1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1993
Morning Sitting
Volume 11, Number 18
[ Page 8017 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
K. Jones: Last week the Canada Cup, an invitational international women's fast-pitch tournament, was held in South Surrey. It was hosted by Pacific Customs Brokers and Softball B.C. under the sanction of Softball Canada. We're very fortunate to have one of the participants in that tournament here in the gallery today. I'd like to introduce the Chinese Taipei national women's softball team, along with their head coach Mr. Wang.
Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce in the gallery two women who have been working very hard on behalf of the people of British Columbia, Jan Mears and Judith Korbin. They have been working, obviously, on two reports for the public service. I would ask members to make them welcome today.
L. Reid: I would welcome, along with the hon. Minister of Finance, Jan Mears of the Korbin commission. Thank you for joining us this morning. I would also like to recognize in the gallery Ged Dodsworth, a constituent from Surrey. I ask the House to please make him welcome.
Hon. G. Clark tabled volume 1 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service and Public Sector.
Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service Act.
Hon. G. Clark: The new Public Service Act will enhance the provision of service to the public in a manner that is responsive to changing public requirements and expectations. It will ensure the recruitment and development of a well-qualified and efficient public service that is representative of the diversity of the people of British Columbia. The bill will encourage the training and development of government employees to foster career development and advancement, as well as encouraging creativity and initiative among employees. The bill will enhance the development of harmonious relations between government and employees within the public service.
The new Public Service Act was developed in response to the recommendations made by the Korbin commission after nearly 16 months of consultation and review. You will recall that the Commission of Inquiry into the Public Service and Public Sector was tasked with making recommendations to government to enhance both the delivery of services and the personnel and labour relations environment in the public service. This act responds to the recommendations in the Korbin report in this regard.
The act establishes a new central human resources agency to be called the Public Service Employee Relations Commission and a new appeal body to be called the Public Service Appeal Board. The Public Service Employee Relations Commission with have a strengthened and broadened mandate in all areas of personnel and labour relations. The appeal board will utilize a streamlined process to ensure expeditious rulings on appointment appeals.
Bill 66 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise hon. members that Committee of Supply A will convene in the Douglas Fir Room to deal with the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.
I call Committee of Supply B in this chamber.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OPERATIONS
(continued)
On vote 7: office of the Premier and executive council operations, $4,237,000 (continued).
F. Gingell: Under STOB 20 In the 1992-93 estimates there was an item covering professional services of all types in the amount of $257,010. How much money was actually spent under that classification in 1992-93, where is it this year, and what is the intent?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That amount of $257,010 was for contracted employees. As I said yesterday, there are no contracted employees this year.
F. Gingell: The first question I had was: what amount was actually spent under that amount?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We'll get that figure for you.
F. Gingell: Also in 1992-93 there was an amount under STOB 75 for $8,120. STOB 75 is described as machinery and equipment. I was wondering if that amount had been spent, and if so, what on, and what is planned for the almost $14,000 that is in STOB 75 for '93-94.
Hon. M. Harcourt: That item relates to vehicle leases. The previous Premier's leases were not included in the 1992-93 vote, but the amount of $13,900 is for the leased Dynasty that I'm driving, plus the car for the principal secretary.
[10:15]
[ Page 8018 ]
F. Gingell: Are automobiles provided to any other members of your staff?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Just the two cars that I mentioned and, of course, the one that has been paid for -- the gas-guzzling white monster that used to be driven by the driver of the Premier previous to the last one. It is used as a pool car now in Victoria.
F. Gingell: Under STOB 69, which basically deals with furniture and equipment, $63,000 was budgeted in 1992-93. I would appreciate knowing how much of that was spent. You have a further $41,600 budgeted for '93-94, and I was wondering if you could give me a rough idea of what that covers.
Hon. M. Harcourt: That's the office furniture and equipment provision. It deals with the lease on the photocopier -- and I think there was some complex change in accounting procedures there. On the basis of the recommendations of the comptroller general, we changed our accounting practices, which changed those figures. I can send you some more detailed information on that.
F. Gingell: Yesterday during our discussion, I brought up the subject of the $12,000 bill for the image consultant. You indicated in your response yesterday that you hadn't had an image consultant -- or there wasn't any cost to it. Because we needed to deal with the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, I let the matter drop, but I wish to come back to it this morning.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I said that there was no provision in the Premier's estimates for an image consultant, either last year or this year.
F. Gingell: As the Premier is well aware, there was a $12,200 item in the press earlier this year. Perhaps the Premier could advise me what account that was paid from.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Hon. M. Harcourt: In the spring of 1992, Michael Sheehan was hired by the New Democrat caucus.
F. Gingell: Can the Premier advise me if there are any proposals for consultants for 1993 in this area who will also be paid for from the caucus budget?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I cannot.
D. Mitchell: During canvassing of the Premier's estimates yesterday, there was much discussion about his travels abroad. I have a question related to statements attributed to him during his travels abroad. This isn't so much related to the estimates of the Crown corporation he's responsible for as it is to the statements that have been attributed to him, in particular with respect to the corporate capital tax. It is well known that there has been a lot of controversy about the corporate capital tax being imposed, and there are statements attributed to the Premier abroad and here at home.
One of the more interesting statements occurred after the Premier's return from his last trip to Asia, in an address he made in Vancouver to the Hong Kong-Canada Business Association with respect to the corporate capital tax apparently being specifically earmarked to reduce the deficit in British Columbia. This was news to this member of this committee. In all of the rationale for this very wrong-headed tax -- which has certainly caused a very negative sensation in investment communities on the other side of the Pacific -- when the Minister of Finance brought in the corporate capital tax, I never heard him indicate that this tax was deficit-driven. There was a lot of talk about it being ideologically driven, but there had never been any evidence to suggest that this tax was specifically earmarked to reduce the deficit. Yet that is what the Premier indicated during a question-and-answer session following his address to the Hong Kong-Canada Business Association.
I wonder if the Premier could clarify for this committee whether the corporate capital tax, in his mind, as the leader of the government, is specifically earmarked to reduce the deficit of British Columbia.
Hon. M. Harcourt: For a number of months and through the last two budgets, I have made it clear that this government found the skyrocketing deficit in British Columbia, which we inherited from the previous Social Credit government, to be unacceptable and harmful to the province.
Furthermore, I said that we were not going to enter into a two-tiered health care system; that we were not going to see the emasculation of education services in this province; and that we were not going to take away from our responsibilities to invest in public assets, such as the new university of the north, the new college campus in Langley, the new superferries and others. I said that we were going to take a balanced approach, and we have done that through the two budgets we have introduced. In fact, the deficit came down 35 percent from March 1992 to March 1993. We did that through a series of reductions in expenditure levels; through actual reductions in the budgets of six ministries, from their budgets of last year; and through other spending-smarter changes we have introduced as a government, such as cutting back the government's advertising budget and a series of other measures.
After we had taken these expenditure and waste reduction measures, the government brought in some revenue measures, of which the corporate capital tax was one. That was brought in along with some other revenue measures because, as the member is aware, we were misled by the previous government as to the extent of the deficit. Peat Marwick and Deloitte Haskins made it very clear that the deficit wasn't $400 million, which the previous government had maintained right up to election day -- and after. It took an independent audit to lay down that the deficit was far greater; it was $2.4 billion, not $400 million. It climbed to almost $3 billion last year and $4 billion this year.
[ Page 8019 ]
The corporate capital tax was one of the measures that had to be introduced to deal with the red ink we were awash in, to preserve good-quality health care for our citizens and to be able to invest in good capital assets that could be utilized by the people of British Columbia. So it was part of a balanced approach. As I have said continually, it was not brought in for ideological reasons; it was brought in to drive down the deficit and to meet the other budget goals we set as a government.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Premier for that answer -- if there was an answer in there; I'm not really sure what he said. I was simply asking a specific question about the corporate capital tax and the different spins on the reasons for that tax attributed to members of this government, whether it's the Minister of Finance or the Premier talking to business audiences.
The Premier's address to the Hong Kong-Canada Business Association in Vancouver provided a new interpretation of the corporate capital tax, which was that it was deficit-driven and somehow specifically earmarked to reduce the deficit. I can't find any authority for that; I can't find any statement that the Minister of Finance has ever made that would suggest that. It's a very negative tax. It's received a lot of negative commentary. It's come in for a lot of criticism by Asian investors, in Hong Kong in particular.
In a report on his address to the Hong Kong-Canada Business Association, under the byline of Rod Nutt on the business pages of the Vancouver Sun on May 15, 1993, the paper says: "A member of the audience asked Harcourt why he had to go to Asia to explain the province's high level of taxation when a reduction in taxes would automatically attract investment. The question invoked applause from what had, until then, been a subdued group of listeners. Harcourt referred to deficit reduction, skirting around a direct answer."
I suggest that's what the Premier just did to this committee: he skirted around a direct answer. There is neither evidence that the corporate capital tax is geared specifically toward the goal of deficit reduction, nor evidence to suggest that the government is serious about that goal. I think it's very important for the Premier not to send out different messages to one group or another. There are a lot of mixed signals and messages about statements the Premier makes when he travels abroad or when he speaks to business audiences, depending on the audience that he or members of his government speak to. I would urge the Premier to tighten up government communications a little.
Another area of concern is with respect to what the Premier speaks to business audiences about all the time as being one of the jewels in his government's crown, which is CORE, the Commission on Resources and Environment. I know that when the Premier has travelled abroad, he has spoken very highly of CORE as one of the great accomplishments of his government. I think all members of the Legislative Assembly supported the process when it was brought in to attempt to deal with land use problems in the province with consensus-based decision-making.
As a result of actions by the government and statements by the Premier, serious questions have now been raised about the credibility of the CORE process and, unfortunately, the commissioner, Stephen Owen, who was brought in on the Clayoquot Sound decision. When the Premier made the statement at Clayoquot Sound, perhaps Mr. Owen's independence was compromised by being invited there by the Premier. He was taken aback that he was brought in, and later asked to be separated. More recently, the government's decision on the Tatshenshini, which the Premier announced last week in Vancouver, again seemed to scuttle the CORE process and the recommendation by the commissioner. He suggested that a definitive decision on the Tatshenshini should take six months and have a proper review. Yet the Premier came in and made his statement last week defying that recommendation. After these two decisions, how can outside investors and British Columbians at home have any confidence in this process that the Premier had such high hopes for initially? Its independence has been compromised, and CORE itself can clearly no long be regarded as independent or as the process we all hoped that it would be.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said yesterday, I would be more than pleased to answer any questions that members of this Legislature may have about the Premier's estimates. I outlined yesterday that there were very few changes in the Premier's office over last year. I said that the only two changes that had occurred were the five positions that had been transferred from cabinet committee support to the cabinet planning secretariat and the eight personal service contract positions introduced under the previous government, which are being converted to employee status, consistent with the recommendations of the Korbin commission.
[10:30]
The other issues that the member has brought up are important and challenging issues, and our government has addressed them. We're here to govern and make decisions, and we are. I'm sure the member has had a great deal of opportunity to ask questions about those two decisions in the estimates of the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Environment, or through question period, personal statements and any number of other areas. Our decisions are on the public record and have been discussed and debated in this Legislature and in public. I am here to answer questions that you may have about the Premier's estimates.
The Chair: The Premier's point is well taken. We are here to discuss the estimates of the operation of the office of the Premier. I remind all committee members of that. Please proceed, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: It is important during the canvassing of the Premier's estimates to discuss issues relating to the role of the leader of the government, the Premier of the province. When the Premier makes a statement, as he did last week on the Tatshenshini, or travels to Clayoquot Sound to make a contrived statement about
[ Page 8020 ]
the government's decision on Clayoquot Sound, he is acting as the leader of the government. The Premier should surely not hesitate to accept responsibility for the actions that he takes as the leader of the government. The proper place to canvass him, I believe, is during Premier's estimates, when we can discuss the details of his office, certainly, but also the issues that he wants to take credit for, but that he also must take responsibility for, as the leader of the government of the day.
If he chooses not to answer the questions, I know that there is nothing to force this committee to compel him to answer, but there is nothing to force or compel members not to ask the important questions. Unfortunately, whether the Premier chooses to answer them or not, we cannot compel him to do so in this forum. But I would encourage him to take the questions seriously, because they may be important questions. If he himself, as the leader of the government, has chosen to seek credit, he must also accept responsibility. That is something that he cannot run from. When one is serving in the role and the office of the Premier, it's not akin to serving as mayor of Vancouver, as he once served. He must now take responsibility for the decisions he makes, and that is why we are here today: fundamentally, to engage in a democratic exercise where grievances must be expressed before supply is granted for him to run his office on a continuing basis.
I would like to ask him one further question relating to his role as Premier. It deals with the relationship between the Premier and his Minister of Finance. When his Minister of Finance brought in a budget earlier in this session, the budget contained a measure relating to the school property tax surcharge, which gave rise to a tax revolt in British Columbia, and in particular in the city of Vancouver, where the Premier is an elected representative. The budget was unprecedented, in this member's view, in the sense that the government immediately backed down from that major budgetary measure. There were media reports at the time that the Premier was engaged in some consultation or perhaps gave some advice to his Minister of Finance that he should revise his budget. It was a major vote of non-confidence by a Premier in a Minister of Finance to force the Minister of Finance, within hours or days of bringing in a budget, to back down on a major revenue measure. I wonder if the Premier could enlighten members of this committee today as to how that process worked. Was it, as it seemed, a major vote of non-confidence in the Minister of Finance, forcing his minister to back down on a major revenue measure? It seemed unprecedented at the time.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is creating some confusion, because he is saying on the one hand that we should consult with people on issues like Clayoquot and Tatshenshini, but we shouldn't take feedback and consultation with people on a budget measure. I'm not quite sure why there is that inconsistency, and furthermore, I'm not quite sure why the member -- as a Liberal or independent Liberal; whatever he is now or will be next week -- would be opposed to the position we took on the Tatshenshini, which was clearly a position of the Liberal Party in their platform in the last election. And he agreed, I think -- and I would hope he still does -- that this is an exciting land use decision to create the largest park and wilderness area in the world, as an example to the rest of the world. I would think that he would praise that decision rather than want to consult more -- after an extensive consultation process that Mr. Owen entered into through CORE, on behalf of the people of British Columbia. On the other hand, after the representations from taxpayers I represent, he is now saying that they wanted me to pass on to the Minister of Finance concerns and questions they had about the punitive nature of the property surtax on them individually, that I shouldn't listen to my constituents, and that I shouldn't pass on their concerns to the Minister of Finance. I think it is the duty of MLAs to pass on the concerns and petitions of their constituents to the minister involved. They asked me to pass it on to the Minister of Finance, and I did.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
D. Mitchell: I am pleased that finally -- at long last -- I have engaged the Premier in some debate. It's not easy. He's a master at avoiding debate, but finally I've engaged his attention, it seems. So I'd like to pursue this.
In his report tabled in this Legislature yesterday, conflict-of-interest commissioner Ted Hughes talked very specifically about the role of MLAs in lobbying the government. The Premier has just suggested that after the budget came down he, as an MLA, lobbied the Minister of Finance with respect to the property tax surcharge, which the government then backed down on. I find that rather extraordinary. I personally applauded that move at the time, because I thought it was a very unfair, inequitable and misguided revenue measure, and a penalty on homeowners.
Could the Premier indicate whether consultation had taken place prior to the budget coming down, or whether it was a complete surprise to all members of the government -- as it was to members of the Legislative Assembly -- or was the reaction only the after-effect? Is this a new way of making government policy through budget-making? Is the Minister of Finance to bring in a budget and then MLAs, including the Premier -- if they don't like it -- should make representations to him, seeking to make him back down? Clearly the Premier would have a little more weight with the Minister of Finance than most MLAs -- certainly than this MLA. Is this a new approach to policy-making? Is the Premier suggesting that he lobbied the Minister of Finance afterwards?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said earlier, I am quite prepared to answer questions about the Premier's office. I have been listening with some interest to what the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has to say about my role as an MLA and his role as an MLA. I think that's an important discussion, but I don't think that relates to the estimates of the Premier's office. I am quite prepared to have a coffee and talk with a fellow
[ Page 8021 ]
MLA about what he does as an MLA and what I do as an MLA. I am here today to deal with the Premier's estimates.
G. Farrell-Collins: I want to interject in this debate for just a minute, perhaps to bring the Premier back to reality. If he takes a close look at the budget estimates that are probably sitting on his desk, he will notice that there are two lines. One line is for the Premier's office and one line is for the executive council. Quite clearly the questions that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi is asking relate directly to the operations and function of the executive council and how that works. They are perfectly in order, hon. Chair. Instead of trying to avoid these very important questions, I would hope that the Premier would answer them. They deal with the concerns that the general public has about the way this government is operating and the apparently weak leadership that we are seeing on a number of issues -- and not just Clayoquot or Tatshenshini, where it looks like the government has been making political decisions and bypassing the environmental review process that he himself put in place -- and also in relation to the weak leadership we saw on the education issue, which I am sure the member is going to get into. Those are questions that directly affect the operation of the executive council -- the second line in the Premier's estimates -- which he certainly is accountable for.
The Chair: Before I recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, I should remind hon. members that in Committee of Supply we are addressing ministries seriatim, if you will permit me to categorize it as such. I appreciate what the hon. member has brought to the attention of the committee with respect to the executive council. However, we do have an opportunity to canvass each of those ministries under its vote, as we have been doing. We are now canvassing vote 7 under the Premier's office, and I would ask members to respect the traditions and guidelines with regard to debate in Committee of Supply.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll go back to the estimates of the Premier of British Columbia -- not the mayor of British Columbia; the Premier -- who is responsible for the government and the executive council of the province. It's a very important job, and the Premier should hopefully take pride, credit and responsibility for his actions. We're here today to review his spending and grant him the money to run his office for yet another fiscal year. In order for him to receive that money from this committee, he has to tolerate the questions, as impertinent as they may be from time to time. We cannot force him to answer the questions; we know that -- we've tried many times in this House. But we can ask, and we can invite the Premier to seek to answer these questions -- important questions in the mind of the public.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. The hon. member is making the kind of speech that the Chair will be making from time to time. I appreciate the hon. member's help, but I would point out that we should be asking specific questions germane to the office of the minister. Would the hon. member please ask some questions.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mean to steal your thunder. I apologize for that.
Going back to the question that I raised earlier about the relationship between the Premier and his Minister of Finance when it comes to making a budget and introducing it, during this current session the Minister of Finance brought in his budget, and shortly thereafter the Premier seemed to intervene. Whether it was, as he said earlier, in his role as an MLA, or whether it was as the leader of the government and the boss of the Minister of Finance, I'm not sure; I would appreciate some clarification on that. Is the Premier able this morning to offer members of the committee any enlightenment as to how that process worked? In my view, it was unprecedented to have the Ministry of Finance back down on a major revenue measure. It was the school property surcharge, an important and very unpopular one. I commend the Premier for intervening -- if in fact that's how the process worked -- and forcing the Minister of Finance to back down on that very unpopular measure. Is it possible for the Premier to indicate how this process works, because it indicates how the government is going to run the budgetary process in the future as well. What happened during this session may form a precedent. If in future the Minister of Finance brings in a budget that's unpopular, can we expect the Premier possibly to intervene should a tax protest be brewing in the land at that time? Can the Premier shed any further light on this?
Hon. M. Harcourt: As the member is aware, the Finance minister's estimates are still ongoing. He has all the opportunity he needs to ask the Minister of Finance about the budget and the budgeting process, and about that particular tax. I'm sure he'll avail himself of that opportunity when the minister's estimates come back.
As the member is aware -- it's a matter of public knowledge -- in January I addressed the people of B.C. and said: "Here's some of the tough choices that we're facing. Here are some of the targets that we've set as a government to reduce the deficit, to maintain our basic health and education services and to invest in British Columbia's future." A dialogue then took place with the Minister of Finance and the people of B.C. within the guidelines that I laid out in that address. Targets had been set by the government to get the deficit down from $2.4 billion to $1.9 billion to $1.5 billion, and to keep it coming down. We were going to make changes to improve health and education: spend smarter but maintain medicare and a quality education system, and bring reforms to both so that we could better serve the people and invest in B.C. in a variety of ways.
As the member is aware, having been in the Legislature in a Clerk's position and now as an MLA, revenue measures are decided by the Minister of Finance. The minister has that ability and duty under
[ Page 8022 ]
statutes to make decisions on revenue measures, and he did. Those measures were contained in the budget.
[10:45]
D. Mitchell: I have another question to the Premier on this particular topic of revenue measures and the taxation policy of the government. Clearly the Premier doesn't bear direct responsibility for that, but he's indirectly responsible for all actions of his government. The Premier seems to have given some input to the property taxation policy stance of this government that he leads. I was struck by how different that stance is from the position the Premier took when he was mayor of Vancouver. I compared and contrasted some of the statements that the Premier made over the course of time when he was in his previous incarnation as mayor of Vancouver.
I found one interesting statement, a very brief quote from a speech he made in the fall of 1982, more than a decade ago, to the Vancouver Board of Trade when he was mayor of that city. He stated: "Next question: are you being overtaxed by the city? The answer is no. The fact is you're being gouged. But the fellow with his thumb in your eyesocket doesn't operate out of city hall. He works out of Victoria." As mayor of Vancouver at the time, the Premier was dealing with the property taxation issue in this speech. It's interesting that now he's over here in Victoria, he seems to be the fellow with the thumb in the eyesocket of business people in Vancouver. It's ironic that the mayor of Vancouver today is now being blamed by this Premier. I guess it depends on where you sit or which office you occupy. But it's ironic, and I'm sure the Premier will appreciate the sense of irony that I bring to this.
Later on in the same speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade more than ten years ago -- and I think the Premier had some very noble intentions at the time; I'm going to ask him if his views have changed on this -- he said: "Your city council has asked Victoria for some levelheaded tax reform. We want education costs removed from the property tax. It's a badly run, antiquated system. We want to stop being a collection agency for other agencies. Let the sheriff of Nottingham collect his own levies." I'd like to ask the Premier whether or not his views have changed in the last decade? Since he's become the Premier of the province, has he now become the sheriff of Nottingham, or does he still believe in some of those views that he espoused when he was mayor of Vancouver?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We're now going even further back into history. We've talked about what my role as an MLA should be and then what I thought as mayor, and now we're talking about Robin Hood and back into ancient history. Again, I have all possible interest in meeting with a very genial member of the Legislature, a fellow MLA, who wants to have discussions about these matters. I'd love to go and have a cup of coffee, even a glass of beer, with the member to talk about these matters. But I am here to deal with the Premier's estimates. I am here to deal with questions about the operation of the Premier's office, not to do an autobiography on myself.
The Chair: I would concur with the remarks by the Premier and request that the hon. member make an effort to address his questions to the matter of operating the Premier's office, as stated under vote 7. Thank you, hon. member.
D. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most government leaders start thinking about autobiographies at the twilight of their careers, so the Premier can hold off for a short while -- an autobiography, not a biography.
Last week the Premier held a very interesting event in Vancouver: his second summit since becoming Premier. It was on job skills development and training. I had the good fortune to participate, and I thank the Premier for the invitation to attend that event. I wonder if the Premier could indicate to members of the committee today, for information only, the total cost under the Premier's estimates of the first summit last year, which was held at Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific, and the estimated cost of the summit that was held last week. If the Premier has any figures on those, I'd be interested to know which costs were borne by the Premier's office and which costs were borne by other areas of government.
Hon. M. Harcourt: The cost of the summit was $63,211.79, part of which was paid for through the B.C. Trade Corporation. The theme, of course, was economic development and trade matters. There was a $23,089 contribution from the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. So the amount for B.C. Trade was $40,122.79, and the amount for the Ministry of Economic Development was $23,089. The participants paid their costs of accommodation and meals.
F. Gingell: And last week's estimated costs?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll get you the information on last week's estimated costs.
D. Mitchell: I thank the Premier for that information. If those are the total costs of holding the Premier's summit with so many participants from the private and public sector, then it was a very cost-effective performance for the number of individuals involved. Unless of course this is yet another example of the Premier's office being very clever in using its authority to hide its costs through other ministries and agencies of government. I don't know that's the case. I do know that the Premier's office, on paper, looks very lean and mean, but it seems that the costs of executive council operations are borne by other ministries and agencies of government, and that's a common practice.
I'd like to ask the Premier just one other question. It deals with his relationship to the federal government as a government leader and a first minister of Canada. We now have a new first minister in Ottawa who is a Member of Parliament from B.C. and a former member of this Legislative Assembly. I'm wondering if the Premier can indicate whether or not, since Prime Minister Campbell has been sworn in, the government
[ Page 8023 ]
that he leads has taken any initiatives to obtain any benefits or special considerations for our province? Are there any benefits that we can look forward to as British Columbians as a result of now having, for the first time really, a British Columbian in the Prime Minister's office in Ottawa?
From time immemorial, it seems that other parts of the country have benefited from having Prime Ministers from central Canada or other parts of the country. Now we have a British Columbian as Prime Minister, and I am wondering what specific initiatives the Premier has taken in the last little while to gain benefit from that. It could well be that this British Columbian Prime Minister might not be there for a long time, just a good time. If that's the case, can B.C. expect to benefit in the short time -- perhaps long time, no one knows for sure -- that she will serve in that office?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, it is an important question because we will have a federal election within the next hundred days or so. Of course, we're not too sure who will be the government after that election takes place, but I can tell you that there are some very important issues to British Columbians. British Columbians already expressed their opinions on the free trade agreement and the GST, when two-thirds of them voted against those measures -- and against NAFTA -- in the 1988 election.
There is a strong agreement among British Columbians that we have not received our fair share. We're not looking for any special deals -- not an overage -- but, for example, British Columbians have not received their fair share of federal purchasing power. There has been a new office opened in British Columbia by the federal government. We have the B.C. purchasing initiative to help our businesses access purchasing, not only in the government agencies in British Columbia, but the national government too. We're only receiving about 5 or 6 percent of the federal purchasing, when we have 13 percent of the population. So that is an important issue. These are some of the matters I have taken up in the past with the Conservative government that now has a new Prime Minister; we agree to disagree on a number of those matters. But I'm prepared to give the new Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt when she says she is going to change the way British Columbia has been treated. British Columbians want to see change in a number of areas. I intend to be bringing those up at the dinner meeting that I'll be attending on behalf of the people of British Columbia this Sunday in Vancouver. The first ministers will be getting together with the Prime Minister as she heads off, prophetically, to our second major trading partner and our major area of opportunity -- Japan and the Asia-Pacific region. So yes, matters will be brought forward again by British Columbians to the Prime Minister about the unfair shake we're getting in Confederation in a number of areas, and about a number of unpopular policies that will be before the electors during the federal election campaign in the next hundred days.
D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to hear that the Premier is going to be attending the first ministers' meeting with the new Prime Minister before she departs for a trip abroad. The Premier has made much of his trips abroad over the course of time, and I'm glad to see that he's supporting Canada's new first minister before she heads off on her first trip abroad in her new capacity.
The Premier has indicated that he has a list of items that he will be raising with her on British Columbia issues. I hope that he will take full advantage of this opportunity to meet with a British Columbia Prime Minister. Is the Premier able to tell us whether TRIUMF-KAON is on that list of items to discuss with Prime Minister Campbell at this first ministers' meeting -- who knows, it may be the last one prior to a federal election. Are there any others that he's able to specifically indicate as priorities for his government in dealing with the new administration in Ottawa?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That is a very important issue, and the Minister of Finance has already said that he wants to pursue this with the Prime Minister and with other federal officials. As you know, British Columbia has made a substantial commitment to KAON, upped the commitment last year to include the hydroelectric costs and is trying to tie down a decision on TRIUMF-KAON. Time is of the essence. TRIUMF, in particular, needs to have decisions made. So that is one of the matters.
With 12 other first ministers there, it's going to be difficult to have a complete discussion with the Prime Minister about all the issues important to British Columbians. I think the greater focus will be -- as it should be -- on how we can get the Canadian economy to start to perform as it needs to in order to provide the jobs Canadians require to lead the kind of life we expect all Canadians to be able to lead: a high-quality and prosperous life in fulfilling jobs and enterprises. Part of that will be a discussion on the deficit -- and no more dumping of the federal deficit onto B.C. taxpayers. There has to be a more mature approach than just the unilateral dumping of taxes onto our taxpayers and then blaming British Columbians for having a deficit. That's a very hypocritical and churlish approach to federal-provincial relations, and it has caused very bad blood between the federal and provincial governments in this country. B.C. has been treated the worst of any of the provinces, particularly with the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, which has cost the people of British Columbia an extra $500,000.
There are some important fiscal issues that have to be addressed if we're going to have a mature game plan of how to deal with debt and deficits. I think Saskatchewan and British Columbia can teach some of the other provinces and the federal government how to actually carry out their commitments to cap and reduce deficits. We have reduced the deficit in British Columbia by 35 percent over the last two years, and there has been a 40 percent reduction in Saskatchewan. A lot of provinces are starting to work very aggressively in carrying out their commitment to reducing the deficit. We hope that the federal
[ Page 8024 ]
government will be able to do the same, without dumping more taxes onto the provinces.
[11:00]
G. Farrell-Collins: I just have a couple of questions. Looking at the executive council operations for May 1992, there was a vacancy at B.C. House in Ottawa. Has that been filled?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The organizational charts of the executive council operations for May 1992 show that the executive director's position was vacant at that time. That position has been filled. The executive council operations for June 1993 show that that executive director's position is now occupied by Lorne Seitz, the senior representative for B.C. House in Ottawa.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the Premier can give us a brief outline of that gentleman's qualifications and the selection process by which he was chosen. I didn't hear the first name. I thought it was Lorne. Is that correct? So I can make reference to him as "he" instead of as "she."
Hon. M. Harcourt: The gentleman we talked about is eminently qualified to represent the interests of British Columbia. He was a deputy minister of the International Trade ministry, he was the senior officer at the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, and he has had a distinguished and successful career in the private and public sectors.
G. Farrell-Collins: Again, the latest edition I have here -- I don't have the June 1993 chart, which the Premier has -- is the May 1992 chart. It has the four people who were advisers on constitutional affairs. Has that department been downsized to one person, or have they all been moved over? Have they been reassigned to other departments, or have they been let go? There were four: Vick Farley, Patrick O'Rourke, Peter Heap and Claudia Herbert.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Those individuals are still there. They're working on the myriad of federal-provincial issues and relationships.
G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding is that the intergovernmental relations advisers, constitutional affairs advisers and constitutional advisers are there on an ongoing basis. They're not people who were brought on to deal with the last few years of constitutional issues; that would have been more under the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. That's fine. So these people still fall under the executive council and under the Premier's office, as opposed to under the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services? Okay.
I have a couple of other questions. On the 1992 chart, there are three vacant positions: senior adviser, economic policy; senior adviser, international affairs; and a special adviser. Have those three positions been reassigned or filled? What is the status of those positions?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Two of those positions were eliminated. We have not hired anybody to fill that vacant third position.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps I can just identify which one. The Premier said two have been eliminated and one hasn't been filled yet. Is that correct? Can he advise me which ones they are? The three I'm looking at on the 1992 chart show a senior adviser on economic policy, a senior adviser on international affairs and a special adviser. Can the Premier advise me which positions have been terminated and which positions have or have not been filled?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I will get a copy of the executive council operations for June 1993 over to the member. I have given a copy to the Leader of the Opposition and I'll make sure that you get a copy, rather than me trying to sort out now which of those positions are still around and which are gone.
I can say that you will see that this particular area now has a special adviser on international relations, who is Peter Heap; an IGR officer, Aimee Botje Jones; the secretary, Lori Loseth; and a special adviser on federal-provincial intergovernmental relations, Donald Wright. The other positions were not filled.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Leader of the Opposition passed me this and asked me to ask these questions, so maybe he hasn't yet received that chart -- I don't know. If he hasn't, I will be glad to get another copy.
I have just a quick question. The name Peter Heap appears in two places. Again, it would probably be easier to see the chart. On my chart he shows up as a constitutional adviser. The Premier has just stated that he is now also -- or instead -- the senior adviser on international relations. Is that correct? Has he moved or does he occupy two positions?
Hon. M. Harcourt: He has been moved. Just to give you a bit of his background, he previously worked in intergovernmental relations under the previous Social Credit government. He was then seconded to Ottawa to work in the PCO intergovernmental affairs office under Norman Spector, and then came back to B.C. to work on the constitutional issue. He's now working on such issues as the Georgia basin relationship that we're establishing with Washington State and also on a number of federal-provincial issues.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'll be glad to have a look at that chart once it comes.
I do have a couple of cleanup questions for the Premier. In particular, the auditor general, in his last report, commented regarding executive council appointments and the fact that they were not complying in their entirety with the process that's in place. Could the Premier advise us what action has been taken to ensure that in future all appointments will comply with the process as prescribed?
[ Page 8025 ]
Hon. M. Harcourt: There are ongoing discussions between the order-in-council office and the auditor general's and comptroller general's office to reach an agreement on the exact way to carry out orders-in-council. That process is underway right now.
G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier is saying, then, that there is some discussion -- and, I assume, some disagreement -- among the various parties as to what needs to be included, but the process has been put in place. They're looking at reviewing it and coming up with some determinations. That's fine. Does the Premier have any idea when that will be in place? Will that information be forthcoming, and will previous appointments that do not comply be upgraded to the point where they will all comply?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We anticipate that we will be able to reach agreement and those discussions will conclude over the next two or three months. Our intention is to provide the public with as much information as we can about the orders-in-council.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the Premier can advise us what the plan is in that process as far as CVs for these people are concerned. These names appear on orders-in-council, and we find that unless we're aware of who the people are and what their background is, the opposition gets one sentence from the government, perhaps in a press release. I think quite often it's important -- it's always important -- that the opposition scrutinize those appointments to make sure they're qualified and, hopefully, the best people for the job. This is something that I know the Premier spoke highly of when he was in opposition. It's something we strive to do in opposition also. It would be very helpful to receive a little more background on those appointments. I've requested them for a number of people on the various boards and commissions that fall within my critic area and have received, at best, a cursory paragraph on somebody's history. It's nice to know the person's background and whether in fact they're qualified. I think that's something we have a responsibility to do. Given the Premier's comment that he wants to provide the public with as much information as possible, is there going to be a process whereby we can look at a detailed CV -- without personal items but certainly with professional qualifications -- and see what the person's history and qualifications are so that the public can see it also?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That matter was not raised by the auditor general, but it is one I will take under consideration. I think the process that we have in place now has certainly opened up the boards, commissions and Crown corporation agencies to being much more representative of British Columbians in terms of the number of women represented on those boards -- at least half -- and a far greater representation of the minority communities, of aboriginal leaders and people from around the province. We think that the process is more open and more representative. The member has brought forward a proposal that we provide more information, and I will take that matter under consideration.
G. Farrell-Collins: I appreciate those comments, and I will pursue it at a later date with the Premier. If we are in the same situation next year, I am sure I will bring it up again.
I would caution the Premier that he shouldn't confuse opening up the positions to a wider variety of British Columbians with opening up the process, because the process is still as closed as ever. These appointments are made the same way they have always been made. There is no more openness involved in it at all. The government has centralized it in one person, who operates within the Ministry of Government Services, and that person does the scouting for the people to fill those positions. Those recommendations then go to the executive council, which the Premier chairs, and the appointments are made. That process is no more open; it is merely that the boards themselves.... The end result, as the Premier states, is more representative of the diverse cultures and the fact that there are two genders in this province. We should be clear on that.
[11:15]
I take the Premier's comments to heart, and I hope to see him in the short term with more information available. We do get a lot of calls, and many people call and ask who this person is -- they're an NDP from wherever. Sometimes it's true, but oftentimes it isn't, and there is somebody there who is very qualified. Because there is no information there, the public has this sense of mistrust; the sense that they are being fooled with and that these people aren't credible. A lot of credible people get appointed to these boards, as the Premier well knows, and it would be nice for the public to be able to look at those credentials and see that that person really is qualified. Sometimes on the surface it looks like a pure patronage appointment, and when you delve into it, it really isn't; other times it looks like it, smells like it and it is. It would be nice to determine which is which, so that the people who are there legitimately and are qualified are seen by the public. I would also encourage the Premier to try and come up with some method to open up that process, whether selecting these people for the boards is done through legislative committees or some other process that's a little more open, where the public has a better sense that these people are being chosen for qualifications as opposed to political ties.
I have a couple of other questions I want to ask the Premier. This relates directly to him chairing and dealing with the executive council. I don't want to delve into it too much, but the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi brought up the issue of the Premier's participation in advising the Finance minister on a certain budget measure. That certainly had an impact directly for the Premier, as well as the minister who sits behind him and a number of other ministers, including, I imagine, the Minister of Finance -- maybe not -- with respect to the value of their homes and the fact that there would be a direct impact on their well-being in the overturning of that tax measure. While I understand
[ Page 8026 ]
that the Premier is a resident of Vancouver and was affected by it, there were thousands of others who were also affected.
At the same time, the Premier said he was not reticent to involve himself in that process to make representations to the Finance minister, as a representative for his constituents. I personally don't have a problem with that; it's part of your job. If you weren't doing it, you'd get yourself in trouble, because you'd not be doing your job. Sometimes it's a delicate balance there. There didn't seem to be an abundance of caution. It's not the same abundance of caution we saw with the Premier absenting himself from the executive council debate and decisions as they related to the education disruptions that the students, teachers and parents in the province went through over a two- or three-month period this year. I'm wondering why there was an abundance of caution on the one hand and not the same reluctance to get involved on the other hand. In both cases there were direct or potential financial implications -- potential, I would say, in the case of education and factual and direct in the case of the budget measure. Why the different attitudes? Why the abundance of caution in the one and no reticence whatsoever in the other?
Hon. M. Harcourt: On the issue of the education matters that were before the government and cabinet, we had very clear direction from the conflict-of-interest commission, Ted Hughes, that if I were to be involved in any decisions involving the Vancouver School Board it would be a conflict. Even with my spouse not teaching -- running a couple of businesses, as a matter of fact -- the commissioner made it very clear that it would be a conflict to participate in discussions that centred only on the Vancouver School Board. I hope the member would agree that that wasn't just an abundance of caution. The commissioner said very clearly that that would be in breach of the conflict laws and therefore subject to the penalties that could come from being in a specific conflict.
To pass on phone requests, letters and petitions received from citizens and constituents to the Minister of Finance is a regular activity of every MLA. We all pass those on to the relevant minister or department. I undertook to pass on to the Minister of Finance the concerns and messages that people had sent to me.
G. Farrell-Collins: I would assume, then, that in the Premier's role as an MLA he was also passing on the telephone calls, letters and petitions by students, teachers and parents in the Vancouver School District to the Minister of Education and the Minister of Labour. I know I received many, and I'm sure he must have received a lot more than I did. I'm sure his volume of mail is substantially higher than mine. Can the House assume that the Premier also passed on all of that information to both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Education throughout that dispute?
Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, in discussing the role of an MLA or a cabinet minister, we're starting to get into areas where it is difficult to make the distinction between which is which. I can say very clearly that in regard to the school situation, where cabinet was discussing the Vancouver School Board, I excused myself from those discussions. The conflict-of-interest commissioner said very clearly that was the proper thing to do; it would have been a conflict to have taken part in those discussions.
With regard to the question of letters or petitions that my office received, those are routinely sent on by my constituency assistant to the ministers involved. I would assume that it would be no different for educational matters than it would be for those people who were concerned about Vancouver Community College, Clayoquot, Tatshenshini or the closure of Shaughnessy Hospital. Those petitions and those letters would be passed on to the relevant ministers.
G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the Premier can enlighten me. The Premier made reference to a ruling by Ted Hughes, the commissioner who reports to this Legislature, that if the Premier were to be involved in discussions that related to the Vancouver School District he could potentially have some sort of a conflict. That, therefore, was his reason for absenting himself as chair of the executive council during those deliberations. The conflict-of-interest commissioner, at the request of the Premier, in my understanding, was called in to make a quick ruling over about a 24-hour period prior to this House being called back on a Sunday a number of weeks ago to deal with the issue. Are we dealing with two separate rulings here: a previous ruling, and then a changed ruling that the conflict-of-interest commissioner made that weekend, given different information or a different environment or situation?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The advice that we had reiterated by the commissioner verbally on a Friday night, to put in writing on Sunday, May 30, was consistent with the advice that he had given the executive council many months prior to that -- as a matter of fact, after we were sworn in as the new cabinet. His advice was that this is one of the areas where cabinet members should exercise prudence and caution. So the advice that we had received as executive council from the conflict-of-interest commissioner over the last year and a half has been totally consistent and was confirmed very explicitly in writing in the letter that I tabled in the Legislature on May 30.
G. Farrell-Collins: The reason I'm asking these questions is that I don't think the issue was dealt with clearly in the minds of the public and certainly not through the media during that time. There were a lot of other issues that were up at the time, and this one seemed to be thrown out there but not really delved into in any detail. I think it's important that we clarify that both for your government and, I would imagine, for future governments.
The Premier says that the letter Mr. Hughes passed to him, which was reported through him to the Legislature on that Sunday, was consistent with advice he had given previously relating to that issue. Can the
[ Page 8027 ]
Premier advise us whether he or other members of the executive council were given similar advice relating to.... One case is when the Premier talks about education, because his wife is on a leave of absence from the Vancouver School Board and a potential benefit is involved. A number of members of the executive council have intimate relations with various trade unions; in fact, some are working for them. I don't know if they are on leave of absence or what the process is. Was the same warning given to members of the executive council, through the Premier from Mr. Hughes, in relation to cabinet discussions and executive council deliberations with regard to changes in the labour code?
Hon. M. Harcourt: No, generic advice was not given in that area. But I am sure the member is aware of other instances where members of cabinet have not participated in a discussion because they may have owned some mining stock or had a mutual fund that would create a conflict.
G. Farrell-Collins: I know the Premier said he absented himself -- as did a number of other ministers -- from cabinet discussions as the education dispute developed. A number of issues were thrown around in the lead-up, trying to come to grips with this dispute before we ultimately came to the brick wall. The designation of education as an essential service was considered a number of times. I know the Minister of Labour was grappling with that. I know that the Premier can't tell me, but I would assume that that issue was discussed in cabinet also. If that issue had been discussed, would the Premier have absented himself from those discussions also?
Hon. M. Harcourt: If discussions involve a broad class, as with discussions over a labour code or discussions about the essential service nature of education in British Columbia -- after the decision from the Labour Relations Board, of course -- then it could not be an actual or perceived conflict. But if it is specific, as it was with the Vancouver School Board and some of the other school boards, Mr. Hughes made it clear that there would be a conflict situation, and we would be in violation of the conflict-of-interest act and should excuse ourselves from discussions around that specific matter.
G. Farrell-Collins: Just a final point of clarification on that. The Premier is stating that if the issue of essential services had been requested by the Vancouver School Board, for example, in that case the Premier would have felt that it was close enough to home to absent himself. That wasn't just a general term. In fact, the application would have been made by the Vancouver School District for a ruling. He feels that he would have had to absent himself from that discussion because it was not general and provincewide; it dealt specifically with that district and specifically with his spouse.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes.
G. Farrell-Collins: If that issue had been discussed as it related to another school district and any member of the executive council had ties with that district, the Premier would have also expected that minister to absent himself or herself from that discussion -- if it was related to a particular district where they had an interest.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's my final question. I thank the Premier for his forthright answers. I think it's important that we clear those issues up so we know what those rules are.
[11:30]
J. Weisgerber: I'd like to ask the Premier a few questions surrounding the relationship between the B.C. Trade Development Corporation and the Crown corporations secretariat. We're given to understand that the secretariat applies levies to various Crown corporations to support a rather substantial bureaucracy that has been created to essentially manage and oversee the various Crown corporations. My first question is as to whether or not the B.C. Trade Development Corporation pays a levy -- like B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail and other Crown corporations -- and contributes toward the Crown corporations secretariat.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I find this a little awkward. I thought we had signed off from the Trade Development Corporation estimates yesterday afternoon, and on the basis of discussions between our House Leaders I didn't have our CEO or COO come back today. But I can tell the Leader of the Third Party that we did canvass that particular issue fairly extensively yesterday afternoon. I confirmed that B.C. Trade pays a $12,000 fee to cover the administrative cost of the Crown corporations secretariat. Although I don't have the information at my fingertips, I would be pleased to send the member a list of the services the Crown corporations secretariat provides to B.C. Trade for that $12,000 fee.
J. Weisgerber: One challenge of the Legislature is to try and follow the debates of two sets of estimates at one time, so I apologize for not being aware of the discussions that went on previously. I would be curious to know the kinds of services that the Crown corporations secretariat might provide to a Crown corporation like B.C. Trade, which is headed by the Premier, has a $155,000-plus CEO and has a $100,000-or-thereabouts COO. One would think that all the services that corporation could possibly need would already be provided by a somewhat top-heavy organization. But I will take the Premier at his word, and wait with some interest for the information regarding the services provided by Bob Williams and company.
A. Warnke: I just have a few questions for the Premier concerning not only contacts with other Premiers across Canada, but contacts with our neighbours to the south of us -- and to the north of us, for that matter. In particular, I was wondering whether
[ Page 8028 ]
there is anything in the Premier's office, in terms of expenditures, involved in maintaining contact with, let's say, the Governors of Washington, Oregon and Alaska?
Hon. M. Harcourt: We don't have a special budget for those items. It's part of the general intergovernmental relations activities. Yes, I have met with Governor Hickel; both the present Governor of the state of Washington, Mike Lowry, and the past Governor, Booth Gardner; the Governor of Idaho; and representatives of the Governor of Oregon on the softwood lumber issue. I met with the Governor of California, Pete Wilson, in Sacramento when I was in California last fall to talk about a number of trade, energy and environmental issues where we think there are great opportunities for British Columbia companies to work with our California friends. There have been specific contacts.
More close to home, though, we have a very active relationship with the Governor and the people of Washington State on an environmental accord that we've signed onto and are very actively pursuing. The Governor and I are very interested in pursuing the Georgia basin growth management strategy. We are very actively pursuing it. Our officials are meeting now and tying down some of the details: better utilization of urban lands, transportation initiatives, air pollution and other environmental matters, so that we can deal with the growth of this area of southwestern British Columbia and northwest Washington State from 5 million people now to 10 million people in the next 30 to 40 years.
It's a very exciting new concept that we've entered into with our neighbours to the south. The flow back and forth between British Columbia and Washington and into the trillion-dollar market to the south is very extensive and exciting, and the connections are growing. For example, one of the three great high-tech areas in North America now is what is called the evergreen corridor. The flow back and forth between our high-tech companies and into Washington State is huge and growing. As a matter of fact, we are marketing those services into the Asia-Pacific very specifically. We have joint tourism marketing strategies. So there is no specific item, but there certainly is massive interest in working with our friends in Washington, Oregon and California on a variety of issues.
As well, I attend the western Premiers' meetings that take place in May of each year. It didn't take place this May, because of a very busy schedule that the Premier in Alberta had with the election. There's the Premiers' meetings that take place every August, where we pursue a number of strategies that we've developed around the economy and fiscal relationships with the federal government and how we're all dealing with our goal of capping and reducing the deficit within a low-dollar, low-interest fiscal policy that we hope will be continued by the federal government.
In summary to the member, there is not a specific budget item. It is contained in the activities. These are some of the activities that the intergovernmental relations branch of the Premier's office is occupied with. It is very busy, as you can see.
A. Warnke: Thanks to the Premier for his elaborate answer. A couple of questions will follow from that. The Premier mentioned that there is an interest in international relations and that sort of thing. Also, most of the answer that the Premier gave was in the context of the Premier's contact with Governors in the states of Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California, as well as with the Premiers of other western provinces. What kind of contact has the Premier had with the Governor of Alaska, in particular since the Tatshenshini case has been resolved as a result of the government's action with regard to the Tatshenshini area? I was also wondering about the extent to which the Premier and the Premier's office have actually been in contact with the Governor's office in the state of Alaska.
Hon. M. Harcourt: I met with Governor Hickel a number of months ago and discussed a full range of issues, including highways in the northwestern part of British Columbia and a number of schemes that the Governor is interested in in terms of trade into the eastern part of Russia, into Primorye and Vladivostok and that area.
As you can see in the announcement on the Tatshenshini, we talked about an international advisory committee to deal with the very exciting land use opportunity we have to bring together four very significant park and wilderness areas that adjoin each other. Follow-up discussions will take place with the Premier of the Yukon, the Governor of Alaska and their officials, Canadian and U.S. government officials and people who are involved in the international community. Not only do we want to see this become an integrated park and wilderness opportunity and example for the rest of the world, but we want to see other areas of the world repeat this cooperation -- for example, in South America around the Amazon, maybe in the Himalayas, the Serengeti Plains and other areas of Africa. I think this can serve as a model as to how we can reach across borders to satisfy needs for breathing space and for very exciting park and wilderness preserves that we can all be proud of.
A. Warnke: In the press release of June 22 announcing the Tatshenshini-Alsek as a new provincial wilderness park, the Premier said his quest was for the Tatshenshini-Alsek to become a world heritage site. I note that in order to become a world heritage site, an application will have to be promoted by the British Columbia government and presented before the United Nations World Heritage Committee, a part of the United Nations. Therefore I strongly suspect, given that the attempt to pursue a new St. Elias-Tatshenshini world wilderness reserve will have to be advanced by the Premier.... How active will the Premier's office be in contacting the United Nations and in particular the United Nations World Heritage Committee? How active will the Premier's office be in contacting and negotiating, I suppose, first of all, with the Alaska
[ Page 8029 ]
government, and then with the Canadian, American and Yukon governments? Indeed, I believe there was even mention of a Canadian first nations government. Would the Premier perhaps elaborate on what kind of plan is in place, and what resources are being allocated to contact these many different governments and agencies to establish this area as a world heritage site?
Hon. M. Harcourt: That's a very good question. The answer is that the Premier's intergovernmental relations office will help coordinate the dialogue that will essentially be carried out through some of the line ministries, such as the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and other key ministries like Aboriginal Affairs, because there are aboriginal interests involved here. That is the approach we will be taking. First of all, it's important that this be a made-in-B.C. decision and that we make the decision on what approach to take with that exciting land area. We have, and now we can pursue on a concurrent basis the development of the park and wilderness area. We've talked about bringing in people to deal with the boundary issues and a number of other issues that need to be addressed. As well, some international discussions need to take place, and yes, I have had discussions with some of the international community about this designation.
[11:45]
A. Warnke: Perhaps my question was just too comprehensive. I appreciate the answer given by the Premier, but I suppose what I'm pursuing here is the extent to which the Premier's office has been in touch with the Canadian government over establishing this world wilderness reserve. Also, I'm very curious about the contacts established by the Premier's office with the government of the United States, as well as the government of Alaska. I would appreciate it if the Premier could elaborate on that.
Again, what efforts have been made by the Premier's office to be in touch with the United Nations World Heritage Committee? Who's in charge of that? Would that be the international relations office? Is this decision exclusively in the hands of the international relations office, or is this given some drive by the Premier's office?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sorry. I'm not quite understanding the question, because the intergovernmental relations office is part of the Premier's office. As I said earlier, their responsibility will be to coordinate communications with surrounding governments in the Yukon and Alaska, the national governments of the United States and Canada and, of course, the international community. The detailed discussions will be carried by the line ministries of Environment, Lands and Parks and, as I said, Aboriginal Affairs and some other ministries. But the coordination of that activity will be through the intergovernmental relations office.
C. Tanner: This is an extremely interesting subject that my fellow member has opened up with the Premier. Listening to the Premier, one can't help but think that we're listening not only to a Premier but also to a foreign minister for B.C. When you think about those international relationships that the Premier is talking about, who else but the Premier would handle them? Consequently, it is logical that these things would come out of his office and be paid for under his vote. In that respect, I wonder whether there has been any discussion at all about jurisdiction over the proposed park and any trade-offs between the various jurisdictions involved, be they Alaska, the Yukon or B.C., as to how that park will be operated -- even going so far as to ask whether the Premier or his cabinet or his committee have given any thought at all to trading off that whole area for something else in the Alaska panhandle or in the Yukon.
Hon. M. Harcourt: Just to make it clear, this is going to be designated as a class A provincial park. That decision was taken by the government on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Any contacts with the United States government are generally made through External Affairs and through our embassy, so we are following the usual protocol of relationships.
I want to go back to the fact that this was a decision made in British Columbia for British Columbians. We think it can be part of a very exciting land use designation, with the circumstance of having a very significant and beautiful park in the Yukon. As an ex-Yukoner, the member is aware of Kluane National Park, which is a very significant and wonderful park. There are two very significant areas on the panhandle on either side of a very large military reserve area. The four of them together, as the previous member outlined, could become part of an international designation. Those discussions are going to start over the next few months, and we will make sure that the members are informed. If they have advice or ideas from their experience in the northern area on how to carry out those discussions, we are certainly open to suggestions.
A. Warnke: Just to follow up on that point, I believe the Premier did mention a few moments ago that this decision was made in British Columbia. I think this was one area of concern, and I'll give you an example of that. A letter was written to the Times-Colonist on January 8, 1993, in which the person stated, with regard to the Tatshenshini area: "I am also concerned about the matter of Canadian sovereignty. Where a transboundary environmental issue exists, there are mechanisms for dealing country to country with the matter. With regard to the Tatshenshini, where there may be real transboundary environmental concerns, these are part of the...development review process, which involves U.S. government agencies." I think that pretty well summarizes one concern here: that the kind of park intended by pursuing the Tatshenshini as a world heritage site might somehow create an international involvement in the area that might put into question the sovereignty, I suppose, of British Columbia and Canada.
Since this issue has been raised as early as this year, perhaps the Premier would elaborate on the future of
[ Page 8030 ]
the Tatshenshini area and whether being an international area necessarily involves the governments of the United States and Alaska as well as the Canadian and British Columbia governments. There is an impression, especially when we start talking in terms of land use, that this is a park that will be untouched and undeveloped. Could the Premier reassure us that this is definitely the future of the Tatshenshini area? There is also a concern that if other governments are involved, especially American government agencies, the land use designation may actually be changed to reflect the interests and pursuits of those agencies. I'm encouraged by some of the Premier's earlier remarks, but I would really appreciate it if he would elaborate and give us some definite assurance that the future of the Tatshenshini area is that it is indeed permanent. What does he have in mind?
Hon. M. Harcourt: I can give you that assurance. It is permanent. It is a class A provincial park, and world heritage designation does not impinge on the sovereignty of Canada. As the member is aware, there is already access for over 1,000 people to go river rafting on the Tatshenshini. A highway goes in and around the park area, and 40,000 people a year are going by the park. That will probably expand quite significantly over the next few years. We hope that the people of British Columbia, Alaska and the Yukon, and other visitors, will take advantage of this beautiful area of the world and the four parks that exist there.
A. Warnke: I just have one quick last question. Earlier this year the New York Times encouraged its readership to send all sorts of Mailgrams to the Premier. I'm just curious as to the amount of mail the Premier received as a result of the New York Times strongly worded advertisement. It was probably not advocated by them, but certainly the ad appeared in the New York Times. I wonder how many Mailgrams the Premier received and how much it cost to process those.
Hon. M. Harcourt: As I described yesterday, the Premier's office received about 120,000 pieces of mail last year. I can try and isolate out the number that related to the Tatshenshini. There were 2,500 pieces on the Tatshenshini. Within that 2,500, I will try and find out how many were sent because of the New York Times ad.
G. Farrell-Collins: I hope those 2,500 New Yorkers come out here and actually take advantage of the park they have forced the government to create.
I have a final question to the Premier, and it goes back to what we were discussing earlier. It's just a quick question of clarification I thought of as I was sitting here. The advice that Ted Hughes gave the executive council -- I think the Premier said shortly after them assuming office -- was that anyone who had a spouse or a direct relationship with anyone in a school district should not be involved in any discussions that impacted that school district. I asked the question about the labour issue also, and the Premier stated that there was no advice given. Can the Premier tell me whether or not that advice given to the executive council regarding school districts was in writing or in an oral briefing?
Hon. M. Harcourt: The advice was more general than that. The advice was that if the cabinet was dealing with a general, broad class of people, say those involved in education in a provincial sense or involved under a new labour code that dealt with workers across the province, that would not be a conflict. But if the cabinet was dealing with a very specific jurisdiction, like the Vancouver School Board, where a member of cabinet either was employed or had a spouse or significant other employed or on leave, that would be a conflict. That's the advice that came in a general discussion with Mr. Hughes of the new conflict laws which we were going to be implementing. I think we're all still being very careful to make sure that we do exercise an abundance of caution around not just real conflict but the appearance of conflict. I think all of us as members, not just members of cabinet but all MLAs, are trying to define where the lines are and what's over the line and shouldn't be done and what's within the proper activities for an MLA or cabinet minister.
G. Farrell-Collins: That's exactly the reason I'm asking these questions, because I think it needs to be thrashed out. The Premier stated that the direction given was that if it was a general issue that dealt with education or teachers, it wouldn't be a problem, but if it was a specific district, then it could be a problem. Would the same apply so that labour legislation regarding workers in the province in general wouldn't be a conflict, but in dealing with a specific trade union or a specific labour dispute, then the same caution that the Premier exhibited would be expected of other members of the executive council if they were somewhat associated with a particular union involved in a labour dispute.
Hon. M. Harcourt: If there was a pecuniary interest, that would create a conflict, as there would be if you were involved in business or investments -- as a number of our cabinet members are. It would apply in either of those circumstances.
G. Farrell-Collins: I think that's it. We have no further questions for the Premier.
Vote 7 approved.
On vote 8: British Columbia Trade Development Corporation, $17,975,000 -- approved.
Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 8031 ]
Committee of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The Committee met at 10:16 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
(continued)
On vote 11: minister's office, $340,200 (continued).
G. Wilson: Last night when we adjourned, we had completed student-related issues. When we talked about how this was going to be broken down from the official opposition perspective, it divides into three general categories. This morning I would like to concentrate on the institutions. There are a number of issues around institutions that I'd like to look at: the first is obviously funding, the second is employee relations, and the third is the introduction of UNBC. I would like to look at a comparative costing of that with respect to the other universities. I would like to talk about research and research dollars that are available at the universities, as well as new site development in the Fraser Valley with respect to the potential new university there. Some other local issues will be brought in by various MLAs who have colleges within their constituencies and have specific concerns. With respect to that, I would yield to the member for Vancouver-Langara to commence on Langara College.
Hon. T. Perry: I wonder if the member would allow me the courtesy of introducing the officials again, for those who weren't here last night and may not be familiar with them. Shell Harvey is the assistant deputy minister for universities, colleges and institutes; he'll be filling in for the deputy minister, who had to be in Kelowna today on a fairly urgent meeting. Dr. Har Singh is our director of policy planning and program evaluation. Fern Jeffries is the assistant deputy minister for the skills development division, and Dr. Deborah George is the assistant deputy minister for the science and technology division. So all three divisions of the ministry are represented here by the assistant deputy ministers. Somewhere we have Jim Crone -- he'll be back in a second -- who is the executive director of the administration and support services division, which handles the student financial assistance area.
V. Anderson: I want to ask about Langara College campus. We had a fairly long and protracted strike there last year involving both the staff and the students, who were concerned about the future of the college. I'm wondering if the minister might give us an update on what has happened since the strike, and what the directions are for Langara campus from the point of view of the ministry at this time.
Hon. T. Perry: It is a huge question and a fairly complex answer. I will do my best to be brief.
During the labour dispute last fall the board requested that the current Vancouver Community College be divided on April 1, 1994, into two new institutions: a Langara College and an ongoing Vancouver Community College that would consist of the King Edward campus and the downtown campus. The government acceded to that request from the board on the understanding that the maximum incremental cost due to additional administrative costs would be $850,000 per year. That is the figure that the board presented to the government in late November or early December 1992. We have made clear to the college board that we are prepared to honour that commitment as of April 1, 1994, which will be the next fiscal year beyond the one we are currently discussing. The board and the whole institution are now wrestling with the mechanics of how to achieve that, with a substantial budget deficit which arises as a consequence of the management of the institution and of the collective agreements signed with the employees. I think they are attempting to do a very difficult job, and we are working closely with them. They have recently hired a transitional comptroller, Mr. Chris Ebbehoj, who has very close, ongoing contact with ministry officials.
It might be easier to address specific questions, because it is such a complex process. One could take hours trying to answer that question.
V. Anderson: Let's first look at that $850,000. I have two questions that relate to it. Is that $850,000 divided between what would be the two new campuses? How does that divide between them? And what provision is there in the current year for finances for the transition, before that $850,000 kicks in on April 1, 1994?
Hon. T. Perry: The $850,000 would be provided as an addition to the total base funding of the current or the two new institutions. We have entrusted the board to decide how that would appropriately be dispensed. The basic concept is that administering two institutions will be somewhat more expensive than administering one, by virtue of the fact that some functions now have to be duplicated. That was one reason for not being enthusiastic about a split of the institution, although there were also good reasons to favour a split. The
[ Page 8032 ]
board presented a figure which appeared a reasonable cost that I could justify to the taxpayer, and we accepted it. But it would be premature to speculate right now exactly how the $850,000 might be split up.
V. Anderson: Am I to assume that the present board, which oversees the whole complex at the moment, is making the basic decisions about the split-up? Will a new board be in place for Langara campus? If so, when will that new board be in place? At what point is negotiation going to be in line from that new board on behalf of Langara campus, as against the other two? Will there be two boards as of the division?
Hon. T. Perry: Yes, there will be as of the division.
V. Anderson: You said there's a person on the transition at this point. As of the division, could you explain then how that transition is in place so that the various campuses are getting their input into this process before it takes place?
Hon. T. Perry: There is a transition council which includes the presidents of the faculty associations at the two parts of the current VCC -- the VCCFA and the LFA -- that represents the Vancouver Municipal and Regional Employees Union, that represents the administrators and board members, which is attempting to work out the mechanics of dividing the assets, the responsibilities and the liabilities of the existing institution, including its deficit.
V. Anderson: Is there student representation on that transition team? If not, why would there not be some student representation?
The Chair: The requirement of the standard orders is that debate be carried out through the Chair. I remind the committee of that.
Hon. T. Perry: The students are not represented on the transition council. That is a decision that the college itself made. The board is ultimately responsible for that. I could speculate on the reasons why they didn't; I'd only be speculating, however, so it's probably better if I don't.
V. Anderson: Perhaps I could follow that one up. Will the minister help to get some process in place so that even if the students are not on the board, there will be some way that they can be consulted? There is a broad range of students of different ages there; it's a particularly interesting campus in the kind of people that it serves. Representation and consultation should have some place in the process. Is the minister planning to make sure that kind of consultation takes place, even if they're not on that transition team?
Hon. T. Perry: The College and Institute Act excludes the appointment of students registered in the institution to a board of governors. That may or may not be a good thing; that's the law at the moment. It's impossible for me to name students of VCC to the board of VCC.
Nonetheless, I have given all of the board members a clear mandate that their primary function is to serve the students; I have no doubt that they understand that. As board members exercising a power delegated by the minister on behalf of the Legislature and the public, they serve the students and the broader society. They have had frequent contact with students in all parts of the institution. On one occasion, they were actually barricaded into their own boardroom, to their great discomfort, by protesting students. They are well familiar with and striving very hard to represent the interests of all the students, and I have no question that that is their paramount concern.
V. Anderson: I have also had a fair bit of experience with the King Edward campus, so I'm aware of the programs there and of some of the distinctions between the King Edward campus and the Vancouver Langara campus. With the separation of those campuses, would the minister indicate what he sees as the major focus or services that the Langara campus might be providing that distinguishes it from the King Edward or the campus downtown?
Hon. T. Perry: The institution is like some others, but perhaps more so than any other of the comprehensive community colleges, it has historically utilized a sense of division of labour in the three campuses. The Langara campus specializes in academic university transfer programs, but also offers a substantial English-as-a-second-language program and career and technical programs such as nursing or journalism. The King Edward campus specializes in adult basic education and English-as-a-second-language courses, and it offers more of those programs than any other institution in the province. In ESL, it's more than all the others put together. It also offers some highly specialized programs for people with disabilities, the deaf community in particular, and various other disability programs. Not all of them are unique. Douglas College, for example, offers some similar programs.
[10:30]
The downtown campus specializes in trades and vocational training, as the member knows, and now a world-renowned cooking program and various other heavy trades programs.
V. Anderson: Picking up on the English-as-a-second-language program, this had been a major concern at all of the campuses. The demand is far exceeding the ability of those campuses to finance them, and yet that is a major concern for job creation and integration of people into the community and society. Has the minister some comment about this basic program, which is fundamental to anything else that's happening in ESL at all of these campuses, and the direction in which that might be strengthened?
Hon. T. Perry: Most of the 300 new full-time-equivalent spaces that were fully funded at
[ Page 8033 ]
VCC this year, in contrast to many of the other colleges where we funded at 85 percent, went to ESL. That shows you where the ministry's priorities are.
V. Anderson: When we look at that which is a support in that particular area, of course that puts pressure on the other areas. Can we ask about the nature of overcrowding, because the Langara campus and the other campuses have been plagued with the inability of students to get into the programs and the courses? Can the minister comment on what's being done to alleviate the pressure in those particular programs?
Hon. T. Perry: There's a difference between the two campuses. Langara is certainly overcrowded. Space at King Edward is frequently underutilized. I'm told that it's not uncommon to find empty classrooms there in the middle of the day.
Treasury Board recently approved $1 million in planning funds for enhancement of the Langara campus, and the expectation is that in 1994-95 -- next fiscal year -- roughly $14 million will be available for expansion of the Langara campus. I emphasize that that's an approximate figure subject to modification, depending on the planning study, and to budget constraints, but I give that figure in the context of all the other planning we're doing for the system.
V. Anderson: Regarding the $14 million and the planning, is that for expansion of the buildings to new buildings? Is it for improvement or rearrangement or upgrading of the present building? There is a fair bit of upgrading in everything that is needed in the present building, from the library to the classrooms to the hallways and all the way through. That was a major concern during the strike, as well -- the conditions in the buildings and also the equipment that was available.
It doesn't seem to me that $14 million is very much if you're looking at internal renovations and upgrading as well as external expansion.
Hon. T. Perry: Both, hon. Chair.
V. Anderson: When I visited the campus last year, I heard from people that there were two major concerns -- and you talked about this somewhat the other day -- regarding application forms for grants and assistance. First, the forms are so complicated that many of the students had to have assistance from supervisors to complete them, so they were frustrated. Second, they completed the forms in the fall, but by the next January or February they still hadn't heard whether they were going to receive the grant. So there were two major concerns: one about the nature of the form, and one about the length of time it took to get a response for the grants.
Hon. T. Perry: The form has been greatly simplified. I will take this opportunity to pass one over to the hon. member so as not to abuse the privileges of the committee.
The form has been simplified to four basic pages. There are supplementary pages, depending on the complexity of the student's case. In the simplest case, one can do it with four pages. It has been completely overhauled this year. We are now moving into the implementation of a computerized central processing system for student loan applications, which we expect will greatly accelerate the turnaround time. We have been able to cut the backlog in issuing loan remissions from about 30 weeks at this time last year down to eight weeks now. We are doing our best to shorten the turnaround on loan applications to the minimum possible time.
It is rather difficult because we have, if my memory serves me, about half as many staff in the ministry offices a few blocks from here per number of loans in British Columbia as does, say, the province of Alberta. It is a fairly tight ship. People are working quite hard. They are occasionally subject to abuse by customers who are disgruntled with the result and who come in to harass the staff. It is a fairly high-pressure working environment, but they have accomplished a lot in the last year to improve the situation.
V. Anderson: I know that last year there was a difficulty in student relationships for a whole variety of reasons. Has there been some work done by the ministry to try to improve the student relationships to the college and the government in that particular area of concern? There was a whole variety of issues: the nature of the college, crowding, interactions between students and faculty, and uncertainty on Langara campus for so many years.
Hon. T. Perry: The first step was the complete overhaul of the VCC board. It was the most ethnically diverse, philosophically diverse board in the post-secondary system, probably in the history of the province. It also had more females than males on it -- and still has, I think. I gave that board a mandate: please get to know the students, faculty, support unions, administrators; get to know the college from the ground up. I think they have taken that seriously.
A second approach was.... In last year's estimates we debated the episode of sexual harassment of a student at Langara in 1991. I'm not sure it would serve much purpose to go over that ground now.
A third approach is the issue of whether legislative change ought to be made to the relationship between student societies and post-secondary institutions. The Canadian Federation of Students, through both its central organization and the various chapters, has lobbied me on a number of occasions to change the legislation. For the time being, I have suggested a less formal and less confrontational approach. Institutions where the student society has had a combative relationship with the administration, or vice versa, might well learn from institutions where the relationship is quite smooth. I have suggested both to the Canadian Federation of Students and to the Advanced Education Council of B.C. that they sit down together and simply learn from the successful relationships. I believe that that would provide an expeditious resolution to their
[ Page 8034 ]
problems. Were that not sufficient, I would be prepared to move to legislation, but it's a relatively cumbersome way to solve a problem that should not be so difficult to solve.
V. Anderson: Yes, I think there has been a change in student population, particularly in areas like community colleges where a very large percentage of the population is mature students. They are older people who have been in other occupations and are coming back, and they are there part-time and for a short time, which has both strengths and weaknesses. Is there a particular area, other than the university campus, to deal with programs or are there people in your ministry who are trying to deal with the particular characteristics of a community college like Vancouver Langara which has one complexity in the academic, King Edward which has another, and the downtown campus which has a third?
Perhaps the minister could give us a profile of the average age, experience and background of persons who come to colleges. I know that at one time they were thought of as mostly being people coming directly out of high school. It would be my guess that at the moment a small proportion of those people come directly out of high school and a large proportion, who may be in their forties, fifties and even sixties, come out of previous job experiences.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure we have precise statistics. It's true that the average age of students is increasing rapidly. There's no such thing as an average student. They are a very diverse population.
We have sought on ministry advisory committees -- such as the committee studying the mandate and governance of colleges and institutes, the Orum committee last year, the council on admissions and transfers, etc. -- to ensure that mature students who are also parents are represented. Interestingly, student societies such as the CFS are beginning to ensure representation of such students on their governing councils.
I have found a statistic here. Students aged 25 and over now represent nearly 30 percent of all full-time enrolments -- that would be in the whole post-secondary system -- compared to 20 percent during the mid-seventies. The rate of increase in full-time enrolment between 1976-77 and 1991 -- a 14-year time period -- for students under 24 was just under 30 percent. The rate of increase of students 25 and older was almost 100 percent in that period.
V. Anderson: I would project that part-time students are probably at least 50 percent or 75 percent older people. I would expect it's much larger in that other area and therefore makes a big difference as to the evening and weekend programs that might be undertaken.
One of the terms that we have in community colleges is the thought that it's serving its community, and that was one of the philosophies I understand is behind the program. There are two ways: one is to what extent it's drawing students from its immediate community or from a broader area. That's one part of the question. The other part of the question is: what kind of liaison or programming is the ministry encouraging and supporting for the colleges to relate to the community around it -- its business and residential people? So I'm asking for the in-college educational programs and for out-of-college programs for liaison and being part of the support of the community.
Hon. T. Perry: I'm sorry, hon. Chair. I was given a disturbing message that distracted my attention. I'll have to ask the member to repeat the question.
V. Anderson: I'm sorry that the minister has disturbing messages in the midst of estimates. We sympathize with you.
[10:45]
A concern is that a community college in its original concept was to relate to its community, and I'm using Langara as an example. Is it meeting the needs of that particular community, as well as a particular academic program? Is the ministry asking the college how it serves that community, in meeting the programs within the college and also relating and liaising with the business and residential people of the community itself?
Hon. T. Perry: That's a very important and complex question. Various mechanisms ensure that that happens at the local level. One is the appointment of the board of governors; another is the advisory councils for college programs. At the provincial level, one has to remember that each of the colleges -- with the possible exception of one or two of the more remote ones -- serves to some extent a provincial and occasionally a national audience. VCC certainly performs that role in all of its programs, as well as being a key resource for the local community of Vancouver and environs. To rely on the college board or local advisory committees alone to ensure that the interests of all British Columbians are integrated in planning is asking a bit too much, so we reserve some of that responsibility within the ministry.
In appointing the current board we sought a very diverse community representation, partly to ensure exactly the goals that the hon. member has described. The colleges themselves set up their program advisory committees; we have no problems with the way we do it, but we don't control that. The three-year planning review which each institution performs is done in conjunction with the ministry, and we have continuous feedback.
I don't think the system is perfect; I think we're always trying to improve it. Certainly one of the lessons from the Premier's summit last week is that sometimes there's ongoing frustration. It tends to be a bit anecdotal and sometimes is magnified beyond the degree of real dissatisfaction with the institutions.
I believe that in the future we are going to revert to the vision that John Macdonald and others had when the community college system was set up, and reinforce the rootedness of the community college in the surrounding society and economic community. I think that's a healthy thing. There has been some drift away
[ Page 8035 ]
from it in the last 20 years, and I think we're tending to go back.
V. Anderson: I presume the present board will be phasing out as far as Vancouver College is concerned. When the changeover is made, does that mean that the people who come to be part of the board of Langara campus would have a strong base within the business and residential community? Does it mean there would be changes in the boards of the other two colleges so that they also would have a stronger residential base?
Hon. T. Perry: Yes.
V. Anderson: Might the minister explain how the appointment of those members is arrived at? Are there nominations from the community or the college? If we look at the new Langara campus board, for instance, how will nominations for board members be processed and brought about?
Hon. T. Perry: We solicit nominations from all possible sources.
V. Anderson: I would like to come back for a moment to the community liaison reaching out into the community itself. Are particular funds available and earmarked for that part of the college's work -- apart from its teaching function -- in order to give it a sense of direction and some resources to work with in reaching out into the community? If such funds are not available, then it takes away from the other programs of the college. It also takes away from staff time, which means that the staff are doing that over and above, as volunteer work. If the government is really saying -- as the minister has directed -- that there is a concern to be part of the community, there need to be some staff time and financial resources in order to make that possible. We have worked with these people in the past, and they are overloaded and overstressed. Without that support, the ministry is not really supporting the college in one of its prime objectives and functions.
Hon. T. Perry: All of the post-secondary institutions have remarkable freedom of delegated power over their expenditures. They do have formula funding, but they have a substantial amount of discretion in how they spend their own money. We trust them to spend it in the public's best interests.
V. Anderson: I take it that by giving them full discretion, the minister has not given them any sense of what the ministry hopes will happen as a result. I presume they do so in the area of academic planning. I am trying to discover whether the ministry has given any mandate and any sense of direction in the funding to the community colleges for that community liaison outreach program, so that if the colleges do that, they realize that it is part of the mandate of the program.
Hon. T. Perry: They realize that. There is a very long tradition of a voluntary effort in this area by the community advisory committees. My experience is that most people in the community -- whether they are serving on the boards of the institutions or are in the business or labour or employer community, or in community services -- are not looking to be paid for that work. They are quite prepared to do that. My encouragement to faculty in the institutions has been that they have a responsibility, as part of their entitlement to their jobs, to serve the public. I continue to be impressed by the willingness of faculty in colleges and universities to reach out and serve their communities. They have tended to be rewarded better for that within the colleges than within the universities, but I have given an unequivocal message both to college and to university boards continuously since my appointment that the government respects community service as much as it respects academic output -- perhaps more than it respects the publish-or-perish culture.
V. Anderson: You mentioned the community advisory committee. Are you referring to the board or to another committee apart from the board? If it is apart from the board, what is the mandate and place of that committee within the college function?
Hon. T. Perry: Most programs have advisory councils. I was referring both to that and to the appointed board, which is continuously reaching out to the community.
V. Anderson: I have one final question on another area. What kind of encouragement is the ministry giving for work-study programs, whereby the students are involved in study programs and related work programs, as part of the undertaking in the colleges?
Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure if the member meant work-study in the technical sense that we use it or the broader field of cooperative education as well. I'll answer for both.
In this year's budget we project $3.55 million, which is an increase of $155,000, for formal work-study that will assist up to 4,075 students. That provides financial support through on-campus work to students whose financial need surpasses that afforded by the loan and grant programs we discussed last night. It includes paying post-secondary students to help other students who are physically disabled or who have linguistic problems. We provide that on a block funding basis, and the institutions decide how they will spend it for those purposes.
We also strongly support cooperative education. B.C. is the per capita leader in Canada in cooperative education, although we didn't pioneer it. We've been the most aggressive, but we're not satisfied. We're encouraging the boards to push cooperative education at every possible juncture, and we are encouraging employers to take advantage of the chance to get to know the students in the cooperative programs, and get themselves some really good employees for the future.
J. Tyabji: I want to spend a bit of time this morning on Okanagan University College. As the minister is aware, there are some very exciting developments
[ Page 8036 ]
there. Last year, there was a question asked on my behalf by the member for Surrey-White Rock about when Okanagan University College would be included under the University Act. I understand there are some ongoing discussions with the ministry now, and there's a debate locally, as the minister may be aware, about whether Okanagan University College should be under the University Act or under an amended act to remain a university college. So my first question is: what is the minister's overriding objective with regard to Okanagan University College?
Hon. T. Perry: I welcome the opportunity to answer that question again. I've answered it in Vernon and Kelowna in public speeches recently. Our commitment is that Okanagan University College shall remain a comprehensive institution that serves all of the needs of the community, including vocational career training, as well as offering degrees; and that it will not in the foreseeable future -- it might well at some point down the road -- become a university under the University Act. It's clearly to remain a comprehensive community college, but we do envisage that it will likely be offering its own degrees in the relatively near future. The exact timetable is not yet clear, and Okanagan University College is not particularly pressing us for immediate degree-granting capacity. But we are continuing to work through that and to define the mandate of the university colleges in the committee, which is still working on reform of governance.
J. Tyabji: If we can step back a bit, considering the capital infrastructure of Okanagan University College preceding the recent opening of the new campus, isn't there an opportunity to have two institutions, or some kind of system of assisted institutions where you would have a university at the new campus and a vocational college through the old infrastructure in some kind of partnership? Subsequent to that, I'd like to talk about the differences between the university and the vocational institute so that the minister is aware of the debate that's been happening in the community. This has been an interesting one between those who are in a position to advance the idea of a university and the general public, many students and some faculty, who are not in a position to advance that but who are definitely pushing the idea of a university separate and apart from a degree-granting institution or a preliminary post-secondary institution that would also have vocational training. So why would that not be an option? Or is that the kind of option that the minister is referring to?
[11:00]
Hon. T. Perry: That is an option, but it is not an option that has been accepted by this government. We're very clear on that; we believe in the comprehensive community college model. At some future point, if the population of the Okanagan and the province continues to expand, one might imagine -- I personally hope not, but it may arise -- that the population of B.C. will be six, seven or ten million people. We may require an additional university, and it might well be that that university would arise out of the present Okanagan University College. I hope that day is long in the future. Some population growth may be healthy, but I hope we are not to the ten-million mark for some time yet. In the foreseeable future, we are building a new university in northern British Columbia. We have a major capacity expansion problem to solve in the Fraser Valley region, and we have a clear mandate for the Okanagan University College. It will offer four-year degrees in the relatively near future, ideally at its own behest, and will maintain its comprehensive programs. We reject the vision that academic education inherently ought to be separated from career or vocational training. In fact, the very clear message coming out of the Premier's summit last week was exactly the opposite: that the two are inherently and inextricably bound together, and it is a mistake to make that artificial distinction which has characterized North American university education in the last century.
J. Tyabji: As the minister is no doubt aware, the education, economic and transportation structures of the central Okanagan area are serving a population base of about 300,000 people, exclusive of Kamloops. This was one of the reasons why, when the Ministry of Health was trying to determine where the next cancer clinic should go, Kelowna was chosen. Kelowna has been developing, as the minister is no doubt aware. Greater Kelowna is now 120,000 people, plus we have the populations toward the border to the south, including Penticton. We have the populations to the north, to Salmon Arm, within a couple of hours' drive. If you draw a two-hour circle around Kelowna, you are getting well over 400,000 people. Considering the exponential growth of that area, it's not just Kelowna. We have Penticton, Vernon, Salmon Arm and Kamloops, all growing into one fairly large south-central interior population base. The growth isn't slowing -- quite the contrary, in fact. In the estimates that we had in this room with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, we talked about the need for a regional land use plan that would develop the new infrastructure for transportation. What is the mechanism that will take us into the next stage? What is the breaking point? What is the critical mass that would be necessary? The Minister of Advanced Education recognizes that the Capital Regional District is serviced by a university, that the lower mainland is serviced by two universities plus a degree-granting institution and that the north is serviced by a university. At what point will the south-central interior be serviced by a university?
Hon. T. Perry: I could confidently say that it is likely some time in the next century, but it would be idle to speculate on exactly when.
What I was trying to point out in my earlier answer is that the distinctions are largely artificial. The principal fiscal distinction between a university and a university college is that in the case of the former, we pay a high premium for research and scholarly endeavour designed to create or discover new knowledge. In the case of the latter, the university college, the premium is on teaching, and on technology
[ Page 8037 ]
transfer or knowledge transfer of the existing store of worldwide knowledge to students eager to acquire it. We have chosen the latter, for the time being, in the university colleges. I think they will be excellent degree-granting institutions. I have said publicly that were my own children of age right now, I would likely encourage them to attend a university college, because I think they might receive more enthusiastic teaching in smaller classes, and in a more convivial student environment. I hope that all the institutions -- by the time my kids get ready, if they choose that path -- will have such a convivial environment. But what I've seen of the university colleges is very encouraging.
To say they will not in the immediate future become universities is not to say that no research will be done in those communities. On the contrary. I strongly believe that a good scholar or scientist in a community college, during their free time in evenings, on weekends or during summers -- just like any good university academic -- should be reaching out for opportunities to discover new knowledge and transfer it effectively. But they will have to do so in somewhat more innovative ways than the traditional universities have done.
For example, I referred last night to an excellent scientist, who's just completed his postdoctoral fellowship in animal genetics, working on bison experiments for Northern Lights College up in Dawson Creek -- for the college, not a university -- in research of tremendous commercial importance to the ranchers in that region. In the Okanagan, the university college has been ably represented on the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology by Prof. Phil Beckmann, specifically to encourage linkage between Okanagan University College and the emerging technology-dependent industries in the Okanagan, which should play an important part in that region's future -- just as University College of the Cariboo will be important. One of the new members on the board of Okanagan College last year, a prominent astrophysicist at the dominion radio telescope at White Mountain, Tom Landecker, was appointed to encourage relationships between the university college and local science and technology. Ian Greenwood, a Kelowna scientist in the agricultural industry, has been on the Science Council.
There are plenty of opportunities to perform some of the roles traditionally attributed to a university, without getting into some of the grandiose delusions of immediately offering master's degrees and PhDs in an institution that has yet to offer its first degrees.
J. Tyabji: I don't think that it serves the debate to talk about grandiose delusions for master's degrees and PhDs, when you have many people in Kelowna who don't have access to that as an educational option. I think that's unfortunate. The minister really hasn't answered the question. The question I would like to have answered is: at what point will the minister recognize that the south-central interior population base does need access too? If we want to call it "grandiose delusions," in the minister's words, many people there who would like to advance their careers don't have the opportunity to do that, because they don't have access to a master's degree or a PhD.
If we want to talk about pure research, there are many parts of this debate. First, there's a debate on pure research and technology versus vocational training and teaching. I recognize that, and I'm not saying there's a need to move on to research at the expense of vocational training. I'm saying there's enough of a population base that would be served by us advancing the cause of research and technology. When we talk about some of the excellent scientists in Kelowna, such as Ian Greenwood or the astrophysicist you mentioned, these people are there because they have an opportunity to pursue employment in that area. But they don't have an opportunity to pursue research other than, as the minister has said, in their free time in innovative ways.
But if the opportunity is presented to advance research.... I'm sure, as this minister is aware, when research has the opportunity to flourish and exists in an environment where there can be science for the sake of science, the communities will benefit -- and not just the communities; there are generally good economic spinoffs. We know that the Minister of Agriculture, for example, through the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, is financing pure research at the Summerland research station. We see the kind of innovation that's coming out of that. We know some excellent innovations will come out of the weather station at Okanagan University College.
And yet, two things seem to be lacking. One is that the population base in that area does justify a recognition that, if not today, there should be some advancement of research and technology -- and those grandiose delusions for a master's and a PhD one day. Before I entered this job, I had a great frustration that I could never get any further without relocating my family. A lot of other people in that area would like to be able to have access to that, and don't. That's one thing that's missing.
The other thing that's missing is a recognition that capital expenditure is not necessary to go that extra step. There are enough buildings and infrastructure there that if the opportunities were presented.... The Nelson University concept is advancing along much the same lines. What is needed first is a recognition that there's some justification for that. That is a real frustration. I don't think that a sneering tone should be taken -- this is a legitimate request -- unless we're going to say that we don't believe that research should be conducted in British Columbia and therefore we will move to a straight university college model throughout the province. I don't think the minister is trying to suggest that.
We all recognize that we need research and technology, the ability to advance education beyond the bachelor's degree, and people to have access to education. It can be done. With regard to innovation, it should not be incumbent on those scientists, doctors or researchers who happen to live in the area to be innovative in their free time. Innovation should be in the delivery of the opportunity to advance education. That's what I'm asking.
[ Page 8038 ]
I'll repeat the question for the third round: what is the critical mass for a population in order for the ministry to say that there is a significant number of people, that research and technology can be afforded in this area because it serves the south-central interior? It has half a million people, depending on where you draw the circle. This is the same argument with the cancer clinic. It's the same argument that's been used for why Kelowna has become a centre for many things. Other than the lower mainland and the Capital Regional District, it's the major population centre for the province.
It's a simple question. I'm not asking for a monetary commitment today. What's the critical mass? Saying "next century" is not doing justice to the people in the Okanagan who'd like to have some idea about this minister's plans for that area. I recognize the value of vocation; in these difficult economic times vocation is a priority. That doesn't mean that we won't have research and technology.
Hon. T. Perry: It's a matter of walking before you run. The university colleges have done very well so far in handing out degrees granted by the existing universities in British Columbia. The principal work to obtain the degree has been done by the student with the help of the faculty at the university colleges and with help in the form of benign supervision from the three universities. The next step is for the university colleges to be in a position to offer credible bachelor's degrees which will serve the needs of those students, which will be recognized by institutions worldwide as a basis for further study by those who wish to do so and which will be valued by employers.
At the same time, it is critical -- and I think the member, with all respect, may not have been listening as closely to the employer communities in the Okanagan as the college and the college board have -- to maintain the vocational, technical and career programs in an institution like Okanagan College. That is the comprehensive community side of that operation. In the local centres like Salmon Arm, Revelstoke, Penticton and Vernon, basic life skills training is provided to people who are losing their jobs in a changing economy. Those are equally critical.
If we could have everything, I'd be delighted to stand here and say to the hon. member that we will be able to expand to a traditional university within the horizon I can see. The problem is that our fiscal resources in British Columbia are actually shrinking in real terms. Transfer payments from the federal government are shrinking. We do not see the ability in the foreseeable future to pay for a professor whose primary responsibility is to transfer knowledge through teaching at the undergraduate level at the same scale as a university professor to do scholarly endeavour and research.
[11:15]
It is likely to be more efficient in the foreseeable future for those students who wish to remain in the Okanagan taking postgraduate training to use the existing university facilities such as the Open Learning Agency, and for us to keep the pressure on the three big universities to diversify their program offerings in the field, as we have been doing. They have been relatively slow in British Columbia history to recognize the opportunities available to them. It's an ongoing embarrassment to us that Gonzaga University in Spokane, the University of Oregon and others offer master's programs to people in British Columbia which do not seem to be offered by our own universities. But we're keeping the heat on them, and the real answer is that there's no inherent contradiction between the vision the hon. member is promoting and that of the government or the aspirations of the people. It's a matter of doing it in an appropriate time frame, according to the resources we've got, and sharing the wealth fairly around the entire province. The area most neglected in the post-secondary sector throughout British Columbia's history has been northern British Columbia, and after that comes the Fraser Valley. Those have to be the two highest priorities for the next five to ten years.
J. Tyabji: I'll ask a very brief question then. Is there a population criterion that the ministry uses to develop their plans for a university site? Or is it something that is determined more by budgetary restrictions?
Hon. T. Perry: No, there's no set answer to that question. First of all, we're limited by the amount of public resources available to us. We're not in the glory days of the 1960s or 1970s anymore. A major issue facing us today is how we will meet the post-secondary education and training needs of the Fraser Valley, where the population is exploding even faster than in the Okanagan, and where the infrastucture has been delayed and has lagged behind that in the Okanagan or in the Kamloops area. In approaching this issue, we're having to examine not only what the real needs of the immediate future are, what we think the needs may be into the next century and how to relate those needs to sound, environmentally sensitive planning, but also what we can possibly afford. The models that may come out of that may be very different from the traditional ivy-covered, red-brick university that we've all grown up with. They will certainly be based much more on distance learning and on electronic technology, and we're trying to get the best minds available in B.C. and elsewhere to think through the solutions to those problems.
I'm simply saying I agree with the member that the likely trends of population in the central interior are such that one day there will be a full-fledged university there. But I don't think one can possibly predict in the present financial climate when that will be, and it would be foolish and unfair for me to mislead people in the Okanagan, particularly newly hired faculty, into thinking that it will be in the immediate future.
J. Tyabji: So I am to understand that the primary reason for not moving on to a university status in the Okanagan is funding. Is that correct?
[ Page 8039 ]
Hon. T. Perry: The primary reason is sound public policy: walking before we run and planning intelligently for the future of B.C. -- good government.
J. Tyabji: Thank you for the free-time advertising.
What is the capital budget for the coming year for Okanagan University College?
Hon. T. Perry: If the member wants, we can revisit the details in a few minutes. It may take us a moment to dig it up.
As the member knows, we have just been through a major expansion; we have just opened a major new campus in north Kelowna. We are partially supporting a gymnasium that is being constructed on that site. It is partially paid for by public subscription as well. There is some expansion planned at the Penticton campus. I will have to get the details in a moment; we can probably drum it up.
The major expansion has just been completed, so we are in a relative resting phase for that community this year.
J. Tyabji: I look forward to the details, then, of the funds.
What is the current arrangement for future purchases of land? Are there any options to purchase or land payments being made? What is the budget for land acquisition or the current budget for payments on land?
Hon. T. Perry: We never disclose those figures, because we try to bargain in the interest of the taxpayer to get the best possible price on land. In general, provincewide we are always looking to meet the needs of the post-secondary institutions for possible future expansion. The member is certainly aware that Okanagan is looking at its long-term needs on its north Kelowna site and probably elsewhere. When opportunities arise, we're sometimes able to respond very rapidly to seize them if there's a good deal to be had. But we don't disclose such figures, because that would harm our position in negotiations.
J. Tyabji: It's my understanding that this government inherited an option-to-purchase payment. I don't need to know the amount, if the minister refuses to disclose it. This isn't something that would be bargained; this is a stipend that is being paid in order to maintain an option to purchase a parcel of land adjacent to the existing site. Is that true?
Hon. T. Perry: I think that neither the assistant deputy minister nor I know the answer to that question right now. It would be convenient if we perhaps answered it either later in the debate or in a letter. We'll take it on notice.
J. Tyabji: I'd be quite happy to receive it in writing. The details that I'd like to know -- if any, and to whatever extent the minister is able to disclose them -- are, if there are current arrangements on adjacent parcels for acquisition of land, which mean that there's a current payment with.... I was given details at one point of a contract the government had with a company, and it would be very helpful to know if that is in existence and if there is a company receiving payments for an option to purchase adjacent to the existing site.
The last thing I'd like to canvass here is with regard to the Okanagan University College library. There has been a problem in the past with resources. There's an excellent book exchange program in place, but there has been a problem with funding for the library. Can the minister explain to me what has been happening on that front?
Hon. T. Perry: An allocation for libraries has been included in the start-up grants provided to all four university colleges. I had a chance to inspect the library at the new campus. I've also been in the library at the Kalamalka campus, last year. The facility is beautiful; it's one of the nicest in the province. All the libraries tend to be chronically dissatisfied with the volume of books they can purchase, as publishers' prices are going up exorbitantly. My impression was that Okanagan's librarians at the new campus are rather proud of the collection they have been able to achieve, and that their situation, although it might not be ideal, is reasonably good compared to others. There it is.
J. Tyabji: Lastly -- and then I'll defer to the member for Vancouver-Langara -- are there plans, or is there a program, for an information and data exchange between this ministry and the Ministry of Environment, most particularly with some of the data that would be coming out of the new weather station, and some of the information that the ministry would be receiving on environmental initiatives and research that are going on in this ministry? Is there an automatic policy for exchanging information?
Hon. T. Perry: We always exchange information in general with anyone who wants to. The purpose of locating the weather station on the site of the new campus was, hopefully, that it would interact more directly with the college, rather than complicating the interaction by going through our bureaucracy or through the minister. If they want to use our good offices, we are always open.
V. Anderson: One question comes out of the discussion I've been listening to. I hear the minister stressing the "traditional university" without expanding on the fact that traditional universities are changing fairly dramatically to take in technology and other concerns, and their implications, in a way they didn't before. I didn't hear that awareness from the minister in his reference to the universities, on the one hand.
On the other hand, when he talked about research, both when I was asking about Langara campus and in the latter discussion about the university college or the college, it seemed to me he was saying that research or even upgrading of the teachers' own skills were up to them -- it was not a part of their contract per se; it was part of their.... To put it in an illustration, is there an assumption that, even in the colleges or the university
[ Page 8040 ]
colleges, 80 percent of university professors' time is spent in teaching and sharing what they already know? That is rapidly getting out of date year by year. Spending 10 percent or 15 percent -- or whatever amount -- of their time in research and upgrading and studying to continue to be ahead.... Otherwise, it sounds as though with the tenure system, the longer people are in the college, the less up to date they're going to be, and the less advantageous it would be for a student to go there rather than to a university which has research and up-to-date opportunities for the staff.
What I was hearing the minister say was that a downgrading of the upgrading of the research and technology in the college system and a downgrading of the university, in that it was not in touch with the changing technology.... It seems to me that no matter which system you go into today, the technology is so great and changed that there needs to be continual upgrading and research for everyone in a teaching position.
Hon. T. Perry: I think the member misunderstood me, and perhaps I didn't explain myself adequately. First of all, the universities are changing. In some cases it's not as rapidly as I or society in general might like. Part of my responsibility is to encourage them to change constructively, positively and rapidly, because the world is changing much faster now than it did when our existing universities were started. But the universities have the best record per capita in the country in cooperative education -- particularly UVic and SFU. UBC is starting to get very interested in that field now, as well. Some 20 years or more after people like David Suzuki first proposed it, UBC is now going to start an integrated science 1 program this year. I think that's a very constructive sign.
[11:30]
Several of the universities have been involved in rural teacher education programs. We're starting to see more interest in distance learning and expansion of offerings. For example, we will see much more from our existing universities of the kind of master's programs that American universities have offered in Canada. And UNBC is founded on that exact principle.
On the college side, we recently completed a review of the mandate of the university college with participation by students, faculty, administrators, board members and prominent people from our ministry, and reached a consensus conclusion, which I have distributed and fully endorsed. I will be glad to send it to all the hon. members. In fact, I will commit to sending it to all members of the Legislature. It recognized that professional development and scholarly activity are very important for the ongoing maintenance of competence and active interest by college instructors or faculty.
For the research that we fund, the universities receive a very substantial premium in dollars to maintain expensive laboratory facilities, equipment and reagents and technical staff, which we could not afford at this time to offer in our university colleges or community colleges. Given the funding climate Canada-wide, we will have a struggle in the future to maintain the excellence in our universities. The last thing we want to do is damage that by trying to spread ourselves too thin.
That does not mean that a bright or a brilliant faculty or staff member in a community college cannot contribute enormously to society and economic development in their region. It may be -- and I hope we will see frequent examples of this -- that their research and technology transfer is more valuable than some of what the universities are doing, because they have some brilliant people there.
When I was at Okanagan a few weeks ago, I saw that the famous Prof. Tom Northcote of UBC had donated his library on freshwater fisheries to the university college. Some of his former PhD students are engaged in research there, along with the provincial fish and wildlife branch and other agencies, and yet we fund them primarily for their teaching. They spend many more hours in direct interaction with their students -- be it in the classroom or in tutorials -- than the typical university professor spends with undergraduate students. That is a strength of the community colleges and the university colleges that we don't wish to disturb.
H. De Jong: I was rather surprised earlier when the minister mentioned that we would need perhaps ten million people in British Columbia before another university could be considered. I know that we sometimes make a slip of the tongue which we regret later on, and I don't think I should take that ten million figure too seriously.
I just want to say at the beginning, before I go into a number of questions, that having visited University College of the Fraser Valley on a number of occasions, Simon Fraser and other universities, I'm amazed at the amount of satisfaction I sensed among the student bodies. It's unfortunate that not everyone who wishes to attend a college or university can get in at the time they want to, because that certainly would spread that level of satisfaction among more people. But I think the young people today fully recognize that in order for them to be successful in life, there ought to be some education possible for them, whether it's on the academic level through the colleges and universities or more on the technical side through BCIT courses.
The minister made some comments regarding community colleges and universities, and I must say that within our community there is an excellent combination of college and university. I think the staff are determined to provide the best for the students. I also know that the university college's board is fully behind the college, giving good guidance on the community's needs; but obviously they are often somewhat handcuffed because they would like to do a whole lot more. At the same time, I think there's been a good start made. I hope that will continue, and that they will also continue to expand on the needs of the community there.
At the community college level, though, I can see a greater liaison between the college and the community as a whole than I can at the university level, because of a different level of education. I suppose there is a
[ Page 8041 ]
greater variety of needs that can be met through college education than when you go to university, where there may not be as many people in the same community wanting to participate. You may want to go to a university that has been in existence for many years and that has proven itself. I was just wondering whether the minister has any knowledge of that, and if indeed that is the case, what can be done to ensure that the community aspect is filtered more strongly to the university part of the college?
Hon. T. Perry: I think UCFV is a terrific institution. I've had a very cordial relationship with the board, the board chair, the president, the faculty and the staff. I agree, and I wish I had the resources to unfetter them and let them do even more things. They have a wonderful relationship with their surrounding community. They're a model for the system, but so are many other institutions.
I think they understand at UCFV better than anywhere else that it would be a mistake to divorce the university component from roots in the community. There are times when the ability to withstand the vicissitudes of the society around you are important to freedom of thought, and I think that's secure in British Columbia. It has been secure under former governments, as it is under this government. There are times when it's important that the institution responds more closely to the needs of its community, and I think UCFV is a wonderful institution that's pioneering in that way.
H. De Jong: I was interested, hon. Chair, in the term the minister used, "roots in the community." I believe that the University College of the Fraser Valley has its roots in the community. As the minister well knows, there are a number of students who cannot enter either of those because of the numbers. Certainly the minister has alluded to the fact that the Fraser Valley is probably one of the places that is most highly in need of additional university classrooms or facilities. So having the roots there, the longer we leave the UCFV, the deeper the roots go. Therefore it would be sensible, if a university was to be established on its own, for it to be in very close relationship to the university college that's already there, because of its roots. Anyway, I don't want to put the minister on the spot on this issue, because the needs of a university are broader, and students are drawn from a larger area than that of the university college.
The minister also talked about the autonomy of boards. There are a number of things that come to mind as we talk about this, including the foreknowledge that is being given to boards in terms of establishing programs. Laws are being passed either in the country or the province.... A bill on the floor of the House talks about the farming community, the dispensing of medicine and the application of medicine to animals. There is an agriculture course taught at Fraser Valley College; many farmers and farm helpers have attended various courses. There's a whole raft of veterinary medicine labelled "for veterinary use only." If you followed the letter of the law, that daily routine of applying that medicine at various farms could not be done. I'm not sure of all the implications of this bill, but with that label a certain certificate would be needed by the people who apply this medicine to animals. We would be too late to make the farming community ready for this. What communication is there between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Advanced Education, so that local college boards can be updated as to what may be coming down the pike and how they can prepare the community for such a change.
Hon. T. Perry: It's an interesting question. Sometimes the government is so complex; I admit I'm not familiar with the details of that bill. But it's hard to be perfect.
I think the beauty of the community college is that at least it can respond relatively rapidly. For example, if a new, short, continuing education course for farmers is necessary, the college is much faster and more likely to respond rapidly in an efficient way to meet the needs of the local farmers than a university might be. That's their great strength.
I'd simply say -- to extend the agricultural metaphor in deference to the member -- that not only do we want them to be well-rooted in their communities, but we want to milk them for everything we can get in the interests of the taxpayer and the prospective student.
Interjection.
The Chair: Hon. member, while you're up, the Chair would entertain a motion to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
H. De Jong: I would move that motion, hon. Chair, and I'd be glad to continue my questions when we sit next time.
Motion approved.
The Committee rose at 11:44 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]