2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 3, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 24, Number 10

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Emergency preparedness in B.C.

S. Orr

Asian Heritage Month

R. Lee

Role of forest industry

B. Bennett

Oral Questions

Legislation on health support

workers

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Bruce

Impact of legislation on health

support workers

MacPhail

Hon. G.

Campbell

Labour dispute and cancelled

surgeries and medical procedures

J. Bray

Hon. C.

Hansen

Personal Statement

Hon. J. Murray

Second Reading of Bills

Forests Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 33)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Partnership Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 35)

Hon. G.

Collins

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Advanced

Education (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. S.

Bond

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Transportation (continued)

MacPhail

Hon. K.

Falcon

D. Hayer

[ Page 10739 ]

MONDAY, MAY 3, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. S.

Hagen: In the members' gallery today are two very, very special people. It's

my pleasure to introduce to the House today Marie Salem, who over the weekend

was presented with the emergency social services volunteer of the year award by

the provincial emergency program. She's accompanied today by Maggie Grant, the

coordinator of volunteer services for the emergency social services program with

the Ministry of Human Resources. Ms. Salem is the ESS director for the city of

Kamloops. In that role, she oversaw 1,000 volunteers at sites like the Kamloops

reception centre during last summer's forest fires, providing essential food,

clothing, shelter and support to 13,000 evacuees.

[1405]

I know that

all British Columbians appreciate the work of our ESS volunteers and Ministry of

Human Resources staff during times of emergency in our communities. Would the

House please make them welcome today during this start of Emergency Preparedness

Week.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 5 students visiting

from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is their

teacher Rick Bath, as well as several parent volunteers who have taken time out

of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would the House please make

them very welcome.

B. Kerr:

In the gallery today are the parents of one my constituents, Quendolyn Utitz,

who resides in beautiful East Sooke. They're visiting all the way from Ireland,

so I'd ask the House to make Erik and Lila Utitz feel very welcome.

Suffredine: This is National Forest Week. In the members' gallery today we

have from my riding, from a little place called Lardeau, Albert Volpatti, who's

the manager of the Meadow Creek Cedar mill and came down today to participate in

meetings about concerns around caribou management, trying to make sure we make

the right choices to preserve caribou in the Kootenays. Would the House please

make Albert welcome.

Hon. I.

Chong: Today there is a young group of individuals, a Chinese youth

delegation, visiting the buildings. They're here to watch question period and

later to have a tour. In 2003 this group, the fourth annual Star of Outlook

group, the China youth foundation for foreign languages in education, decided to

initiate and organize a visit to Canada with the invitation of a university here

in Canada. There are seven winning students of the fourth annual Star of Outlook

little bit more about Canada.

We have

visiting, first of all, the president of service for educational television, Ms.

Wendy Li, and the team leader, Mr. Zheng Chen Guang, who is from the Beijing

Broadcasting Institute. Then we have the six students ranging from age nine to

21. They are Zhao Wei, Pan Yu, Li Lai Yin, Yu Li, Qu Zhi and Zhou Yinong. Would

the House please make them all very welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS IN B.C.

S. Orr:

This week is Emergency Preparedness Week. The theme this year is "Prepare

now. Learn how." This week is an opportunity for us to focus on the

importance of personal emergency…. Many provincial ministries, local

governments, schools, businesses and community agencies will be highlighting

this week with activities that support emergency preparedness. There will be all

sorts of activities throughout the province, such as school evacuation drills,

emergency fairs, presentations and displays — all with the intention of making

us much more aware of being prepared for an emergency.

With one of

the biggest emergencies we have all ever seen last year — the fires — we all

became very aware of how important it was for us to all be prepared. What an

incredible job our provincial emergency program team did. Let's note that long

in advance of the Filmon report, PEP had already started working on improvements

to the already successful provincial emergency program. This is what we expect

from an organization that is known as a leader in Canada and, in fact, North

America.

[1410]

PEP is

indeed an amazing organization with over 13,000 volunteers, who give of their

time and expertise in preparing for and responding to emergency situations. It

was with real pleasure that on Saturday night just past, I was invited, along

with the Solicitor General, to attend the annual public safety lifeline

volunteer recognition awards to honour these very special volunteers for their

selfless contribution to our safety. Awards were given to members of the five

volunteer services that include search and rescue, auto extrication, emergency

social services, and PEP air and radio communications.

So to all

these wonderful people who take care of our safety…. I would like to invite

every member of this House to join me in commending our provincial emergency

program and all their volunteers for their dedicated hard work and to also say a

huge, heartfelt thank-you for all you do for us. We truly do appreciate it.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

R. Lee: I

am pleased today to rise in the House to mark the beginning of Asian Heritage

Month, desig-

[ Page 10740 ]

Across

Canada we celebrate the diverse artistic and cultural experiences of Asian

Canadians. From Ottawa to Montreal, Halifax, Fredericton, Winnipeg, Calgary,

Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria, a variety of programs are showcased to enhance

the Asian experiences in areas such as music, arts, literary works, dance,

comedy, stage shows, videos and films. The Vancouver Asian Heritage Month

Society presents the explorASIAN festival, with programs in Vancouver, Richmond,

Burnaby, North Vancouver, Port Moody, Coquitlam and Surrey.

A number of

outstanding Asian Canadians were recognized recently for their contributions to

Asian arts and culture. The explorASIAN Heritage Awards were given to Lily King,

Peter Pil Won Suk, Dorothy Uytengsu and Habib Zargarpour for their significant

contributions to arts and culture in the community. Dr. Charles Yang and Asha

Lohia are recognized for strengthening the community infrastructure that enables

culture and arts to flourish. Sofronio Mendoza is recognized for transforming an

aspect of traditional Asian culture to create a contemporary Canadian

expression. Harry Aoki is recognized for preserving traditional Asian culture

for the enjoyment and enrichment of future generations of Canadians.

Alex Wong

is recognized as the first Canadian ever to win first place in the 32-year

history of one of the most prestigious ballet competitions in the world, the

Prix de Lausanne, which is dubbed the Olympics for ballet. Alex beat out 119 top

competitors from 23 countries during a week-long competition. He was awarded the

equivalent of a gold medal on February 1 this year in Switzerland.

I would

like the House to join me to congratulate these individuals for their

contributions in the community.

ROLE OF FOREST INDUSTRY

Bennett: Today I want to increase people's insight into B.C.'s number one

industry — that being forestry. This week is National Forestry Week. There is

no one in B.C. whose life is not touched in some way or another by forestry. In

fact, there are very few people on the whole planet whose lives aren't impacted

by the forest industry, whether they realize it or not.

Let me

start with some basic facts. In B.C. 260,000 jobs depend on forestry. There are

also about another 20,000 British Columbians employed in the value-added sector.

Ten percent of the world's wood exports and 12 percent of the pulp exports come

from British Columbia.

Now, while

all of these pieces of information are important, I would like to share a few

more facts that may surprise a few people. How many British Columbians do you

think like ice cream? I'd personally guess quite a few, based on my knowledge of

my colleagues. How about ketchup? Did you know that tree cellulose is a

thickening ingredient in those products as well as thousands of other common

foods? Forestry products are used to produce everything from disposable medical

lab coats to car door panels. So when I say forestry touches almost everyone in

the world, that's what I mean.

[1415]

We know

forestry will be a family-supporting industry in this province for decades to

come because of the positive changes our government is making to strengthen and

conserve our forests. We are giving more timber access to communities and to

first nations. Since 2002 we have inked agreements with 36 first nations to give

them more access, including the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket tribal council near my

hometown of Cranbrook.

Right now

one of our biggest challenges is our neighbours to the south, but last week the

NAFTA panel ruled that U.S. companies have not been injured by Canadian lumber

exports. That is the strongest decision in our favour yet.

Despite our

wide range of political views in this province and in this House, most agree

with our ability as a province to promote our lumber products and to create jobs

for British Columbians. Today I'm asking every British Columbian, no matter what

their political stripe, to pay tribute to the forest industry. Whether it's by

hugging a logger or eating some ice cream, take time to recognize the value of

forestry.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

LEGISLATION ON

HEALTH SUPPORT WORKERS

J. Kwan:

The events of last week are an indictment of the B.C. Liberals' confrontational

approach to health care. Make no mistake. A piece of legislation so draconian

that it forced health care workers to pay back the government and offered no job

security was what precipitated that crisis — a crisis that saw thousands of

surgeries cancelled.

My question

is to the Premier. What on earth was he thinking when he decided that pay cuts

should be retroactive? Will he simply admit that it was a mistake to make health

care workers pay back the government for work they had already done?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's be clear that you have to have parties at a table to be able to

negotiate an agreement. How this all evolved was that the actual table had

broken down. There were no negotiations taking place. It wasn't a question of

what ought to be in the contract or what ought not to be in the contract. There

was nobody talking. Then when they get past that certain point, they affect

strike notice, which is what happens in the labour relations situation. With

that strike notice, they then took action. By taking that action, they put

thousands of patients…. They put thousands of families at risk.

[ Page 10741 ]

Government

then tried to go back to the parties and have a word with them to see whether

there was a way to get the negotiations started again. They were told clearly

that they are not interested in negotiating. The legislation that was then

introduced provided a framework of how the parties could get back to the table

and come up with an agreement.

Quite

frankly, what happened during the course of this weekend through the auspices of

ministry and government people and the B.C. Federation of Labour…. When you

can get reasonable people at the table to be able to negotiate a settlement, you

can get a settlement. That's what happened.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Excuse me. Are we ready to continue? The member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has another question.

J. Kwan:

Let's be clear. The table broke down when this Premier said he wouldn't rip up

collective agreements and then turned around and ripped up collective

agreements. This Premier wouldn't answer questions in question period because he

won't and doesn't want to be held accountable.

No one in

the province believes the government's spin. Bill 37 was very specific. Nowhere

in that bill did it say that the arbitrator was empowered to negotiate caps on

contracts or an end to retroactivity. Those provisions violated British

Columbians' basic sense of fairness and demonstrated that the government is too

extreme.

Last week

we put forward a simple amendment that would have eliminated retroactivity —

an amendment that if accepted would have averted job action and the cancellation

of thousands of surgeries. But every member of this government voted against it.

Every single member of this government who could not be bothered to vote and who

bothered to vote voted against it, including those who, after the fact, cried

crocodile tears.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. member. It's time for the question,

please.

J. Kwan:

To the Premier, once again: why did the government reject the amendment last

week but accept it a few days later? Would it not have been better for the

government to accept that it went too far, forcing this crisis and therefore

having thousands of surgeries cancelled?

[1420]

Hon. G.

Bruce: What the legislation did was allow us to build a framework to bring

the parties back to the table. The parties, through the auspices of our

negotiating team and the B.C. Federation of Labour — with their assistance as

well — were able to get a negotiated settlement. Let us be clear. The parties

were not at the table; the parties were not there. The party, when asked whether

they would negotiate and come back to the table, said no. Would we then just

stand back and do nothing and allow thousands more families to be hurt because a

dispute was happening in that sector? Absolutely not. We gave it time. We tried

to find a way to bring the parties back to the table, and then the government

took action from the perspective of protecting patients and families in the

province of British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan:

The government could have averted the escalation of the crisis this past week in

the health care system by accepting the amendments put forward by the

opposition. The opposition also put forward an amendment that would have put a

cap on contracting-out and further privatization, an amendment that would have

averted job action and the cancellation of thousands of surgeries, putting

patient care first. Again, the government wouldn't listen. All the Liberal MLAs

in this House voted against the amendment. Later we found out that the reason

there was no cap in Bill 37 was because of the Minister of Health Services

himself, who rejected it.

Can the

Premier tell us why his government rejected our amendment, only to accept it

four days later? Again, would it not have been better if government showed some

flexibility before this crisis developed? How many surgeries would have been

headed if the government had accepted the amendment?

Hon. G.

Bruce: Let's be clear. A year ago, knowing that this contract was coming to

an end, the government took action with a number of the bargaining unit to see

whether or not a collective agreement could be put in place ahead of time. A lot

of people worked hard to try and achieve that. This was a year ago. There was an

agreement reached. It was sent to the membership, and it was rejected. Then we

went through a whole period of time of trying to get the parties back to the

table when the negotiations took place — which they broke down. Then at the

very last moment we asked the Deputy Minister of Labour, one of the key

officials who had helped to get the first agreement, to go back to the parties

and ask them point blank: "Listen, can we not find a way to get a

negotiated settlement so government doesn't have to bring in legislation to end

this dispute?" The answer was no.

IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON

HEALTH SUPPORT WORKERS

MacPhail: It's as if this minister has wiped out last week completely, but

his words stand on the record of exactly what he intended. That was to take a

sledgehammer to the health care workers. British Columbians know the Premier

went too far. The legislation was extreme. It hurt workers — most of whom are

women — and it hurt patients, all because of him.

[ Page 10742 ]

Now that

we've stepped back from the brink, we all need to accept that there are some

important lessons from last week — lessons to be learned whatever our

political stripe. One of the lessons is that you can't fix health care if you

deliberately pick fights with people who care for patients. Those people need to

be part of the solution, not treated as only part of the problem as this

government has done right up to and including today.

My question

is to the Premier. Does he take any responsibility for what happened? Does he

take any responsibility for putting patients at risk? Or is he still going to

blame the health care providers he tried to force to pay back the wages they

already earned looking after patients?

[1425]

Hon. G.

Campbell: This government said from the outset that we were going to put

patients at the centre of the health care agenda. We recognize the challenges

that are faced when we go through these times and these changes, and we

recognize the impact they have on workers. That's why this government initiated

talks at the request of the HEU and others last year. That's why we actually

came to an agreement with the HEU executive on how we could move forward

together. That's why we thought it was important that we have that as we moved

to try and make sure we had a health care system that focused on patients and

that took the resources that taxpayers give us to make sure they were going to

patients. The results of the agreement that was reached this weekend mean there

will be approximately $200 million-plus that will be there for hip replacements

and knee replacements and cardiac surgeries. That's what people in British

Columbia want.

I can tell

the member opposite this, Mr. Speaker. This government was motivated by one

thing, and one thing only: what was in the best interests of patients in British

Columbia. And it was clear after discussions that were held between the Deputy

Minister of Labour and the parties that it was necessary for us to step in to

put patients first and protect their interests, as well as creating a flexible

framework to come to an agreement if reasonable parties were brought together.

That's what happened on the weekend, and that means that today every British

Columbian can focus their concerns on taking care of the 6,000 patients and

families who had operations cancelled last week because of an unnecessary labour

disruption.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.

MacPhail: Well, let's see just how stable the health care system is when

this Premier refuses to take any responsibility for destabilizing it. His view

is: "It's my way or the highway. If workers don't like what we're doing,

we'll take a sledgehammer to them." And when they finally decide to put

patient care ahead of this government's sledgehammer, they get penalized even

more. This government refuses to accept any responsibility for its intransigence

and how it harmed patient care.

Well, even

in the very near future there is trouble brewing. Let me quote from an ad taken

out by doctors today in this province: "…our government has no strategy

to ensure British Columbians get the health care they need when they need it.

It's time the B.C. government acknowledged the problem. The B.C. government,

however, hasn't been open to our input." There it is, Mr. Speaker. There's

the ad.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: Today. Today.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Would the member please now put her question.

MacPhail: To the Premier: after a very difficult week for British

Columbians, when is he going to take some responsibility for his government's

failures? When is he going to start listening to health care providers like

doctors, nurses, LPNs, care aides and dietary workers instead of picking fights

with them and hurting patients?

Hon. G.

Campbell: Let me just say to the member opposite and let me say to doctors

and health employees and nurses that this government's primary responsibility

and our primary concern has always been the best interests of patients and

making sure we had a health system that dealt with patients.

Let me say

this to the member opposite as well. You know, the health care system is there

for patients. The health care system is to deliver care to patients. We had a

strike last week, unfortunately, which was putting patients in jeopardy. So the

government went to the parties and said: "You know, we can negotiate our

way through this." We have negotiated 37 separate public sector agreements

with reasonable union leaders who were looking for a solution. We created a

piece of legislation that allowed that to happen. And I can tell you this, Mr.

Speaker. I am pleased that we have an agreement that allows the health care

system to focus on the needs of patients and their families in British Columbia.

LABOUR DISPUTE AND CANCELLED

SURGERIES AND MEDICAL PROCEDURES

J. Bray:

We did have a very emotional time over the last several days. I've had

communication with several constituents over the weekend. Many of them are

family members or constituents who had procedures or diagnostic tests cancelled

or postponed at Royal Jubilee Hospital and are now calling and asking…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

[ Page 10743 ]

J. Bray:

…how that might be rectified, what might actually happen. There is a lot

of concern among many of my constituents who have been impacted by the labour

strife.

My question

is to the Minister of Health Services. Can he please advise me what plans might

be in place for us to deal with those procedures and surgeries cancelled due to

the labour strife?

[1430]

Hon. C.

Hansen: Clearly, the strike action last week had caused the cancellation of

over 6,000 surgeries. We've got tens of thousands of other procedures that have

been cancelled, and the sad thing is that this was all preventable. If only the

unions had been prepared to engage in negotiations, all of that could have been

prevented…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Hansen: …and that hardship on patients could have been prevented.

I know of

the case — it was in the Campbell River newspaper — of a nine-year-old boy,

Trent Edwards, who was in need of cardiac surgery at Children's Hospital to have

his leaking heart valves replaced. That was one of the over 6,000 faces — real

people who were so profoundly impacted.

I want to

be able to say to Trent Edwards, and I want to be able to say to the other 6,000

patients in this province who had surgeries cancelled, that the hospitals and

health authorities around this province and the physicians and surgeons are

going to be doing everything they can to get these surgeries rescheduled again.

It's not going to be something that can happen overnight, but I know that all

around this province today there are individuals who care about these 6,000

individuals, who will work hard to make sure they get their surgeries as quickly

as possible.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information

of members we'll be continuing the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of

Transportation. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 33.

Personal Statement

Hon. J.

Murray: Mr. Speaker, I rise to declare a matter before the House. I will

absent myself from the chamber while Bill 33 is under discussion and from any

votes on the bill.

Mr.

Speaker: So noted.

Second Reading of Bills

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 33 be read a second time now.

Bill 33

continues the work that this House has been engaged in for between a year and a

half and two years — statutorily or legislatively, at least. It is part of a

broader initiative that I think members will recognize is intended to revitalize

— and has, in large measure — B.C.'s forest sector.

We have

just heard today from one of our colleagues — on this, the beginning of

National Forestry Week — and have been reminded of the importance of this

sector of our economy to all British Columbians, no matter where they live.

[1435]

I think it

is fair to say, as well, that Bill 33 begins to draw to a close the legislative

component of our broader revitalization plan. Members will know that over the

last number of sessions we have in this chamber worked diligently and, I think,

effectively on legislative reforms required to turn around what has been a

pretty dismal decade for our forest sector. I would say that we have taken some

significant steps to improve the competitiveness of our industry both in terms

of the work they do here at home domestically and also, just as importantly, as

it relates to their ability to compete with other suppliers on a worldwide

basis. It is now very much a worldwide economy within which they must compete.

In the

process of doing that, I would also emphasize that what we are seeking to do, as

the overall objective, is improve the stability of the communities that depend

on the forest sector to create something that has not existed for many years,

I'm sorry to say — a sense that there is a future, a sense that this is an

industry that young people can seek entry to on the basis that they will be in a

position to support their families in the years and decades to come.

As I said a

couple of weeks ago, I think we can begin to see evidence of the positive

impacts that these changes are having. It's positive in terms of the industry's

ability to compete and positive in terms of the significant investments that are

taking place — upwards of a billion dollars and investment on a scale that we

just haven't seen in British Columbia in over a decade.

Some of

that, recently at least, is in part tied to some significant increases in

commodity prices. That's a good thing. We'd all rather they were going up than

going down, but the strength of these changes — the strength of our attempts

to revitalize this industry — is tied to their durability not just when prices

are up but when prices return, if they do, to levels that they have been at in

the past. Let's hope that doesn't happen too quickly, but we shouldn't kid

ourselves about the cycli-

[ Page 10744 ]

cal nature of commodity prices. So the durability of these reforms will, I

think, prove themselves throughout the market cycle.

It has been

something that I think all members can take pride in no matter where they live

in British Columbia — the extent to which people have responded, the extent to

which workers have recognized the challenges and worked in concert with their

employers, the extent to which communities have recognized the challenges and

put their shoulders to the grindstone. As a result, we have an industry that is

now once again being recognized as a world leader, and the best is yet to come.

As I speak

to the specific provisions of the bill, I will be general. It's the type of bill

that we'll probably spend a little more time on in committee than we will in

second reading because of the nature of the specific provisions and technical

provisions addressed by the bill. I'll touch on a few of them that I think are

important.

I think

members know that one of the cornerstones of the revitalization initiative is

the timber reallocation process. In accordance with that cornerstone, the bill

does provide an amendment which provides greater flexibility in terms of how

that reallocation process plays out — specifically, the types of orders that

the minister makes.

[1440]

I should

say for the benefit of members that when the original plan was unveiled, the

notion was that there would be a single ministerial order for each of the

impacted licensees. As we have gone through this, ever cognizant of the need to

ensure that there is a seamless flow of fibre and that fibre doesn't disappear

into some black hole somewhere, it has occurred to all that it would probably

make more sense if there was an ability to perhaps do this in two stages,

keeping with the original time line laid out in the legislation — but to do it

in, possibly, two stages. The provision allowing for that to happen is contained

in this bill.

The bill

also standardizes the compensation provisions, the language contained in

section

60 of the Forest Act, as well as specifying the compensation that a licensee or

Forest Act agreement holder is entitled to when affected by a

part 13

designation. I'll come back to that in a moment. In fact, perhaps I'll deal with

that now.

The new

compensation provisions under

section 60 and

part 13 of the Forest Act duplicate

and mirror the compensation provisions introduced last spring in Bill 28 and

provide a consistent means and consistent language by which to compensate Forest

Act agreement holders or licensees. I should say that

part 13 is a mechanism

that the government has used as it relates to designated areas that may be

involved in first nations negotiations. In effect, it is a mechanism by which

activity over a specifically enumerated parcel of land will cease, pending the

outcome of negotiations with first nations. That's one example. The

part 13

compensation provisions apply to existing

part 13 designations and specify that

compensation only becomes payable to affected licensees after the affected area

has been designated for four years, pursuant to

part 13.

In all

cases, compensation is limited to the loss of harvesting rights and

improvements. The new compensation provisions are intended and designed to be

fair and equitable for tenure holders while at the same time, admittedly,

ensuring that government is not faced with uncertainty or excessive compensation

claims in the future. Again, I would emphasize that with respect to the

part 13

compensatory provisions, they are triggered only after a designation has been in

place for four years.

With

respect to another part of the timber reallocation process — that is, the

impact and the relationship between contractors and licensees — this bill will

ensure the rights of contractors with an existing replaceable contract, will

continue to hold those rights, particularly where a contract is transferred or

where the tenure itself is transferred. Those contractors or the replaceability

rights attached to that contract will follow that contract in the case of either

a transferred contract or a transferred licence. At the same time, the bill

ensures that there is flexibility as between a contractor and a licensee to

waive the requirements of the timber harvesting contract and subcontract

regulation in certain cases — and I emphasize this — where both parties

agree that that is what they wish to do.

We have

done a great deal of work with the Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations. I

want to pay tribute to them for their positive contribution to the dialogue. I

know that at times the issues that we are discussing sometimes present vexing

problems, but the issue that we started on and that has, I think, represented a

motivation to all of us is that we want to double the size of that program. What

we are dealing with in this bill are the mechanisms by which that will happen.

[1445]

There are

enabling provisions that deal with the question of allocating additional volumes

for the woodlot sector. I said to the woodlot federation that we used to call

that, and we tend to call it, the woodlot program. Programs tend to come and go.

Woodlots are here to stay, so I prefer to refer to them as the woodlot sector.

We are, by virtue of this bill — members will know — doubling the maximum

size that a woodlot licence can be. I think that is a provision that most

woodlot owners and certainly the federation have been seeking for some time and

welcome.

Similarly,

community forests. There is a great deal of interest in the expansion of the

community forest sector. This bill facilitates that, especially in this way.

Under the existing Forest Act provisions, community forests are still seen to be

something of an experimental tool. We talk about pilot agreements in the

existing Forest Act. We're moving to make more permanent the notion of community

forests — all with a view to, again, expanding that sector of the forest

licence community in a fairly dramatic way. The discussions have already begun

as to the mechanics around doing that.

This bill,

members will see, talks about the means by which applications are made and award

provisions.

[ Page 10745 ]

There is contained within these provisions a mechanism for applications for,

in rare circumstances, even direct awards of community forest tenures. We can

discuss that in more detail when we get to the specific sections.

There are

some housekeeping amendments clarifying issues that have arisen upon review of

the question of cut control and wording around change of control and transfers.

Again, members can put me to the test for this in committee. These are largely

technical amendments as opposed to substantive changes from what has existed

previously.

This House

and all members have heard a great deal, as well they should, about the mountain

pine beetle epidemic. My colleague the minister of state has recently provided a

detailed description of the approach, the program, that the government is taking

forward to try to combat the spread of the infestation but also ensure there is

a planning process in place that takes into account the fact not just of the

challenge we are facing today but of the impact this is going to have down the

road with respect to allowable annual cut volumes and the fact that at some

point, given what the pine beetle is doing, those numbers are going to drop

significantly and precipitously for certain communities.

This bill

addresses that in this way. It certainly recognizes the operational needs

created by that crisis by allowing more flexible provisions for the extension of

cutting permits. In effect, what we are trying to do is ensure that licensees

aren't penalized for directing their activities into the leading edge of the

attack. That was an issue that was identified for us. It's an issue that we are

addressing in this legislation to ensure that we can continue to work

cooperatively with people on the land base to do everything possible to try to

combat and minimize the spread of the infestation. Thus far, it's worked well.

This was an issue that arose and is dealt with. Again, we can discuss it in more

detail.

I'm happy

to report that the bill acts on some of the recommendations of an MLA review

committee on small-scale salvage. I want to take advantage of this opportunity

to again thank the members of that committee for the time they spent in meeting

with people right across British Columbia in communities where salvage is a very

important part of economic life in the forest. One of the provisions that

appears in this bill, which emerges directly from the recommendations presented

by that committee, is increasing the maximum size of a forestry licence to cut

from 500 cubic metres to 2,000 cubic metres.

[1450]

That rather

simple change will improve the ability of salvage loggers to take salvaged wood,

including wood that is impacted by mountain pine beetle or other infestations,

fire, disease or windthrow. That's one example of a change that is reflected in

this bill or appears in this bill, which has arisen as a result of the work

performed by the MLA task force looking at salvage.

There are,

in this legislation, clarifications to certain aspects of the tree farm licence

form of licence. A process for severing private land from a tree farm licence is

reinstated. It was there; it disappeared through our earlier amendments. It's

reinstated.

The

amendments also address time lines for notice of additions or deletions from

TFLs. The example I would offer to the House for why that is significant relates

to the fast-moving oil and gas development sector. Where heretofore there has

been a one-year notice requirement, that is now reduced to 60 days' notice in

order to remove land from a tree farm licence, woodlot licence or community

forest agreement. Those provisions are standardized and are designed to

facilitate ongoing exploration and development work in the oil and gas sector.

There are

provisions in this bill dealing with the Forest and Range Practices Act. Several

matters have arisen as a result of ongoing review by stakeholders, by the

ministry and by the public advisory committee. Members may have questions

relating to those amendments as they relate to the Forest and Range Practices

Act.

The last

thing that I would draw to members' attention — I won't pretend this is an

exclusive or definitive listing, but some of the more substantive provisions —

are amendments to the Forest Act to recognize the role of the B.C. timber sales

staff as those individuals solely responsible for the awarding of competitive

timber sale licences.

Again,

there are other provisions. I think I'm safe to say that they are certainly of a

technical nature and, largely speaking, of a housekeeping nature. I've mentioned

the key ones that arise. As I say as well, it is my belief — I suppose my hope

as well — that we are bringing to a close the legislative stage of enacting

the forest revitalization plan. I am happy at this stage to be able to echo

comments I am receiving from right across the province that, by and large, we

are beginning to see some real signs of life and genuine revitalization.

It's not

happening everywhere. There are communities where there are still some pretty

serious challenges. But when I look at my

schedule and I look at the places I'll

be visiting and the activities I'll be participating in, whether it's commencing

construction on an OSB facility in the Peace worth hundreds of millions of

dollars, doubling capacity at a mill — Dunkley's mill — a new upgrade at a

sawmill in Merritt…. I was recently in Williams Lake where in addition to

mines reopening and other economic activity — pellet plants — a new sawmill

is under construction, so those are good signs.

We would be

well advised not to proclaim victory at this early stage, but it is an

indication that given the tools, British Columbians can do the job, because if

there's one job they know, it's forestry. If there's one product — amongst

many, but there's certainly one product — that British Columbians can produce

better than anyone anywhere else in the world, it is forest products. We hope

that by virtue of the amendments contained in this bill, statutorily we are

refining that tool in a way that makes it more effective and better equips us to

collectively achieve our objectives.

[ Page 10746 ]

With that,

I would conclude my remarks and assure members that I'll do my best to answer

any questions that might arise during the course of the committee-level debate

on the whole series of sections.

[1455]

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the question is second reading of Bill 33.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, Mr. Speaker, I gave an assurance to a member, and I'm not

certain whether that member has changed her mind about speaking or not.

Interjection.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Oh, they have. Okay.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 33,

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I call second reading of Bill 35.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that Bill 35, the Partnership Amendment Act, 2004, be now

read a second time.

This bill

amends the Partnership Act to provide for the registration and operation of

limited liability partnerships in British Columbia. British Columbia has lagged

behind other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world in not having

legislation providing for limited liability partnerships. These amendments will

not only remedy that situation; they'll place this province at the forefront in

Canada by providing full-shield limited liability to partners and allowing any

business — not just professionals, as in other provinces — to form a limited

liability partnership. This will make British Columbia a more attractive place

to do business and encourage new and existing partnerships to set up and operate

in this province.

[1500]

Professional

partnerships will also be able to benefit from these new provisions if their

guiding legislation permits it. Government had received direct representation

from the law profession as well as the chartered accountants, who requested that

changes to their legislation be made. It's government's intention to canvass

other professions to determine their desire for similar amendments to their act.

Last week government received a request from the CGAs as well as the CMAs to

include them in this legislation. It's government's intent to introduce those

requested amendments in committee-stage debate of this bill.

Under the

current legislation, each of the partners in a partnership is personally liable

for the debts of the partnership and other partners. This is often a less than

ideal business structure, as it means that the personal assets of every partner

are at risk from the actions of every other partner as well as the partnership

employees and all debts incurred by the partnership.

A limited

liability partnership, a common form of business structure around the world, is

a partnership in which the partners have protection from personal liability for

the debts of the partnership as well as other partners. The limited liability

afforded partners in the limited liability partnership is similar in many ways

to the limited liabilities that shareholders of an incorporated company enjoy.

It also provides many of the same benefits — protection of personal assets,

the ability to focus on the business of the partnership and certainty for all

parties as to what assets are available to creditors.

The lack of

limited liability partnership legislation in British Columbia has also meant

that limited liability partnerships in other jurisdictions have been discouraged

from doing business here in British Columbia. These amendments will remedy that

situation by making this province a more attractive place for limited liability

partnerships not only to carry on business but, because British Columbia will

have the most progressive legislation in Canada, to set up their businesses as

well.

The new act

will impose a number of requirements on limited liability partnerships in order

to protect those who deal with partnerships. Most significant in this regard is

that a partner will not have limited liability in instances where there has been

negligence or wrongdoing of that partner. As well, in order to obtain and

maintain their LLP status, the partnership must register at the corporate

registry, notify clients of their change in status and include the letters

"LLP" right in their business name. They also must make an up-to-date

list of partners available to the public at all times and remain in compliance

with all the relevant laws and requirements.

These

amendments will bring this province into line with other countries around the

world by allowing the registration and operation of limited liability

partnerships right here in British Columbia. They will place this province

firmly at the forefront among Canadian jurisdictions as having the most complete

and progressive limited liability partnership legislation in the country. These

changes will make this province a more attractive place to do business, thereby

increasing the economic activity as well as the investment activity. At the same

time, they provide a balanced level of protection to those who do business with

the limited liability partnership.

Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading.

Hon. G.

Plant: Although I'd love to spend some time congratulating the Minister of

Finance on this initiative, I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

[ Page 10747 ]

Hon. G.

Collins: You can have leave to congratulate me too.

Introductions by Members

Hon.

G. Plant: The House Leader wants me to ask for leave to congratulate him

too.

But in

fact, we will be joined over the course of the afternoon by a group of 77 grade

9 and 10 students from Robert McMath Secondary School, which is in the beautiful

and wonderful constituency of Richmond-Steveston. I'm told there will be some 77

students who will be entertaining the nine parents in their company. There are

three teachers — Ms. Monique Vonk, Ms. Mej Datoo, Mr. Robert Airey — and a

classroom assistant, Mrs. Corinne Ross. I hope they will enjoy their time in the

Legislature. They will see that we actually do constructive work along with some

of the theatre that happens here.

particular, although each of the 77 students is an enormously valuable member of

the Richmond-Steveston community, I would like to say hi to Lisa Yap. I hope all

of them have a very wonderful afternoon here in Victoria and the Legislature.

Debate Continued

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, the question is second reading of Bill 35.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

consideration by a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Bill 35,

Partnership Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

[1505]

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will

be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:07 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ADVANCED EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote

9: ministry operations, $1,898,849,000 (continued) .

J. Kwan:

Last weekend we were debating with the minister, and I just want to find the

place where we left off in Hansard . We were debating the issue about the

support for low-income students, if you will, or addressing the issue of

equitability in the post-secondary education system for students. I raised

issues with the Minister of Advanced Education about some of the strategies the

government is undertaking in this regard.

The

minister, of course, talks the big talk about the government bringing forward

25,000 new seats by 2010, but in the midst of that there are a whole host of

other issues that students are faced with. Many are faced with escalating

tuition fee hikes. Many are faced with a situation where the government is

providing less support to students by way of student support in trying to manage

these issues.

The

minister cited that some 50 percent of the students graduate without a debt. The

flipside, of course, is that some 50 percent of the students do graduate with a

debt. In fact, there was a recent report done and put forward by Statistics

Canada, which said that student debt jumped 76 percent in a decade, leaving

indebted university graduates in the class of 2000 owing an average of $20,500.

The

national graduate survey released found that while the proportion of graduates

who had left school debt-free remained constant from 1990 to 2000, about half of

all students graduated with no debt. The more recent grads owed significantly

more than their predecessors, with many having trouble repaying loans. The

federal government, of course, was quick to play down the findings. Joe Volpe,

the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, characterized the sum as

pretty easy to repay.

[1510]

Statistics

Canada cites the rise in tuition fees as the main culprit for the growth of

student debt, with undergraduate tuition fees jumping from a national average of

$1,464 in 1990 to $3,447 in 2000. That number, I might add, continues to go up

since the tuition fee freeze has been lifted by the Liberal government. This

year, 2004, undergraduate students pay an average of $4,025. We can see that

while it is true the number of students who incur a debt for their

post-secondary education has remained constant, the issue remains — very much

so for the 50 percent of students who do incur a debt — that the debt is

becoming higher and higher.

I would

like the minister to comment on this issue with the recent findings. This was

reported out in the Province on April 27. The

article was entitled

"Students leave university owing $27,000." Since the Liberal

government took office, the tuition freeze has been lifted, and that tuition

debt load that I have put on record for this year has increased to $4,025, in

terms of the fee per year. I would like the minister to address this issue of

increased debt load for students who do have a debt.

Hon. S.

Bond: We have canvassed this issue a number of times, and my comments will

be the same as they were previous to this. First of all, the study was a

Canadian study, and it's important to point that out.

[ Page 10748 ]

What it does is put British Columbia in a context, and while I'm not going to

underestimate the challenges facing students, we need to remember that B.C.

students are not alone. In fact, our tuition in British Columbia still remains

at about the Canadian average.

In addition

to that, one of the things I've said repeatedly is that as students face

challenges getting the finances they need to be in a post-secondary institution,

our responsibility is to assist those students most in need. Obviously, it is

good news that 50 percent of students graduate without debt. Our concern,

therefore, needs to be with providing assistance to those 50 percent and those

most in need of that particular group. We have a comprehensive student financial

assistance package. We are continuing to redesign our grant program as we speak.

Additionally,

we need to be very clear that while the rest of the provinces in Canada were

raising tuition incrementally over the last number of years, British Columbia

had a tuition freeze. While that is an attractive — at times political —

decision, in fact, the law of life would suggest that at some point there's

going to be an adjustment process. The rest of Canada was increasing in smaller

proportions incrementally. British Columbia faced a rather rapid increase

following that. But from our perspective, our responsibility is to make sure

that we have a program in place to assist those students most in need.

J. Kwan:

Well, the minister, of course, would like to say everything is just fine

because we have a situation where 50 percent of the students actually don't have

a debt. But the minister misses the point that the other 50 percent of the

students do have a debt, and the issue they're faced with is that the debt is

increasing substantively under this government's so-called strategy to address

issues for students.

The

minister says, well, these are ongoing challenges. Yes, they're challenges but

challenges that could be met by the government if the government chose to

address the issue by investing in post-secondary education and investing in

students.

Let me put

on the record some information here with respect to another report that has been

done and that I made some reference to in estimates earlier. Pressure Points

in Student Financial Assistance: Exploring the Making Ends Meet Database was

a report that came out in March 2004. The key findings of this report include

the gap between expenditures and student aid limits, which suggests that some

people may have difficulty meeting expenses and therefore need alternate sources

of financing, and some may not attend because of lack of financing. The report

also notes that most of the impacts for the students in this category with this

finding are in British Columbia.

[1515]

The high

percentage of dependent students who are working and/or borrowing from private

or family sources seems to confirm that parents are unable or unwilling to make

the contributions expected by the student aid programs, and that is the issue

here, with student aid programs actually on the decline. Also, the federal

government student aid program doesn't help basically, because the cap is so

onerous that many of the students don't qualify for their program.

"The

incidence of part-time employment and use of private loans suggest costs faced

by certain categories of students exceed assistance limits in some

jurisdictions. Actual parental contributions are generally higher than expected

in the lowest income ranges and lower than expected in higher income ranges. The

parental contribution expectations of government for middle- and higher-income

families are quite onerous. About two-thirds of students worked, on average, 19

hours per week during the school year. Those who lacked resources such as

parental support or student loans were more likely to work. Forty-one percent of

full-time students said they could complete their studies more quickly if they

did not have jobs. The situation could be compounding student debt if students

are taking an extra year or two to complete a four-year degree and borrowing

more money in the process. Low-income students, mature students and those who

move to attend post-secondary study have the highest student loan debt

levels."

This is a recent report. The findings, I would say, are anything but

for one to celebrate because of the situation many of the students are actually

in.

Then, when

we look at the issue before us, around tuition, we actually have a less than

encouraging situation, I would say, because tuition is continuing to go up in

British Columbia.

The other

areas that I think are of concern for British Columbians would be…. Well, let

me just turn right to the tuition issue. I was actually going to deal with the

question around training and apprenticeship, but let me just stay on topic here

with the tuition question.

The

Canadian Federation of Students has said that since 2001, B.C. university

tuition has increased by 70 percent and college tuition by 150 percent.

Statistics Canada indicates that in 2003 and 2004, students paid 7.4 percent

more in tuition fees — the biggest increase in four years. For the first time

in eight years, British Columbia's average undergraduate fee is higher than the

national average. Some specific statistics that I want to put forward: Northern

Lights College in the Peace River area will have a tuition increase of 15

percent. In the 2004-05 academic year the University of Victoria has an

increased tuition of 30 percent in the past two years and has proposed a 28

percent hike in the fall of 2004.

I earlier

mentioned the Okanagan University College, which has seen the tuition jump as

well. The minister countered that with a one-off that the government has come up

with of reducing the Okanagan University College tuition by $1,000. However, we

should note that over the last three years, the tuition at the Okanagan

University College has actually jumped some 65 percent since 2002.

In regard

to increased tuition fees, a March 2003

article in the Province — some

of that information which I had just put forward for the minister's

information…. The

article actually cited the Minister of Advanced Education as

stating: "Do I think increases will continue? That will be up to the

institutions. I really

[ Page 10749 ]

have no sense of what the trend will be over the next number of years."

This is, of course, a disturbing response from someone who oversees

post-secondary education in the province. How can the Minister of Advanced

Education have no sense of whether tuition fees will continue to skyrocket in

British Columbia?

Hon. S.

Bond: It's not a matter of the Minister of Advanced Education not knowing.

It's a matter of a principle that's employed by this government, which actually

is called institutional autonomy. What we did when we made a policy decision

about tuition in the province was restore the institutions' ability to determine

tuition on an independent basis, set aside from government's decisions. In fact,

they get to decide what the best range of tuition would be for a particular

institution.

[1520]

Institutions

are different all around the province. Certainly, where I live, in a rural

community, it is much different than downtown Vancouver. So it is not a matter

of not knowing. It is a matter of a policy decision that said government isn't

in the best position to make the decisions on an individual basis with

institutions.

In fact, it

is interesting to note…. While the member opposite quoted some of the tuition

increases for this year, let me just give you a few of the other ones. Vancouver

Community College is at zero percent increase. North Island College is at zero

percent increase. The College of the Rockies is at zero percent increase. We

have some other small ones as well. The College of New Caledonia is at 3

percent. So in fact, we are finding that because of some of the measures we have

put in place, plus decision-making done at local institutions and at individual

institutions, those rates are different all across the province. It's not a

matter of the minister not knowing the answer; it is a matter that each

institution deals with tuition independently. We believe that's an important

policy decision to have made as a government.

J. Kwan:

I would remind the minister that when they were in opposition, they actually

supported a tuition fee freeze. In fact, this minister and this government

campaigned on continuing the tuition fee freeze. How things have changed now

that they have been elected, and how things have changed with the many, many

broken promises from this government.

The list is

endless. It's endless in terms of how this government said that they would do

one thing prior to the election and then after the election just turned right

around and did exactly the opposite. B.C. Rail comes to mind. The health care

sector comes to mind. The teachers come to mind. Education and advanced

education with tuition fees come to mind. The list, as I said, is endless. This

government continually breaks the promises it made during the election.

The

minister argues that lifting the tuition fee freeze for students will improve

educational opportunities like more classes, and thus they will be able to

complete their degrees more quickly. But we must ask ourselves: do higher

tuition fees equate to a better education and getting a degree done faster for

students?

If the

minister is correct in her assertion, why was the University of Victoria's law

department ranked number one for many years during a tuition fee freeze, while

still being one of the most affordable in the country? The fact is that paying

more for university does not automatically translate into receiving a better

education. Moreover, when UVic's tuition fees went up by 30 percent in 2002, it

added to the university's overall budget little more than 5 percent. It was just

enough to cover the cost of inflation and the cost of doing business. It did not

provide for more lab equipment or technical support for students or more spaces

for students.

The reality

is this. The minister cites that a number of universities or colleges didn't

actually see an increase this year. Let me just say, in case the minister

actually missed it, that since 2001 we see tuition fees increasing by some 70

percent. We see college tuition increasing by some 150 percent since this

government took office. It's hardly anything for one to celebrate.

For the

minister to say, "Well, gee, the tuition fee increases slowed

down…." Well, the hit has been substantive. I might add that not all of

the freeze, in terms of tuition hikes, has actually taken place. In fact, some

of the other universities and colleges still have tuition fee increases in

addition to what was brought in a couple of years ago.

The

minister says it is not up to her to decide whether or not tuition fees should

be capped; it's for the institution to decide. The institution had to increase

tuition fees. Why? Because they don't have enough funds in the system to provide

for the programs that they need. That's why they have to increase tuitions.

That's why students are getting hit.

[1525]

Meanwhile,

even according to the budget that this minister has tabled…. Here are the

budget figures. While the minister denies having any knowledge of what the trend

will be for tuition, the 2004 budget lays it out pretty clearly. Tuition will

continue to skyrocket. In fact, over the next three years the government

estimates that tuition will increase from $713 million in '04-05 to $837 million

in '06-07. That's an increase of $124 million. That's from the government's own

budget document. So how could the minister sit there and say: "Well, gee,

it's not up to me. I don't know whether or not tuition would be impacted or

what's going to happen"? It's in the government's own budget book that they

expect the tuition fees would increase.

Furthermore,

it's this government who is cancelling support in the education system in terms

of financial support. They know very well that by doing exactly that, the cost

is going to off-load onto students. The minister knows exactly that by saying

they will fund 25,000 seats by 2010 without fully funding each of those seats,

somewhere along the line the students have to eat the cost of funding those

increased spaces. The minister knows very well that's exactly what this

[ Page 10750 ]

government is doing — off-loading costs onto the students.

One of the

central concerns for students is keeping education affordable. Can the minister

explain whether student aid has kept up with tuition increases over the last few

years?

Hon. S.

Bond: First of all, I'm going to read into the record, because quite

honestly it is time to put it on the record. It is far too easy to make comments

without actually going back to what our commitment was — to suggest we didn't

keep it.

In terms of

tuition our commitment was — and let's talk about fully funding — to support

the 5 percent tuition cut that the previous government made and actually fully

fund, which had not occurred previously and which caused some major challenges

at institutions in the province. We agreed and promised to fully fund it in the

2001-02 fiscal year, to offset costs to post-secondary institutions. The key

there is that we as a government would fully fund the commitment that was made.

I'm happy to tell you that we did support that particular promise with a 5

percent reduction, and we fully funded it in the 2001-02 budget year. There was

a second promise we made that we also completed, which was to consult with

educators, students and administrators on the hidden costs to students and

institutes of previous tuition freezes that were — here are the key words —

not properly funded by the government and that have reduced student access and

reduced course offerings.

Here is

what we did about that promise. In the fall of 2001 the minister met with

student representatives, educators and administrators from all public

institutions to determine their perspectives on the tuition fee freeze. The

information gathered through these meetings provided input into a new tuition

policy, which was announced by cabinet in March of 2002. Two promises — two

completed promises.

Let's talk

about tuition in the province and give it some context. First of all, the

taxpayers of British Columbia currently support post-secondary education for

students between 70 and 80 percent. While tuition is one of the factors that

cause costs for students, in fact it is a very small piece of the entire puzzle

as students try to work to gain a seat in post-secondary education. When we talk

about our particular view of that, we believe that getting an education in this

province is a partnership.

As I said,

the taxpayers of this province are partners to the tune of 70 to 80 percent.

It's challenging for some students in the province obviously, and we don't ever

underestimate that. That's why we have student financial assistance policies,

and that's why institutions such as the University of British Columbia have a

policy that says if a student is able to be accepted into an institution on

their academic merit, they will not be turned away because of financial need.

That's the kind of partnership we have in the province to assist those students

most in need.

Let me talk

to you a little bit about…. I think the University of Victoria law department

is probably still as outstanding as it was, and from my perspective the

additional tuition…. One of the things we said in our policy decision was that

it must be used to increase learning opportunities and enhance quality for

students. That's what we heard when we went out and talked to people — that

there were opportunities missing for students because of the freeze that had

been in place.

Let me give

you a few of the examples of what institutions have done with the tuition

revenue. They've provided additional student financial assistance both merit-

and need-based, including scholarships and bursaries. They've added more

classes. Additional class sections mean more of our students get the opportunity

to get in the courses they need. They've provided for some of the concerns the

member opposite expressed — new equipment and information technology, making

sure that our students have the very best and most up-to-date technology.

[1530]

Critical to

success in our province, they've increased library acquisitions and also program

improvements such as the learning experience of students and more hands-on

activities, labs, etc.

We can

continue to have an ongoing debate about tuition. Our government believes it is

a partnership in which students, families and the government have a

responsibility to partner in providing for a student's education.

The

Chair: Member, I just want to make a caution here. This debate is becoming

quite repetitious. This topic has been well canvassed, so I'd ask the member, if

she has a new line of questioning, to move on to another topic.

J. Kwan:

Let us be clear in terms of what has happened with the issue around tuition

since this government took office. Let's be clear what this government had

campaigned on and promised British Columbia students and failed to deliver that

campaign promise — that is, to reduce tuition fees by 5 percent. This

government campaigned on that, and not only did they not deliver on that, but

this government actually increased tuition by, in some cases, some 150 percent

since the government took office. So let us be clear in terms of where things

are at with respect to this government. The government did not deliver on its

campaign promise of reducing 5 percent in the tuition fee area for students.

The

minister says: "Well, in the 2001-02 budget year we actually funded

institutions the full cost of the tuition freeze in terms of the amount."

Well, let us be clear. The 2001 budget was basically the NDP budget that was

tabled, which this government took after they won office. Since that time, in

budgets after that, you actually see no support for students from this

government. The government lifted the tuition fee freeze, and then we saw

tuition skyrocket across the province.

Let us just

put on record what happened since that time. Some samples of tuition fees for

full-time under-

[ Page 10751 ]

grad arts and sciences or general studies programs across British Columbia.

The University of British Columbia: 2001 tuition fee, $2,181 per year; in 2002,

$2,261 per year; 2003, $3,459 per year. In the University of Victoria: 2001

tuition fee, $2,152 per year; 2002, $2,796 per year; 2003, $3,635 per year.

Capilano College: 2001 tuition fee, $1,275 per year; 2002, $1,695 per year. In

2003 they were expecting a 40 percent increase in their tuition fees for

students. In the University College of the Cariboo: 2001, $1,200 per year; 2002,

$2,400 per year — a doubling; then in 2003, proposed $3,120. Langara College:

2001, tuition fee, $1,260 per year; 2002, $1,780 per year; 2003, $2,054 per

year. Vancouver Community College: 2001 tuition fee, $1,194; 2002, $1,680; 2003,

$2,200. BCIT: 2001 tuition fee, $2,238; 2002, $2,997. Then in 2003, they also

expected an increase.

These are

just some examples of how tuition fees have skyrocketed since this government

took office. So for the minister to say, "Well, gee, we actually didn't

control that; actually, we had no say in that…." Well, no. The government

promised that they would actually decrease tuition by 5 percent. They failed to

deliver on that promise. The government said that they wouldn't interfere with

institutions, with tuitions, yet in the budget books they expect that there will

be an increase of $124 million for students in terms of their fees.

[1535]

The

minister's words simply don't ring true. By September of 2003, in fact, tuitions

would have in some cases tripled and in almost every college and university have

almost doubled. That's exactly what's happened. It isn't any wonder that the

tuition debt load…. The Statistics Canada report shows that for those students

who do have a debt load, you actually see a significant increase in their debt

load. Is it any wonder, based on what this government is doing, based on the

government's policy? Let us be clear in terms of the record of what this

government is doing around that.

The

minister, of course, didn't answer my question — surprise, surprise — about

student aid. How has that kept up with tuition fee increases?

Hon. S.

Bond: I'm only going to say this one more time, because I think it's

incredibly disappointing in terms of the completed promise. I can only say it

and read it and reiterate it. This is the last time.

We said

that we were going to support a 5 percent tuition cut previously announced by

the member opposite's government and were actually going to fully fund it. We

did precisely that. In tandem, we said we're going to talk to people about the

impacts of a six-year tuition freeze in British Columbia. We did precisely that.

We announced a new tuition policy in March of 2002, which effectively lifted the

freeze on tuition. Secondly, the institutions are in the best and most

appropriate position to make those decisions, and they will continue to do that

in British Columbia.

The other

thing that's important to point out is that the average funding per FTE was

higher in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 than it ever was in the 1990s and

particularly in the latter part of the 1990s. In fact, institutions are

receiving, on average, significantly more dollars per FTE.

Finally, to

answer the question — which I'm always happy to do for the member opposite

when I get one — in fact, student aid across government has increased. We've

done that in partnership with institutions. I noted earlier that in the tuition

revenue that was generated, one of the things that institutions did was make

those dollars available. Also, I can think offhand — hopefully, it's within a

few percentages…. For example, the University of British Columbia invested

about 25 percent of their tuition revenue in extra assistance. Another example

is the University of Victoria. They include in this year, 2004-05, additional

dollars — in fact, $2 million — in student financial assistance. While

government isn't doing it by itself, we are increasing those dollars, and so are

institutions.

The

Chair: Hon. member, I'm now asking you for the second time. As I mentioned,

this debate has become tedious and repetitious. You have canvassed this

particular item now for the second or third day. It is time to move on, please

— new subject. Thank you.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, I'm sure this is tedious for the government, but you know what? It's

not tedious for the students who are faced with this situation.

The

Chair: Member, it is my judgment from the chair that this debate has become

tedious and repetitious. I'm asking you to move on. It is not the government's

decision. It is mine. Move on.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, let me just put this information to the minister.

The rules

of this House…. It's really quite something. It does prevent the opposition

putting issues forward to the minister.

The

minister said that the tuition fee increases have been matched by grants.

The

Chair: Member, would you take your seat, please. Would you take your seat.

J. Kwan:

It has not been matched by grants.

The

Chair: Member, I find it distasteful that you're challenging the Chair. You

keep referring to the fact that you're treated unfairly and that there are

different rules in this House, which is absolutely false. I'm asking you now to

move on to another subject.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, I want to respond to the minister's comment that she made just now.

The minister made a comment that the universities, in partnership with the

government, actually put forward grants to help with tuition, to help students

faced with increased tuition. The reality is false — what the minister just

said.

[1540]

Let us just

look and see what the tuition fee increase is and the rate at which it is

increasing. The Uni-

[ Page 10752 ]

versity of British Columbia has raised tuition by 75 percent for students. Do

we see student grants increasing by 75 percent to help out students in the

amount of tuition fees that have increased? No, we do not see that. Do we see

colleges providing grants to help students at the rate of 150 percent increase?

That's what the colleges have increased tuition fees by — 150 percent. How do

the grant programs, in partnership with this Liberal government, actually

provide that kind of relief for students? They do not, Mr. Chair.

Let us be

clear in terms of what this government is doing and what the facts are before

us. For the minister to make such a suggestion…. They're simply false and

untrue. Grants do not match the rate at which tuitions have increased across the

province since this government took office. The Liberal government made a

promise to students that they did not deliver on, and students across the board

are saying that they feel betrayed by this government. Many of the students have

expressed exactly that sentiment.

The

government announced that it wants all students with a 75 percent average to

have access to university. However, by the time 2010 rolls around, tuition fees

will be out of reach for the majority of B.C. students. The government says it's

funding the 25,000 spaces to the full amount that is needed to build those

spaces. You know what? Experts in the field say that the government is short on

funding them by some 56 percent. You know what? Based on this government's

record, if you ask me whose numbers I am going to trust, let me tell you, it's

not going to be what this minister says or this government says. Their track

record to date has been anything but matching the realities of what communities

are faced with and what they say to be factual and truthful.

The

Solicitor General states: "I think students in our post-secondary

institutions have got to wake up and smell the roses." He says the tuition

is not that bad.

The

Chair: Member, I've asked you to move on to a new subject, and you continue

to disregard the Chair. I would ask you now to move on to another subject again,

for the last time.

J. Kwan:

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for your guidance. I'm just responding to the

minister with respect to her comments.

The

Chair: Yes, and you had your opportunity to respond, so now move on. Thank

you.

J. Kwan:

In fact, they're not reflecting what is reality.

Such is the

rule of the House. I'm not able to bring up the issue around tuition fees

anymore. Such is the rule of the House.

Let me ask

this minister this question, then. Okanagan University College will be

transformed into two separate institutions — a new University of British

Columbia, Okanagan, and Okanagan College. This government estimates that by 2009

and 2010, the number of student spaces in the region will increase by 5,500 to

12,010. UBC Okanagan will accommodate 7,500 FTEs, and Okanagan College will

accommodate 4,600 FTEs. The full transition plan is for September 2005. However,

there has been a real lack of consultation about this development. Students,

residents and faculty and a lot of people are concerned about losing regional

control. I'd like the minister to tell this House who sits on the Premier's B.C.

Progress Board.

Hon. S.

Bond: I'm actually not certain of all the members of the Progress Board. I'd

be happy to get them. It's not something that falls under the mandate of my

ministry.

J. Kwan:

Does Martha Piper sit on this board?

Hon. S.

Bond: I'm happy to confirm that. It is on the website obviously. Martha

Piper was a member and may still be. I'm not certain about that, but she

certainly has been a member of the Progress Board.

J. Kwan:

Is it not the case that it's the Progress Board who initiated the idea of making

the OUC into a UBC satellite campus?

[1545]

Hon. S.

Bond: Again, we'll certainly be happy to confirm the language of the exact

recommendations or suggestions made, as the education group that is part of the

Progress Board looked at. We believe the language said something to this effect

— that government consider expanding the mandate of an existing provincial

institution or, secondly, establishing a stand-alone institution.

It's

important to point out that one of the jobs of the Progress Board is to look

around the province and determine the kinds of thing that help make British

Columbia a better place. If we look at the statistics around the interior of the

province, one of the places that's been most underserved in terms of the number

of seats for capacity for students certainly was the interior of British

Columbia. On any of the changes that we made, we looked very carefully at

demographics and, most importantly, the needs of students.

J. Kwan:

In a letter to the Kelowna Daily Courier dated March 11, 2004, the

minister stated: "The B.C. Progress Board released a report that suggested

either expanding the mandate of OUC or expanding the mandate of an existing

university to the Okanagan."

It so

happens that Martha Piper was also on this board, which made this

recommendation. Does the minister know whether or not Ms. Piper also was

involved in making this report and this recommendation to the minister?

Hon. S.

Bond: First of all, let's clear this one off the record so my staff doesn't

have to do extra work. This comes right off the Progress Board website. The

chair is David Black; past chair, David Emerson; Lawrence

[ Page 10753 ]

Bates; Alex Campbell; Herman Driediger; Norman Keevil; Eva Lee Kwok; Jill

Leversage; Jeff Mallett; Gerry Martin; Jim Pattison; Martha Piper; Jeet Sandhu;

Carol Seable; Ken Shields; Mark Shuparski; Brian Surerus; and Doug Whitehead.

Dr. Piper

was a member of the educational component. I don't know how the Progress Board

is broken down, but certainly there was an educational group that provided

suggestions and did a number of things for the Progress Board, and Dr. Piper was

a member of that group.

J. Kwan:

Does the minister see this as a conflict of interest? Here you have the

president of the University of British Columbia who sits on the Progress Board,

who makes a recommendation to the government that suggests expanding the mandate

of the OUC or extending the mandate of an existing university to the Okanagan

— the very same board that made that recommendation turning the OUC into a

satellite campus of UBC.

Hon. S.

Bond: As minister — and I'm surprised the member opposite wouldn't

recognize this — we hear recommendations and suggestions about how to make

things better and how to do things differently in this province all the time.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The decision to look at a model such as

we're using in the Okanagan was made by this government after a lot of serious

thought about what's best for students in this province.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer my question on the conflict issue.

[1550]

Hon. S.

Bond: The Progress Board along with a number of people, including a

significant group of people in the interior, have been indicating for a long

time, actually, the need to deal with the post-secondary circumstances in the

interior of the province. I hear recommendations and suggestions from

outstanding educators on a daily basis. The recommendation was that something

needed to be done and that there were several models for doing it. At the end of

the day, as I said clearly, this was government's decision.

J. Kwan:

The minister herself made a statement to the Kelowna Daily Courier,

which said, "The B.C. Progress Board released a report that suggested

either expanding the mandate of OUC or expanding the mandate of an existing

university to the Okanagan," dated March 11, 2004. The Progress Board made

the recommendation to actually have the OUC turn into a satellite campus of UBC.

We have the president of UBC sitting on the very same Progress Board that made

that recommendation to the government, which the government had implemented.

My question

to the minister is: did she look into the issue of conflict? When I asked a

question earlier, she catcalled me and said that's ridiculous. Is it ridiculous

on the issue around whether or not a conflict exists? I don't think so. I think

it is fair for British Columbians to find out whether or not there exists a

conflict on this question. Why doesn't the minister just answer the question?

Hon. S.

Bond: We receive recommendations from a number of sources all the time. As

the member opposite so ably read into the record, there were two models that

were being considered. In fact, what it said was: should we have OUC maintain a

stand-alone status? It had nothing to do with linking it with another

post-secondary institution.

Secondly,

it was: should we consider an existing institution, looking at the possibility

of that being a campus that would be a second campus? A group of people at the

Progress Board identified that as a possible option. That's not conflict of

interest. It's providing a series of recommendations. That model has been

discussed across North America. As a matter of fact, the University of

California would be one that comes to mind in terms of where that option was

considered.

J. Kwan:

The minister said that's not conflict of interest. Where does she get that

advice from? Is that legal advice?

Hon. S.

Bond: It could have been Simon Fraser University. It could have been the

University of Victoria. It could have been the University of Northern British

Columbia. We were looking at a model which has actually been exemplary in North

America. The University of California comes to mind. What do we have today? We

have two institutions in the interior of the province that are going to meet the

needs of students and, in fact, in one of the most underserved areas in the

province in terms of seat capacity. That's great news for students, and I'm

incredibly disappointed that the member opposite doesn't actually care about the

families and students in that part of the world who are going to have

extraordinary benefits as a result of this decision.

J. Kwan:

You know, this minister likes to claim that they consult. They like to claim

they consider all sorts of recommendations from all sorts of people. But you

know what? The people from that community said that this government did not

consult them. Students weren't consulted. The faculty — were they consulted?

People from the community didn't know what the process was with respect to this.

Nobody in the community knew until the government made the announcement. In

fact, city councillors from the community wrote to the government to complain

about it.

I don't

think it is an illegitimate question for me to put to the minister. It just so

happens the Progress Board that made this recommendation that this government

implemented consists of the president of UBC. It just so happens that the OUC

was converted into a satellite campus of UBC — no coincidence there. It does

raise the question, if nothing else on the issue around

[ Page 10754 ]

perception: what is being done? If the government actually had not been

secretive about this process…. That may be one thing. That might explain for

people in British Columbia what the intent of the government was and how they

arrived at this decision. But no, the government did not follow a process of

openness and transparency with respect to this action. The government actually

did this in secret, and the community did not know what was going on.

[1555]

Let me just

put on record parts of a letter that was written from a city councillor of

Penticton to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection:

know we have talked many times in the past about OUC, its future, and my view

of the institution and what it can do for the region. Now more than ever, I

feel it important to communicate to you my immense support for the institution

and the need to support it in this environment of rumours and uncertainty. OUC

has developed over the past four decades as a tremendous resource for the

region, providing quality education, training, and a unifying presence amongst

communities in the Okanagan. It has shown itself to be a solid partner in many

initiatives; a responsive player when there were needs and demands to be met;

and especially in recent years, an agent for positive change, growth and

development.

"All

of this said, it disturbs me greatly to hear of the notion that a marvellous

institution such as this might be gutted to give part to UBC and parcel the

rest into another college. It disturbs me that such ideas are even entertained

briefly by policy and lawmakers. Such a step would be retrograde, would be

extremely damaging to the sense of region that is developing in the Okanagan

and would be horrifically injurious to some of the tremendous initiatives that

are afoot.

"As

a community, Penticton can take pride in the fact of having a campus of the

university college within its boundaries. It is also very supportive of the

notion of OUC's evolution to full university status. The letters recently

received by the minister, you and other MLAs from our council and others

should tell you how great an asset the southern Okanagan views OUC to be and

the support there is for its continued evolution. Suggest that OUC should be

split and that Penticton, Vernon and Salmon Arm will have only campuses of a

college, and you threaten to re-ignite the parochial fires that will occlude

opportunities for our region to develop as the engine of growth and change

that it can be. You would be doing a disservice to the heartlands strategy

that would be significant and long-lasting."

That's from a councillor in the city of Penticton.

Part of the

government's heartlands strategy is to allow the development of institutions

that are regionally based. Can the minister explain why the government decided

to turn OUC into a satellite campus of UBC instead of working to develop OUC

status to a full university?

Hon. S.

Bond: Boy, I love talking about this. At the end of the day, it is such a

great-news story. Let me give you…. We'll trade one. Although I have dozens

here, I'm trying to pick which ones to read here.

"On

behalf of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce and our over 1,500 members, I would

like to thank you for investing in our community and our future generations

with the announcement of UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College. Our chamber has

identified a full-status university as one of our top three priorities every

year since 2000. So we are excited to welcome UBC into our community. We

extend our sincere thanks to you and, in particular, the Premier for

delivering a world-class university to the Okanagan."

The letter

goes on to thank a number of other people, including the MLAs who worked very

hard on that project.

Let me just

give one other example from a letter, because I think this would be great to get

on the record and may be appropriate at this moment: "It's time to jump off

the doom-and-gloom bandwagon and embrace the good news which will make winners

out of our students and contribute to the positive future they will bring to our

communities here in the Okanagan."

The reason

we chose the model we did is because we believe colleges play a vital role in

British Columbia. In fact, we think the students that attend the college in the

interior will now, as a matter of fact…. I'll get the stats for you; I can't

remember the size of it in terms of the largest outside the lower mainland, in

the province.

[1600]

The

University of British Columbia brings national and international credibility

instantly as a world-class university. Over the last number of years UBC

attracted $377 million of research awards — in 2002-03. When we looked…. And

we did look. We took the two models. We looked at the two opportunities. We

looked at what was best for students. In fact, we found that by using the

approach we took, we would not only be able to add a significant number of

seats, but we could see incredible increases to research.

The

economic impact for the interior of the province is phenomenal. More than 500

new jobs will be created at UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College by 2009. The

estimated economic impact, much less the educational benefits, will be in excess

of $300 million. The estimated economic impact of UBC Okanagan and the expansion

of Okanagan College is $300 million. This is just a fabulous and great news

story for the students of British Columbia.

J. Kwan:

If it's such fabulous news as the minister claims it is, why did the minister

preclude the OUC student association president, who stated at a CBC radio

interview on March 17, 2003, that students at the OUC were not consulted on this

major development and that they were not even invited to the press conference

where the Premier made the announcement?

Can the

minister tell me: why was the president of the OUC student association not

allowed to be part of this wonderful announcement that the government made?

Hon. S.

Bond: Let's look at the chronology of consultation, just so we can get this

on the record. In February we met with the Okanagan mayors. We also met with the

Okanagan University College board. We met

[ Page 10755 ]

with community leaders and the U-2000 members. As a matter of fact, we met

with the OUC and CFS student representatives in February of 2004. The Okanagan

MLAs had ongoing consultation with their communities. U-2000 has been having

this discussion for years in the interior of the province. In fact, the student

president that you mentioned was actually invited and participated in a dialogue

that I attended, as well as the Premier of the province.

J. Kwan:

The minister still didn't answer my question. The president of the student

association was prevented from going to the announcement. Why?

Hon. S.

Bond: There were students involved in the announcement. That student was

actually in attendance in the building. There certainly was not an attempt to

prevent anyone…. The room was packed with people. Actually, it exceeded our

expectations. The room was full. That particular student, as I suggested, had

the opportunity to present their views and the views of their students in a

meeting with the Premier in February.

J. Kwan:

It's interesting because the president actually said that they were not

consulted on this issue. In fact, they were not invited to the press conference,

and they couldn't get to the press conference. I'm sure that maybe the minister

actually had a student there, but it's kind of funny. If it's as wonderful as

the minister claims it to be, why wouldn't the government be open and

accountable? Why wouldn't the government want the president of the student

association there at this press conference? Why wouldn't the government answer

the issues that have been raised by the councillor from Penticton who has

written to the MLA on the issue? Why wouldn't the government just brush past all

of this?

It is

inaccurate, let me just say, for the government to suggest that for the first

time ever students in Kamloops and the Thompson-Cariboo will be able to get a

full university degree without leaving home. UCC has been offering independent

degrees since 1995, and before that it was offering degrees in conjunction with

the universities. Students could complete degrees in Kamloops without having to

come to the lower mainland and have been able to do so for well over a decade

now.

You know

what? If you ask students what they think about this move, here are some of the

comments. The Kwantlen University College student association and a former

policy analyst for the UBC Alma Mater Society told the Georgia Strait :

"Other colleges and university colleges should be worried about being

gobbled up. The victim will be the diversity of education." [Laughter.]

[1605]

Maybe

members think that's funny — that these students and individuals have no role

to play with respect to their thoughts and opinions about this. If the

government were open and accountable, the government would have included these

folks in the consultation process. The government would not have done this in

secrecy. The government would not have tried to hide the issue until the

announcement.

A former

professor at Okanagan University College said he was shocked at the

announcement, and he called it a travesty. He said that the UBC model could

provide some academic benefits, but he isn't convinced it will meet all of the

Okanagan's needs, and he worries that it may affect the ability of students to

transfer between the college and the university. Jim McGillivray, a former

professor at Okanagan University College: "I am shocked and appalled."

The OUC president, Katy Bindon — her future, of course, is now…. Well,

there's only one president that would be required.

The new UBC

Okanagan will have an independent senate. It will be controlled by the UBC board

of governors. There's been speculation that some seats on the UBC board of

governors will be opened to the Okanagan. Can the minister tell me how many

seats on the UBC board of governors will be opened up for the Okanagan?

Hon. S.

Bond: First of all, let's just get a couple of things cleared away here. In

terms of the good news and the fact that it's secret, I'm actually surprised

because…. You know what? This part of the province has actually been asking

for a freestanding institution for a lot longer than I've been sitting in

government.

One of the

letters actually responds to that in terms of one that was written and that

hasn't been read out yet. "The government responded creatively and

thoughtfully to the broad-based, grassroots call for a full-status university

and significantly greater funding for advanced education for the Okanagan."

How in the world could that be interpreted as anything but great news?

Now let's

talk about the role that the people who live in the interior will have in terms

of the institutions they now have — two of them — that will be outstanding.

First of all, there are two advisory councils that have been created. One will

work with UBC Okanagan. That advisory board, plus one that will be set up on the

college side, will see representation across a broad spectrum. As a matter of

fact, we're looking at regional representation. We're looking at making sure

there are two students on each of those advisory boards. So in fact, there will

be two governing bodies looking after two institutions that will be completely

made up of people who actually live and work in the interior.

Secondly,

in terms of the member's specific question about the UBC board…. And we need

to make one thing perfectly clear. An independent senate is an independent

senate. That senate will actually determine the shape of the programs, the

opportunities and things like what GPA is required. All of the entrance

requirements will be based on what's important for the people of the Okanagan.

It's independent. We say it's independent because that's what it is.

The

Vancouver campus of UBC will be governed by a senate of its own. So the people

of the Okanagan, for the first time in a freestanding institution of this type,

will have an independent senate. In terms of the

[ Page 10756 ]

UBC board, we currently have one member representing the Okanagan on the UBC

board. My staff is currently working through the process issues required to be

taken care of so that we can add additional members to the UBC board that will

represent UBC Okanagan.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

The point that was made by the councillor from Penticton is exactly that. Yes,

the community had been advocating for a long time for the OUC to be a full

university, but they never thought that in the process they would actually

become part of another campus. They never thought that the OUC would actually

become an off-site campus of UBC. That is the Penticton councillor, people from

the community who had something to say about this….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the Solicitor General would actually know better than the councillor from

Penticton. Maybe he knows all of the answers.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

He goes: "Oh yeah, I do." It is his hometown. Funny how people who

still live in Penticton actually take issue with the government's process, take

issue with the government's decision.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Oh, it's a councillor in the city of Penticton who raised the issue, and

immediately the Solicitor General, without even knowing who the source is and

who raised the issue says: "Oh well, it's an NDP mayor who made the

issue." No, it isn't, Mr. Chair.

The student

association, who live in that community, are saying that this government did not

consult them. They didn't even have the courtesy from this government for them

to be invited to this press announcement that was supposed to be such good news

for the community. If it was such good news for the community, why didn't the

government invite the people who actually live in that community and allow them

to have access to go to this press conference? What was the government afraid of

— the real voices of the people? Is that what the government is afraid of? Why

weren't they allowed to go to the press conference? It is absolutely outrageous.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Please, order.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members. Order, please.

J. Kwan:

It is absolutely outrageous from the Solicitor General, who is catcalling me as

we engage in this debate, Mr. Chair. It is absolutely outrageous, and it is

pathetic, to say the least.

The

minister says that the board of governors is independent. Let us just keep in

mind that it is the government who appoints the board of governors at UBC. The

minister says that the Okanagan will have seats on the board of governors. How

many seats will they have?

Hon. S.

Bond: As I suggested in the earlier answer, it actually requires a

legislative change so that we can be inclusive and make sure that the Okanagan

is well represented. We are working on the details of that, and I hope to be

able to deal with that very shortly. Having said that, we do have two advisory

councils already up and running. Institutions are travelling throughout the

entire region, talking to students and their families.

Let's just

talk about someone else from Penticton, a resident who actually wrote, and the

headline says: "UBC Okanagan Positive Move." Let's start here.

"UBC

has an international reputation and credibility that is on par with the

top-ranked education and research institutions from around the world. This

simple fact should create a real excitement among young people headed to

university now living in Penticton and the South Okanagan. The new local

college and central university structure will provide an opportunity for local

young people to build their lives right there in the valley with skilled,

good-paying jobs. Industry and employers will flock to a community with our

cost of living and a world-class, motivated and educated workforce."

Mr. Chair,

how in the world can the member opposite find some sort of doom-and-gloom story

when we're creating jobs? We're adding to the economy. We're adding thousands of

seats to the post-secondary education system in an area that has been

underrepresented for years.

Let me just

read another one: "Win-win Situation."

am a former 40-year resident of Canada's far north, where the nearest

community from my home in Whitehorse was Dawson City, about 500 kilometres

away. The recent announcements by the provincial government in the areas of

advanced education are a win-win for the Okanagan Valley, fostering valleywide

educational excellence. The economic benefits to the whole valley will be

phenomenal."

J. Kwan:

I think this actually highlights the problem with this government. They fail to

listen, they fail to listen to what is at issue, they fail to consult openly

with the public, and they fail to be open and accountable. This example is

exactly that.

[1615]

The

minister just got up and said: "Hey, this is great. This is wonderful. This

is exactly what should happen in the Okanagan." This is the thing that the

government has been wanting to do — it should have been done, she says — for

decades in the Okanagan. Yet if the government believes truly that this is good

for the Okanagan, then they should have nothing to hide. They should have an

open process that allows for the community to participate. They should have a

process where, prior to the announcement being made,

[ Page 10757 ]

they let the community know what the plans are so they can provide their

input. But no, that isn't the process the minister followed. Even when the

announcement was made, key people in the community didn't even get the courtesy

to be invited to the press announcement. Why is that? One has to wonder what the

government is trying to hide. Why did they engage in that process?

The

minister says: "Give me some more letters that I can put on the record to

say how great this is." You know what? I have a binder full of letters from

people who raise concerns. More particularly, I want to raise the issue around

process. It should have been up to the community to decide which way it should

have gone. It should have been up to the community to decide and to be at the

decision-making table every step of the way, and that isn't what happened here.

The process this government had engaged in is anything but open and accountable.

It's anything but consultative.

The

minister didn't answer the question. She only said: "Yeah, perhaps the

legislation will be tabled with respect to the amendment of the UBC board of

governors." But the question is this: is the minister planning on ensuring

that at least 50 percent of the board of governors would be from the Okanagan

district? After all, this is a partnership. UBC campus took over the Okanagan

University College. It's now called UBC Okanagan. If it's meant to be shared

partnership and to ensure that the region has a voice, what will the makeup of

the UBC board of governors now look like?

Hon. S.

Bond: For the third and final time, I give notice that I've answered this

question. I actually answered the question, and I'm happy to do it one more

time. We are in the process of making the required process changes. There is

legislation in place, in fact, that stipulates the size of the board. We are

working on those changes. We are looking at significant representation from the

Okanagan. In addition to the UBC board, the great news is that we have two

advisory councils made up of a minimum of 15 people each, which actually means

that 30 residents, including four students, will have direct impact and the

ability to provide advice on the shaping of these institutions.

Let me go

back just one more time for the record. Why is it that this strategic investment

plan is so great for the Okanagan? Let's talk about UBC Okanagan — 4,500 new

full-time-equivalent student spaces from 2004 to 2009-10, $45 million

incremental operating costs from 2004 to 2009-10, and $116 million in capital to

accommodate the student FTE growth. UBC will also use its own resources to fund

research infrastructure costs.

Let's talk

about Okanagan College, because the college is as important to us. One of the

issues we dealt with most often was: "What are you going to do at our local

campus?" In fact, we're hoping to enhance service to students on those

particular campuses — 1,000 new FTE spaces from 2004-09, $7.4 million

incremental operating costs from 2004-09 and $20 million in capital to

accommodate student FTE growth.

For the

record, the people of the Okanagan have been asking for their needs to be

addressed for years and years. The good news is, when the member opposite

suggests that we haven't paid attention…. In fact, we listened to the people

of the Okanagan in ways that were creative and exciting, which are going to add

500 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic investment.

[1620]

Not to

mention that we've spent days canvassing student financial assistance and the

concerns for families and students, and that is something we should spend time

on. For every student that can stay in their hometown or closer to where they

live, the average savings will be $6,000 a year in their post-secondary

education costs. That's important too. So in terms of the investments for the

Okanagan, this government is proud of that particular announcement of that

particular plan, and I'm excited to see what the future holds for the Okanagan.

J. Kwan:

Well, I'm sure this question will become tedious. You know what? It's tedious

for me to have to ask the question of the minister over and over again and for

her not to provide the answer. I asked a specific question of how many members

will be on the new board for the UBC board of governors. The minister did not

answer the question. She did not answer the question. Where is the certainty for

the Okanagan community that they would actually be governed regionally when the

government won't even give them that basic answer on this transition?

I'm sure

the minister will say: "For the last time, I'm giving the member the

answer." For the last time, let me just be clear that the minister did not

answer the question, like many of the questions that I put to ministers during

the estimates process. They just ignore the question and go on to talk about

what they want to talk about, and then they pretend that somehow they answered

the question.

There is no

certainty based on the minister's answer to date that the Okanagan community

would actually have regional governance of their university. There is no

certainty. The minister says: "Well, there's an advisory board." We

know that advisory boards do exist, but we also know that the people who

ultimately make the final decisions do not rest with the advisory boards. They

do not.

You know

what? For this minister and this government to talk about consultation, what a

laugh that is. What a laugh that is when the community at large is saying that

the process was a lousy process. There were a lot of Okanagan communities left

out, Mr. Chair. This is a direct quote from the Vernon city councillor Jim

MacGillivray, who is now saying that. "There were no consultations with

representatives of students, faculty and staff. In fact, all these groups were

excluded from the announcement." The president of the BCGEU, George Heyman,

made that comment.

The

minister laughs as though somehow George Heyman is not legitimate within this

context of saying

[ Page 10758 ]

that faculty members who are part of the BCGEU don't have the right to a say,

to be involved in this process — that they were excluded from the

announcement. There's openness. There's accountability. There's consultation

from this government — what a joke.

When people

say that it's a lousy process, the minister says: "Oh well, we know all the

answers. We know it's the right thing to do." To date, she has given no

reassurance whatsoever to the Okanagan community that the university will be

governed regionally. She's given no reassurance whatsoever on what the makeup of

the board would look like.

The Premier

announced that students planning on taking applied and college-oriented programs

through the Okanagan University College in September 2004 will see a $1,000

reduction in their tuition. The minister stated — and she stated in this House

just now — that the government has no ability to impact trends for tuitions,

that the government does not play that role, that it is up to the institutions

to decide, but yet the government announced a tuition cut. They were able to do

that for the Okanagan University. Why couldn't they do that for any other

university or college across British Columbia?

Hon. S.

Bond: Well, Mr. Chair, we spent half an hour reading tuition fees into the

record. College tuition fees are actually at a particular level, and university

tuition fees are at a different level. When you separate two institutions, just

think: we have a college, and we have a university. We didn't want to

disadvantage our college students in terms of the incentive that they have for

going to a college. So in effect, the decision was made to be reasonable and

rational as we looked at the two institutions that were being created.

[1625]

You know,

Mr. Chair, I just have to say it's unbelievable that we're having this

discussion in the sense that this is great news for the students of British

Columbia, not just for the Okanagan but for the Kootenays because, in fact,

those students may choose to be closer to their families.

Let me just

read a letter. This just came to us a few minutes ago. It's important, because I

also want to remind people that as they read the record of this discussion, they

read both sides of this discussion. Let me just remind the member opposite of

our consultations one more time: the Okanagan mayors, February 23; Okanagan

University College board, February; community leaders and U-2000 members,

February; OUC CFS student representatives, February 2004; Okanagan MLAs, ongoing

consultation with their communities.

These

groups were presented with three options: status quo, OUC becoming a full-status

university or the UBC Okanagan initiative. In fact, they were given all of the

models, all of the opportunities to have a look at that before government —

and I take responsibility for that — made the final decision.

But let's

look at another aspect. Let me read this from a professor emeritus from OUC:

"The

argument that the Okanagan public was not consulted is totally inaccurate. I

myself made a successful application on behalf of a consortium to the NORD for

a $5,000 contribution to hire a consultant to assess the need for a university

in the Okanagan. The consultant held hearings up and down the valley,

including in Vernon. The McKinnon report identified the real need for a

university in the valley but did not specify a particular model. Then our

government appointed a Select Standing Committee on Education with one of our

Okanagan MLAs as a contact for anyone wanting to make a submission. This

committee held hearings in Vernon and other Okanagan centres and heard

representations supporting a full-status university from various groups.

Certainly, Vernon residents and civic officials have had an opportunity to

present their views and to hear other views.

"Following,

the University of Southern B.C., USBC, coalition, comprised of representatives

of OUC, the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce and U-2000, was formed to promote a

full-status university in the valley. The USBC partners all agreed on the need

for a full-status university. The USBC coalition also held hearings in Vernon,

and particular people attended that, and perhaps they did not personally agree

with the premise of USBC, but they were certainly consulted and had an

opportunity to comment."

In fact,

the people of the Okanagan wanted a freestanding university. This government

responded.

J. Kwan:

Well, let me just say this. It is funny when the minister insists that they

have consulted when the community members are coming forward to say that no,

they haven't. Maybe it's funny. Maybe the minister thinks that consultation is

however they do it, but you know what? Community members who are active in their

own community, like city councillors, are saying that they have not been

consulted. The president of the student association says that they have not been

consulted. The minister insists that they have been. Well, you know what? Based

on this government's record on their word, I would trust the president of the

university association any day over this government's word — based on trust

alone and based on their record to date.

The

government says: "Well, hey, everything will just be fine, because we've

done this thing, and it is wonderful." But community members have concerns.

Here we have students at the Okanagan university who are concerned because they

feel that the government's not answering the questions that they have regarding

the transition and how their education will be impacted by the transformation of

OUC into two separate institutions. For instance, one student said: "What

will happen to the degrees of students who are graduating from OUC this year,

given that it will soon be a defunct institution?"

[1630]

Hon. S.

Bond: In the meeting that we had — which included the Premier, I might add

— where student representatives were there, they actually provided us with a

list of questions. You should know that my staff worked really hard to respond

to those particular stu-

[ Page 10759 ]

dent representatives who met. It's amazing to me. I actually was at the

meeting where student representatives met with myself and the Premier and a

number of other people. That meeting took place. In fact, students brought a

list of questions, and the Premier urged us to make sure that we answered those

questions.

That's

going on every day, as well, as we meet with students, because we are concerned

that the transition be done as smoothly as possible. Both the representative

from the college side and the University of British Columbia have attended

countless sessions throughout the entire region, including places like…. These

are on schedules that will be coming up. If they haven't been held yet, they

will be within the next few weeks. They are meeting regularly with student

groups. They are looking at how we can best transition for these students.

In terms of

the question around the degree, obviously Okanagan University College remains

Okanagan University College until the official transition takes place in 2005.

They will receive a degree from Okanagan University College. As of 2005 those

students that are enrolled will receive a degree from the University of British

Columbia.

J. Kwan:

Will the same small class size at the OUC remain after this transformation?

Hon. S.

Bond: In fact, this is an incredibly aggressive adding of seats to the

system, so we're challenged by providing the capital space we need to actually

put students in classes. That's why it's a phased-in increase in the number of

seats.

The

fabulous news here is that UBC Kelowna has an independent senate. It's the

senate that actually shapes programming and looks at what's in the best

interests of students. Quite frankly, the educators who are going to teach those

students will look at class size at UBC Kelowna and at the college, just like

they do at every other institution in this province.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer the question. The question is: will the same small

class size at OUC be available after the transition?

Hon. S.

Bond: Educators make decisions every single day about class size. Some of

those class sizes will remain small; some of them will be larger. I would like

to suggest that if you're a student at the University of British Columbia and

you have a great professor who teaches you, you can have a certain number of

people in that class.

I don't

know what the maximum number should be. Educators around this province decide

every day what the best format is, what the best number of students in a

classroom will be. That will be exactly the same at UBC Kelowna as it is at

every other university.

J. Kwan:

Educators should have the right to decide what the class size should be, with

the exception that this government, under Bill 19, brought forward legislation

that whacked the education system and the K-to-12 system with respect to class

size, independent of court decisions. That's what this government has done,

never mind what educators have to say, unlike what this minister claims now —

that they would actually value the word of educators.

Well, what

nonsense we have seen today. In the K-to-12 system the government has just

ignored educators' words. Now all of a sudden…

The

Chair: Member, I just want to remind you….

J. Kwan:

…they say they actually value educators' words.

The

Chair: Member, I want to remind you we're dealing with the Minister of

Advanced Education, and not the Minister of Education.

J. Kwan:

Well, the example, Mr. Chair,