Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JULY 28, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 7, Number 10

Part 1

[ Page 6407 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Janssen: With us today are two visitors from Toronto: Bruce Cox and Una O'Reilly. They are visiting Victoria and, of course, the beautiful riding of Alberni and Long Beach. Una is an employee with the Ontario government, and Bruce is a longtime employee with the Ontario NDP. I ask the House to make them welcome.

B. McKinnon: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House Gary Grewal, president of my riding association; Jassa Grewal, vice-president of the Surrey-Newton B.C. Liberal riding association; and a friend of theirs visiting from Birmingham, England: Sital Singh Rana. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Brewin: Visiting us in the gallery today are Debbie Saum and her daughter Megan, who are visiting Victoria from Saskatchewan. Debbie is very interested in the work of the Legislative Assembly because she is the executive assistant to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. Would the House please join me in making Debbie and her daughter welcome.

J. Doyle: I'm very pleased to have Ken and Betsy Shimberg, from New York City, joining the members of the House at question period today. They are spending one year travelling throughout the world. They will spend a couple of nights with us -- my family -- in Golden, and they are here today to watch question period. Make them welcome.

I. Chong: Today I am pleased to introduce to this Legislature the mayor of Oak Bay, His Worship Mr. Christopher Causton, and his daughter Sarah, who have come to watch the proceedings today. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Dalton: Last Thursday, Nancy Bell-Irving passed away. Nancy was the wife of Henry Bell-Irving, a former Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if you could send a letter of condolence on behalf of all members.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I would be happy to do that on behalf of the assembly.

L. Reid: Visiting us today are four of my dearest friends: Tom and Toni Morisson, Sharon Gill and Carl Boyce. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

M. Sihota: Of course, all members of the House know that British Columbia has the best economy of any place in North America and that people from North America are flocking to live here. I'm sure all members of the House would be delighted to join me in welcoming Mark Messier to British Columbia.

B. Goodacre: In the House today we have a special guest from Good Hope Lake, one of the northern communities in my constituency. Mary Reid is the principal of Mount Pendleton School there. I ask the House to please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

STANDARD OF CARE AND SECURITY

AT RECOVERY HOUSES

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the Mavis Flanders case has highlighted problems that currently exist in alcohol and drug rehabilitation and assistance. While facilities like the Pender detox are being closed, patients and clients are being directed to what are called recovery houses. Unfortunately, some of the so-called recovery houses have themselves become a source of abuse. In Surrey, for example, the RCMP have reported that clients are signing over their social assistance cheques to live in recovery houses where there are six people living in a room, where there are overdoses and where there is drug-dealing.

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Having abandoned these people, why doesn't his ministry make sure that they are directed to facilities where they can at least be safe?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's amazing that the Liberal opposition just can't seem to get it right when it comes to where the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Human Resources ends and extends to. But what I will say is that it came to light during the examination of my estimates that the Liberal opposition doesn't even have a policy on social services. They abandoned it after the last election, hon. Speaker. They talk about taking the next 18 months to two years to form a policy on social services, and they stand in this House and tell us that we have abandoned these folks. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Streifel: Thank you for the silence.

The Ministry of Human Resources supports individuals with a cheque when they are in need. The Ministry of Human Resources does not direct individuals to housing. It does not supply housing for individuals, nor do we fund these houses in any way.

G. Campbell: We simply can't wash our hands of these people. The fact of the matter is that some of the houses that are called recovery houses provide a service, but there are a number -- and the minister should know about these -- that are run by . . . . In fact, there is at least one I know of that's run by a convicted drug dealer. The fact is that we simply cannot send those who are trying to take care of themselves to places where they are at risk, and we can't have them signing over their social assistance cheques to those houses where they may be at risk.

My question to the minister is: why would you allow that to happen? Why would you allow people to go to places that are unlicensed, where they don't stand a chance to recover?

Hon. D. Streifel: I'm going to try this once again for the leader of the bland. In fact, hon. Speaker, the Ministry of Human Resources does not direct individuals to houses. We don't fund these recovery homes in any way. I would suggest very strongly . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please. Let's hear the answer.

[ Page 6408 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: Actually, the Liberal House Leader wants to know what I do. What I do is generally cooperate with my caucus, I understand what our cabinet is up to, and I cooperate with my colleagues in the House.

If the Leader of the Opposition has evidence that there is something going on in one of these recovery houses that is operated by a convicted drug dealer, I think he should bring it forward to the Attorney General and have the situation dealt with.

G. Campbell: We have a number of people in this province who have decided they want to try to get better. Many of those people are on social assistance. Many of those people receive public funds for that assistance. Those public funds go directly into the hands of people who are running recovery houses that are in fact places where there's abuse, where people are living six to a room. Does the minister not know? Why would the minister allow those people . . . and abandon them to that kind of facility? Why not be sure that they're going to facilities where they can be safe and where they at least stand a chance of recovering?

Hon. D. Streifel: Hon. Speaker, I stand a little puzzled here. My first two answers . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: Actually, the confession of the session for the Liberal House Leader was all over the papers last week. If you want to expand on it, hon. Speaker, we can go to it. That Liberal House Leader campaigned last May to cut $500 million out of the social services budget. I think that's absolutely despicable.

For the education of the Leader of the Opposition, the Ministry of Human Resources doesn't fund these houses. If individuals on income assistance choose to go to these places and spend their money in a room-and-board structure, we don't control the actions of these individuals. As far as I understand, in this country they still make free choices -- not like the members opposite.

M. Coell: There are over a thousand private recovery beds in British Columbia, all of them unlicensed, unregulated and unsupervised. As we saw last week with Skeleem Village, when the government directly or indirectly sends people to private facilities for treatment, they have a responsibility to ensure that the facility is safe and not just a front for receiving social assistance cheques. Will the Minister of Human Resources tell us why the government has done nothing to license, monitor and supervise recovery houses?

Hon. D. Streifel: Now we know why the polls are as they are. They just can't seem to figure out who has jurisdiction.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: Chew away, chew away, folks.

For the members opposite, the licensing, regulation and funding of drug and alcohol treatment centres is not under the Ministry of Human Resources. I hope that's plain enough for the members to understand.

M. Coell: My understanding is that many of the operators of these houses have no qualifications and no credentials. In fact, the sole criterion for receiving a social assistance cheque from the government is to sign their name to a form, and the government sends the cheque to the recovery house. Will the Minister of Human Resources tell us what his ministry does look into when they allow these recovery houses to get cheques from his ministry for people in his care?

[2:15]

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, I waited a long time, and I got four in a row now where the answer is the same.

The funding for drug and alcohol treatment centres does not come under . . . .

An Hon. Member: There's actually five, Dennis.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: Is it five? That's pretty good. Hon. Speaker, the members opposite have just reminded me that they nailed five questions in a row out of order, not four.

But, in fact, funding for these facilities does not come under this ministry. I explained it to the member opposite all through estimates. Then he couldn't understand it. He couldn't understand then what the difference was between a government that has a policy and an opposition that abandoned its policy, that stands up on "Voice of the Province" and says: "We have no policy; we have no direction." Hon. Speaker, with an opposition party without a policy on social services, I don't think the ministry has a critic.

R. Coleman: My question is to the Attorney General. There is a recovery house in Surrey called Clean Cartel. This recovery house is located directly across the street from Cedar Hills Elementary School. In a recent

article the director of Clean Cartel said that the house receives referrals from the corrections branch. Can the Attorney General tell us why he would refer drug and alcohol abusers to an unregulated, unlicensed and unqualified recovery house, directly across the street from an elementary school?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Obviously these are very important questions. It's important for hon. members to know that Corrections refers people to various agencies and facilities based on certain guidelines. I don't have them in place here, now, in my hand. I'd be happy to take the question on notice and get back to the hon. member.

The Speaker: I think, minister, that the question has been answered, so I think it is now open . . . .

R. Coleman: The question is to the Attorney General again. One of the directors of the Clean Cartel recovery house is René Tanguay. On April 15, 1996, Mr. Tanguay was arrested for possession of cocaine. Five months later he pled guilty to possession and was fined $700. Can the Attorney General tell us why he is sending recovering addicts to a house which has as one of its directors an individual convicted of cocaine possession less than ten months ago?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll take the question on notice.

G. Plant: The question for British Columbians is not what this government says it is doing about something -- and here

[ Page 6409 ]

the problem is drug and alcohol abuse -- but: is the government actually doing something about the problem? Now we know, Mr. Speaker. The government closes detox centres and sends drug and alcohol addicts to recovery houses run by convicted drug possessors, in which crime and drug use are rampant -- right across the street from elementary schools. So my question to the Attorney General is this . . . .

Interjections.

G. Plant: I wonder if the Municipal Affairs minister's helper writes the heckles for those guys down at the other end of the hall.

My question is for the Attorney General: is this what he means when he talks about his government's commitment to public safety?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I took the question on notice, and I repeat that answer.

G. Plant: Last week we heard about problems inside the corrections branch; now we are hearing about problems outside the branch. The prisons of British Columbia . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I am going to hear this question.

G. Plant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prisons of British Columbia are overcrowded. Remand inmates sleep on the floor in pretrial centres, and now we have a frightening picture of what happens to people who are trying to get rid of problems that got them into trouble with the law in the first place.

So my question for the Attorney General is this: when will he stop talking about his commitment to public safety and start doing something about it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We are going into an expanded diversion program in British Columbia in October. Consultation and planning is underway, and we have been holding discussions across the province. We want to make sure that the overcrowded facilities that the hon. member talks about aren't overcrowded with criminals who don't need to be in jails -- who need to be out in the communities repaying their debts to the communities -- while violent offenders are out on the loose. They should be behind bars; that's what we want to do.

We do not want to be building jails, jails and jails. If we continue on the track that we are, we would be spending over $1.2 billion in the next ten years replacing jails or building new jails. Certainly the hon. member isn't suggesting that we should be doing that. What he's suggesting is that we should be providing treatment for people out in the communities, and we're going to be doing that.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMBLING

K. Krueger: We've obtained a copy of a Club Keno survey conducted by the B.C. Lottery Corporation. To anyone but the NDP the results really aren't surprising: British Columbians do not want more gambling in B.C. According to the survey, over 58 percent of respondents said that they do not believe we need more forms of gambling in B.C. Even 31 percent of Club Keno players said that.

My question is to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Employment and Investment: will he finally listen to the citizens of British Columbia and put a stop to this massive and dangerous expansion of gambling?

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I think we have listened very carefully to British Columbians. We have designed a very modest expansion of gaming opportunities -- the opportunity to develop new jobs, economic opportunities in the tourism business. All of the surveys I've seen indicate that British Columbians support the direction we're going. We've had substantive debates, although we have a difference. So no, we're not contemplating any change in the policy that we have established.

K. Krueger: There is nothing modest about a 2,000 percent increase in betting limits in B.C. and a 1,800 percent increase in projected revenue. Over 48 percent of these respondents agreed that addiction to Club Keno will become a serious problem. An astounding 37 percent of Club Keno players themselves said that addiction to Club Keno will become a serious problem.

My question, again, to the Deputy Premier is: why does he continue to ram gambling expansion down the throats of British Columbians when it is clear that British Columbians don't want it, nor the social costs that will go with it?

Hon. D. Miller: That is not what we're doing. As I said, we have probably the most restrictive gaming policy in Canada -- in North America -- here in British Columbia. We designed an expansion policy that gives municipalities the right to determine whether or not there will be expansion in their communities.

It's pretty clear that the members opposite don't seem to have faith in municipal governments to determine what's appropriate for their communities. It's clear that many communities where Liberal members were elected are considering the possibilities of expanded gaming; it's their choice. I would hope that when those issues come up, rather than take this kind of approach, the members opposite would actually sit down with municipal leaders to discuss in an intelligent way whether or not it makes sense for their communities. So really, we are proceeding.

You know, I think this member may have gotten his last question in on gaming this year. Congratulations!

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Members, before calling for orders of the day, I want to advise you that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and we expect him to come to the chamber at 3 o'clock. So if members would indeed make themselves available, that, of course, would be appropriate and appreciated.

Tabling Documents

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have the honour to present the annual report of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the year ending June 30, 1997.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: We'll proceed with business and then rise when the Lieutenant-Governor gets here.

[ Page 6410 ]

In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 30.

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 30; G. Brewin in the chair.

section 1.

The Chair: Shall

section 1 pass?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yeah.

[2:30]

L. Reid: I thank the Minister of Education for his exuberance; however, there are a number of issues I wish to raise in terms of

section 1, basically making some comparisons between the existing University Act and the Technical University of British Columbia Act. The first question is: why was the term "assembly" chosen over "convocation"?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a good day to be debating the province's newest university here.

The term "assembly" rather than "convocation" was chosen only to choose a word that had fewer traditional connotations. As far as I'm aware, it includes the members who would be members of a convocation.

L. Reid: Seeking further clarification, "teaching staff member" in this act replaces the traditional term -- if that's the minister's analogy of why tradition is in place -- of "faculty member." Could the minister respond as to why?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The term "teaching staff member" was used in this act rather than the term "faculty member" for a couple of reasons. There are some similarities; I want to first make that clear. A teaching staff member means a person who is recognized by the board "as teaching, giving instruction or doing research on behalf of the university." It encompasses those responsibilities. There are some differences.

Teaching staff members at this university will not have tenure under the more traditional University Act, and it is the belief of those who were working on the advisory committee around this university that this would enable the university to be more responsive to changing educational priorities.

L. Reid: To advance an issue that the minister just raised, he has indicated that these instructors will not have tenure.

Hon. P. Ramsey: That's correct.

L. Reid: The concern -- or perhaps the next step, if you will -- is that they will be subject to some kind of seniority rating, as are other colleges in the current scenario. If you're taking away tenure, my question is whether or not that's being replaced with something.

L. Reid: Certainly this discusses teaching staff member. Given that this is a technical university and should be on the leading edge of science and technology, is there also a research staff member component?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Researchers are included within this definition. To quote the definition, it says very clearly that a "teaching staff member means a person recognized for the purposes of this act by the board as teaching, giving instruction or doing research" -- and I want to emphasize that research is part of the duties at this university -- "on behalf of the university."

L. Reid: For my clarification, could the minister kindly respond as to whether or not those three roles will be contained within the same individual? Are we going to have an employee of this institution who is solely responsible for research, as an example? Or will every teaching employee be required to teach as part of their curriculum load?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The duties of any particular teaching staff member would be a matter of assignment and/or negotiation between senior administrators and/or the board and the member. My expectation would be that the great majority of teaching staff members would be doing both teaching and research, as is the case at the colleges and universities in British Columbia now.

L. Reid: On a personal note, I would be remiss if I didn't ask the minister to kindly introduce those individuals accompanying him today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for reminding me of my responsibilities and the protocol here. Mr. Jim Soles is the director of universities and institutes within my ministry, and Stella Bailey is the manager of legislation within the ministry.

L. Reid: Welcome to both of you.

The minister is aware, I believe, of the letter written by the College-Institute Educators Association. It has been shared with all members of the Legislature. In that we are in

section 1, " 'university' means the Technical University of British Columbia established by this act," I simply want to take a moment to put on record the conclusion reached by CIEA and their concern that they wish expressed: "If the government proceeds in its current direction, British Columbia will end up with an institution which drains resources from existing post-secondary institutions, duplicates their services and fails to meet the needs of local communities.

In current economic times it is an expensive mistake." That is the conclusion they are reaching about the debate we are currently engaged in regarding the technical university, and it seems to me that some of these concerns are valid.

We haven't found a university in this province today that will tell you that they are appropriately funded, sufficiently funded or, frankly, even adequately funded. It seems to me that if we are going to share the resources -- divide the pie into, again, another piece -- are there some assurances today that this minister can share with this Legislature as to some level of assurance around future funding? Today we are

push-

[ Page 6411 ]

ing educational institutions -- K-to-12 and post-secondary -- through the hoops in terms of asking, again and again and again, for them to do more with less. Are we at the stage where we can continue to give that directive? I don't believe we are, and I ask the question: how much more for how much less? If the minister could kindly comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I'm unclear about whether I should tell you to rule this out of order because it would have been more proper in estimates or because it would have been more proper at second reading. Let me just respond very, very briefly to some of the points the member raises.

Unlike other provinces in this country, we have not been reducing the budgets of colleges, universities and institutes. In fact, we've made up every dime of $110 million in federal cuts to post-secondary education and have kept the doors of our institutions open to students by freezing tuition and fees. That's the record of this government, and it's a very positive one. At the same time, we've been creating tens of thousands of new spaces for students.

The Technical University of British Columbia is another major initiative, both to expand the overall number of seats in our system -- and clearly, additional funding is required to fund additional seats -- and also to provide seats that are in a new and very exciting institution that has a different relationship to business and to the community in which it's operating.

I have one other matter of protocol that I need to do, hon. Chair, so before I sit down I will ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the galleries today is my wife Hazel, who is here with us again, to make sure that we're proceeding expeditiously through this legislation so that we have some opportunity for a vacation this summer.

The Chair: Can the House make her welcome, indeed.

L. Reid: I, too, welcome Mrs. Ramsey. Mrs. Ramsey, if your husband answers the questions, I will do my best to proceed effectively through this legislation.

In terms of Mr. Lavalle's comments -- and he is the president of the College-Institute Educators Association of British Columbia -- and the comments that I have raised in the past with this minister, having canvassed ministry responsibilities with him over the past six years, this government takes great delight in suggesting that they have created new spaces in British Columbia. New spaces that are not well funded place a tremendous burden on students in the system, students who find that their tuition goes up, and all of a sudden things that weren't charged for in the past now have a fee or a cost that they did not anticipate.

So if this is a legitimate discussion this afternoon around the costs of post-secondary education -- and I trust that such is the framework on which both this minister and I are engaged -- then the creation of this institution will admit individuals who have not met educational standards in the past. For the most part, many students in the Fraser Valley have not graduated. We know that; it's a matter of public record that their graduation rates have not been consistent with other parts of the province.

If that's the case, is this minister going to put in place any levels of outreach around doing some things with students in grades 11 and 12 so that they might make the choice to attend a university?

Given that the minister is also responsible for the K-to-12 system, and given that this is a new opportunity, it would seem to me that that would make good sense. If we are hoping to attract students who actually reside in the Fraser Valley to attend this new university, which this new

section 1 will create, it seems to me that we want to have at least local representation in the student body. The minister is well aware -- with the indulgence of the Chair -- that at the University of Northern British Columbia, the student body is not reflective of the local area.

The Chair: Hon. member, we appreciate your questions and your comments very much, but we're on

section 1, which is "Definitions," not second reading. So if the member would proceed to make the queries relate to . . . .

L. Reid: Exactly right, hon. Chair. We are on the definition of "university," which means "the Technical University of British Columbia established by this Act." My question to the minister, given his full responsibility for K-to-12 and post-secondary in this province, is: is this institution going to behave differently from others? This ministry, this minister and this government have taken great delight in suggesting that it will. My question is: will outreach draw in those 16- and 17- and 18-year-old students, so they actually end up attending this university and end up as graduates? I think that's the goal that both of us share.

The Chair: Hon. minister, on the ruling of the Chair, there is no need to reply to that. That question is out of order.

The member might work on other sections of the bill that might respond better to her queries.

L. Reid: This is, in my view, the appropriate

section to canvass this issue, because if this act passes, this new university will be created. For us to have listened for many, many months to this government suggesting that they are indeed creating a new entity, that it's going to be a university in a different form and is going to do things differently . . . . If we're in the

definitions

section -- and we are -- I would ask this minister to define how this new university is going to behave differently than other institutions in the province.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think when we get to

section 2, "Purposes," I will have an adequate opportunity to discuss some of the differences of this university from more traditional institutions.

I did want to just say very briefly that I do hope that we do stay on committee stage here. I heard members of the Liberal opposition speak in favour of this bill at second reading, and I assumed that meant, on its face, that they agree with the principle of establishing another post-secondary institution in our province. I hope we're proceeding here to debate the ways in which we put that institution in place, as it is contained within Bill 30. The only expensive mistake that I see, hon. member, would be a missed opportunity were we not to proceed in developing this sort of institution for the future of our province.

[2:45]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I distinguish three ways in which this institution is different from more conventional universities in

[ Page 6412 ]

the province. First, it is focusing on a particular array of programs and research that it is devoted to. Those are: applied technology and skill-based programs that are responsive to the needs of students, employers and the community, and research in those areas. So that's one difference. We've set out in legislation, in a way that other legislation on universities does not, the specific array of programs that this university shall be focused on.

The second way in which it differs is by the specificity of our expectation that this university will form partnerships with industry -- and by that I include both business and labour -- and other educational institutions with respect to education and applied research and development. This is going to be done, first, to ensure relevancy; second, to avoid duplication; and third, for cost-sharing. I'm unaware of any other institution which has this sort of a mandate for partnerships, a mandate for collaboration spelled out in the legislation that establishes it. At least, it's unique in British Columbia.

We may well find others around the world. Indeed, I think the people that did some of the research and community consultation which led to this legislation did look at different models for this sort of post-secondary technological institution.

The third way in which this is different from other universities is that -- as I'm sure the member will tell me from correspondence she's received -- its governance structure differs significantly from more conventional universities. So those are three major ways in which it differs significantly. The purposes spelled out in

section 2 speak to at least two of those points that I have mentioned.

The member also asked in an earlier question about whether outreach would be part of this university's mandate. My short answer is that I expect outreach from all post-secondary institutions, and I think most of them at least try. Simply by saying that here in the Fraser Valley we are establishing a new technical university with a focus on applied research and jobs in emerging technologies sends a fascinating message to secondary school students and college students in the Fraser Valley. We are establishing a model of an institution with a focus on areas of new and emerging jobs.

This is good news and says very clearly to students in the Fraser Valley that there are immense opportunities here for acquiring the skills and training that are needed for good, family-supporting jobs in these emerging sectors of our economy.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his explanations on those three sections. Certainly I know that the minister is aware of some of the concerns that industry has raised in the past regarding the length of university programs and their lack of immediacy. By the time someone moved through a four- or five-year program, the job demand in a particular industry had changed dramatically, and those new graduates were not able to achieve any level of success in the workplace.

Given that this is going to be a university, is there some flexibility within this program -- the minister cites applied tech, skill-based programs -- for them to be of a very short duration or for them to be conducted on the worksite and perhaps with ongoing participation by both parties?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Definitely. Given the knowledge that the member has just displayed of the very challenges that this university is being set up to address, I wonder if she wants to submit her résumé for the board?

L. Reid: Don't tempt me, hon. minister.

In terms of your comment about whether or not this will be something that's industry-driven -- and I believe your words were that this institution will form industry partnerships . . . . This minister and I were in debate just this past Friday on Bill 43, which looks at ensuring that decisions taken around worksite and work-based training are relevant. Will the same kind of partnership, if you will, exist if an industry were to come to this board and suggest that they need an employee trained in a particular aspect of aerospace? How quickly does the minister envision this institution gearing up to meet those kinds of very specific needs? Certainly the minister referenced under

section 2 . . . or rather his second reference was around specificity of expectation. If the expectation is very specific on behalf of industry, how quickly will the institution be able to gear up to meet that need?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to talk about three things in response to the member's question. First, the very structure of the board and university council of the Technical University of British Columbia is designed to enhance precisely the sort of rapid response to a training and education need that the member is talking about. We'll talk about more of those later when we get into a discussion of who is on the board and the council and how they relate to industry as well as to the institution.

The other thing I would mention is that, if you notice,

section 2(

a) says that the purpose of this university is "to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels . . . . " So we're casting the net broadly, and it's specifically not focused on post-graduate degrees to clearly say that we ought to seize opportunities where they're available to provide just that quantum of training or education which is required for a person who may be well educated in other fields already but who needs a specific focused bit of training to qualify for work in a particular industry. That is what the purposes of the act and the structure of this university are designed to accomplish.

L. Reid: I certainly appreciate the minister's clarification. My concern rests with "certificate," because typically in the past it's meant at least a year, a minimum of one year's worth of training. If this institution is going to reflect the six-week or the six-month program, which is often what is required . . . . I would be delighted if the minister could kindly confirm.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In both universities and colleges, certificate is a term usually applied to a course of education or training of less than a year's duration. Currently in both universities and colleges there are such programs for a few weeks -- six weeks.

L. Reid: Certainly when the minister referenced in his initial explanation around specificity of expectation . . . . How is that going to be demonstrated? Will there be a business plan that is jointly agreed to by both the institution and, say, a particular sector of industry that wishes to graduate individuals with a particular skill set?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The sort of requirement for a specific outcome in a particular education program could clearly be required by a firm or a group of firms that was working in partnership with the university; that's precisely the sort of initiative that we're looking for from this university. That's clearly understood by the board and the CEO, the president, of the university right now. I expect that as we appoint board members and members of program advisory committees, that's the perspective that they'll bring.

As far as other measures of accountability, while the university offers certificate and diploma programs and

[ Page 6413 ]

decides which ones to offer within its own governance structure, the decision to offer degree programs, either undergraduate or graduate, is a decision which the minister must also approve.

L. Reid: Just to perhaps ask for further clarification around accountability. If indeed an industry representative were to meet with the university and the course content and training site were agreed to, because I would assume -- and if I'm incorrect, certainly let me know . . . . It seems to me that oftentimes individuals are going to be trained at the actual worksite because of the greater sophistication of equipment and expertise, etc. But if all of those things are agreed to, and if the student's new skill set is the deliverable . . . . If that's not delivered in a timely fashion, is there any recourse for industry? For them, they believe that there are . . . .

Many individuals have come to me suggesting that they are going to participate in something that is completely open-ended. I think that's a valid concern. I think that's probably relevant for any new agency or entity, and this one certainly qualifies as being a new institution. Given a tremendous investment of time and resources, say 18 months from now, when the first, new knowledge-based-industry graduate in knowledge base X does not have the skill set, what is the answer, then, for industry?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I would hope that industry would not have the sort of unpleasant surprise that the member describes. For one thing, as we'll discuss later, members of industry are intimately involved in program advisory committees at Tech B.C., which actually do the work of specifying the course requirements and training outcomes. This is clearly to an extent far greater than at any traditional university now. So the very choice of content of programs is industry-driven in a way that is not the case at more conventional universities. That's good news.

Ultimately, of course, if things go so sideways, members of industry that feel they didn't get what they had asked for could work through either the program advisory committee, the council of the university or the board to make sure that their concerns were heard and rectified.

L. Reid: One of the ongoing discussions that this minister and I engage in is around benchmarks, around accountability. Under 2(a), this is going to "contribute to the economic development of British Columbia." How will that be measured?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to say that this sort of contribution to the economic development of British Columbia is something that I think all universities make. In the case of this university I would think that the requirements would probably be even more stringent in terms of saying to the university: "What are your measures of how many graduates you've had in what field? What's their employment record? What's the employer satisfaction with the skills that they've gained?" These are some of the measures of participation that now apply to career programs at colleges.

They are not typically applied at universities. It is the expectation that the Technical University of British Columbia would look harder at those measures of actual contribution to the ability of industry to acquire trained personnel and to get on with creating wealth in British Columbia.

L. Reid: I want to certainly go on record at this juncture to state that I think that the institution that probably does it the best today is BCIT, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, in terms of . . . . They know exactly how many students have successfully completely their programs, and frankly, they know where they are a number of months down the road from graduation. The other institutions concern me because they don't have that data available. The ability, the capacity, for them to collect that information is certainly at their disposal; they choose not to.

In that this institution will have significantly fewer students than in any other institution, could we commit today to put on record that we know what happens to these students six months after graduation and, frankly, five years after graduation? I want to know whether or not the investments that this province will make in terms of educating these students will have any kind of long-term, sustainable economic benefit.

[3:00]

If I might put my wish list on the record, I would also be interested to know whether or not students who leave for any particular reason before their course is complete actually return and complete the program. It seems to me that we have not collected that data. With such a small number of FTEs, it seems easily done. To me, that's the measure of success of an institution: how many students actually make the commitment. It may take them longer than the prescribed length of time, but it's that they actually return and do some good things.

To just count numbers without following through on individual students to know exactly how that program has impacted on their lives, on their economic stability, I think would be missing the mark. If that can be the long-term goal for this brand-new institution -- and knowing full well that provinces very rarely have the opportunity to do something from the ground up, and that this is at ground level . . . . To put in place some decisions that would see us in a year's time, in estimates debate with this minister, knowing exactly how many students began the program, how many completed, and in a year's time . . . .

Well, it will be a year and a half, because that's the way annual reports are done here. But in 18 months from now, we'd know whether or not those students were successfully employed.

If, under

section 2(a), that's the goal -- secure economic development and long-term economic stability -- for the individual student, I would welcome this minister's commitment that indeed that information will be available to me when I again pose these questions to the minister during the estimates debate.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just let me say a couple of things. First, the way in which the Technical University of British Columbia is delivering courses will differ significantly from more traditional institutions. They expect to be delivering fewer than half of actual hours of instruction on site in a facility, and more than half in an employer's worksite, by distance education, by distributed learning or by a variety of other models.

Second, they expect to be structuring programs so they can be entered into, taken and completed by students in a fashion that's far different from the four years on campus of a more traditional university. It could well look like some of the programs that are being set up right now at Royal Roads, where people come to campus for a five- or six-week session during the summer and do a variety of independent, self-directed distance education studies during the year while

[ Page 6414 ]

they're actually employed, come back again and, over a period of years, complete a degree or advanced degree. That's the focus of this institution's work.

I appreciated the member's words about BCIT. I will inform her and the chamber -- though I think she already knows -- that I have asked this institution to work very closely and, indeed, form some strategic partnerships with BCIT and with Simon Fraser University as it begins its work. I think this will ensure the kind of responsiveness and accountability that we've seen in BCIT, and it also will ensure that it can get up and offering courses more quickly than would be the case if it were hiring its own teaching staff and administrative staff from scratch, rather than working with other institutions that could provide some of those.

Finally, I wanted to address two concerns. On the small number of FTEs, actually, I would expect that within ten years this will not be the smallest university in the province. It could be significantly larger than the University of Northern British Columbia by that time. It will start small, but it will not stay small.

Finally, I share the member's interest in getting the right measures of accountability and quality for institutions. However, I think it's for good reason that it's not specified in legislation. Frankly, putting any particular measure in legislation has, I think, the potential to tie the hands and fetter the development of the institution's own culture.

Hon. Chair, I've been advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, and therefore I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is indeed in the precincts. With your permission, and to warn our visitors in the gallery, I'm going to ring the bells.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997

Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1997

Police Amendment Act, 1997

Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Fisheries Renewal Act

Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 1997

Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Fish Protection Act

Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Offence Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997

Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997

Park Amendment Act, 1997

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1997

Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1997

BC Benefits Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997

Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1997

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1997

Tobacco Damages Recovery Act

Building Officials' Association Act

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997

Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997

Local Government Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1997

TD Trust Company Act, 1997

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 1997

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 30.

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 30; J. Doyle in the chair.

section 2 (continued).

L. Reid: The minister's last comment was regarding full-time-equivalent students. He indicated that in ten years' time this university may be of a significant size. Could I ask the minister . . . . It's my understanding -- and could he kindly confirm -- that today's anticipated FTE count is roughly 2,800 students? If that's the case, could he also indicate what he anticipates will be the enrolment in a decade's time?

[3:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is right: the target set for the first five years of operation is an FTE count of 2,800. Five

[ Page 6415 ]

years from then, it could well be double that. Relative to other universities, its size is a matter for speculation now. It could well be bigger than others.

L. Reid: My interest in asking the minister to confirm the numbers goes back to my original comment -- my concern about accountability and measurement -- that if we're only going to be talking about 2,800 students per year over the next decade and maybe double for the latter part of the decade, if we could track those students much more effectively than has been done in the past, I would welcome that.

By the end of the decade, I would love to know whether those students are still employed, whether or not they are seeking additional training, and whether or not the infusion of dollars on behalf of the taxpayer has made a positive impact on their lives. I would like to know if we are able to close the loop in terms of measuring where those students might be in the system as they seek gainful employment.

Under

section 2(b) "to conduct applied research and development," under the purposes

section of the bill, I would like the minister to spend a moment or two, if he might, on the funding for that research. Is it going to be a public-private partnership scenario? Is it going to be general revenue from the university that funds that research? What possible scenarios might exist?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The sources of funding for research are not dissimilar to other universities. Obviously some from general revenue is given to the university. In addition, there are a variety of research councils that allow faculty or teaching staff to apply for research funds. Then, of course, there are the opportunities for partnerships with industry and of funding of research by industry. Obviously this will be done under a plan formulated by the board and approved by the president. As we'll discuss later, that's one of the requirements of the office of the president at the Technical University of British Columbia.

L. Reid: It's been my experience that a number of university colleges around the province do business with businesses in their communities but purchase research options to explore X for six months. Will this same scenario be reflected under this technical university?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, the Technical University of British Columbia will have that ability.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

L. Reid:

Section 3(1) states: "The Technical University of British Columbia is established as a corporation composed of the assembly." We have canvassed the use of the term "assembly." Can the minister indicate for the record whether or not this corporation will differ in any way from other university entities that currently exist?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This same provision is included for other universities in the University Act. I think the only difference is the term "assembly" rather than "convocation."

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

L. Reid: My first question on this

section . . . . It seems that the act has omitted the ability of students to structure an association. I don't find it reflected it in the act, which is why I'm bringing it up under "composition." It seems a likely place for it to appear, if indeed it were going to appear. But some of the concerns that have been raised reflect on the exclusion, if you will, of students having the ability to form an association and to engage more effectively, with more impact in university organization.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will respond to that question under this section, though it is a stretch. This talks about the composition of the board of governors, and like others, this board of governors includes students elected by students to serve on the governing board of the university. The member talks specifically about a student association and the ability of students to form such associations at other universities. That is done under the Society Act. The provisions in this legislation on that issue are identical to the provisions under the University Act, which covers the other universities.

I recognize that the member and I -- and, I think, all members of the chamber -- have received correspondence from student associations who wish to see provisions inserted in this act and in the University Act which parallel those in the College Act that require, by legislation, a greater measure of cooperation between student associations and the universities where students are enrolled. I have had those discussions with student representatives myself and have told them I will undertake to discuss that issue with them and with universities in the province with a view to bringing in legislation at future sessions, but not in conjunction with this act.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification. However, the concern is valid. When he indicates that the other universities have the option to bring that information forward under the Society Act, the

section we just passed says: "The Company Act and the Society Act do not apply to the university, but the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, direct that . . . . " Certain provisions do apply. So what I'm putting on the record today is simply the omission, which I believe is a serious omission. It's a concern.

My memory harkens back to 1992, when Tom Perry was the minister, and he recommended that all future universities and institutes include the ability of students to form an association. He made that recommendation, and if this minister is discounting that recommendation, that's an interesting discussion to have on the record today.

What the students are saying is that there needs to be an ability for them to collect student fees, to organize, to impact positively on the future of the organization and to make some contributions around accountability -- for them to have the ability to hold their institution accountable. I mean, this is a public service institution designed to serve students.

They need a mechanism to ensure that they are comfortable around mechanisms, around appeal and around recourse. Without the ability to form an association, those avenues are denied them. There's no question about that. I appreciate that the minister is suggesting that it doesn't fit in this section, but my concern is that it needs to fit somewhere in this act. It truly has been omitted today, which I will put on the record as being a very serious concern.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me deal briefly with some of the concerns the member has raised, because I too take this seriously, and I want to ensure that students in our province

[ Page 6416 ]

have a voice in the running of the institutions in which they are enrolled. First, let me again say that the composition of the board provides for student representation, elected by students, and that is clearly one of the ways in which students at this university will be able to make sure their voices are heard.

Similarly, when we get to

section 11, we'll look at student representation on the university council, and I believe we'll also be looking at student representation on program advisory committees. Students will have a voice at all levels of governance of this university. That is important.

The question that the member raises is really a technical one of how students would form a student association to carry out whatever purposes they want to form the association for, whether it's social events, fundraising for athletic facilities or whatever. Student associations that exist in universities are structured under the Society Act. The clause that the member refers to in the third

section of this act refers to "the university" not being under the Society Act. That does not apply to a student association. The same provision is in the University Act; student associations form under the Society Act.

In addition, and this is more important here, student societies at British Columbia universities do get their fees collected by the university under

section 27 of the University Act. The power to do so -- and to collect fees for the Technical University -- is done by reference to the University Act and to the powers the board has under the University Act. This board will have the power to collect fees on behalf of a student society for students enrolled at the Technical University of British Columbia. Those provisions are in place, and they exactly parallel the provisions in place at our province's five existing universities.

What the member has received correspondence on, as have I, is the desire for students to see further amendments to the University Act, the Technical University of British Columbia Act and, I suspect, the Royal Roads University Act, as well, to incorporate some of the clauses that are now only in the College and Institute Act -- clauses on relations between student associations and their institutions.

That request came forward to my office far too late for inclusion in this piece of legislation. I have told the student associations of the province that I take their requests seriously and will be talking to them, to faculty, to university boards and to administrators at universities to see if we should move forward on legislation on that issue at a subsequent session.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments and for his commitment that, indeed, he will continue to look at that section. The issue was and continues to be the right of students to form an association. I know that all the rest of those issues will evolve, as with any new institution, and the minister is suggesting that that's in place. They will be happily reading this Hansard , because that is not what they believe to be the case today.

I have a couple of short questions regarding the appointment of chancellor and president. Will those two roles in this new institution differ at all from what they are currently in other existing institutions in B.C.?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The chancellor is the same as at other universities. The duties of the president in the Technical University do differ from those in other universities. The president's duties are specified in a subsequent section, and we'll be discussing them when we get there.

L. Reid:

Section 4(

d) is about eight persons to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Where will those names be drawn from? Are we looking at individuals who represent industry? Are we looking at individuals who have some vested interest in the future of the organization? Could the minister comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The pool will be a broad and deep one, of people in our province who are involved in cutting-edge industries and those in our communities who are interested in developing an institution that serves the needs of the applied technological fields. I think we will have a number of people. I hate to think how high the stack of résumés is going to be from people who are interested in participating in the establishment of this institution, because I think it's going to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for those on this board in the initial stages of establishing the Technical University of British Columbia.

[3:30]

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments, because I now have some confidence that this board will reflect people who are on the leading edge in terms of knowledge-based industries. I think that is the vision for this institution, and if that's the minister's commitment, I certainly accept it.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

L. Reid: This

section reflects terms of office on the board. I appreciate that the term of office, as outlined here, is going to be two years. My concern is that I believe that's not standard. There are university appointments today that are three years. Could the minister clarify the difference?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will point out to the member that the two-year term of office applies only to members of the board of governors selected under

section 4(c) -- that is, teaching staff members -- and 4(f) -- that is, an employee who is not a teaching staff member. Obviously a member of the board falling into one of those categories could subsequently run for re-election. These are internal employees of the institution.

For appointments under

section 4(d) -- appointments by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- those terms will be set by policy as it is now for boards of universities, colleges and institutes. For the information of the member, terms of appointment currently range from one to three years, with sort of a standard six-year maximum term as a member of the board. That, too, is a guideline rather than an absolute.

L. Reid: My next question: will there be a limit as to the number of terms someone can serve on the Technical University board? If the traditional university is two three-year terms for a maximum of six, are we talking two two-year terms to a maximum of four years?

Hon. P. Ramsey: My staff and I are unaware of any limitation on the number of consecutive terms that a board member selected by teaching staff or by students or by employees could serve on a board of a university. It's not specified in the University Act, nor is it specified in this legislation.

As for the maximum term for a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as I indicated earlier, by policy the general guideline is a maximum of six years, though I can think of instances where that has been extended.

[ Page 6417 ]

L. Reid: Given that this is now a 15-member board, from reading these sections, there doesn't appear to be a quorum established. It simply says that a vacancy on the board does not impair its authority. If this will remain a 15-member board, will there be reference made in the minister's remarks to reflect what the quorum might be?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A quorum is specified in

section 7; we'll debate it when we get there.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

L. Reid: Would the minister would be so kind as to answer the question on quorum?

Hon. P. Ramsey:

Section 7(2) specifies a majority of the members of the board holding office as constituting a quorum.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

L. Reid: Powers and duties of the board in terms of approving strategic plans, reporting out on research direction and policy . . . . Am I to understand that there will be a business plan shared with this Legislature, with members of the public? Will there be an annual report? And in terms of the discussions we've had on accountability benchmarking and where we might go from here, can the minister indicate when we might expect the first report on this new institution?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I didn't want to let the general import of this

section pass unnoticed by this chamber. This is the heart of some of the changes in governance that are incorporated in this university. The board, under this act, has the same powers and duties granted to and imposed -- you need both parts -- on the board and senate under the University Act. So this is indeed a departure from more traditional universities and how universities are governed.

The member asked whether a strategic program and research directions and policies would be available to the public. The answer is yes. The current board of the university and its president have already submitted to me a draft strategic plan on what programs and research directions and priorities it wishes to pursue. I expect the university to provide annual reports to me, to the public and to members it serves.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his commitment to provide that information. In that, as the minister outlined, this new institution will basically run without a senate, what is the appeal process? What is the mechanism in place for individuals who would find fault with the board for any particular reason? I would reference the most recent case at Simon Fraser University, where there were opportunities for the senate to become involved -- as the chamber of sober second thought, if you will. What kind of opportunities, what kind of mechanisms are in place for this new institution?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Policies and appeal processes will be established by the university itself, as they are at other universities. Depending on the issue, clearly the university could specify one or another of its governing bodies or agencies be charged with a particular issue, or a subset of that level of governance be charged with the issue. For example, it might well be that on areas of academic concern, the university council would be the body charged with overseeing issues concerned with academic credentials and fair marking and things like that, with an appeal process directed elsewhere.

There is, as in any large institution, enough flexibility here for the university itself to set up policies, processes and appeal processes. Clearly principles of natural justice and appeal are expected to be built into processes at universities.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

L. Reid: On

section 9 . . . . And perhaps we can canvass some of these issues jointly and cover both of these sections. One of the concerns around public institutions always comes up to be salary. Many individuals have indicated that they will have concerns about the funding levels, the salary levels, for this new institution.

Can the minister assure this House that, indeed, there is a grid in place for the payment of chancellor and the payment of president for this new institution?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a rigorous grid in place for chancellors in this province, hon. Chair; most of them operate for free. They receive no remuneration other than expenses for carrying out their duties. It is indeed a position of considerable honour and responsibility, and the ones that I know or have known over the years at universities have worked extremely hard to represent their institution well and to advance higher education.

I'll just digress briefly to mention the chancellor of the University of Northern British Columbia, Iona Campagnolo, who is completing her term as chancellor, who has served that institution remarkably well in its initial years and whose departure from that post I think will be missed. So chancellors . . . . The short answer is: to my understanding, they don't receive remuneration.

Presidents of this university, like others, receive remuneration in accordance with PSEC guidelines. So there are some general guidelines in place, and obviously, in setting salary levels, this institution and others will be looking broadly at sort of the industry standard across universities in North America.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

L. Reid: On

section 10(2)(a), "to establish educational and research plans in accordance with the board's direction," my question is simply: how are those research plans going to be arrived at? My desire is to see industry being very significant players in that exercise. I would simply ask for the minister's assurance.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Clearly priorities . . . . It must be the responsibility of somebody to actually set them. This

section requires the president to consult with the university council, which, as we'll see when we get there, has a high involvement by members of industry and of the program advisory committees that represent industry in particular areas. So I think that

[ Page 6418 ]

voice of the

section of our economy that the university is designed to enhance and support will be well represented in formulation of research plans.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

L. Reid:

Section 11 refers to "4 teaching staff members elected . . . 2 students elected . . . . " Then it goes to two employees appointed. I'm wondering why those employees of the university are not elected by their peers.

Hon. P. Ramsey:

Section 11(1)(

c) refers specifically to senior administrators of the university. In the University Act, senior administrators are simply listed -- for example, all deans, plus the university librarian, plus some other positions. In this act, on the contrary, the number of senior administrators is relatively limited. Therefore the board has the ability to select those whose prime responsibility is providing administrative services in support of education or training.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

L. Reid: This minister referenced this

section many times in terms of indicating that at this juncture he will indeed respond to my questions. So I trust that he will give a detailed, highly specific breakdown of why these committees are different, how they're structured, whether or not agencies in this province have the ability to submit names and how that selection process will be undertaken.

[3:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: This provision for program advisory committees does not appear in the University Act, nor does it appear in the College and Institute Act, though many college programs do have program advisory committees. The importance that this university will attach to the views of those who actually employ people or who are working in the fields for which this institution is training people is reflected in having program advisory committees established by legislation.

The fact that the majority of the program advisory committees are representatives of business, labour, professional associations and other educational institutions relevant to the program area clearly indicates that it will be those external voices. Voices external to the institution, who employ graduates of the university or who represent professional associations that graduates will belong to, will be heard loudly and clearly in how the university first sets up programs. They have some clear responsibilities, as well, specified later in

section 15 -- some quite clear responsibilities.

Second is the fact that it is representatives of program advisory committees, four of them, who sit on the university council. So we are building a governance structure for this university, as I said earlier, that differs significantly from other universities. This has created some consternation in the university community. I'm sure the member has received the same correspondence that I have on the matter.

Let me say this, because it is a significant issue, and I want to have it on the record of Hansard : we have designed this governance structure with the advice of those who are involved in the work around the Technical University of British Columbia for this particular institution. We have sought to have a governance structure that reflects the purposes and goals of this university.

My view is that there are a variety of governance structures at post-secondary institutions in British Columbia, and they are appropriate for their institutions. Therefore what I wish to say, through Hansard and this chamber, to the university community concerned about this is that while I believe that this governance structure will work well for this institution, I have no intention of seeking to have other universities adopt this governance structure. They have different governance structures. I believe that has served those universities very well over time.

L. Reid:

Section 13(1) says: "A program advisory committee exists for each program area." Does the minister have any indication of how many program areas will be reflected, say, in the first year to 18 months of operation? I appreciate that more will probably come on line as the institution evolves, but specifically, the question I raise to the minister is around committee selection once these committees are established.

Let's say there's going to be a committee around aerospace technology. Under subsection (2)(

b) it says: " . . . up to 7 representatives of business, labour, professional associations and other educational institutions relevant to the program area." Will those agencies -- i.e., the BCIT aerospace program -- be asked to provide names of individuals who may be appointed to this advisory committee? That is specifically where I'm headed. I want to know how the process works. I appreciate that people will probably submit résumés indicating their interest. But the agencies that rightly are currently engaged in that kind of educational delivery, will they too be asked to submit names?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer to the member is yes, they will be.

The member also asked how many program advisory committees are expected. It is expected that there will be six program areas at the university. This is from the draft strategic plan that the university has submitted to me. It would include information technology, management, health and medical technology, food design and technology, industrial design and engineering, and applied arts.

L. Reid: Given the specificity of expectation that the minister referenced earlier in his comments from the list he just read -- and I'm assuming that he's meaning in the first year of operation -- that's not reflecting some of the very specific knowledge-based industry we have -- i.e., the aerospace industry -- which is doing some wondrous things in the lower mainland. Has no consideration been given to having an advisory committee that would reflect their level of expertise? It seems to me that they are one of the groups that -- I know for a fact -- have approached this government in terms of structuring some training programs around their area. Surely an advisory committee will follow.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I know that when the university was looking at these program areas, they anticipated that the aerospace industry would be falling under the industrial design and engineering

section of this. Most of the training needs that I've had expressed to me by that industry would fit well under that general rubric.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

[ Page 6419 ]

section 15.

L. Reid: Simply a general reference from the minister if he might, because he said: "When I reach this section, I'll give you all the details." Since we are now at that section, if he could expound on what is currently listed . . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again I want to reference how unique this provision is in legislation governing post-secondary institutions. It's unique both in specifying that program advisory committees should exist and also in specifying what we expect them to do.

Given its membership, I anticipate that when it considers courses of study and course content and when it considers research initiatives, projects and plans, those will reflect the concerns of the members of that committee, which, as I've already discussed, will reflect both those with expertise within the institution -- staff and students -- and more importantly, those from outside the institution, who have a broad majority on the program advisory committee. That's important for looking at what is included in those courses of study and curriculum and in the design of programs.

Similarly, I would expect that because it is this sort of body that has responsibility for cooperative education opportunities for students, that sort of opportunity to blend study and real job experience will be enhanced for students at the Technical University of British Columbia.

Finally, touching on a matter that the member and I have indeed shared a lot of common interest in, I would call her attention to 15(2), which requires annual reports of the program advisory committee to the board on its activities -- what it's done, what issues it has addressed -- so that there is accountability to the board from the advisory committees that it has struck.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his clarification. To me, this

section is absolutely critical to the success of the organization. We hope and trust that this organization will be responsive -- that it indeed will be able to turn on a dime when it sees a new need in the community or on the worksite that is currently not addressed by any of the other institutions we have in the province. That variability is what this opposition is standing in support of today.

This has been presented as an organization that's much more responsive, much more flexible and more ready, if you will, to take on challenges that we've not realized yet -- that this agency will have the kind of relevance and responsiveness to meet the new eventualities that present themselves over the next decade and well into the next millennium.

To me, the selection of who sits on those advisory committees is absolutely critical to the success of that organization. If those people are not the leading-edge thinkers around knowledge-based industry, whether it's aerospace technology or new health instrumentation, this institution will flounder. Given the small number of FTEs, I think that captures much greater flexibility; it allows for much more responsiveness. We are indeed attempting to manage the lives of 2,800 students, whether it be for a six-week period, a six-month period or perhaps a two-year program. That is a much more doable exercise, if you will, than other institutions currently have at their disposal.

I'm expecting wondrous things to happen as a result of a smaller number, a greater sense of community and hopefully some absolutely leading-edge thinkers being involved in how best to deliver that kind of training so that it's relevant for employers in this province -- for small business, for people who might actually wish to make an economic contribution to this province -- and that they've got the building blocks. In this instance, the building blocks are the students.

So I commend the minister on what I believe is his sensitivity around the selection process. The individuals that are chosen will be critical to the future of this organization, and I wish this minister well with his deliberations.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just very quickly, a point of detail here: it's the board that's going to be selecting members of the program advisory committee. I want to make sure that that is clear for the record. In the general terms that member expressed support for this act, I want to thank her, because I think she's right. We have an opportunity here to expand the way we do training in the higher level of education in our province, and I think we should carry through on it -- in spite of what I heard in the press over the weekend and in the media today about concerns about this institution. I think it will serve the needs of our province well.

L. Reid: If I might make one final comment. I'm personally delighted that this minister is responsible for the K-to-12 system and the post-secondary system, because the points I raised earlier around outreach are valid, I think. Certainly under this

section -- funding opportunities for research and student scholarships -- my expectation for this institution is that they will reach out dramatically to students who are 15, 16, 17 years of age so that they will make some appropriate choices in their K-to-12 learning environments so that indeed they're eligible to participate in programs such as this. I trust that this minister will continue to reflect my concerns, as well.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I need to make one comment, again for the record. As a result of controversy around this act, there has been concern about whether this act will have academic freedom. I want to state very clearly that we have included

section 48 of the University Act quite deliberately. That act prohibits the minister from interfering in the establishment of academic policies and standards, standards for admission and graduation, and the appointment of staff. That, I think, is a very secure bulwark against intrusion into academic freedom at this university.

Sections 16 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the members opposite for their participation in this debate. I move that the committee rise and report Bill 30 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Technical University of British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[4:00]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 45.

[ Page 6420 ]

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

The House in committee on Bill 45; J. Doyle in the chair.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just before we begin debate this afternoon, I want to introduce, on my right, Joan Axford, director of school finance and data management in the ministry. On my left is Peter Owen, director of governance and legislation. We're here to debate a very significant piece of legislation: the provisions of ensuring that francophones in British Columbia have responsibility for governance of education for their children.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

A. Sanders: As the minister has pointed out today, what we're debating in Bill 45, the School Amendment Act, 1997, is a bill designed to provide the francophone community of British Columbia with management and control of francophone education as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada. In

section 23, the education in French language must also reflect francophone culture for the francophone community living in British Columbia.

I submitted, beforehand, an amendment to

section 9 under my name, and this amendment would allow people who are members of the Francophone Education Authority and live outside francophone school districts to still be able to vote for a school board in the area where they live. Members of the Francophone Education Authority are any person who can be defined under

section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; that is, if their first language is French, if they have a child being educated primarily in French or if they have ever been schooled in French.

I believe the Chair has my suggested amendment for

section 9:

[SECTION 9,

To add the part highlighted by underline:

2.1 In addition to the persons referred to in subsection (2), a person who has filed a declaration under s. 166.14 (5) is disqualified from voting at a trustee election unless that person is not resident in a francophone school district, and is a member of the Conseil scolaire Francophone de la Colombie Britannique pursuant to s. 166.13 (1) (b), or unless that person has a child enrolled with a school board.]

On the amendment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I did have a couple of things that I wanted to say on the amendment, because it is a significant point. I thank the member for bringing her amendment forward here. Before I get there, though, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It is very appropriate that joining us in the gallery today are Nicole Hennessey, president of the Francophone Education Authority of British Columbia, and Nick Ardanaz, CEO of the authority. Would the House please join me in welcoming them on this very significant day for francophone education in our province.

Regrettably, I will not be supporting this amendment for the following reason. The amendment would permit, as I think the member recognizes, dual voting by persons who live outside the francophone school district or by persons who have children enrolled with the school district. It seems illogical to me to have a person who lives within a francophone school district have one vote while other persons have two. The way the act is drafted, it requires a clear declaration of whether a parent with a child enrolled in a school run by the Francophone Education Authority wishes to vote for the directors of the authority or wishes to vote in school district elections.

This is an appropriate restriction. I recognize that it has caused some concern within the francophone community. This is a provision that is included in legislation in Ontario and New Brunswick that similarly requires voters to choose.

This side will not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 9 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, we are now on

definitions and

interpretations, 166.1. Under

part 8.1, "Francophone Education Authorities," and under

interpretation and

definitions, I had a couple of points to make.

In British Columbia we haven't done very well by the francophone community in terms of making legislation that has been quickly and expediently there to satisfy the needs of our own Charter. For those who have an interest in this area, it has been a long time coming for us to get the legislation right, and we have been to court a number of times.

section 166.11, again we are looking at a judgment by Justice Vickers, according to

section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In that judgment there were a number of pronouncements with respect to potential legislation and how this would best fit into a future bill in British Columbia that would provide for the rights of the francophone community. To make sure that we have fair and equitable treatment of the Francophone Education Authority, I have suggested an amendment to

section 166.11, which is the

interpretation. This is available on the order paper under my name.

[SECTION 21

Section 166.11

Section 166.11 is amended by the addition of the following subsection immediately before subsection (1):

166.11

(1) Where, in this Part, a provision of this Act is made to apply for the purposes of this Part, the provisions of this Part are to be interpreted wherever possible to ensure that:

(

a) The quality of education provided by a francophone education authority is on a basis of equality with that offered by school boards within its francophone school district boundaries:

(

b) The educational services of a francophone education authority are promoted and accessible in order to realize to the fullest extent their use by eligible persons:

[ Page 6421 ]

(

c) The provision of adequate additional funding, capital assets and personnel is made to a francophone education authority to achieve equivalence with school boards notwithstanding their historic head start in British Columbia.

(

d) The fullest measure of management and control is given to francophone education authority in relation to francophone educational services and facilities appertain to, or are seen to be, of the francophone linguistic minority.

(

e) The francophone schools operated by a francophone education authority become community centres for the preservation and promotion of francophone language and culture: and:

(

f) The francophone language and culture flourishes as much as possible in British Columbia.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: May I suggest to the Chair that we vote on 166.1 and then deal with the member's amendment to 166.11?

Section 21,

section 166.1 approved.

On the amendment to

section 21,

section 166.11.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to say that I share some of the member's concerns that this province does not have a proud record of supplying francophone education to those who qualify for such education under the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of our country.

To attend to that lack of adequate governance, the previous administration of this government brought forward the Francophone Education Authority to achieve those goals and to put in place a governance structure for francophone education. As the member says, that authority and its establishment by regulation were further challenged in the courts, and Justice Vickers said very clearly that the governance structure should be contained in legislation. That is why we are debating the provisions of that legislation here today.

Let me say this. I have little quarrel with the general principles that the member's amendment proposes. Clearly, we wish to see that educational services for francophones are promoted and accessible in this province. We wish to see the quality of education for francophones be on a par with that offered by school boards. We wish to see management and control of francophone education in the hands of parents of children enrolled in francophone schools.

Having said that, however, I do believe that this provision is legally unnecessary. It is our clear presumption and expectation that the legislation will be applied and interpreted in a way that is consistent with the Charter and with the constitution of our country. We're trying very hard to meet our Charter obligations.

I recognize the member's purpose in doing this, but several of the clauses in there go beyond some of the Charter provisions and create a possible second standard on which litigation around rights to francophone education and the rights of the Francophone Education Authority of B.C. could possibly be based. The amendment also has the potential for intruding on responsibilities given to the authority itself.

[4:15]

Finally, hon. Chair, and this is the point I wish you to attend to, my understanding of the rules of this House is that amendments that require expenditure by government are out of order. This amendment clearly does increase cost to government in many potential ways, and therefore I would ask that the amendment be ruled out of order.

The Chair: I rule that the amendment is clearly out of order and goes beyond the scope of this section.

Section 21,

section 166.11 approved.

section 21,

section 166.12.

The Chair: The member has two amendments.

A. Sanders: Hon. Chair, 166.12 is the actual establishment of the FEA. There are amendments I have put forward under my name. These would provide the Francophone Education Authority with a provincewide school district, or parents would be able to initiate action to start a new one or at least extend the existing authority to regions where it is needed. By doing this, they would be able to cover their people across the province in places like Kelowna and Prince George rather than just in the current areas of the lower mainland and the southern part of Vancouver Island.

These places do have significant francophone populations, and it is a matter of trying to ensure that these areas are covered, as well.

I have submitted on the order paper two amendments to

section 166.12 that deal specifically with this issue.

[SECTION 166.12 is amended by repealing

section 166.12 (1) and replacing it with:

166.12

(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by regulation:

(

a) establish a francophone education authority having jurisdiction over the provision of francophone education to eligible children in British Columbia.]

[SECTION 166.12 is amended by adding the following subsection (7.1):

166.12

(7.1) An eligible person supported by a petition signed by 50 or more eligible persons residing outside the current francophone school district, may apply in writing to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for an extension of the boundaries of the area prescribed by subsection 1 (

c) and such application shall not be unreasonably denied.]

On the amendments.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, with your advice, I would suggest we deal with the member's amendments one at a time.

The first of these amendments is an amendment to

section 166.12(1). As the member says, it aims to establish a francophone education authority having jurisdiction over the provision of francophone education to the entire province. In other words, it establishes the geographic mandate of the authority to be provincewide. As the member knows, the current authority covers 18 school districts in the southwestern part of the province and lower Vancouver Island. This would be a significant expansion of the geographical territory covered by the authority.

Let me say this. The test for provision of a governance authority in the Charter is clear governance control where numbers warrant. Currently francophone education is provided in those 18 school districts through the authority, and in other school districts through provisions made by local school districts. I have said to the authority -- and I'll say it for the record here in this House -- that as numbers warrant elsewhere in the province, this government and this ministry will be interested in discussing with the authority the expansion of the territory covered by the authority or the establishment of additional authorities. Those are the provisions contained in

section 166.12 as drafted. I'm not prepared to accept the member's amendment, because it requires a jump forward

[ Page 6422 ]

that I think would be unwise. Further, hon. Chair, I wish to advise you that by doing this sort of expansion at this time, this amendment would clearly require increased expenditures by the Crown, and therefore it must be ruled out of order.

A. Sanders: Speaking to the amendment, I feel at this point that it should not be ruled out of order. We trust the minister to expand the authority when the time comes and numbers are necessary. I think if that is the case, why would we not put it in legislation so that it would not have to be . . . . We know how quickly ministers come and go, especially in the area of education, and it may be appropriate for continuity that the next Minister of Education has the same mandate as the current minister, and we would entrust that to the francophone community by providing the substance of the proposed amendment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I know you're going to be ruling, but just let me address the detail of this quickly. We have included subsection (7) in this section. It specifically allows for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to alter the boundaries, change the name, abolish as well as add. So there are provisions for changing boundaries under subsection (7). Under subsection (1), of course, it provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council with the ability to establish a francophone education authority.

Though it may be written in the singular, clearly it legally entitles the establishment of more than one education authority. So I wish to provide some comfort to the member by saying that I believe the provisions she is seeking under the amendment, which has been put forward, are there in the legislation as drafted. Regrettably also, I must again repeat that as her amendment is drafted, it would require additional expenditure by the Crown immediately.

The Chair: Based on that, I would rule the amendment out of order due to expenditure. On the second amendment.

A. Sanders: The intent of amendments 166.12(1) and 166.12(7.1) is basically the same.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hate to almost argue the reverse way, hon. member. The proposed amendment to 166.12(7.1) does not require additional expenditure, in the view of staff. However, I do think it is an unwise amendment, because it sets a standard for when a boundary shall be altered. I think it could result in litigation either by the school districts or by the authority over whether this is a reasonable level or not.

Again, let me say that the Charter sets a clear standard that where numbers warrant, the governance of francophone education shall be in the hands of the authority set by legislation to do that governance. So I do not think that (7.1) is out of order, but I do believe it is unwise, and this side of the House will not be supporting it.

The Chair: Member, if you could take your seat. Due to the wording in subsection (1)(c), "and such application shall not be unreasonably denied," it's my view that that puts a burden or an obligation on the Crown, and therefore it's out of order.

A. Sanders: Could you please explain that to me, again, hon. Chair? I didn't follow that.

The Chair: Subsection (7) allows the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do certain things. But this amendment would put an obligation on the Crown because of the words: "shall not be unreasonably denied." So there is an obligation. Okay?

Section 21,

section l66.12 approved.

section 21,

section 166.13.

A. Sanders: Under 166.13, the concern is the potential for draft legislation to deprive francophones outside the Conseil scolaire territory of their right to become members of the authority. The amendment that I put forward under my name allows people who live outside the Francophone Education Authority to become members, essentially allowing equal access. In the current bill any person that does not live in the FEA would not be permitted to be a member. This includes areas such as Kelowna and Prince George, where, again, a significant membership in the francophone education community reside.

I know that the minister will tell us to trust his judgment. But if this were part of the legislation, there would be no need for putting his personal judgment on the line, and it would be in the legislation for all of us to view. My comments -- specifically with 166.13 -- are the reason and the rationale for putting forward the amendment on the order paper under my name.

[SECTION 166.13 (1) is amended by adding the following subsections as follows:

166.13 (1)

(1.1) Any eligible person, and any immigrant parent, who is not resident in a francophone school district may apply to become a member of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique by providing to it an affirmation in the prescribed form.

(1.2) If the Lieutenant Governor in Council establishes a francophone education authority which has jurisdiction over a francophone school district where a member of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique referred to in subsection (

b) resides, that person shall no longer be a member of the Conseil scolaire francophone de la Colombie-Britannique and may apply to the newly created francophone education authority for membership.]

On the amendment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'd like to advise the member that we really have, I think, a bit of confusion that may have led to the putting forward of this amendment. First, there are two areas where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council prescribes. One is: what's the territorial jurisdiction of the Francophone Education Authority within which it can offer programs? That is currently set at the 18 school districts in the southwest corner of the province and Vancouver Island. As I said to this chamber, that will be the initial territory designated by OIC for the Francophone Education Authority once this act is

an act.

The second area that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can prescribe, however, is the territory for membership purposes. I think this is what the member is getting at with this amendment. The OIC in place right now that designates the territory for membership purposes is the entire province. There is no intent of changing that provision when that OIC is resubmitted and reconfirmed when this legislation is in place. So we will not be supporting this amendment, because the provisions are already there to carry out the intent the member is seeking under this amendment.

A. Sanders: For the record, does the minister then infer from that statement that, as the situation is presently, there is in fact the ability for those who are outside of the area to become members of the authority?

[ Page 6423 ]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Not only does it confer that right, there are members of the authority who have exercised it.

A. Sanders: Could the minister explain to me again, under the way the legislation is written in this

section without the amendment, how that would be guaranteed?

Hon. P. Ramsey: We're debating

section 166.13(1). Let me read it and then refer to the regulation that it anticipates. It says: "Any eligible person . . . who is resident in an area prescribed by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council may apply to become a member of a francophone education authority . . . . " Let's stop there, because that's all we need to look at. That regulation, which is in place right now as part of the Francophone Education Authority, says that that area is the entire province.

So right now, under the Francophone Education Authority established by regulation, an eligible person in Prince George or Kelowna or Terrace or Nakusp can apply to and become a member of the Francophone Education Authority. Not only can they do so, they have done so and sit on the authority and act on its behalf.

[4:30]

So the authority that the member is seeking by her amendment is in place. The confusion is that there's also a separate regulation, hon. member, that designates in what territory or area of the province the Francophone Education Authority will have responsibility for delivering francophone education. That is currently limited to the 18 school districts, as we've already discussed: the southwest corner of the province and lower Vancouver Island.

A. Sanders: If that is read into the official record by the minister, then he will stand by it.

Amendment negatived.

Section 21, sections 166.13 to 166.27 inclusive approved.

section 21,

section 166.28.

A. Sanders:

Section 166.28 relates to francophone school personnel. In this area, I have proposed several amendments. The purpose of the amendments are as follows. They are to allow the Francophone Education Authority to hire teachers from outside of the board if it is unable to fill the positions from within the board. In addition, they are to . . . . Perhaps, hon. Chair, it would be best to deal with that one first. I think it would be easier to do it that way.

On the order paper under my name is an amendment to

section 166.28, with the purpose of allowing francophone schools to be filled from within or without the board:

[SECTION 166.28 (2) is amended by deleting the word in strikeout and to substitute therefor the word highlighted by underline:

On the amendment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I understand what the member is seeking to do, I believe. Look, the "must" is included in this clause, rather than the "may" that the member is proposing, as a matter of fairness -- fairness to teachers that are now providing francophone education. As we stand right now, the Francophone Education Authority is acquiring teaching personnel by contract with school boards. Once this act is approved, they will become the employer of personnel.

The "must" provision for the first school year -- and I point out to the member that it's only for the first school year -- provides a period of transition which I think will help ensure some stability in the system, as well as provide fairness to teachers that are now employed in teaching francophone education.

So with respect, I will not be supporting this amendment. I think it is important that we are fair to the teachers who have worked hard to provide francophone education to students of the province, and who have written to me -- and perhaps to the member opposite -- expressing some concern about how their lives are affected by enactment of the legislation which we are now debating.

Amendment negatived.

Section 21,

section 166.28 approved.

section 21,

section 166.29.

A. Sanders:

Section 166.29, school property, deals with the acquisition and disposal of lands and improvements. Under the Francophone Education Authority, the amendment I have written in my name on the order paper provides the right and power to expropriate. There is no reason why the FEA is not given the same expropriation process that is permitted for other school boards. Justice Vickers backs this up on page 32 of his unreported decision. That is, of course, available to the minister, and I'm sure he has read it.

We are in a situation where, because of past decisions made in the legal framework for francophone education, a number of these particular issues and questions have been debated previously, as the minister has mentioned. In one of the proceedings, Mahe v. Alberta in 1990 . . . . I believe this decision was one of the ones made there. So the amendment under my name is precisely to allow the Francophone Education Authority the same rights that other education groups and boards have in the province of B.C.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me say again to the member opposite that as far as the goals we are seeking through this legislation, I think we share many common goals for this authority and for the provision of francophone education in this province. Clearly one of the things that the authority -- the Francophone Education Authority -- will require are facilities in which to offer that education. And the acquisition of those facilities is clearly one of the principal concerns of the parents of francophone students and of the authority.

Having said that, what the member is doing with these amendments is seeking, first, to transfer title by legislation from one school district or another to the Francophone Education Authority, or add an expropriation power -- if I understand the first of her amendments -- or, in the third case, with

section 166.29(4), to provide compulsory arbitration to resolve issues around property and property transfer. With your permission, hon. Chair, I propose that we consider all of these as a package, because I think they address the same issue in a variety of ways.

I said earlier that I do not disagree with the intent or the goal here; I do disagree with the mechanisms that are

pro-

[ Page 6424 ]

posed. We are just now working with the Francophone Education Authority on their capital needs, and we expect the Francophone Education Authority to be developing its capital plan over the next while. It is appropriate that they do that before we seek the transfer of specific properties, or other properties that may not now be used, to the possession of the authority.

I intend to transfer and have property transferred to the Francophone Education Authority. That will happen under this legislation. That needs to be said. I want it on the record that it has been said -- for anybody who is watching these proceedings, for the members of the authority and for the children who are now studying in francophone schools. It is important that the Francophone Education Authority have and own the property in which they are delivering education for their children.

However, this is a very complex issue which is more appropriately negotiated rather than governed by expropriation or arbitration. I have committed to the authority that the ministry, and if necessary my office, will intervene to ensure that discussions and negotiations with school boards over the transfer of property reach satisfactory conclusions. I think it is best left at that level. I believe that we can find a mutually satisfactory resolution of issues by intense negotiations, if necessary with the help of myself and/or the ministry. I pledge to continue to assist the authority in resolving any differences.

So I believe that these proposed amendments are at this time not wise, and this side of the House will not be supporting them. However, if it is clear, after a year of experience with the authority, that we are not reaching satisfactory resolutions to these issues of transfer, I am prepared to consider such amendments at a subsequent sitting of this Legislature.

A. Sanders: I think there are some important things to look at with respect to these amendments. We're looking at a community of Canadians who have been guaranteed rights since 1982 under

section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We in British Columbia haven't done a particularly good job of activating those rights that are most definitely over a decade old and getting older as we speak.

In 1996 -- I believe it was August of '96 -- Justice Vickers's judgment was made public. Justice Vickers was the Supreme Court justice who said that . . . . In British Columbia, the Francophone Education Authority parents brought to his courtroom a case against the province of British Columbia. In that case he virtually agreed with all of the points made by the Francophone Education Authority under

section 23. What he did was order this assembly to make right the wrongs that he perceived last summer by the end of the last sitting of the Legislature for this year -- as we speak, specifically.

Now, what is appropriate and important for the critic in this role is to make sure that when it's all said and done, we've done what we've done and we've done it properly. The amendments that I have brought forward and asked this government to adopt as necessary before the legislation is passed as a final product are not creations of my own; they are creations of the legal counsel who have been working diligently for a very extended, if not protracted, period of time on behalf of the FEA community. Whether or not we feel that the amendments are appropriate, they are within the paradigm structure that has been given to us by Justice Vickers's declaration.

What I think is appropriate and important is to not leave the judgments on the perchance or the character of the minister. You know, ministers are grist for the mill, and they come and go quickly in this province. It is the circumstance that although we may have full expectations from this minister that he will fulfil his roles and duties as outlined in this House -- and certainly as vocalized by himself -- he's here today and we don't know if he will be here tomorrow. It is the circumstance that if we're going to do the job, why don't we do it properly?

Why don't we do it within the regulations that have been set out in the amendments which would satisfy most of the circumstances that are outlined in Justice Vickers's decision, and just get on with it?

Many of the things we're talking about in the amendments are things that in fact exist for other areas and have already been the subject of court cases in the past. Goodness knows, we've had 17 years in Canada for these kinds of things to occur -- since the inception of

section 23.

I don't think it's good enough for us to sort of have the minister say: "Trust me. I'll make sure that everyone carries it out, and if the francophone community has a problem, they can phone my office, and I'll make sure staff are put right on it." I think they need something definite, and I think we need to keep this government -- for a while, anyway -- out of court. I think we spend too much time there as a government in British Columbia, and I would really like to see the provisions of the not-even-cold case of August 1996 said and done. And therefore we would certainly pass the amendments I've put forward.

[4:45]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I agree with part of what the member says, and that is that we need to do the job properly. And I think that involves work by the Francophone Education Authority to put together a capital plan that recognizes that in some instances, francophone education will be delivered through stand-alone facilities that they, indeed, will have title to. In other cases, it will be delivered through facilities that are shared with school districts or with other groups. So I think it is imperative that we do that work before we leap forward to transfer specific properties by legislation.

The member says that the amendments she has proposed fit within the bounds of constitutional responsibility and Justice Vickers's instructions. I think legal advice from the Ministry of Attorney General will be somewhat different. We believe that the act we have tabled in this Legislature meets our responsibilities under the Charter and under Justice Vickers's ruling, or we would not have tabled it.

I recognize that any legislation is potentially subject to further legal challenges. I hope that this will not be, that we will move forward in making sure the Francophone Education Authority has both the operating resources and the capital facilities to provide francophone education for eligible children in British Columbia. Again, I recognize the member's commitment to this goal, but I do not believe these amendments should be supported.

A. Sanders: Again, with the minister's comments about the advice from one group or another . . . . And as we all know, depending on where you get your advice from, you get a totally different picture. When we're in a situation of looking at advice from the Attorney General -- and that is a slightly different

interpretation -- I think there is no question about that.

But when I look at the francophone school governance background and look at the number of times the Attorney General has given advice to the Ministry of Education

con-

[ Page 6425 ]

cerning francophone schools . . . . We've had to go back to the drawing board in March '89, March '90, May '91, February '92, December '92, January '93, March '93, May '93, July '93, September, November, September '94, July '95, November '95 -- and I'll just get my breath here -- April '96, May '96, July '96, August '96, January '97 and March '97. Those are a lot of times that we've talked to the Attorney General about this issue. Assuming that the advice we got back in March 1990 was the right advice from the Attorney General, then I would just go home.

But in fact we're here seven years later, and we're still talking about the same old thing. So again, the advice that . . . . I'm trying to keep the government out of court. I'm trying to prevent this minister from . . . . You know, hon. Chair, on this side of the House, and for the francophone community as well, it's more important, perhaps, to keep ourselves out of court, in that we're not spending the people's money. It's a circumstance where as government we shovel money off the truck, and there's no end to where it comes from, to continue going back to court at any time in order to eke out one more scrap of material that didn't belong to us as government in the first place.

I think the importance here is really to look at the amendments and ask: do they work within the confines of the ministry, within the Charter, within the Justice Vickers decision? Do they provide what's going to come to the FEA anyway?

And if they do, then get on with it and accept them and support them so that we don't have to be back at the drawing board this time next year with a court decision from August 1997 that says: "According to what you did in the House in 1997, you have to come back in one year's time and make sure that you've put in the amendments that were suggested in the first place, because your legislation does not settle and satisfy the requirements of the court case on which it was built."

The third amendment in this section, which I haven't spoken to specifically, is to give the Francophone Education Authority the right for their schools to be stand-alone schools -- and I bring this up because the minister has mentioned it himself. This has already been done in Newfoundland, and in other places, as well, I believe -- I think Manitoba. Currently, the schools are the property of the Ministry of Education or of the school district, and there is no clear understanding in that situation.

This amendment that I brought forward would absolve the FEA from any difficult negotiations with school districts that may not grant the funding or the schools with as much grace as has been promised by the minister. Not only does Justice Vickers support this amendment, on page 33 and 34 of his report, but it is a circumstance that as school boards get tighter and tighter in their funding, they are most definitely going to see what can go, and the places that they'll tend to squeeze are the places last on board, the cabooses of the education system.

In 1997, the FEA in some districts will definitely be one of the cabooses. So this, again, is to keep us in a circumstance where we do not have to be back in this House in a year's time doing exactly the same thing we're doing today: the minister and I debating amendments to the School Act that will satisfy

section 23 of the Charter.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hope we're not back here next year debating this, because I hope that planning will be done by the Francophone Education Authority and that we have assets transferred.

I want to pick up on the member's last statement, though, because, regrettably, I think it does apply to these clauses. While the authority to expropriate in and of itself does not require funds to be provided by this ministry, if it were actually acted upon and expropriation took place, it would be a cost on the Crown. Similarly, the transfer of schools from one authority to another would be a cost on the Crown, since those properties are not properties of government, but properties of a school district that would expect compensation for them. Finally, the same is clearly true of the arbitration.

In and of itself, the cost of an arbitration board is a minor cost item. However, if it actually acted on something and assets were transferred, again, it is a potential cost obligation on the Crown.

So I ask for them to be dealt with as a whole here for a couple of reasons. First, I hoped we could agree on the goals we have here, on the importance of having a plan in place for acquisition of capital assets by the Francophone Education Authority and a clear commitment that we're going to move forward in doing that in the coming year. We have provisions in this

section that I believe will fit the constitutional mandate and will enable the authority to get on with delivering education in facilities that it controls. But I must advise the chamber that I see no way that we can deal with these without also imposing cost on the Crown.

The Chair: The Chair rules that all three amendments on

section 166.29 are out of order due to financial obligations on the Crown.

Section 21, sections 166.29 to 166.46 inclusive approved.

Sections 22 to 66 inclusive approved.

section 67.

A. Sanders:

Section 67 is the Public Education Labour Relations Act.

Section 66 and the two that follow are, in some ways, because they relate to labour and staff -- staff meaning francophone teachers . . . . What we found in the 1990 case of Mahe v. Alberta was the exclusive need for the Francophone Education Authority to recruit and assign teachers.

The labour legislation in British Columbia requires the FEA to negotiate collective agreements jointly with the school board, and that does in fact breach the right previously set by Supreme Court decision. In the Supreme Court decision, the education rights of francophones were guaranteed by the Charter, and they were in fact upheld in the 1990 decision.

The FEA states that it may have needs that must be filled on an individual basis with various teachers, but they're also using an individual not only as a teacher but as a cultural medium. They require teachers to stay for an extra hour for cultural purposes, and often require them to be a community liaison for the FEA, as well. Full powers are therefore needed to negotiate these points with the individual teacher.

In the labour legislation of British Columbia, these rights -- not only of providing language instruction but providing cultural and community liaison -- will often be infringed by the present rights of teachers hired under the B.C. Teachers Federation agreement with government. Because of the extra duties of the francophone teachers, they are not just primarily being teachers in the classroom but have, as part of the cultural context of what the teacher does, a number of other very significant activities.

When we measure our success at implementing our Charter and our success at looking at language, not just language acquisition but continuing the first language spoken by

[ Page 6426 ]

children, we also have to look at the cultural weave. This is where this varies quite significantly from the current situation with teachers in British Columbia.

For

section 67, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 67, delete

section 67 and substitute with the following:

Public Education Labour Relations Act

Section 1 of the Public Education Labour Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.382, is amended

(

a) in the definition of "school board" by adding "but does not include a francophone education authority as defined in that Act" after "School Act"]

On the amendment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I believe we actually have a proposal for three amendmen