it the way it is and sees no potential for confusion there. I'll just leave that with the minister.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: When you see the term "minister" in a bill, it refers to the chap whose title is on the front. In this case it's the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

MR. JONES: We want speedy passage. I don't want to debate this point, but when a bill becomes an act, isn't the minister's name taken off?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. The title of the legislation stays with that ministry; that's what's meant by "minister."

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

On section 15.

MR. JONES: I would just like to get this section clarified a bit. Section 15, development plans, says: "The council or the board of governors, as the case may be, shall submit to the minister for approval a three-year plan that includes special emphasis on northern British Columbia and that is developed according to the guidelines and procedures established by the minister, who shall update the plan every three years." I assume this development plan is the same one referred to in section 14. This is a development plan that must be approved by the minister.

I'm wondering if the autonomy of the university is really being broached here. I think the design of the board of governors that the minister has put in place in this bill really ensures that kind of direction. The fact that the minister appoints those individuals on the board of governors, by and large, ensures the kind of development the minister wants.

This sounds like a triple whammy. First of all, we design the board of governors so that there's good northern representation. Then the minister appoints the people to be on that board of governors. Thirdly, the minister wants — on top of that — a development plan that ensures orderly northern development of the institution.

It seems to me that there is a degree of autonomy wanted by all the universities in this province. It seems that this particular section is a little heavy-handed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think the member could construe that, although I've had no complaints from the interim governing council about this. They seem to understand the wisdom of it, and the wisdom is this. There are going to be massive capital expenditures required during the growth and the genesis years of the University of Northern British Columbia. There are in place, from the IPG, very serious and strong recommendations with respect to curriculum. This simply says that we want to ensure — as this capital is spent and is planned for — that we have an appropriate role in it. That may appear to be heavy-handed, but to date I've had no adverse reaction to it.

If you think this one through, there's a strength given to the board from this. You won't always have the same minister or the same government. I think this will give it some continuity. If they have a plan that is submitted to and accepted by one particular minister, and if that portfolio, the minister or maybe even the government changes, this allows them to maintain that continuity because they have that three-year approval.

[12:00]

I see it as an appropriate and necessary piece of statute in the bill. I don't see it as heavy-handed. I see it as enabling the board to do some really serious planning and to seriously consider their growth potential and how they are going to develop.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, there is a section of the University Act that I would like to question, because section 15 is a very broad, open section. One of the sections of the University Act that sticks in the craw of the faculty is section 80. Section 80 of the University Act talks about the relationship of the employee and the employer and denies them any opportunity...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member on section 16 now?

MR. JONES: Yes, I am.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I have to call section 15 first, hon. member. Shall section 15 pass?

MR. JONES: No, I'm on section 15; I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on section 15?

MR. JONES: Yes. We're talking about development plans, and I'm wondering if what I'm talking about might be part of a development plan of the university. Let me finish my comments, and I will ask the question and give the minister an opportunity to respond.

In these development plans, I suppose one of the things in those plans could talk about employee-employer relations at the university. Section 80 of the University Act prevents faculty from being covered by the Industrial Relations Act. In other words, it denies them the opportunity to organize.

I don't believe there's any strong desire on the part of the faculties of the universities of this province to form unions. However, they believe that in a democratic society they have a fundamental right to do so. Section 80 of the University Act denies them that fundamental right.

[ Page 10533 ]

I'd like to ask the minister: if a development plan came forward from a university that differed from that of section 80 of the University Act, would the minister see that in a favourable light that would allow the possibility of faculty associations to be dealt with as they would be dealt with if they were under the Industrial Relations Act?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That question under section 15 and the wording of section 15 would not apply. So the member's question is not relevant to this. Section 15 and the term "development plans" in that section would not contemplate that type of development plan or change in legislation. That's not what section 15 is discussing.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I imagine the university could put anything they want in a development plan, and they could put down a section dealing with employee-employer relations. I suppose the minister doesn't want to comment on section 80 of the University Act. I admit that's stretching it a bit, but I think it's quite legitimate for a university to put in their development plan how they see those relations operating. I was giving the minister an opportunity to ease the minds of the faculty associations in this province at the other three universities — that at least the new university will be treated in a fresher manner than we had in the past, going back to Dr. McGeer's day when this section, offensive to the faculties, was put in.

Clearly the minister doesn't want to take advantage of this opportunity, and I have to assume that he doesn't do so because he's quite happy with section 80 and quite happy that this section offends the faculties of the other three universities in the province.

Although it's certainly stretching section 15, I don't believe it's out of order. Maybe the minister wants to comment further.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the question whether a development plan, as stipulated in section 15, would allow the faculty to submit for that type of change, the answer is no, it would not come under that.

Section 15 approved.

Section 16 approved unanimously on a division.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, the Attorney-General has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the precincts today — and in the Douglas Room meeting in conference — are Attorneys-General and their representatives from several states of the United States of America, as well as from the four western provinces and Canada's two territories. They will be conferring today and tomorrow on a number of cross-border issues among our jurisdictions. I wonder if the House would join with me in making them welcome through the vice-president of their association nationally and the president of their western association, the Attorney-General of Washington State, Ken Eikenberry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the first member for Nanaimo also seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: This introduction comes on behalf of my colleague our health critic, Dr. Tom Perry. I would like to introduce on his behalf the more than 300 public health, community health and psychiatric-care nurses who are visiting the precincts today, I would ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

On section 17.

MR. JONES: The minister and I have had some conversation on this section in the past, and I think we're hopeful that that number of students is achieved rapidly. But I'd first of all like to ask the minister — I'm sure it was based on some research leading up to the establishment of this bill — how that 2,500 number was chosen.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good question. It was seen as a number of critical mass. I'll tell the member quite candidly that some people have felt that number low in terms of a number of critical mass. We seem to feel that it's okay. Within the provisions of the Ministry of Advanced Education we can still weight for lower enrolments. We do that for UVic as opposed to UBC, for example. We are establishing all the provisions that this UNBC will have — its 135 percent funding, its special board of governors and senate — and then saying that after two consecutive years of that enrolment we're going to become a university, just simply a fourth name in the University Act. We're hoping that there is the critical mass there of those students to enable us to be financially viable. They know the university will be viable in terms of governance and all the rest of the items.

[12:15]

It's seen as a figure of critical mass. With respect to funding, the 135 percent will no longer be a statute provision but will still be considered that. Because of the smaller enrolment of this university, it will still receive more funding on a per-student basis than, for example, UBC would. It's a cutoff point, and it was thought that this is probably just the best way of doing it.

MR. JONES: Well, I'm sure some thought went into that figure, and I have no objection with the number. There is a critical mass required for the proper functioning of the university. I guess it's everybody's desire that this university as quickly as possible take its place as an autonomous university

[ Page 10534 ]

— as the other three in this province — that it offer degrees of credibility and that it be a university of stature in the province. This number of 2,500.... When I look at the implementation planning group report, on page 15 of that report they look at enrolment projections. They have a conservative-enrolment projection and a generous-enrolment projection. And even with the generous enrolment projection, by 1999 we get to only 2,253 students. The minister has said that he's more optimistic than the implementation planning group, and I hope he's right. However, I think that until the transitional phase is passed, our goals for this institution won't be fully realized.

The structure of the bill is good. The involvement of aboriginal peoples, northern representatives and college representatives in making sure that during transition it all fits together nicely... The bill is well designed. However, it seems to me that until we get past that transitional phase and until this university takes its place under the University Act with the other universities, we won't have an institution that stands on its own, viewed as with the other universities in the province. I'm sure it's everybody's goal to have that. It looks like a very long-range goal. I suppose if we extrapolate to two years past achieving 2,500, according to the implementation planning group, even on the most generous estimate of student population that may not happen until the year 2005 or 2010 or something of that order. It's a very long transition phase. I like the structure of the transition phase, but I'd just like to see it shorter.

I'm sure the minister is hopeful, and I'm hopeful, that we'll achieve that student population. The implementation planning group, I'm sure, had some expertise in developing their enrolment projections. It looks like it's going to be a very lengthy interim process. Until we get past that process, UNBC will not fully take its place with the other three universities.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is quoting numbers from IPG, but I'll also point out that some of the editorial comment from IPG said that this business of arriving at enrolment numbers is very much guesswork. I would say even their generous considerations.... They will tell you privately as they've told me; I think they've even said it in public. John Ellis, for example, said they feel even their generous estimates are conservative. I feel that way myself.

Whether we reach it tomorrow or in 2002, we still have to have this legislation here to ensure we're breathing as much life into this institution as possible and giving it a preferential place in the British Columbia university scene. I underscore preferential; we have to be preferential to UNBC. We have to recognize that this is genesis legislation. It's doing something different and better for this university. That's the reason we put this in here.

The original suggestion was that we have it just for one year. I was in the system, and it occurred to me that you can have anomalies in enrolment — little bumps and hiccups that come along and give you a false reading. That's why I asked the draftsmen to put in two consecutive years. I'm sure that with two consecutive years at that enrolment you are seeing a real growth pattern and the place is developing a critical mass and a flight and an attitude of its own.

I don't think there's any other way of doing it than the way we've written it here. I'm perfectly satisfied that it has to be this way. I certainly don't see it as making it a special or different.... I wouldn't use the term special or different; I would just use the term preferential. I think it's necessary.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to just say a few words on section 20. I have to mention Roy Stewart, who is now the president of the Interior University Society. He was the one who argued so strongly for an immediate mention of the University Foundations Act, and of course the members know that this meets a lot of things, particularly in terms of fund-raising.

I want to put on the record the work that was done by Roy Stewart in his concern for the Interior University Society rolling itself over into a University of Northern British Columbia foundation. So that large membership, that board of directors, are going to carry out foundation work for the university, and this section is critical to that group. I really have to commend them for the work they've been doing since January as a beginning foundation body, and I have to specifically credit Roy Stewart, one of the charter members of the Interior University Society, for the leadership that he is showing in this business of putting a foundation together.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 40, University of Northern British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 24.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY
EDUCATION ACT

(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: I want to make some comments on this piece of legislation. Just about a year ago I had some personal involvement with a local college

[ Page 10535 ]

here in Victoria, CompuCollege School of Business. The minister is aware that it is a private institution that comes under his purview.

In my involvement with CompuCollege I spent some months going through serious accusations by the students of many problems that the college had in terms of accountability, courses that they said they were providing and the accuracy and the qualifications of the staff. I'll go through some of those concerns in a minute. But it became quite clear that we had a problem with this college in terms of accountability and the problems of young people who register in such institutions and see the stamp of approval, if you will, from the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Even in the ads that CompuCollege run, they stamp it on there that it's a private training institution registered by the Ministry of Advanced Education. Of course, many young people would assume there is a fairly substantial monitoring or supervision system by the ministry, and that when students enrol and are told certain things, they can expect those things to be accurate.

Mr. Speaker, about a year ago many students and faculty came to me with concerns about this college. It turned out that there were some major problems with that institution. My concern is that rather than moving to improve public accountability and maintaining the supervision and responsibility in the public sector — that is, through the ministry — we are deciding to virtually privatize the monitoring and supervision of such institutions.

There are close to 450 of these school in the province, and many young people choose them for various reasons. Our side thinks the thousands of students who enrol in these kinds of institutions are entitled to the best public supervision and account ability we can attain. That is being done in other jurisdictions, it is my understanding; but in British Columbia we are moving in the opposite direction.

For the record, I'd just like to go through some of the problems that I found with this college. Some of them were rectified, but many weren't. I have to say that many of the students paid $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 for courses and spent a considerable amount of their time, effort and finances to get an education through this particular college.

Some of the problems and allegations — which turned out to be accurate — were these.

First, the college refused to provide current and prospective students with a list of instructors and their qualifications. Students came to me saying: "We just can't get their qualifications; we don't know where they come from." They found that they'd start the course with one instructor and halfway through that would change. They had instructors admitting to the students that they weren't even qualified to teach the course.

Another problem was in the diploma course for accounting on computers. The course outline stated that the lecturers would be qualified CAs. For this one I even have the accounting and computer course outline from CompuCollege, which stated that highly qualified and experienced chartered accountants, CAs, who have had experience in the relevant areas of the course would be teaching the courses. They weren't teaching the courses. They did not have the qualified lecturers.

But students enrolling were told all these things. It was in their advertising brochures. I have many of those, and the ministry has them as well, because I gave the ministry all the evidence. In this one course one young fellow paid $3,500 for a course which staff clearly were not qualified to teach. They admitted it when I interviewed some of the people who were teaching these courses.

Some instructors have indicated that they and their qualifications have not been registered with the ministry, as required for private training institutions. Students stated that they had been told that certain courses — for example, accounting and computers — are equivalent to the first two years of the accounting program at Camosun College. Through discussions with Camosun College I learned that CompuCollege courses were not recognized by Camosun, but it was clearly stated upon enrolment and taking their money — sometimes thousands of dollars — that they were accredited and were the equivalent.

Mr. Speaker, I see no indication in this legislation before us that these kinds of problems are going to be resolved. I'm very worried for young people who are looking for an education and enrolling in these private institutions that if there isn't the public accountability, supervision and monitoring, these problems will continue.

[12:30]

I will go on with some of the other things I found in my investigation. Students complained they were not told that the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C. or the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. do not recognize the CompuCollege diplomas, yet students can pay as....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In view of the fact that the House does not have a quorum, I would be prepared to accept an adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House, if the member would bring that forward.

MR. BLENCOE: Given that it would appear that everyone wants to head home, I will move that we adjourn this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The House is not sitting in committee, but as the Whole, so we will accept your motion.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish all members a good, happy and fun-filled weekend. With that, I move adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:30 p.m.