1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 1993

Morning Sitting

Volume 9, Number 25

[ Page 6211 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Clerk of the House: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Prayers.

L. Krog: I rise this morning to introduce Mr. Bullock, a teacher at Sea View Elementary Junior Secondary School. He is accompanied by some parents and assistants and 55 grades 5 and 6 students. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. De Jong: Even though I don't see the person I'm introducing, I've been notified that Mrs. Mary Sweeney is in the Legislature today, up in the gallery somewhere. She is the wife of Mr. Ron Sweeney, who was a very much appreciated high school teacher in the Abbotsford district. He is now retired and working with the credit union movement. Apparently they are having a convention here in Victoria this week. I would ask the House to give Mary Sweeney a hearty welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I call Committee of Supply to proceed in Committee A with regard to the Attorney General's estimates this morning. In keeping with the agreement yesterday, the House will now proceed with debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, following which we will be dealing with legislation this morning.

REPORT ON COMMITTEE A ESTIMATES

L. Hanson: We spent some time on an in-depth study of the Tourism ministry. The minister was very candid with us in her answers, which is much appreciated. It was felt that the tourism industry would still like to have their $3.5 million back for their marketing budget. But it is also recognized that the tourism industry has been playing a part in the decision-making process as to how the funds are now used in the marketing process, even though they would sooner return to the old system with the former financing that was in place.

I think the minister also acknowledged that her ministry has a responsibility to act as an advocate for different tourism facilities around the province -- even though that may not come directly under her administrative purview -- on such things as the tremendous increase in inspection fees for lifts on ski hills and the effect that will have on tourism. Also, tenure fees for using government land for tourism purposes have a dramatic effect. The minister acknowledged that she and her ministry do have an advocacy role to play in assessing the impact of those things on the tourism industry.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to personally thank the minister for her responses to questions. All in all, I think it was a good assessment of the Ministry of Tourism.

C. Tanner: Yesterday we completed the Tourism estimates. I would particularly like to congratulate the minister on three things -- first of all, on her candour. We did have a very good exchange of views. In many cases, I had to agree with her, which was difficult for me; in some cases, I categorically disagreed with her. She and her department deserve credit for the introduction of a novel form of pursuing reservations in this province, and that's her association with B.C. Tel and the 1-800 line which will come into being this year. She's also to be particularly congratulated on working with the industry in setting up a school of tourism. I am obviously particularly pleased because it appears that it might be in my constituency.

The minister gave high praise to COTA, the association of tourism industries, which is finally being formed in this province. We've had them right across the country. We've finally got one here and the associations got together and made presentations to the minister. She has paid particular note of the fact that she appreciates that. I agree that it is extremely important to the industry; however, they and she do not agree on the implementation of the marketing plan. That's where I disagree greatly with the minister. They should be spending more money on marketing. Hopefully in the future that will happen.

The industry has also asked the minister if in future she will allocate at least 2 percent of the income derived from the hotel tax to a marketing program. That's something she should take into consideration. I am not convinced that in some respects the government should not be looking at a different sort of organization, a Crown corporation or something like that, to look at tourism. It might be more effective than the government is, because, frankly, in many respects the industry can do the job better than the government.

Finally, I'd just like to reiterate my thanks to the minister for her candor and openness and a very useful exchange of ideas from members of the opposition, the minister and her department.

Hon. D. Marzari: Hon. Speaker, in taking this opportunity to offer my closing remarks on the estimates debates for the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry Responsible for Culture, I'd like to thank my colleagues across the House for contributing to a well-reasoned and informed debate and my colleagues on this side of the House for listening in and perhaps learning more about tourism and culture. The open exchange of information and the quality of the ensuing debate in the last two days has been helpful to all parties and a credit to the democratic traditions of this House. I've been proud to represent before this House the excellent work that has been achieved by the ministry in the past fiscal year. I'm also pleased to have had the opportunity to outline the range of initiatives developed by the ministry to support a strong tourism and cultural infrastructure in British Columbia.

[ Page 6212 ]

The budget which has been presented serves the interests of tourism, heritage and culture well by setting a course of action which fosters advocacy and partnership. This course of action will be realized through cooperation between various levels of government, the province, communities, the ministry, its industry clients, the public, the federal government and the private sector.

Once again I would like to bring to the House's attention the important role that tourism is playing within our province during this time of economic transition. The $5.5 billion industry has brought renewal and stability to many areas of our province, and it has proven its potential for creating diverse employment and new career opportunities for our young people. Funding for Partners in Tourism has been maintained to ensure the ministry's vital connection with regional tourism operators. The ministry is providing exposure to our tourism regions by participating in highly successful marketing ventures like the Canada West marketplace. To improve service throughout our tourism regions, the ministry has taken advantage of new partnership opportunities like Discover B.C. Working in cooperation with B.C. Tel, the ministry is set to launch a toll-free provincewide information and reservation service to provide one-stop shopping for travel information and accommodation bookings. The service will be offered to both out-of-town visitors and, for the first time, to B.C. residents.

[10:15]

Our commitment to developing new partnerships extends to the Canada-British Columbia tourism agreement, a four-year cost-shared $10 million program designed to enhance the international competitiveness of B.C.'s tourism industry. The agreement, which relies on a significant contribution from the private sector, has already helped to promote B.C.'s tourism products to key American markets. It will continue to target those international markets that show the greatest potential for tourism growth.

In the area of employment, we've worked closely in cooperation with the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism to develop a collective framework for tourism-related human resource development in B.C. Our commitment to include the first nations community in tourism development has been significant. During the past year we have worked with this community to document the growing number of first nations tourism-related activities taking place throughout the province; there are 150 of them. Through the ministry's community tourism action program we've assisted various first nations communities to identify and implement culturally based tourism activities.

The future of the tourism industry is directly linked to the sustainability of our resources, and the ministry has taken an active role in government-wide land and resource management processes. This has involved working closely with other ministries, with industry and in close consultation with those communities that are most affected by government's decision-making processes: in the Kootenays, in the Cariboo and on the Island.

The ministry has had an important role to play in developing detailed inventories that identify the need for integrating resource management with tourism planning. Through its planning and marketing, the ministry has attempted to be a responsive advocate for the industry. While there has been a need for tough decision-making in the past year, I'm confident that we are achieving our goal of raising the profile of tourism in the eyes of both the public and the private sector.

Advocacy and partnership have also provided the framework for this year's cultural policies. Although there has been little history in this province of initiating policies that would document not only the need but the responsibility to support culture, the Ministry of Culture is now taking on this important task. Our policies are challenging us to expand our vision of culture and to sow the seeds for its future growth and development. We have commissioned a cultural industries report which documents for the first time the enormous potential for expanding and diversifying our cultural industries, including broadcast, film and video, publishing, sound recording and other emerging media. Through the participation in the province's interagency film development committee, the ministry has also documented the rapid rise in investment within the made-in-B.C. film sector. In a cost-benefit analysis of this sector commissioned by us, the revenue injected into B.C.'s economy as a result of projects supported by the province's non-profit film agency, B.C. Film, has been estimated at $314 million over the past five years.

We have explored means of creating a climate for greater outside investment in culture. A legislative proposal is now in place to establish a provincial cultural and libraries foundation, which will encourage new investment in culture through tax incentives to donors. And through the formation of the Status of the Artist advisory group, which brings together 16 highly acclaimed B.C. visual artists, writers, performers and arts administrators, the ministry is encouraging cultural investment by raising the profile and the rights of professional artists in our society.

The ministry has also developed a number of new partnerships to inject new money into culture. These partnerships have resulted, for example, in an award to the Knowledge Network, which was matched by the Simons Foundation. This award will help our provincial broadcaster to develop arts programming and support the work of B.C. film-makers.

Working with the Federation of Labour, we have established a new artists and working life program to encourage the integration of art into the workplace.

In the area of heritage, the ministry has made precedent-setting advances in consulting with first nations communities and is hosting a symposium at Cape Mudge to directly involve the aboriginal community in the development of new heritage legislation. Through this consultation and interactions with the Provincial Heritage Advisory Board and other heritage groups throughout this province, we are putting together heritage legislation which will offer a new range of protections for native and non-native heritage sites. We are committed to drawing new money into 

[ Page 6213 ]

heritage through accessing funding made available through the new B.C. 21 program. Our use in this ministry of this program will encourage greater community involvement in preserving heritage resources.

The ministry is developing an open-door approach to heritage planning, and this is exemplified by the B.C. Futures project now underway at the museum. The project is aimed at determining how B.C.'s flagship museum, the Royal Museum, can best serve the regions through enhanced regional programming and sharing of museum collections and a new level of dialogue with communities.

In summary, all of us in this House have a responsibility to ensure the health and well-being of our communities through supporting tourism and culture where we can. This government is actively engaged in translating values and policies into real action, into the development of real mechanisms to assist both industries to grow and prosper in a growing and more prosperous British Columbia.

Hon. T. Perry: I call second reading of Bill 15.

ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, forgive me, I'm just exchanging visual signals with the official opposition critic, who tells me he intends to speak for 25 to 30 minutes in second reading debate.

G. Wilson: And I'm keeping it to a minimum.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm attempting to make sure that we do not run out the clock this morning, so that we leave time for debate on other matters.

The purpose of this bill is to propose amendments to the Institute of Technology Act, Opening Learning Agency Act and University Act. The intent of these amendments is: first, to allow for the recovery by the government of savings resulting from strikes or lock-outs at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, otherwise known as BCIT, at the Open Learning Agency and at provincial universities; and second, to repeal section 2 of the University Act, which provides that the Lieutenant-Governor is the visitor of each university. I will come back to the second purpose in a moment.

The reason for the first amendment to the Institute of Technology Act, Open Learning Agency Act and University Act is that currently there is legislative authority for the government to recover strike and lockout savings only from colleges and institutes designated under the College and Institute Act. With the proposed amendments, the government will have the authority to recover strike and lockout savings from BCIT, the Open Learning Agency and the universities.

There is no rationale for differential treatment of institutions in terms of the recovery of strike and lockout savings. Indeed, it is inequitable to collect these savings from colleges and institutes but not from other institutions. Operating grants are allocated to the institutions on the understanding that they will.... Excuse me, I've got something caught in my throat.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. I've been rescued by my dear colleague.

Operating grants are allocated to institutions on the understanding that they will provide certain services. To the extent that these services are interrupted, funding can be justifiably reclaimed by the government. Indeed, it is fiscally responsible to recoup these funds and reallocate them. In fact, the administrative practice has been to do so. During the recent strike at the B.C. Institute of Technology in February of 1992 and at the University of British Columbia in April of 1992, the funds which would have been paid had the strike not occurred were recouped in keeping with the spirit of the College and Institute Act.

The amendments will simply provide the formal authority and statute for a practice which has been the administrative practice of the government in the past. The government has the authority to do this under the general intent of the Financial Administration Act. This cleans up the acts and allows us to treat all institutions fairly and on the same basis. I hasten to add that these amendments are welcomed by the institutions. They are non-controversial and they're good administrative practice. Although I look forward to hearing the official opposition critic expound on them at length, there's not a great deal more that I can say about them at this time.

The second intent of Bill 15 is that with the repeal of section 2 of the University Act, the Lieutenant-Governor will no longer act as "visitor of each university," with the authority to hear appeals, from faculty, students and applicants to the university, from such decisions as the denial of tenure, the marks received in a course or the denial of admission to a university faculty. The expression "visitor to the university" in this sense is an anachronism, as the Lieutenant-Governor is a frequent visitor to all of our universities in the conventional sense. The role of visitor as defined in the current act is an inappropriate one for the Lieutenant-Governor, since the appeals may involve complex legal issues and expose the Lieutenant-Governor to allegations of bias and denial of procedural fairness. In fact, the position of visitor might visit upon the Lieutenant-Governor encumbrances and embarrassments that the Lieutenant-Governor has no desire to undertake or experience. This amendment will be welcomed by the Lieutenant-Governor, as it frees the occupant of that office from being caught in an embarrassing position.

The statutory right of appeal to the visitor has been used but rarely in the history of the province. With the proclamation of section 8 of the schedule to the Ombudsman Act on April 1, 1993, universities have been brought within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman, with the result that the ombudsman now has the authority to review complaints made against these institutions and make appropriate recommendations to them. This provides a more appropriate mechanism for dealing with complaints about the internal dealings of a university. The ombudsman, in fact, has the appropriate staff, administrative experience and training, whereas 

[ Page 6214 ]

the Lieutenant-Governor in those functions would normally have to function as a layperson.

[10:30]

This gives me a moment, as I rarely have the opportunity, to acknowledge the role of the Lieutenant-Governor in the more conventional sense of a visitor to the universities in this province. Two Lieutenant-Governors in recent history have had particular interest in the universities of B.C. Mr. Bob Rogers, upon retirement as Lieutenant-Governor, became chancellor of the University of Victoria, where he has served with distinction. The present Lieutenant-Governor, Hon. Dr. David Lam, has been one of the most enthusiastic, sustained, energetic and philosophical supporters of universities that the province has ever known. We don't often have a chance to discuss the Lieutenant-Governor in this chamber -- sometimes we don't even get the chance to listen to him in this chamber. But we owe our present Lieutenant-Governor a tremendous debt of gratitude, not only for what he and Mrs. Lam have done personally for the public universities in British Columbia -- all four of them, including the University of Northern British Columbia, of which Dr. Lam has been an enthusiastic supporter -- but also for the influence they have spread throughout the community in our own province and abroad, particularly in Asia. Dr. Lam has been an unceasing ambassador for our universities and their ability to contribute to the development of countries in Asia and for the opportunity for people seeking to expand trade relations with Asian countries such as Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia and other Pacific Rim countries to assist our universities to understand their countries better.

I've had the chance, in the 18 months that I've been minister, to get to know the Lieutenant-Governor on many occasions, often at building openings at the universities. I've joined him at ceremonial occasions and at many fundraising dinners, and I've often heard him speak. I wish in some ways -- although it's constitutionally impossible -- that the Lieutenant-Governor might speak to us more often in this chamber. He has an unrivalled sense of humour; a very philosophical streak; and an extremely deep understanding of world culture, religion, philosophy, business and multiculturalism -- perhaps in some ways the most ecumenical or catholic definition of multiculturalism I've ever heard.

I heard him give a beautiful speech, which I think the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and the member for Richmond-Steveston also heard, to the Simon Fraser University alumni association just a few nights ago, when he waxed particularly eloquent about understanding in multiculturalism, rather than tolerance. Tolerance is a concept of putting up with somebody, being willing, under regret, to tolerate somebody; understanding is a reaching out to comprehend other people's points of views, cultures and ways of behaving.

This gives me the chance to say that while with the passage of this bill, the present and future Lieutenant-Governors will no longer be officially visitors in the anachronistic sense, I feel confident that all members of the House will join me in welcoming the present and future Lieutenant-Governors to be very frequent visitors in the modern sense to all the universities of this province.

With that said, I move the bill now be read a second time.

G. Wilson: It's a pleasure for me to rise to speak to Bill 15, which has a very impressive title. Anybody reading the title without having had an opportunity to study the act might think it is going to be an act of some significance to Advanced Education, Training and Technology statutes amendment, which the title implies.

In speaking to the principle of Bill 15, when we look at what is in it, we see that the bill, which is to amend the acts of three principal institutions in this province, in fact does little more than legalize what is an existing practice with respect to the withdrawal of moneys during a labour dispute. I have to say that, because that has been the past practice for many years, we wonder why such a housekeeping item warrants the attention of a single bill and why it would not be brought in as part of a larger, more progressive bill with respect to the very definite and needed amendments that we should have to the College and Institute Act and the Institute of Technology Act; amendments to the Open Learning Agency Act, which are desperately required if we are to advance our learning; and to the University Act, which also needs to be amended in terms of their ability to have a more creative funding arrangement.

When we talk to the principle of this bill, which is largely to allow the government to withhold or take back funds during the period of a labour dispute, we have to ask ourselves why there is such a proliferation of these disputes. We also have to ask ourselves why Bill 15, which the minister has outlined to be little more than housekeeping, is so lacking in substantive amendments that are so desperately needed to those acts.

I think I can summarize the opposition's point of view with respect to the two principal purposes of this bill. Purpose number one is to simply allow for the legalization of an existing practice, which we don't have any philosophical difference with. Indeed, if services are withheld, if the operation of a particular institution is not underway, then presumably we need to protect the interests of the taxpayers and not allow those dollars to be squandered or not allow either side in a bargaining stalemate to be able to profit by prolonged labour disruption. Clearly, we see that in the high school situation today, with so many high schools that have been out for so long. It is important that we recognize that the school boards are not able to come to terms with the teachers, or teachers with school boards. There is no financial gain to those boards with respect to the withholding of dollars.

But the government itself has to recognize that as they hold back or claw back that money in a time of tight fiscal arrangement, sometimes there is a benefit to a ministry on a tight budget to simply claw back and redistribute dollars -- albeit that it may be an undesirable way to gain.... We hope that in this proposition the government doesn't build into its financial equation the possibility of work stoppages and 

[ Page 6215 ]

disruption or start to build the opportunity to be able to withdraw, pull back or claw back certain dollars from certain institutions into its budgetary process.

Hon. Speaker, one of the things about this bill and this slight amendment to Advanced Education, Training and Technology statutes that we can applaud is that the minister has attempted to treat all institutions equally and fairly. That's good. We don't have a problem with that. Where we do have some considerable disappointment -- and I think disappointment is the right word -- is that the Minister of Advanced Education has an opportunity to bring forward some significant amendments that are so desperately required and all we find is that it's little more than housekeeping. Essentially there is a decision to pick up one or two things on the floor in this House, when in fact, the entire room is a bit of a mess financially.

The reason we would argue that that is what is really needed and what we hoped to see under this impressive title -- Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act -- is some significant amendments that would allow greater flexibility on the question of financing, investment and maintaining investment within the institutions that are being amended through this act. What we would like to have seen, and what we would argue philosophically with this question, is that the government should not be the sole supplier of capital. There needs to be a proposition where there is a wider range of funding options, so that we can essentially gear up these institutions to become more progressive in looking for what this province desperately needs to move toward: a new economy.

When we say that in the principle of this bill.... Sure, the housekeeping and the kind of discussion that has been put forward in the institutes that are to be amended in this act.... We don't have any philosophical difficulty with pulling back that money. What the act fails to do and what we hope to do.... There is great disappointment out there among the colleges and institutes that when this act came forward and people saw this impressive title, we really didn't take the opportunity to make the amendments that were necessary. We hope that as we talk to the principle of the bill, the minister might glean some ideas from this debate that would perhaps help bring in a bill, intituled Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, that would have some substantive amendments and changes that would allow us to move toward some realities in this province with respect to post-secondary educational funding, and not simply introduce a bill that talks about a clawback provision for government to legalize an existing practice.

Hon. Speaker, in talking to the principle of this bill, I trust that you will provide some indulgence to allow me to articulate to the minister where our disappointments lie. In doing that, I would like to quote from Nuala Beck's recent book -- I don't know if the minister has read it; if he hasn't, I would suggest he might -- entitled Shifting Gears: Thriving in the New Economy. There are some very interesting and important comments made with respect to where we should be headed in terms of the amendments that are necessary for our post-secondary education institutions to become more relevant in allowing us to be able to move toward a new economy. In the advancement of post-secondary education, provision of training and overall financing of our institutions, we have to recognize that there is a very definite change in what people are being trained toward if they are to be successful in seeking employment.

As pointed out in Nuala Beck's book, there are more people in North America today actually employed in the manufacturing of computers than in the entire automotive industry. We know that in the technical training institutes, and the amendments we put forward in the last 15 to 20 years, we have moved ourselves much more directly toward technologies and training with respect to the provision of the kinds of industries I just outlined here. In Canada and North America generally, the automotive industry has been a mainstay of our economy. But that has changed. Through the institutions that this government finances through the act that we're now amending, this province has an opportunity to provide for British Columbia citizens far better and far greater opportunity, if we are to shift our focus toward the kind of new economy I think we need to look at.

If we look at housing starts -- which has always been a key indicator of the vitality of our economy -- we notice that in both Canada and the United States medical starts have supplanted housing starts. With respect to medical starts, we're talking about new special care, general care and hospitals -- those kinds of activities in terms of what is being provided. If we look at the economic spinoffs with respect to that, we can see that the kind of capital costs that need to go into new technologies -- CAT-scan technology, for example -- is far greater today, in terms of the electronic and computer technologies, the advancement of education and the mental capacity of those people coming out of our institutions, than in the old style where we used to train electricians to build dishwashers and fridges.

It is true that this is a housekeeping act. And it is true that one might argue that we should simply stand up and give a rubber stamp and say, "Sure, we don't have a problem with this," because on this side of the House we don't have a problem with what this act is asking us to do, philosophically. It basically legalizes an existing practice.

[10:45]

Where is there any innovative amendments to the way our institutions are financed in the first place? One of the reasons we have labour disputes is that we have faculty that are looking toward new and progressive ways of delivering education to young people. We have college boards desperately wanting to become more innovative and more directed toward the systems..... What I would suggest we might want to concentrate on as we look at amending the basic practices within this act is amending our institutions to allow them a greater flexibility for base funding in the first place. We should be allowing our institutions an opportunity to be more broad-ranging in terms of the security of funds they have in the first place. If we did that, the need for this clawback provision would be less obvious. The need for this government to take back during the labour disputes w

[ Page 6216 ]

ould be less, because the labour disputes themselves would become less frequent and the people in our educational institutions would find an opportunity to have greater access to meaningful education at a post-secondary level -- to be able to get out and develop a greater focus toward the new economy than we see in this act.

As we look at what we're doing here, I could say that the official opposition doesn't have a problem with the revisions in the Institute of Technology Act, the Open Learning Agency Act or the University Act, because what this minister is doing -- and I don't wish to be repetitive -- is simply legalizing an existing practice. How terribly disappointing it must be for this minister introducing this -- the first piece of legislation, hopefully not the only piece of legislation, to amend the act that governs the post-secondary educational institutions. How disappointing that it is little more than a whisk of a broom to try and clean a little bit of the dirt that happens to be on the floor, rather than doing what is necessary, and that is a major overhaul with respect to the way we finance our institutions, to provide greater flexibility and greater opportunity.

In consulting with the executives, presidents and faculty at the various institutions when this bill first came out -- and I took the liberty to send it to all of them and to ask for their feedback.... The minister is correct: very few of them had much comment to make on it at all. In fact, what I heard from most of them was: "Well, that's fine, they can do that. But when do we get the revisions? When do we get the amendment? When do we see the changes to the College and Institute Act that allows us the opportunity to become a more progressive, more active and more directly involved player in the overall direction of post-secondary education?" That's what they wanted to see in this act, and under this impressive title that's what they had hoped to find. But it's not there.

The universities want to know that science and technology is going to be given the kind of priority, financing and funding, especially in research and development, that is desperately needed in this province; not to have, as we will discover in estimates -- which is a more appropriate place to canvass this fully, and believe me, it will be -- a 50 percent reduction in funding for science and technology, unless we amend the act to allow the institutions to find alternative sources of financing. That would allow them greater flexibility and opportunity and therefore give the students of British Columbia more opportunity to take advantage of the post-secondary education that they require.

If we look at Nuala Beck's book -- again I would suggest that the minister might want to read it; it's not a difficult book to get through -- we find that in the movement toward new science, technology and research activities, post-secondary institutions in the United States are recognizing that there has to be a greater degree of cooperation with industry. These institutions can no longer be solely dependent on public financing. When we get to estimates -- again, a more appropriate place to debate this fully -- I will bring to the minister's attention information showing that in Canada there is less and less acceptance by the public of having a single source of post-secondary financing. It's essentially the lion's share. I acknowledge that the universities have bursaries, funds and other agencies that they can access, but only to a marginal amount. The public wants the education of students in our post-secondary institutions to be more relevant to the workplace, because they are more advanced toward the new economy and new technologies.

Let me move to the second principal amendment in this bill: the role of the Lieutenant-Governor. Once again this is primarily a housekeeping question. We recognize that within the whole process of student appeals and the role that the Lieutenant-Governor plays with respect to post-secondary education, we have to move to modern times. We have to move to the reality of what exists in practice. Certainly ceremony and the advocacy of the Lieutenant-Governor as a visitor to the university is important, but amendments to this act are not going to unduly change that ceremonial role. In practice it will be a more workable situation. So in principle we're not going to argue against it; but I think we can have some discussion with respect to the comments that the minister made quite eloquently a few minutes ago with respect to the role of the Lieutenant-Governor.

Generally speaking, I think what is happening.... I would like to juxtapose this with my first comments in terms of relevance to the new economy. We cannot and we must not lose sight of the need in our post-secondary institutions to keep humanity as the principal focus among those who work in those institutions, learn from those institutions and come from those institutions as useful members of society. The current Lieutenant-Governor has, I think, done a superb job for the people of British Columbia. I've had the pleasure of hearing the Lieutenant-Governor speak on a number of occasions, once at a university gathering. The role that he has played is a critical one. As the minister points out, the Lieutenant-Governor speaks eloquently on the need to come together with a certain degree of social harmony and social development. The Lieutenant-Governor's role in the universities can be no less than the role of every person involved in the provision of educational services: the protection and maintenance of a civil attitude toward the people who live in this province.

Once again, it would be nice if these amendments had some meat, a little more authority for the universities to become more innovative and creative in their financing and the way they work. What we need to do in B.C. -- which, again, we'll get into in estimates; I hope the minister will engage me -- is move toward a new economy. We have to allow the universities, colleges, institutes and agencies that educate both young and old in this province to be principal players in moving us toward a new society that is a functioning part of the new economy. Within that new society is the understanding that we must never lose sight of the fact that there has to be tolerance, humanity and dignity among the people. That's what the Lieutenant-Governor's role has been -- so clearly, in my judgment 

[ Page 6217 ]

-- in his term of service for the people of B.C. For that, all of us in British Columbia must be thankful to him.

Let me conclude my commentary on this bill. In summary, we don't oppose in principle what the minister is putting forward. In practice, we're deeply disappointed that this grand title attends to little more than some housekeeping business. We recognize that an existing practice should be legalized in the statutes. That is what this minister is doing. To that end, we have no objection. We also recognize and strongly stress that we need to amend the College and Institute Act, the University Act, the Open Learning Agency Act, and the Institute of Technology Act. We need to amend them to allow greater flexibility for those institutions to go out into the private sector to find a wider and better source of funding. Only through that kind of practice will we allow our universities, colleges and institutes to engage, in a proactive manner, in the creation of a society of educated people that will be able build this new economy, which is so desperately needed in British Columbia to get us away from the trends that have locked us into the kind of hewer-of-wood-and-drawer-of-water syndrome that this province has for far too long been shackled to. Finally, the universities also need the opportunity to engage, in a more cosmopolitan and international way, people who come into this province from every ethnic background and every corner of the globe; and to allow us to recognize that the source of our humanity is understanding and knowledge, and the ability for each of us as individuals to become educated in a manner that makes this society a more progressive and more productive place to live.

In principle we can approve and support this bill. In practice we are deeply disappointed that this grand title has so little to offer the institutions.

H. De Jong: The minister said in his statement when he presented his bill for first reading that there were basically two elements contained in this bill. One was to deal with the recovery of funds as a result of strike or lockout and the other to deal with the visitor section. It may seem a little strange that on a day like today we are talking about the recovery of funds due to strikes or lockouts.

I believe there has never been more turmoil in the education system than we have today due to strikes and lockouts, mainly to strikes. When the crunch comes it comes to the local school boards, not to this government per se, even though they have the laws at their avail to change things. It seems odd that we have to deal with this aspect on the universities, colleges and institutions for open learning at this point in time.

I have some real concerns with this legislation, particularly with the underlying philosophy of this bill, which is perhaps not seen by everyone. Last fall, during the debates on Bill 84, the Minister of Labour tried to convince this House, and the people of B.C., that he was trying to provide a fair balance between the employers and employees in his new labour code. The point is that the contents of that bill were so blatantly one-sided that even many of those who had criticized Social Credit labour laws in the past shook their heads in disbelief.

Today the government once again presents the kind of legislation that makes life much harder not only for post-secondary institutions but for many areas within the educational process. When they become involved in a dispute, there is no balance. In fact, this bill, as I see it, in its intent to recover the money, is even going to tip the scales further toward unfairness in the bargaining process.

The bill even contains a swipe at the monarchy by removing a traditional right of visitation. I know that the socialists in many countries do not necessarily respect monarchy. I suppose that when we hear of different things.... Monarchy isn't always much appreciated; but at the same time, the Queen's representatives.... I know the minister has said that he wants to put it on a more personal basis. Well, I don't think you need to change tradition to make it more personal. Some traditions may not be that good, but I don't think this was a bad tradition to keep at all.

In the English Civil War, the King was opposed by the Diggers, the Levellers and the Ranters. In this bill we see evidence of all three. The levellers are seeking to level the autonomy of our institutions of higher learning by a revenue grab that totally nullifies any gain from the prospect of a lockout or from seeking to survive a strike.

Once again, hon. Speaker, as in George Orwell's book, the socialists say that all animals on the farm are equal. Well, I know better. The unions are more equal than others. We see them ably represented by the member for Prince George North, whose views on conflict of interest I would love to hear in this debate. Perhaps the government has not heard the story going around town: "How many NDPers does it take to change a light bulb?" The answer: "Just a second, I'll have to ask Ken."

[11:00]

The diggers are simply trying to dig the Minister of Finance out of the hole they dug when they gave the B.C. Government Employees' Union 6 percent for the first year. These are the pragmatists, but the ranters are here too. As also in Bill 20, we see from the bold headings in this bill the word "control." That's what the government wants: control of everything. That is the essence of this bill: more top-down government and more central control.

The government is saying: "If you want academic freedom, you'd better be prepared to pay for it yourself. If you want responsible administration that seeks to relate learning programs to current needs, with no internal empire-building by powerful faculties, you can pay for it yourself." This government says: "We will control the tools of effective management. We will protect the sacred cows of outmoded and faddish, politically correct priorities by denying institutions effective control over their own budgets."

Modern educators don't despise capitalism, free enterprise or the business ethic. It is the socialist philosophy that is in full retreat on campuses all around the world. Today progressive educators are looking at technology transfer and new partnerships with the private sector. But this government has its mind in the clouds of the sixties, when socialism was still highly 

[ Page 6218 ]

fashionable on campuses. In those days, no consumer protection prevailed to warn students that their sociology degrees might well make a nice hanging in the taxis they would be driving to earn a living. Educators were discouraged from treating business success as anything other than the symptom of some horrible disease. A Berlin Wall of mutual suspicion and hostility often stood between the business leaders and academics, to the detriment of all, particularly our young people. Times have changed, but the NDP has not. It is backsliding. All the fine words about local autonomy and academic freedom simply meant: "We protect our own. We're against competition, fiscal responsibility and change."

What a tragic waste when we hear as many as 30 percent of graduates say a few years later: "If I had my education to do over again, I would have taken a different major." If a waiter in a beer parlour spilled 30 percent out of every glass, even the NDP would object. Of course, they'd have to object to the union. But my point is, if that's too much waste, how much more do we waste by setting out-of-date priorities for our higher education system and then, in this act, tie the institutions' hands so they can't make sensible changes to relate those institutions more closely to contemporary needs.

I'm not saying that universities should be just trade schools -- of course that's too narrow. However, lawyers are probably wondering why on earth we are still graduating so many lawyers when we had more than we needed 15 years ago. But by the same token, graduates should not be isolated from the real world, to the extent that 30 percent of them feel they wasted much of the time, money and effort that went into their studies.

I suppose anyone could easily embarrass the government with the silly statements they've made about unions and employers, but I'm not going to do that. That would be like hunting ducks in Stanley Park. It would not be sporting at all. Students today know there is no such thing as a free lunch; we all know that. If students had any doubt, the NDP educated them on this point by going back on their promise to freeze tuition fees. The price should not be the unions dictating how our universities will operate and what priorities they will set.

This is not progress; it is sliding back into the medieval guild system. It is more payoff politics for a few, especially the tenured status quo, at the expense of fiscal responsibility and progress and realism in our post-secondary system. This is heavy-handed, narrow-minded and politically motivated legislation, which I thoroughly oppose. I hope that the Minister of Advanced Education will change his mind and leave the universities, the colleges and all the higher-learning institutions to decide on their own budget, and not get involved in grabbing the money which may be there as a result of a strike or lockout. Let those boards deal with the private sector as to where education can be most effective for our young people today.

F. Gingell: I wish to rise and speak to Bill 15. I wish to echo the words of our critic....

Interjections.

F. Gingell: The leader of the party, that's right; not the Leader of the Official Opposition, as I'm sure you recognize.

Anyway, we'll get past that, if I may, and move on to the only subject that I'd like to discuss. I hope the minister will take cognizance of what I say. It deals with the words at the end of subsection (2) in each of the three sections: "...less the costs necessarily incurred by the institute as a consequence of withholding or lockout...." That would have been fine, and I wish they had just left it there. The problem that I see, Mr. Speaker, is one of uncertainty. It is important....

Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology on a point of order.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, the member is making an important and interesting point, but it might better be addressed during committee stage when, if the member feels strongly about it, there would be an opportunity to amend the section.

Deputy Speaker: I'm not sure if I want to restrict the member during second reading. However, if the member is addressing a matter which would be best dealt with in committee, I'm sure he will take it under advisement.

F. Gingell: I am surprised that the minister wants to filibuster his own bill, but it seems to me that the question of who makes these kinds of decisions goes to the heart of this bill. This bill provides, in a very proper way, for the withholding of funds that are not spent but had been planned to be spent. Withholding of funds may be adjusted by some amount. As we're talking about the question of the withholding of funds, it is important for us, in the principle of the bill, to deal with the issue of how this amount is to be calculated. The problem I see is that it is necessary for institution administrations to be able to make immediate decisions. They need to be able to immediately respond with such things as the hiring of lawyers, putting on of security staff and paying overtime to other members of staff who may take over duties of people who have been locked out or have withheld their services. It seems to me that they can't be put in a position where this decision will be made by the minister at some future time. They need to be able to know at the moment they incur the expenditures that yes, the amount to be withheld will be adjusted to take these additional costs they will incur into account.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, when we do come to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill in committee it really would be appropriate for an amendment to be brought forward that would more clearly define what these costs are, so that people won't be left in the dark arguing after the fact about reimbursements that they have properly and, one presumes, necessarily incurred. I would therefore like the minister to consider bringing in such an amendment at committee stage, and think 

[ Page 6219 ]

through all of the consequences of the lack of certainty that the bill at this time creates.

With those few words, I wish to add my endorsation of this bill, subject to that one caveat. I do ask that the minister think about it, and consider bringing in an amendment, or encouraging us to bring in a friendly amendment.

A. Cowie: It's a pleasure to speak very briefly on this bill in second reading. My colleagues have covered most of the major items up to date. I'll speak only briefly on section 1.

The people in my riding of Quilchena are intimately involved with UBC. UBC is adjacent to that riding, as well as the Point Grey riding. A lot of high school students in my riding go on to university. So it's very important. I do get comments, even on this small change that is being considered today in second reading.

The minister said: "It makes fiscal responsibility to implement these changes. It would be a sign of good administrative practice, and it's essentially just housekeeping." It certainly has my endorsement. It reminds me very much of my municipal experience as a planner at municipalities where strikes went on, either due to the municipality or due to the unions wanting more money or changes in one thing or another. The municipalities could gather fairly large sums of money by these strikes. In fact, one year in Vancouver the strike went on for something like two months, and a great deal of money was gathered by the municipality. Therefore they were able to settle with increased wages. Those kinds of games are not constructive. So these changes in section 1 -- by that money going back to the province -- is a good thing, because that takes away that gamesmanship that so often goes on. Also, you often get fairly hard-line union members wanting to go on strike simply to make a point or prove that unions are absolutely necessary. A lot of people -- teachers in this case -- are hurt that way because they really don't want to go on strike, but they have to because of the hard-line unions. I think this will take that away as well, and they'll have to be more reasonable, and even listen to a greater number of their own members. So I certainly endorse this.

[11:15]

There's a general trend which I would like to just speak on and which relates to this, and this in some way counters it. I think more power should go back to the institutions themselves as far as flexibility goes. To some extent, this means that the provincial government has another strong hand in seeing what's going on. My colleague -- the lead speaker -- spoke on the flexibility that is taking place at our centres of learning, and many changes are going to come about in the next few years. I hope that the minister brings in means that will allow this. I used to teach occasionally as a lecturer at BCIT and found it to be a very structured organization -- although I believe it's improving. Equipment in forest training and other areas was out of date and certainly not up to the industrial standards of today. There is a great need to bring in industry to work with the universities, colleges and institutes in order to ensure that they are able to supply the equipment and put out the kinds of students that are necessary today.

In closing, I certainly endorse this bill and hope that we can get on to other things within the ministry and get other bills coming forward.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to rise and add a few comments to Bill 15 in second reading.

When the minister made his remarks at second reading stage, he indicated this was a housekeeping bill. If that is the case, he might have been surprised to listen to this second reading debate. The comments that have been made by members indicate that if in fact this is a housekeeping bill, we might want to reconsider the definition of the term housekeeping.

The very interesting comments made by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and by the member for Abbotsford in particular, indicate that this bill really strikes at the heart of this government's vision or lack of vision for advanced education in our province. I would question why Bill 15 is necessary. Why is Bill 15 being brought in? Why are these amendments to the act that governs this ministry even required?

The minister states that there are two main objectives. One is to change the designation -- the symbolic definition -- of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in terms of his role as a visitor to the universities of our province. Why that symbolic change is required hasn't been satisfactorily explained. I certainly endorse the comments that the minister made about the current occupant of the office of the Lieutenant-Governor. The Hon. David Lam is doing a fine job, and I concur completely with what the minister has indicated. Why this change is required has certainly not been explained by the minister in his comments in second reading.

In terms of the other more significant change that the minister is proposing here, which relates to the ability of the provincial government to recover any savings as a result of labour disputes at universities or advanced education institutes in the province, one wonders what the real objective is. I question whether statutory authority is actually required for the recovery of those costs.

The minister wants to pass this amendment and, in asking why, we have to question whether or not the minister is really preparing for chaos. Is the minister preparing for chaos in the advanced education community in terms of labour relations? We have already seen in the last 12 months lengthy labour disputes at both UBC and BCIT.

The minister is also aware that the government has been unable to fund advanced education in the province. Witness the fact that more than 20,000 students were turned away last September alone from advanced education institutions in our province. Now the minister has come up with a plan. It may be responsible to taxpayers -- and we applaud that -- but what is the real motive here? Why is the government interested in enshrining in law the ability to recover costs as a result of labour disputes? Are we in fact planning for more labour chaos in the advanced 

[ Page 6220 ]

education community? I certainly hope this is not the case.

The minister seems to be indicating that this is a housekeeping measure. I question that. It seems, rather, to fit into the government's master plan, which is almost predicated on the assumption that we are going to have more labour chaos in B.C. generally and in the advanced education community in particular. We've seen it in the past. Are we anticipating more of it in the future? We've seen it in terms of the changes that the government has brought into other legislation -- in particular to Bill 84 last session, which removed the possibility of designating the provision of educational services as essential services. We can't designate them as essential services any longer, and we wonder why. Is it because we're anticipating that there will be more labour chaos? Is the government actually planning, and perhaps even hoping, for labour chaos in advanced education? Why? -- so they can claw back some of these costs. That would be shocking if that were the case. But if that is the case, how can we support this very disappointing piece of legislation that has no other vision for advanced education than that the government seems to be hoping for more labour disputes?

There's no progressive vision of allowing more British Columbians to participate in advanced education in our province. There's no progressive vision in this bill for allowing more of the British Columbians of all ages who want to attend post-secondary institutions to do so. Instead, the vision here in this bill is the expectation that there's going to be more labour disputes affecting more students, preventing them from attaining the education they desire, and the hope that the government can claw back the costs of benefits and save money as a result of these hoped-for, perhaps even planned-for, labour disputes. That's the vision that the minister is proposing here. There isn't much else in this bill. The bill should be retitled. Rather than the Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, it should be called the Plan for Chaos in Advanced Education Act, 1993. That should be the name of this bill. The minister has not satisfactorily explained why this bill is necessary, why statutory authority is required for either of the objectives outlined in this bill. As a result, I would invite the minister when he closes debate on second reading to address some of these points, because when we get to committee stage we're going to have to get into it clause by clause in some detail.

The changes to labour legislation brought in by this government have not benefited the province. Unfortunately, NDP governments historically mean chaos in terms of labour relations. We saw that in 1972 to 1975 with the first NDP government that was elected in our province. We're now witnessing it again in the second and hopefully last NDP government that will ever come to office in British Columbia.

This bill doesn't really provide any other vision than the possibility, the prospect, that we're going to have more labour disputes affecting our universities and technical training institutes in the advanced education sector, and the hope that the government can claw back those costs, without any idea of how the budgets of those institutions are going to be allowed to provide for greater access, not less access. The minister isn't talking about greater access to these institutions; he's talking about the hope for reduced access as a result of labour disputes. That's what the principle of this bill really strikes at. With those few words, I raise these concerns. This is not simply a housekeeping bill. One questions whether or not this bill is necessary. When is the minister going to address the larger issue -- the crisis in advanced education in our province?

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to rise today and speak to Bill 15. It is somewhat disturbing, and it saddens me to consider the import of this legislation, which really, as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has indicated, seems to be anticipating labour disruption at BCIT and the universities in the province. It's rather interesting, from a government that supports and enshrines the rights of collective bargaining. In the private sector the option of a company to take a strike as an economic justification is very real. This bill will obviously treat public sector workers and universities in a completely different manner than what exists under Bill 84 with private sector negotiations.

Clearly this bill will make the government the winner. Government will be able to take back moneys or funds that would have been provided for during a strike period. It is somewhat sad that in an era of declining commitment to post-secondary education, this should be considered a revenue source by the government and an opportunity to provide greater grants down the road by saving money in the event of a strike. The opposition understands that there is a dichotomy in the existing act, which treats colleges differently than universities and BCIT. For this to be what appears to be the major bill on post-secondary education in this session of the Legislature speaks volumes for the kind of vision that exists for the students of the province, who have experienced labour disruptions, lost classroom time and all too often been the pawns in a game of power brokerage between negotiators for institutions and the government. Even today we see students on the streets of Vancouver, in a different strike affecting education, who it seems are long forgotten in this government's list of priorities.

The opposition understands the so-called house-keeping rationale for the act, but given the fact that we've seen so few pieces of legislation from this ministry, it is indeed troubling that this one, which allows the government to profit from strikes and lockouts at universities and BCIT, is the one that we should be debating in this assembly. It is certainly the intent of the opposition to move constructive amendments to this bill in second reading, which will hopefully provide the universities and BCIT some indication of which costs will be clawed back by the government and which ones will accrue to the university. During committee stage we certainly will be encouraging the minister to bring forth amendments which will give a clear set of directions to those in post-secondary institutions.

With those remarks, hon. Speaker, I take my seat.

[ Page 6221 ]

I urge the minister to think about what the bill seems to be saying to the people and to the students of the province: there is a high degree of likelihood that we're going to experience strikes and lockouts at BCIT and at the universities. We need this bill right now in anticipation of those events, because if we don't do something the universities will receive the money instead of the government, and the strikes and lockouts could be prolonged. That indicates to me that we can anticipate more labour chaos in post-secondary education.

I ask the government to think of the students, and I don't see this bill addressing them.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.

Hon. T. Perry: Just before I conclude....

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Richmond Centre rising on a point of order?

D. Symons: No. I was wanting to speak on the bill. I thought the minister was going to make an introduction or something, and he didn't need much time.

[11:30]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The Speaker did not see you taking your place. The minister on an introduction.

Hon. T. Perry: Actually yes, I was seeking leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. T. Perry: I notice a large number of students in the gallery. I'm not sure where they're from, but I'd like the hon. members of the House to make them welcome, because they are some of the first visitors in the last few days that I've seen who are actually enjoying the debate here.

D. Symons: I am pleased to see that my assumption was correct when the minister rose so quickly and that he wasn't simply trying to upstage us. I would like to speak maybe more directly than others have to the particular contents of the bill. I think the intention of it is that it would help to shorten a strike, because the institution could see that if they didn't negotiate in good faith the government would be able to gather in the money that is not being paid out in wages.

Interjection.

D. Symons: I'm pleased the member opposite sees that I understand the content of the bill.

In a sense, there's some truth to that. That has certainly happened in the public school system. It would appear that this bill is now simply going to harmonize what is common in the public school system with what is the case in the post-secondary system.

If we look carefully, we will see some pitfalls. Today we find that school systems are still on strike. Indeed, even when the government can claw back and it doesn't accrue to the board, some school districts have been out on strike for more than a month. It would seem that the intent that you all, just a moment ago, implied was in this bill may not necessarily be the outcome of it. That's something we have to look at carefully here. We have to be very careful that that good intention -- bringing swift closure to a labour dispute -- may not be the result. We see the same type of thing currently in effect for the public school system, and it is not solving the situation in Vancouver, where more than 50,000 students are out because of a strike; and it has not solved the situation on the Sunshine Coast, where students have been out of classes for more than a month. So we are looking at a bill here that's bringing in a solution when we have evidence right before our eyes that that solution has not worked.

I would just caution the government to look very carefully at what they're bringing in and the consequences of that. Firstly, we have found that school boards in the past -- and colleges currently -- found that this was very convenient. If the workers went out on strike and the boards dithered on the negotiations, that money went back to them. Basically what ended up happening was that eventually, if they made a salary adjustment by increasing the wages of the workers, they could pay those increases from the moneys they had not paid to the employees. Basically the employees were paying their own salary increases. Therefore the board at least had some option of negotiating, but they could pay back the moneys they had saved.

What the government is going to do now is remove that money from the college boards, so they will not be able to pay increases to the college instructors. The government seems to think this will settle the strike quickly. I'm not so sure, as we see currently in the public school system, that that will be the outcome. I'm not so sure that this will not simply prolong a labour dispute rather than shorten it. Before, employees could see that the board was negotiating in bad faith, because they could gather money together to eventually pay an increase. Now that isn't there. In Vancouver, with the teachers on strike -- and Surrey is taking a strike vote today -- this hasn't worked. The employees still feel that they're entitled to an increase. The board has no options for paying it because of government cutbacks in funding. There's no money there.

We've heard many ministers speak in question period in the last few days when we've asked about the current strike situation. The Minister of Labour and other people stood up and said: "There is no more money; we've told the boards that. We've told the teachers of the province that's the case." Yet we still have the teachers out on strike. We seem to be moving what is happening in the public school system into post-secondary, and we will have the same situation as long as the government is controlling the purse strings as tightly as it is. It's allowing the boards very few options for dealing with the labour situation, and it's allowing the employees very few options. It's going to create a stalemate situation such as we currently have in the public school system.

[ Page 6222 ]

An Hon. Member: How much?

D. Symons: I have not said any words at all about giving them more money. I'm simply saying that if you're clawing this back, you're removing the option that the boards and the employees had to pay themselves out of that.

An Hon. Member: Liberal financial policy -- spend, spend, spend.

D. Symons: The members over there would like to make something out of that deal. Unfortunately, they're missing the point entirely -- that we're simply moving into a situation that is going to prolong rather than shorten labour negotiations between post-secondary employees and employers.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.

Hon. T. Perry: This has been a red-letter day for me, a very exciting day, because finally I know that the opposition is interested in advanced education. I can hardly wait for the estimates debate to begin. We'll have a chance for some really interesting discussion on some of the issues that relate to the spending estimates of the ministry that were brought up today. I think we're also going to have a wonderful debate in committee stage. On the title alone we'll be able to debate whether the bill ought to be called, as the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi suggested, the Plan for Chaos in Advanced Education Act. I take it he will support the bill if it's called that. Perhaps the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, confusing a common legislative reference to an omnibus bill, would like to call it a blunderbuss bill, because he seems to want this bill to tackle all of the problems in the universities, colleges and institutes.

My mother taught me that when you had a fly on a window or the wall you should use a fly swatter, not a blunderbuss, to hit it. I was tempted to suggest we should call this the Fly Swatter Bill. But then I thought further. Perhaps it could be one of the Shakespearean bills brought in this session, and we could call it the Much Ado About Nothing Bill. We could also consider calling it the Liberal Leadership Campaign Bill, because I noticed that at least two of the three members of the Legislature who are candidates for the Liberal leadership got up to speak passionately on this bill. I didn't realize there was so much passion hidden in the bowels of those rather apparently stodgy paragraphs brought forward by the legislative counsel.

The member for Abbotsford gave me pause to wonder whether he spoke from experience when he referred to duck hunting in Stanley Park. He spoke with such passion about the latter that I wondered whether I ought to notify the Attorney General, but I suppose everyone's entitled to the odd indiscretion once in a while. The member for Abbotsford also gave me pause to wonder whether in fact we had transmuted the chamber and I was listening to one of the prominent labour leaders of the province, because he appeared to oppose the provision of returning for the government -- as did the member for Surrey-White Rock, who expressed fear and outrage at the idea that the government might retain the strike savings.... Both of them seemed to be implicitly suggesting that the strike savings actually ought to be returned to those who go out on strike or lockout and that, contrary to the principle established in the school system or in the colleges, we ought to actively encourage strikes. When he first stood up, the member for Richmond Centre appeared to understand the actual intent of the bill, which is to remove any incentive provided by the government directly for either strikes or lockouts. That is the intent of the bill, hon. members.

For those who missed what I thought was a clear, plain-language explanation in my introduction to second reading debate, let me reiterate it. We're simply trying to standardize the policy as good public policy -- as the Leader of the Official Opposition and the member for Vancouver-Quilchena clearly understood -- to remove any incentive for either the employees to go on strike or for the institution to lock them out. I'd prefer to think -- in contrast to the member for Surrey-White Rock -- that if the bill makes the government the winner.... The government is here on behalf of the people, those very people we have seen enjoying the debate so much today from the gallery. I think it's a good thing if the government is the winner, rather than parties who would foster unnecessary strikes or lockouts.

We will have an opportunity, if the Chair of the estimates debate allows the same latitude that we've seen today -- I look imploringly at him as I speak -- to discuss issues like the broader initiatives in advanced education, perhaps reform of the University Act and the College and Institute Act, and where we stand in that process in the committee reviewing those issues now. We could certainly discuss that under the estimates debate, given the appropriate courtesy and latitude from the Chair of that committee.

We will have a chance to examine in more detail the contradictory logic of the leader of the Liberal Party, who argued, as he put it: "We need to amend the University Act to allow institutions freedom to go out and raise funds." I remain to be convinced that an amendment to the University Act is required to further encourage the aggressive and startlingly successful fundraising of the University of British Columbia, for example, or the University of Northern British Columbia or Kwantlen College, or others who feel unimpeded by the present University Act or College and Institute Act. I wonder how the business community might feel at the thought that we would have to waste the time of the Legislature to amend legislation when they are very generously contributing to our public institutions already, and increasingly so.

The logic of the member for Abbotsford suggested -- I paraphrase slightly, but I think I got it roughly correct -- that if you want effective academic freedom, you'd better be prepared to pay for it. That logic appeared to directly contradict the logic of the Liberal leader who suggested: if you want academic freedom you ought to encourage, through amendment of the act, more private funding of the universities. I found a very 

[ Page 6223 ]

interesting conflict in the logic of those who are -- let me emphasize -- self-proclaimed defenders of the free enterprise system: the trade union leader from Abbotsford and the proponent of legislative amendments for fundraising for the universities from Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

Let me conclude. I think it's a good bill. I think it's actually quite simple. I know the Minister of Economic Development wants to get on with the business of the House and pass another bill. I'm delighted at the thought that when we get to the committee stage we shall have a lively and interesting debate. I move the motion be put to the House.

[11:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 15, Advanced Education, Training and Technology Statutes Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 16.

EMPLOYEE INVESTMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This bill contains three technical amendments in support of existing objectives of the Employee Investment Act. The aim of the bill is to facilitate simpler and more efficient procedures in some aspects of employee investment plan administration. This act encourages employees in British Columbia to invest in small and medium-sized British Columbia businesses through either employee share ownership plans or employee venture capital corporations. Employee share ownership plans are arrangements where employees can participate in share ownership of their employer company. Employee venture capital corporations are tools by which employees can pool their funds and direct them into eligible British Columbia businesses. Both forms of investment plan are designed to promote investment, job creation, job preservation, economic diversification and employee participation in enterprise development. These plans help small businesses access a new source of what we call patient equity capital. Investment in small business is especially important, given that the small business sector created upwards of 80 percent of all new jobs in B.C. during the past decade.

In addition to investment benefits, studies find superior business performance in companies that offer their employees investment opportunities and involvement in decision-making. Growth rates, profitability and innovation all improve. Because of the benefits associated with employee investment, the Employee Investment Act provides a modest financial tax credit to employees to provide an incentive for participation and offset some of the business investment risk. In the case of employee venture capital corporation investors, the federal government also provides a modest tax credit. There have been a total of 24 employee investment plans registered under the act and another dozen plans are being investigated at the moment. The registered plans cover over 5,000 employees who have invested almost $10 million in B.C. businesses.

Notable small businesses that you may hear about in the future are Western Star Trucks and Spectrum Signal Processing. In addition to saving their own jobs, the employee investors have brought the operation back to profitability, expanded production and hired more workers.

The other fund created was the Working Opportunity Fund, which continues to be very well received by employee investors throughout the province. It has recently grown past the $20 million mark, representing a pooled investment of almost 5,000 British Columbians. We expect this fund to grow, offering a vital new source of capital to promising small enterprises.

We're proud of the accomplishments of the various employee ownership and venture capital corporations, and it is our continuing objective to improve this program for the benefit of all British Columbians who are employees. That's why we've brought forward this bill. There are two amendments in the bill; one is related to the Income Tax Act, and two are related to the Employee Investment Act. The amendments are technical in nature, but will have the very positive practical result of making some of the plans easier to administer.

Specifically, the amendments to the Employee Investment Act will allow employee venture capital corporations to issue fractional shares as well as whole shares and to capitalize income by way of a paid-up 

[ Page 6224 ]

capital account adjustment. These amendments allow simpler procedures for handling share issuances and earnings capitalizations. As well, the income tax amendment will simplify how employee investment tax credits are claimed by investors in employee share ownership plans and employee venture capital corporations. It will allow the B.C. employee investment tax credit to be divided between two years, in the same way as the similar federal tax credit.

Hon. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 16.

L. Stephens: I rise to debate Bill 16, the Employee Investment Amendment Act. The bill seems to be primarily a housekeeping bill designed to improve the operations of the Working Opportunity Fund. In general, the Liberal opposition has no difficulty with this bill. We approve of the type of bill that will improve the cost-effectiveness of our venture capital funds in the province.

The decision to allow fractional shares is seen as one that will reduce the costs associated with the issuance of dividends to shareholders. The decision to allow purchases made up to 60 days after the end of the taxation year to be eligible for tax credit purposes in the preceding year will improve the position of shareholders who wish to maximize their tax credit. In addition, it will enable the Working Opportunity Fund to compete with RRSPs more effectively during the RRSP season. Finally, the decision to capitalize dividends into shares holding more value, instead of increasing the number of shares outstanding, is one that seems to be in accordance with other illiquid venture capital funds outside the province.

I would also like to thank the minister for providing the briefing that my staff received on this bill. For bills of a minor housekeeping nature such as this, these sessions are of benefit to all members, to improve the debate in the House and reduce the time needed to pass such minor housekeeping legislation. I thank you for that, Mr. Minister.

The Liberal opposition will not oppose this bill.

L. Fox: In my short time in the House I have learned, because of some of the experiences I've had in previous legislation, that whenever the government brings in a bill and suggests that it is housekeeping in nature, one should scrutinize it. However, in this particular case I do concur with the minister: the amendments are primarily technical in nature.

I was pleased to hear the minister talk about how proud he was of the programs and the initiatives within this particular legislation. It's my understanding that it was started back in 1988 with the support of that particular party. Through these amendments they are continuing to streamline it and make it more useful.

If we look in particular at No. 3, I'm extremely pleased to see that amendment. Presently a lot of the RRSP dollars invested in B.C. flow into Toronto and the money markets out east. This will provide opportunities through the tax credits to keep some of those dollars here working for B.C. and improving the economy in British Columbia. We're pleased that is in fact there.

We look forward to the committee stage, hon. Speaker, where we can deal with some of the specifics of the four clauses, but we certainly do support in second reading the principles of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd just like to conclude by saying that I appreciate the support of the opposition parties.

With that, I'd like to move second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved.

Bill 16, Employee Investment Amendment Act, 1993, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Sihota: Splendid progress this morning. Thanks to the opposition for their timely conclusion to the debate.

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The Committee met at 10:20 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
(continued)

On vote 19: minister's office, $419,486 (continued).

V. Anderson: I'd like to raise some questions around the aboriginal relationships within this ministry, if the minister would be prepared to deal with this for a while. I don't know if you want to make some opening comments regarding it. He shakes his head, saying no.

Okay, let me ask some specific questions to begin with and make a couple of comments. As we are very much aware, the whole relationship with the aboriginal community has become one that we need to work on. We need to develop a more cooperative and positive working relationship with them in every area. One of the things I've discovered is that the concerns that the aboriginal people have touch every ministry of our government, yet they're interconnected and over-

[ Page 6225 ]

lapping. Would the minister be able to share with me what kind of interlocking relationships there are between the Attorney General ministry and other ministries that have to deal with aboriginal people? We're hearing that things are so compartmentalized now that they're having trouble dealing with their specific concerns.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think there are some legitimate concerns around how to deal with government when the responsibilities are so fragmented -- as they are. The need to go traipsing from one office to another can even occur within a ministry as well. The steps we've taken as a government to deal with that are to give significant budget and mandate to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, which attempts to coordinate government response and programs on a variety of issues. We have a Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs, chaired by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I sit on that committee. We meet regularly and discuss broader policy questions that arise frequently -- and, on occasion, specific issues. I'll just expand a bit. Because we have a variety of branches and programs in our ministry, in our efforts to coordinate activities we have an internal aboriginal committee as well -- the aboriginal justice coordinating committee. It is chaired by the assistant deputy minister responsible for corrections. So we do that internally. When it is appropriate and needed, that committee meets with other ministries in the government and with Aboriginal Affairs. I probably personally spend more time with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs than I do with any other colleague of mine in terms of meeting time -- just dealing with issues, because there are so many. There are so many areas in which the issues touch the Attorney General's ministry.

Whether it's in dealing with outstanding legal questions or correctional matters -- and a whole range of others -- the concern that some native bands and groups have, about having a point person to deal with, is a legitimate one. A lot of communities out there have that kind of concern about the way government operates. I think it's more acute with native issues, given their complexity and variety. We're attempting, through the Aboriginal Affairs ministry and through our own structures, to deal with that in a more coordinated way. You may not get one-stop shopping, but we certainly can try to make the trip a little more productive when people do come to meet -- hopefully having fewer people to deal with in a fragmented way, and trying to get a more coordinated response. We're working on that. We see it as an issue, and we don't have a perfect resolution of it at all, but I think we're moving a long way.

V. Anderson: In response to that, can you indicate what kind of staff you have of aboriginal origin within your ministry, and what kind of responsibilities they have in advising the ministry?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We haven't done a count per se. We haven't gone out to determine people's ties in that respect. We have some aboriginal people and some M�tis people working in the ministry. I understand that in Victoria alone in our ministry we have approximately 11. I don't know how many others might count themselves. Some people will identify themselves as being native and others won't, and they may have the same ancestry. We haven't done that kind of analysis. I understand where the member is coming from. I think it's important....

Let me go back a little bit. I think it's important that government and its institutions look like the people they serve. One of the reasons that we -- I personally, as well as the whole government -- have made a real effort and commitment in appointing boards and commissions to spread the representation around by appointing a lot more women and many more ethnic and aboriginal peoples is to meet that goal to have our institutions look like the community they serve. Clearly they don't now, and that's true in government and in a lot of other institutions.

V. Anderson: I commend the Attorney General for the appointment of Helen Joe as the chair of the Parole Board. We wish her the best in what should be an interesting and sometimes difficult undertaking.

Would the minister explain a little about what has happened within the justice system to respond to aboriginal concerns as to how their justice system and the non-aboriginal justice system are interrelated? Some jurisdictions across the country have made special efforts to provide opportunities for the interrelationship between these two different justice systems to cooperate and coordinate with each other.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm just deciding how to summarize pages of briefing notes on this issue. The reason there is so much material here is that we have established the issue of aboriginal justice as a major priority. In personal terms, at the top of the list of my goals, I have the whole question of aboriginal justice and justice for women. Two parts of our society that have not traditionally received fairness in the justice system -- certainly by outcome -- have been women and aboriginal peoples. For me these are personal priorities, and they are at the highest levels on my list of issues.

Within the ministry we have a wide variety of programs. Our aboriginal justice coordinating committee, which incidentally I'd neglected to mention earlier, includes representatives from Aboriginal Affairs as well. So this is a Ministry of Attorney General committee, but they have a representative on it in an effort to have some links. I also didn't mention that the policing community is represented on the committee.

We deal directly with aboriginal communities about justice issues on a regular and continuing basis. We in our own ministry attempt to train and educate people in respect of greater cultural sensitivity and understanding. We're trying to make our services more culturally sensitive to aboriginal people. I think we will learn a considerable amount from Judge Sarich's inquiry in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Already, the cultural differences and the occasional lack of cultural sensitivity have been amply illustrated in that process. 

[ Page 6226 ]

We are moving to expand control and management of aboriginal community-based justice initiatives and programs and trying to allow the native community to have more say in how the programs are delivered.

I could get into almost tedious detail about a huge variety of programs. I think the important thing for me to say is that it is a major priority and a major need. That's signified by the fact that we established the Cariboo inquiry last year to deal with some very acute issues there. What we learn from that inquiry, I believe, will have something to tell us about the rest of the province as well.

[10:30]

V. Anderson: After the session is over, I'll probably come for a briefing in more detail, if we'd be able to do that. I also want to commend the Attorney General for providing counsel for the native witnesses in the Sarich commission. You have given them support in being able to be there and given them some counsel for their native witnesses. I think the support in doing that is to be commended.

With regards to the Oppal Commission, I am wondering if the Attorney General is aware that the native organizations who were coming to that justice inquiry were advised that it might be best if they had prepared submissions for that. What kind of preparation would be helpful to those organizations in coming to that inquiry with submissions?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am not aware of any initiatives that were undertaken by us in that respect.

Mr. Justice Oppal has conducted the inquiry in a way that is sensitive to the needs of differing groups who come to speak to him and he has, therefore, had formal and informal opportunities. I think he has made it very clear that you don't have to have a lawyer in tow and you don't have to do a formal presentation -- he just wants to hear from people in whatever way they feel comfortable making their presentation. From all accounts, I think that's been the way he's operated.

V. Anderson: Coming back for a moment to the Sarich inquiry, has that inquiry been completed?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We are within days of completion of phase one -- if it hasn't already happened; it is this week, I think, or thereabouts -- which is the hearing process where people are coming and making representation. Phase two will be a few months yet, as Sarich puts together everything he's heard into a report. I had hoped when we established this -- and it had some birthing pains, I might say -- that we would have heard by now. But the exercise took a little time to get going and then once it got going, it was clear that the issues were even deeper and wider than we had earlier anticipated. So the inquiry has taken longer, and it's become a little bit more expensive, and the time.... I've just said that I'm not concerned about giving a deadline that isn't realistic. My concern is getting the very best report. I'm hopeful that we'll get one this summer.

V. Anderson: I realize that what the minister is saying is very true -- that we're learning a lot as we go along in the process. Specifically, since so much of this is tied up with the legal profession, I have a two-part question. What is being done by the Attorney General's ministry to give new students coming through the law faculties an orientation to the aboriginal culture, way of thinking and philosophies? What is being done to help the legal community already in the field with the kind of orientation and rethinking that is needed -- as is being promoted in the area of women's concerns in justice?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In respect of law students, the responsibility is that of the law schools. They are very alert to the issue of cultural awareness and sensitivity and to the need to make sure that the students who graduate from the schools don't discover this with shock someday in the courtroom. They're well prepared in school. That is happening in a very encouraging way in both law schools; both are active in that respect.

In terms of the members of the bar, the Law Society conducts a continuing legal education service. They are also alert to these issues. I know from conversations with various senior members of the bar that that kind of program is available there. I'm not saying it's completely successful. I'm not saying that every lawyer who might benefit from these programs has actually gone and taken them. I'd be the first to admit that there's some way to go in respect of that. That is the responsibility of the Law Society, through its own internal education programs. We will assist in whatever way we can if there are requests from them to us. In addition to that, in my regular meetings with senior members of the society, I push on these issues all the time. They know what my views and values are.

The third component -- I didn't quite hear if the member asked this, but I'll answer it anyway -- is in respect of provincial court judges. We do training with provincial court judges as well in respect of issues -- not just in terms of aboriginal but women's and other legal issues of the day. Judge Doug Campbell is assigned to judicial education. He provides that service to the three other western provinces as well, although the majority of his time is spent here in B.C.

V. Anderson: Perhaps we could extend that a little further and ask what kind of programs are taking place with all of the people who work at all of the different levels of the ministry itself -- in its programs both here in Victoria and throughout the province -- in sensitizing and bringing people up to date in the approach to and understanding of dealing with the aboriginal people.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Throughout the ministry we have training programs in place. We put a lot of emphasis, in our recruit training, on training in respect of aboriginal and other issues, so that the people who come to work throughout the ministry are well aware of the kinds of issues we're talking about. This is particularly true in corrections and probation, where 

[ Page 6227 ]

there's a lot of direct front-line interaction with the native community in particular. We have programs in place that assist police forces as well in being more aware culturally of all the various issues out there in the community. It's a continuing program, one we put a priority on. We recognize we have much to do, and we'll continue to do it.

V. Anderson: Following up on your comment about the police force, what process is in place for bringing aboriginal people into the police force within the province and for policing by aboriginal people in reserve areas?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There's so much happening in that area that I'm not completely current with at all. The RCMP now have 89 detachments that provide policing services to about 199 first nations. The RCMP have what they call first nations community policing services. They have 47 positions operating out of 38 detachments and providing enhanced policing to 116 bands. We have 116 out of 199 bands in the province in receipt of RCMP policing by native officers. Certainly, they also have a lot of auxiliary policing in the native community. We have a cost-sharing arrangement with Ottawa in respect of that policing, and my memory is that it's 48 to 52 -- we pay 48 percent and Ottawa pays 52 percent. Maybe it's in this briefing note. Yes, here it is.

Incidentally, we do things like assisting the city of Kamloops with additional funding for policing in exchange for them providing extended policing on reserve land -- much of which is in the heart of Kamloops, as members know. We have a federal-provincial first nations' committee on aboriginal policing involving all three levels of government. In Lillooet, as the member probably knows, a tribal policing initiative is locally headed by an officer who has had many years of service in the RCMP. While there was some community concern, it is widely accepted in the community there. There is -- as the member knows, I am sure -- a training program in the Fraser Valley for aboriginal peoples from across the country, which we don't operate but we've worked with. We put a priority on all these initiatives and on others. That goes back to the philosophy that the communities' institutions should look like the communities they serve.

V. Anderson: Following that up, is there a general program in place -- you mentioned the one with the RCMP in some communities -- to encourage, support and perhaps help fund city police forces that are not RCMP to have aboriginal people in their forces?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We don't have a direct connection. We don't pay for any programs, nor do we have any authority to tell the municipal forces what to do. But, particularly in the city of Vancouver, there are programs underway that the city and the city police are involved in. There's an institute in the city that is also working to foster increased activity by native people in policing.

V. Anderson: Following that up in relation to the whole area of justice involvement by the aboriginal people, are there grants or programs that the ministry is making available to the aboriginal community organizations to help them deal with the justice system on behalf of their people in a variety of areas?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The short answer is yes, and in a variety of areas. I'll leave it at that. If you want to be more specific, then I could try to be more specific in my answer.

V. Anderson: There have been a great deal of studies by commissions. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, for one, has brought forth studies. What process is underway within British Columbia to take advantage of the studies that have taken place? Are there particular recommendations that are uppermost in the Attorney General's and ministry's mind for change in our justice system that will make it more user-friendly to aboriginal people?

[10:45]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We will certainly look to the Sarich inquiry for guidance and answers in that respect. There are also always studies and reports being done by various universities and other governments, which we take advantage of all the time. There have been initiatives; we are continuing to look at programs with native people in respect of delivery of justice. There are particular projects in place.

It depends how broadly you want to deal with this. If you're talking about preventive programs, we provide funding for assistance dealing with violence against women and children in aboriginal communities. We are involved in a program that works out of Prince George in respect of assistance in dealing with historical sexual abuse. Other programs are being worked on in other parts of the province as well.

It's really difficult in this kind of forum to do the exhaustive briefing about the variety of programs. I would encourage all members to take advantage of sitting down with representatives of the ministry, particularly those dealing with the aboriginal initiatives, just to walk through all of the things that we are doing. We would welcome any advice and suggestions from members in that respect as well. I think in this context the important thing for me to say is that it's a priority, and we are working on it on a variety of fronts. We have a lot to do and a long way to go.

V. Anderson: Recognizing that historically and up to the present time the percentage of native people in proportion to their part of the population is far higher in our corrections institutions than in any other group from the community, I have a two-part question on that. Firstly, can the minister perhaps indicate why that is so and what he feels are the key factors for the higher incarceration of aboriginal people? Secondly, has that statistic decreased or increased in any particular way over the last year or two?

[ Page 6228 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I was in Prince George, as I mentioned yesterday, on Monday and Tuesday. I asked the regional director of corrections that very question in respect of the two institutions in Prince George. We were having lunch with the inmates in the youth correctional centre. There was an alarmingly large number of native people at lunch.

I'm going to answer the first question second. Just in terms of the numbers, the answer appears to be that we're making progress in reducing the disproportionate number of aboriginal people in our institutions. At the same time, interestingly, as more and more people are developing some pride in their culture and where they come from and who they are, more and more people are identifying themselves as native, where historically they may not have. As a result of that, the numbers, while they are coming down in one sense, remain significantly too high in another sense. It has to do with that developing pride, in my view.

The numbers change every day. This is really important for me to say when I give any percentages, because every day the prison count is different, and every day there are different people in prison. But in very general terms, given that aboriginal people are about 5 percent of the B.C. population, they are approximately -- and I urge members to understand these are approximate numbers -- 18 percent of the adult prison population, and about 23 percent of the youth prison population.

The numbers are a little bit down, lower than that in each case, for natives in community supervision. The percentages there are that 16 percent of adults and 19 percent of young offenders under community supervision are aboriginal. That tells you right away that we are not doing enough in community supervision in respect of native communities. One of the initiatives I want to help foster is to find ways of using the elders councils, particularly in remote communities, to take on some of the community supervision that might otherwise be done by a probation officer. With many of those communities, you can't even get a probation officer into the community, certainly not regularly, and when they do go in, it's at great expense.

The first question was: why? We're all aware there is a wide variety of answers to that question. I think it starts with the establishment of reserves, with the wiping out of the potlatch, with the enactment of the Indian Act and with the establishment of residential schools. For me -- and this speaks to my personal experience in the northern part of Vancouver Island -- it really derives from the fact that for whatever reason our society made a determination 60 or 70 years ago to wipe out, in real terms, native society. We tried to wipe out their institutions and their traditional ways of doing things, and we tried to remake their children by taking them away and educating them with a whole new set of values that didn't work.

All of those things together, and more, have led to a breakdown in their society. It led to alcoholism; in too many communities it has led to rampant sexual abuse of children; It led to a great deal of difficulty in employment -- people being unable to continue in employment when they had it, or get it when they didn't; it led to difficulties in terms of schooling; it led to a whole range of things. The poverty has often been endemic and epidemic.

All of that and more leads to acting out, to drugs, to activities which lead into criminal activities. There are cultural differences that are so great that some native people get into the courts system and don't even know what's going on around them. It's just a foreign way of doing things. It's not an extended family trying to heal; it is strangers fighting each other. It's just a totally different way of life. It has meant that aboriginal communities have had some very real difficulty and, as a result, prison populations are five times higher than they should be in respect of aboriginal peoples.

V. Anderson: You mentioned the elders councils. I know there has been some movement to extend the possibility of the elders councils actually becoming what we would call a court of judgment and taking cases and having the elders not only involved in community supervision after the fact but involved in the actual making of the decisions. Is there some movement here in enabling that to happen so that they may be tried by their own community?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes. The answer is that there is some movement. But this is an area -- and I think the native community agrees with this -- in which we all have to move carefully and slowly. Members know that we had the South Island tribal justice project, a project of the South Island Tribal Council, ourselves and the federal government. It's now under review, to make an assessment about what happened in its time of operation, so it's on hold while we do that. I think in some instances we probably have gone a little too far -- certainly at this early state. In particular, I think it is very difficult for communities to deal with some of the sexual assault and sexual abuse issues that come up. It may well be that that kind of issue has to be separated out -- at least at this time.

When it comes to diversion programs, or even decision-making about sentencing and supervision, I think there is a much greater role for aboriginal communities -- when they're ready and able to do it. Some are getting ready, some are ready, many are not. I have talked to chiefs -- again, mostly around Vancouver Island -- who have said to me: "We're not ready yet. Don't even talk to us yet about us being involved in the justice system. We just haven't got our own act together yet." Others have, and want to participate. We're keen to work this out as part of this whole view that if we're going to solve justice issues, we have to get the community involved in the solutions. That's true for policing, that's true for corrections -- it's true for the whole system. We've got to get the community much more involved in the solutions. That's particularly true in aboriginal communities because of the different nature of the communities.

Extended family still exists in a significant and different way in aboriginal communities. They can be a major part of the resolution. The elders councils and other institutions that do exist in these communities can be a real help. Their communities are often different 

[ Page 6229 ]

from ours in that the people live in one place for thousands of years, whereas we move around all the time. So there are those kinds of local, institutional resources that we need to take better advantage of.

V. Anderson: As we move in the transition or the interrelation between the two systems that we're acknowledging are here, I'm very conscious that many years ago, it was brought to my attention that the word "guilty," for instance, which is very much a part of our judicial system, is not normally a word that even belongs in the aboriginal language. The word "guilty" or the concept of being guilty as we think of it is not a concept that belongs at all. Add that to the manner of response among the aboriginal people -- and many other people -- to a judge who asks if they are guilty. The aboriginal person is prone to say yes. He's not saying that he's guilty: he's saying that he has heard the judge say that he thinks he is guilty -- and that's an entirely different thing. That kind of awareness of language and meaning is very important.

I asked earlier about the education of judges in our judicial system. What kind of materials and supplies and education are being made available in communities where aboriginal people live -- both in urban and reserve areas -- to help them understand how they can access or understand the judicial system of which they may be a part?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are programs. We participate with funding for the Law Society to deal with programs for aboriginal communities. For example, we provided $55,000 to help fund the development of a first nations primary school curriculum. There are counselling and awareness programs that go on at various levels. I'm not sure if I answered the question specifically, but that's the answer in general.

V. Anderson: It's true not only among the aboriginal people but particuarly among many people in our community who are having problems with Social Services or other ministries of the government. They're not aware of what their rights are. There's no simple way for them to become aware of their rights and opportunities, of how to deal with and impact the system or of how to appeal and get the resources and help they need. I'm wondering what kind of undertaking is being made, particularly for the aboriginal people, to enable them to understand their legal rights in our system.

[11:00]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Given a philosophy which says that the best way aboriginal people are going to learn about those rights is from within their own community, our response so far -- this is not the end of it by any means -- has been to fund three aboriginal justice education centres. For example, the largest one, which receives $165,000 this year from us, is in the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en tribal area. That kind of approach assists aboriginal communities in developing their own educational institutions, so that they can talk to their people about the system in which they live.

All of this is predicated on a view that I hold strongly -- that is, we have to do all this for social justice reasons, historical reasons and all kinds of good reasons. We also have to do it to make sure that in the long term we can -- I don't mind saying this bluntly -- resist pressures to establish two separate justice systems. That is occasionally the response; it certainly has been the response in Manitoba in recent years. I think that, in the long term, would be the wrong way to go. It's important that we have an integrated, coordinated single justice system that is flexible enough to accommodate different needs in different communities. That's our objective; that's one of the reasons that we're involved as much as we are -- as well as all the other good reasons -- in doing the educational programs and funding native courtworkers and on and on.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that. That is one of the most siginificant statements we've had in the discussion today: the statement about whether one is working at two separate justice systems or at a flexible justice system that is able to incorporate interaction and interrelation between the two. Those are two completely different directions. I appreciate the minister stating fairly clearly the direction of his ministry. Those who either accept or reject it can then respond accordingly.

I also appreciated the minister saying that it is a priority of the ministry all the way through in all the different areas. I was interested in that, because as I looked at the estimates and the note of explanation of what the estimates and programs were about, the only place the word "aboriginal" appears is under police services: "This program provides for policing of aboriginal reserves...." To look at the report as presented, there is a complete vacuum. The kind of emphasis that the minister is expressing here is totally different from what shows up in the report itself. I'm not quite as concerned as I was when I first looked at the report and tried to deal with it. I appreciate the minister having brought that forward. I trust he will continue to do so.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let me say a couple of things. First of all, if you look at the estimates book to find out what actually happens, you'll spend a long time looking without much success. It's an accountant's description, not a program description in any real way.

Second, I just want to reiterate one thing that I may have glossed over, which I think is very important. That is the role of Judge Doug Campbell in native cultural sensitivity training and education, not only for the judiciary, which he's doing on a regular and continuing basis as part of his full-time job, but also, I understand, he has met with the benchers or governing body of the Law Society to give them the same kind of educational program. So I think we're beginning to move in a significant way, and provincial taxpayers' dollars are doing it. I'm pleased to be able to support that kind of initiative.

The final thing I want to say in respect of the member's contribution this morning is that I very much 

[ Page 6230 ]

appreciate the line of questioning. I think this is what estimates is all about: to examine programs and philosophy. I just wanted to say my thanks to the member for the way in which he's asked what are really very important questions.

R. Neufeld: I was interested in your comments about what has happened with the aboriginal community and how we have tried to mold them into our way of thinking. I think much along the same way the minister spoke about this. Things have to be done now that are not particularly easy and that take a long time to implement or to do. It's going to be an ongoing thing.

I want to talk a little bit about the justice system -- policing, enforcement and those areas -- and how the minister feels we are now entering or working towards a justice system. He talked a bit about having spoken to some of the bands about their own justice system. Some say they're ready to work into it and some say they're not. The minister could maybe expand a little bit further on that. I just wonder in what terms he's speaking to these bands about their own justice system; how some of them feel they are ready; and why some feel they are not ready to enter into the system, to start trying to work with it so it's to their benefit more so than it is now.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: As is true about everything in our society, every band and every community is different. They have reached different levels of confidence and readiness in respect of the issues. Clearly there are very different priorities.

Some bands I spend a lot of time with are focused only on trying to deal with the sexual abuse problems in their communities. I've talked about this often and won't go into the emotional detail I feel strongly about. But for them -- and I'm thinking of a couple of bands on the Island in particular -- the only issue right now is to try to get at that problem. They feel that unless they get that out of the way -- or well toward getting it out of the way -- they can't do anything else. They're completely hamstrung. That's a significant justice issue. But it's a social issue. So I think all the ministries that have some responsibility have to participate in helping to find those solutions so they can get past stage one, which will unlock the door to other initiatives.

Other bands, some of the remote communities, are interested in keeping their kids at home rather than having them sent away to a young offenders centre, a youth correctional centre, if they're in trouble with the law. So they're saying: "Our focus has to be to keep our kids at home. Therefore we need to find some way of having supervision for community service. And therefore we have to think about our elders, or whoever, in the community." Everybody looks at a different problem or issue and responds to that particular need they have identified.

My response always is: "We're not here to tell you what to do. We're not here to impose any programs or philosophy on you. We're here to help you develop what you need developed. If we can help in any way to make delivery of justice more effective in your community, then we're going to help." That's been the response.

R. Neufeld: Are there bands or chiefs that you have talked to? I know that there's a great problem in the court system, not only with aboriginal people -- there's an awful lot of people that don't understand what happens in the court system -- but I have spoken, especially in my community, and particularly in Fort Nelson, to a number of the elders of the band about problems that their members are experiencing in the court system; and that's not indicative of just the north -- I mean that's all over. What initiatives is your ministry taking in trying to alleviate those problems more so than what's going on now? I know there are organizations that work with these people and help them. I know specifically of a number of them that do good work. But is there some initiative within the ministry that is trying to help those people to get more of their own people trained as lawyers, and maybe further than that, to get them to the bench at some point in time? You know there is that already, but more is needed to deal with that part of our population. Are there some initiatives in those areas?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a variety of initiatives, some of which have been in place for many years, such as native courtworkers, the native community legal assistance offices -- if I've got the name right. Anyway, the legal aid office in native communities is a priority for us as well through the Legal Services Society. There are the educational programs that are in place that I was talking about earlier, I think before the member came in. So there are a variety of initiatives.

When you look at the law schools now and the number of younger native lawyers, it's surprising. There are quite a number of native young people who have chosen to get into the law. That's not the only place, of course, that the justice system operates. We need to recruit native people into corrections, probation and into a whole range of other parts of the justice system including policing. All of that's happening and it's being encouraged, and we do that in as vigorous as way as we can. We always have budget problems, of course, and I could easily spend another 50 percent more than this committee is going to give me -- and without wasting a penny -- trying to increase our services in these and other respects.

R. Neufeld: The other issue is, of course, policing on reserves -- their own policing and some of the issues that have come out of other areas that have had their own policing. I'm not sure whether you canvassed this already or not.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Okay, if you did, then maybe I'll just quickly ask a question. You can reply to me, and I'll read Hansard. I'm sorry I wasn't here earlier.

There are problems in other areas, especially in the U.S., in some of the areas that I've listened to and heard 

[ Page 6231 ]

of in own-policing on the reserves and the enforcement and what happens on and off reserve, and I guess that's basically the biggest fear. I mean there are all kinds of areas you can go from there, but that's probably the biggest fear of the people I have talked to in both communities -- the aboriginal and our community -- who seem to have some problem about how that would work. I'm sorry that you already canvassed that, but maybe you could just tell me in a nutshell, quickly, how you envision, as a minister, that this could be done in British Columbia? Or should it even be done? Should we be trying instead to get more native people into the police force and working that way -- as we do in Vancouver with some of the other communities?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The interesting thing that I've learned in asking that question myself about whether or not the policing can be effective is that in fact it is going to be tougher. The policing is going to be tougher by people in their own community than it is from outsiders. I know just from my own experience that that's the kind of a reaction one gets. Where you might run into difficulty is with relatives in extended families having to police their cousins or whoever, and I think we are all very sensitive to that. This hasn't been an issue where we have a tribal police force in place in Lillooet. That issue just has not come up.

Aboriginal people who train to be police officers are trained in the same way as non-aboriginals and have the same high level of professionalism and training. That issue just has not been a problem. Similarly, on reserves where the RCMP have native officers in place, that doesn't exist as a problem. If the problem exists, it can exist in all communities. It was one of the reasons, traditionally, the RCMP were always moving -- the rapid rotation, which they don't do so much now because it's so costly and, maybe, the wrong philosophy. One of the reasons they did it was to avoid police officers getting too cozy with the community, because of the relationships that might develop. Then would there be effective policing? I don't think that's a real issue anymore. I think police officers are well-trained professionals. If there is a particular problem of that kind, then an officer is going to allow somebody else to be involved in that particular issue. I don't see it as a problem at all, frankly. I'm alert to it, however.

R. Neufeld: Maybe I didn't explain myself. I guess the problem is on or off reserve, and where the jurisdiction ends and where it starts -- and how that works in the system we have now, with people either going off reserve and feeling they can do whatever, but on reserve they're in some sort of trouble because of their own police force. That's basically what I was trying to get at, if there is any thought there from the minister.

[11:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I haven't actually run into that kind of problem. I've had it expressed in what I think is the opposite way. This has come up in the Lillooet issue. If a tribal police force is travelling from one reserve to another, what do they do when they're off reserve and they see an infraction? Like all sworn police officers, if there is an infraction that needs to be dealt with, they deal with it, even while they're off reserve. In the early going, that's raised a few concerns and questions, but those have been resolved as people see how professional these police officers are. It's the same situation if a Delta police officer is in Surrey and there is something happening that needs the attention of a police officer. They're not going to worry about which jurisdiction they're in; they're going to deal with the issue. It's not a problem.

Concerning the on- or off-reserve issue, I hope that what we have in this province is a kind of equality of policing, so there are no different standards on reserve or off reserve, so it doesn't matter where an infraction takes place, that it's treated the same way. It doesn't matter in respect of the kind of programming or assistance that the police might offer. It shouldn't be different on or off reserve.

R. Neufeld: That gives me some relief that we're working on the same system. When you were talking about two justice systems before, and trying to integrate everything into one justice system, I appreciate that, because I think that's the way to do it. I don't think we should impose on them just the way we knit it together, but we should enlarge it so that we can work them in, and also with the police force and those types of regulations. I appreciate that very much.

Maybe I can go on to schooling on reserves. You talked about one area where $55,000 was granted to one band, was it, or one specific area, for introducing their own schooling program?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The $55,000 that I referred to was for the Law Courts Education Society in developing a primary school curriculum program. That was the $55,000. I also made reference to native justice educational programs that are delivered in native communities. I mentioned the program in the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en at $165,000, and there are two others around the province as well. That's what I referred to earlier.

R. Neufeld: Maybe the minister knows about it. In Fort Nelson, specifically, there is a native program for schooling on reserve that doesn't go through high school but goes to grade 7, I think -- I'll have to check that. It's a program where they work with their own culture and initiatives to bring back some of the pride that you talked about earlier. I commend those initiatives by that specific band, because they were initiated largely on their own.

Maybe I'm getting more into education here than anything else -- and it might work with the law thing also -- but when they come out of that system and get into the educational system as we know it, that's when the problem arises. I'm just hoping that the same thing doesn't happen with what you're initiating here. When they get out of that one realm or community and go into the other one, it invariably upsets everything.

[ Page 6232 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We are into education issues, but I think we can learn from problems or situations that exist elsewhere. I have exactly the same situation in Port Hardy. There's K to 8 in an independent school on reserve. Then the kids go to grade 9 in the public system and drop out, because there's no proper transition. In the justice system we need to learn from those kinds of examples.

C. Serwa: Hon. Chair, I have a couple of questions on aboriginal police. The minister mentioned briefly the situation in Lillooet. There are still a number of concerns by local residents about the independence and impartiality of the aboriginal police force, especially with respect to their off-reserve authority. I heard you say a few minutes ago that it didn't matter what jurisdiction a police officer was in, if he saw an infraction, he should be able to lay a charge in the matter. I think you'd better qualify that. It doesn't make an awful lot of sense to me, if a police officer from Victoria happens to be in transit to Kelowna, that he would be able to arrest or charge someone for speeding or for littering, regardless of his training or how professional he is.

The problem that we are running into in Lillooet is the concern of the residents not so much with their professional aspect but with them charging non-native people for whatever infractions off the reserve. It's redundancy and duplication. I don't think that the people are confident that the training of the aboriginal police is up to the standard of the RCMP who generally police the area. It seems that they would be more accepting if the aboriginal police went through the training with the RCMP. Perhaps you could respond.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The training for the RCMP and the training for municipal police, while they are different, are both of high level and both more than sufficient to ensure that at the end of that process we have well-trained, professional police officers. I'm not concerned about whether police officers -- native or non-native -- go through the RCMP program or go through the Justice Institute-delivered program. It works well for all.

The issue of police officers and where they can.... First of all, just a picky point: police officers don't charge. They may ticket, and they may prepare evidence for charges, but a charge would be laid by the prosecutor.

Police officers are sworn to uphold the law, wherever they are. If there's a police officer from Victoria driving through Kelowna who is aware of a serious incident that requires attention from a police officer -- and he's not going to give somebody a traffic ticket, I'm sure, for 38 km in a 30 km zone; he's going to leave that to the locals -- the police officer is sworn to uphold the law, and has the jurisdiction to enforce it. You don't see a lot of that happening.

What we're talking about here, to be more precise, is if a police officer -- the Lillooet example -- in a police car in uniform, travelling from one reserve to another, sees or comes upon a driver driving dangerously, with the possible result of an accident occurring which might kill somebody, that police officer has a responsibility. I would expect that police officer to exercise that responsibility and pull that driver over. It doesn't matter to me that that happens to be off reserve. Where a trained, professional police officer, sworn to enforce the law, sees a dangerous situation and an obvious need for action, I think that police officer should act. In the same way, I would expect a New Westminster police officer to do that in Burnaby, if by acting they can save somebody from endangering someone else's life.

C. Serwa: Well, the objective is certainly something that we have to work toward. In view of the ongoing concerns in that particular area, we have obviously not achieved the objective or the confidence of the local people. Perhaps more work has to be done.

I think one of the real concerns is that of double standards. If there's one area where all of us are treated equally, it is before the eyes of the law. The rule of law and order is something that we may take for granted, but it is certainly one of the most precious commodities in our free and democratic society. It is becoming more and more evident that we are running a double standard with respect to the law in British Columbia and in Canada.

We had the situation in Oka, for example -- I just give this as an example, hon. Chair -- where the RCMP and other police are not allowed on the reserve. There is a checkpoint at the reserve. I am concerned that if we are going to look at equality in the law, we have to have some semblance of fair treatment and access. In Oka the RCMP or other provincial police organization are prohibited at the checkpoint from entering the reserve. Here we have the situation with the aboriginal police having no restriction on laying charges off reserve. So there are some concerns from that perspective, and I'd appreciate a response on them.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Well, I'm not aware of any double standards in place. I would be concerned if they existed. If they do, I would like to know about it. In general terms, the notion of the justice system treating everybody equally is just that: a notion. It's one we all strive to reach. The member and I have had this discussion before. I think that one doesn't have to spend very long with people in native communities or go to meetings like the one I went to in Prince George on Monday night with close to 200 women who were concerned about justice issues to learn that the justice system, in fact, does not apply equally to everyone. There are differences in how it works.

We all strive to make sure it does, and that's what a lot of our initiatives are all about: to make sure that the justice system is actually fair, equal and just to all people. I must say that I think we're still many years away from achieving that objective.

C. Serwa: Certainly I think that the justice system is a good system, but, like our democratic system, it can be distorted or perhaps perverted and not be applied with that semblance of fairness and balance, although sometimes bias and the semblance of unfairness can be seen from one's perspective. As elected members, we 

[ Page 6233 ]

often hear, "You obviously aren't listening to what we've said to you, because you haven't done what we wanted," not recognizing the fact that 3.3 million people have different views of what fairness and balance is.

Going back to the double-standard concept, I look at Gorman Bros. Lumber out of Westbank who have been stopped from logging an area in the province. The road travels through Crown land to a Crown-owned forest, and the road has been blockaded by members of the Penticton band. The manufacturers, Gorman Bros. and their loggers are left to try to go through a court system, where they do not have any protection. Where's the standard? If I blockaded that particular road for some particular ambition of mine, I'm very confident that there would be an entirely different type of reaction and reception for myself.

This is the type of double standard that I think the people in the province are becoming more acutely concerned about. You have individuals -- they may be aboriginal or a group of environmentalists -- who appear simply because they're a group able to flaunt the law and get away unscathed, whereas an individual in society, if he doesn't come from one of these groups or works as an individual, is charged under the law. Why is there a reluctance in the legal system to encourage what appears to the public to be a double standard?

[11:30]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm going to ask members to bear with me while I don't say very much about the issue in respect of the access to Apex. This is a difficult issue, a road that goes through reserve land. The member shakes his head. He may be talking about another issue.

C. Serwa: It was another road, not the Apex road.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not sure then which situation the member is talking about. Let me talk about it in general terms. We talked -- I think last week or yesterday or somewhere recently -- about civil disobedience and the idea some people have that they can stop other people from going to work or conducting their lawful business by blockading or by whatever. When that happens in situations where the law is clear, and there is no question about the illegality of the action, then we move. The police move and the justice system deals with it. There are occasions, however -- and this may be one of them -- when there are other issues involved. I'm reluctant to get too much into that at this stage because we're not being precise about the situation and it is risky for me.

One of the unfortunate things about the way this committee works is that we have to quit early. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Committee rose at 11:32 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1993: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada