1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995

Afternoon Sitting (Part 1)

Volume 21, Number 5

[ Page 15565 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

D. Schreck: Sitting in the gallery today are two people that I can only describe as two of the finest people on earth: Jim and Doreen Bartley, now living in the Gibsons area, formerly of North Vancouver. They would give their heart and soul for anyone. I am sure they are here in part to give advice to both the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the Minister of Forests. I know they would give favourable audiences to two such fine people. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today we have a special guest in the members' gallery. Ali Abdullah is the newly appointed consul general of Malaysia at Vancouver and is making his official calls in Victoria. Please join me in welcoming him to the House.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Would the House please welcome two friends from Williams Lake, Rick Barnes and Andrew Hunt, who are in the gallery today.

L. Reid: I have just had the pleasure of meeting Mr. John McPherson from Kelowna and four of his colleagues, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I ask the House to make welcome one of my constituents, Dorothy Giovando -- who is also the mother of Madeline Giovando, one of our research persons, who helps us to be clever and smart in this House -- and three friends of Dorothy: Barbara Tabata, Renee Tabata and Joyce Lem. Would the House please make them all welcome.

G. Wilson: I'd like to add my welcome, if I may, to Jim and Doreen Bartley. I don't know if the members of this Legislature know, but they have been absolutely major contributors to the protection of the Tetrahedron watershed on behalf of the people of the Sunshine Coast, and for that I think they need some support. If they're going to meet with the Minister of Highways, then it looks like the Gibsons bypass is in for sure. I certainly welcome them here.

D. Symons: I want to draw to the attention of the members and of the gallery that today is the 780th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta. I believe that that was the beginning of the British parliamentary tradition from which this Legislature derives its origins.

F. Randall: On behalf of the MLA for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain, I'd like to introduce in the gallery, 17 grade 5 students from College Park Elementary School in Port Moody, accompanied by Mr. Seath, their teacher. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

PARKS REPORT ON NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

M. de Jong: On June 5 the Minister of Finance's duty was clear. Her duty was to release the Parks report so that the victims in Nanaimo could proceed with their pursuit of justice. She failed in that duty. My question is to the Minister of Finance. On June 5, why didn't she release the Parks report?

Hon. E. Cull: This member is choosing to ignore the fact that from the moment I received this report I have totally fulfilled my duties as the minister responsible for the Society Act. I immediately commenced preparation to release the report, and in 24 hours received....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Unfortunately, I must remind all hon. members that the purpose of question period is to ask questions and to listen while the answers are given. As long as we can follow this practice we will avoid a repeat of the situation we went through yesterday. I would ask all hon. members for their cooperation in order to save valuable time during question period.

Hon. E. Cull: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will briefly conclude my remarks.

When I received a call from Mr. Parks -- 24 hours after he initially gave me the report -- asking me not to release the report until further discussions had taken place with officials from the Attorney General's ministry, I respected that advice. The following day I received the advice from the Deputy Attorney General to not release any information about the report. As I said at the outset, I have totally fulfilled my responsibilities as the minister responsible for the Society Act, and I will continue to do so.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The facts sadly tell a very different story. Mr. Parks was commissioned to examine criminal activity by the fundraising wing of the NDP. The minister got the report on June 5. She didn't release the report. Instead, in her dogged pursuit of justice, she decided to share the report with her cabinet colleagues and the two senior NDP henchmen in the Premier's office. My question to the minister is: why did she go to the very people who stood to benefit by the NCHS's illegal activity, those very members of the NDP who could be implicated in Mr. Parks's report? Having done so, having been so derelict in her duty, how can she possibly continue in her office today?

[2:15]

Hon. E. Cull: Let me first correct the record. Mr. Parks was appointed by me under the Society Act to investigate all of the unanswered questions that remained at the end of the last RCMP investigation, not to investigate any allegations of criminal activities at that time. Those have come out as a result of his report.

What this member is doing is suggesting that I should have violated the advice that I received from the Deputy Attorney General and the RCMP. What this member is suggesting I should have done would have benefited only those people who are subject to the investigation, and I will not participate in assisting those people. I will participate in assisting the RCMP.

F. Gingell: Listening to the minister's explanation just now, it is quite clear that she was advised on the night of June

[ Page 15566 ]

5 or the morning of June 6 -- either the Monday night or the Tuesday morning -- by Mr. Parks that he felt that this should be moved forward for potential criminal investigation. At that time, she referred him to the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. She was aware that there was a potential criminal investigation of a society controlled by her party, which may well extend to the party itself and could even include members of cabinet and the caucus. Can the minister explain why the priorities committee of cabinet was briefed the following afternoon, after she you had made these decisions that it should not be public?

Hon. E. Cull: I repeat again that it is my intention and the intention of our government to see this report released to the public as soon as possible. I immediately began preparations on Monday to release this report. I had to read the report. There were recommendations in the report with respect to legislative changes, which had to be reviewed. There was a need to prepare a statement to indicate what the government's response would be to the report.

All those actions were underway when Mr. Parks called me on the morning of June 6 and suggested that we meet again with his legal counsel to discuss actions that could be taken to secure evidence and other matters that were addressed in this report. Mr. Parks was subsequently referred to the Attorney General's ministry, and on the morning of June 7 the Attorney General's ministry advised me not to disclose the report or take any further action on it.

My discussions with Mr. Parks on the 6th and Mr. Quantz on the 7th subsequently changed the action that I was taking in preparation to release that report, and it changed the reports that I gave to the cabinet committee. But until very recently, when we learned that the whole thing was going to be dealt with by the RCMP, it did not change the fact that I fully expected that the report would be in the public's hands by the end of last week or very early this week, as soon as we had the green light to go ahead. I hope that the Deputy Attorney General will do that as soon as possible. I have written to the Deputy Attorney General, asking for that permission.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

F. Gingell: The minister's actions, or lack of actions, clearly demonstrate why she has lost the confidence of British Columbians, and why it's time to go.

I put it to all this House that the priorities committee of cabinet briefing had nothing to do with justice, but had only to do with damage control. If the minister says that she is facilitating justice through her actions, can the minister please tell us what benefit to the justice system was achieved by having her chief political fixer, John Heaney, brief the leader of the party under investigation and other senior NDP cabinet ministers?

Hon. E. Cull: That was a very long

preamble, but I did detect a question at the end, and I can confirm that the information in that question is absolutely incorrect.

J. Weisgerber: The subject of the forensic audit was not only NCHS but the NDP and members of the government caucus. Given that fact, the Minister of Finance had an obligation to protect the integrity and independence of the Parks report from any potential political interference. Does the minister understand that it was fundamentally wrong to give copies of the report to Mr. Walsh and Mr. Heaney, who are political activists -- political hacks -- in the Premier's office? Does the minister understand that it was wrong to brief the cabinet ministers who may well have been involved?

Will the minister now do the right thing -- the honourable and the traditional thing -- and stand up and resign her seat, because she is indeed guilty of a breach of trust and a breach of duty?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I find it rather hard to take that kind of accusation from this member. This was the member who was suggesting yesterday that the advice I received from the RCMP and the Deputy Attorney General was politically tainted. This member lacks credibility on this issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. A supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The Premier's own involvement in this issue is in question -- and the NDP's Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, along with the members of caucus. The last people who should have been at the briefing with Mr. Parks were the Premier's chief political hacks. Can't the minister understand that was fundamentally wrong? They're the last ones who should have been given copies of the report, given the circumstances. Is the minister so ethically bereft that she can't understand the fundamental mistakes and fundamental wrongs? Will the minister not understand that she's obliged under parliamentary tradition to stand today and resign her seat?

Hon. E. Cull: This member can't have it both ways. Yesterday he was complaining that we hadn't released the report. Today he is complaining that I took the necessary steps to prepare the release of the report. He has to get his facts straight.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would put it to the minister that the preparations that were taking place weren't preparations that would benefit the public and benefit justice, but preparations that would benefit the NDP and benefit the NCHS.

The minister says in her own correspondence that she was told by Mr. Parks on the evening of the 5th, Monday evening, that he had concerns that criminal actions may have taken place. She advised him on the evening of the 5th, according to her own correspondence, to seek the advice of the Deputy Attorney General -- it's in her own correspondence. Why, then, the next day, did she see fit to take the political hacks out of the Premier's office and have them brief the very people who may well have been under investigation?

Hon. E. Cull: I believe that I have already answered that question with respect to the chronology of events. But I have to again state that it was on the morning of the 7th that the Deputy Attorney General gave me the advice to hold the report, to not discuss the report and to not reveal the contents of the report. Until that time, the preparations continued for the release of the report, and there was nothing that Mr. Parks said to me between the event of giving me the report and my talking to the Deputy Attorney General that would have changed that course of action.

[ Page 15567 ]

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: In case the minister has forgotten, the Premier himself availed himself of the services of Bert Rougeau as a campaign manager at a time when Mr. Rougeau was being paid by the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. The Premier himself may well be implicated in this case. Can the minister tell us why she would choose to brief cabinet colleagues -- NDP cabinet colleagues -- and why she would choose to have the chief political hacks in the office deal with that? Was this one of those integrated sleaze plans that was negotiated by Brian Gardiner and John Walsh, according to the memo?

Hon. E. Cull: I will table these in the House at the end of question period, but I have written to Mr. Quantz this morning indicating to him that I do understand the advice that I have received from him and the RCMP with respect to this report. I have also said that I believe that there is an equal and compelling public interest that the report be released as soon as possible, and I have asked him to do whatever he can do to expedite that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. E. Cull: On the matter of anyone who is subject to investigations, I can advise the House....

Interjection.

Hon. E. Cull: If the member doesn't want to hear this, I can sit down. But I can advise the House that the RCMP has released a press release within the last hour saying that if at any point in the investigation the RCMP are of the view that the information in their possession potentially compromises the ability of any sitting MLA to carry out his or her public duties, the commanding officer of E Division will immediately advise the Attorney General and the Premier, without releasing to the Premier details that could compromise their investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask a question of the Deputy Premier. She may be able to allay some of the concerns and fears and apprehensions over the possibility of a political cover-up by simply making a commitment on behalf of the government -- a simple commitment that the Parks report and all the details of the investigation into the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society scandal will be released to the public in advance of the next provincial election. Is the Deputy Premier, on behalf of the government, willing to make that commitment today? That might allay some of the concerns about a political cover-up in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. E. Cull: If the decision were simply up to me to make, I would release the report this afternoon.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. E. Cull: While I can't give the member the confirmation he would like, because the report is not mine to release at this stage, I can assure the member that the public interest will be served by having that report in the hands of the public as soon as possible. I hope that it is well before any other events take place.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In

Section A, I call Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In the House, I call the continuation of second reading of Bill 35.

FIRE AND POLICE SERVICES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

(second reading continued)

The Speaker: I call the House back to order. The debate on Bill 35, Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act, was adjourned by the hon. member for Delta South, but I gather he's concluded his remarks.

[2:30]

D. Symons: I've listened with great interest to the introduction of second reading by the minister responsible, and I've listened very carefully to the remarks made by the various members of this Legislature regarding the bill. I'd like to just add my comments to it.

I think, from everything I've heard from members commenting on the minister's opening remarks, that we all agree, and I don't think anyone will disagree, with the idea that when a labour negotiation reaches an impasse or breaks down -- and certainly the Vernon situation seems to illustrate this -- there has to be some way of resolving the differences there, and in the case of emergency services such as fire and police, some way other than having a strike or lockout situation. That purportedly is what this bill is attempting to do.

However, we should look at two or three things that have been said during the course of this debate. One of the items mentioned by the minister himself was the extensive consultation that went on prior to putting together and introducing the bill. Yet I have a letter dated May 26, 1995, from the Greater Vancouver Regional District. It's from the manager of personnel and labour relations. He says:

"We represent 11 municipal employers of professional firefighters and four municipal police boards within the boundaries of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. These municipalities and boards employ an overwhelming majority of the professional firefighters and municipal police, respectively, in the province. Our dismay stems from the fact that this legislation has been tabled in the House with absolutely no consultation with these employers. It seems incomprehensible to us that such legislation, which will have its most significant effect on the employers we represent, could be tabled without such consultation."

I think that shows somehow that maybe when the minister is introducing the legislation and talking so glowingly on certain aspects of it -- one of the aspects being consultation.... If

[ Page 15568 ]

you leave out the Greater Vancouver Regional District, who are the negotiators for a large number of the people who are involved or could be involved in this act, surely that consultation process is somewhat less than satisfactory. I think that's the first comment I would like to make.

The second comment deals with the problem of the solutions to these dispute resolutions that are presented within this bill. It presents the idea of bringing in an arbitrator so that we can have binding arbitration. I note that a gentleman, Mr. Paul Weiler, wrote a book in 1980 called Reconcilable Differences: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law. He said: "The arbitration fraternity is frank to recognize that it does not have the wisdom of Solomon." You may remember why Solomon was deemed to be so wise. "Normally it is content to split the baby down the middle." That's his comment.

I think that is where the problem may arise in this legislation if it's passed in the way it's currently written. I do hope, when we get into committee stage, that this minister will be considering some amendments. I looked on the order paper to see whether he had already put some forward, and I see he hasn't.

I'm sure there will be amendments coming forward, and I hope, if the concern of the minister is as expressed during his opening statements -- that it's simply a way to find a fair and equitable way of bringing about resolution of labour disputes -- that he will listen most carefully to these amendments that are going to come forward and see whether they might not be an improvement upon what is currently in the bill.

I might bring to the minister's attention Bill 20, which was companioned with Bill 19 in 1987. If I have the minister's attention, I'm sure he can turn his mind back to the year 1987, when we had a fair amount of labour unrest in the province of British Columbia. Bill 20 is the bill that unionized the teachers of the province. What I think we should look at is why Bill 20 was introduced at that time. Bill 20 replaced what was common practice in this province for the teaching profession -- that is, by legislation in the education act, they had to go to negotiation, conciliation and arbitration on set dates.

For years and years that process worked, but during the seventies and moving into the eighties, what generally tended to happen was that too often these things went to arbitration -- it got to the arbitration stage; it wasn't settled in negotiation or conciliation. In the eyes of the government of 1987.... They said that the system wasn't working, because what was happening.... I must admit, hon. members, that I have a vested interest in this, because at that time I was a member of the BCTF, an active teacher and involved in the politics of teaching in this province. So I was there when these things were happening.

Basically, the teachers did quite well in those years. They did quite well because we went to arbitration. In arbitration you simply looked for the district that was weakest and got a settlement with that particular district. After that the arbitration boards often, as Mr. Weiler mentioned, used that as the basis for setting the agreements of those that went to arbitration. So if you got a good negotiation in one district, or if the first district that went to arbitration turned out quite well, that became the norm for the province. Generally, the best agreement became the average agreement.

You would find that in those years the average salary.... There are 75 school districts in the province, and using this whipsaw effect of negotiation -- which was taking place and working very effectively, I must say, for teachers.... To show how well it worked in the province, for a teacher who had a basic professional certificate with a salary of about $50,000, the range throughout the whole province -- all 75 districts -- was less than about $200. So the whipsaw effect.... It didn't matter whether you lived in Vancouver, Fort St. John, or wherever in the province.

Any living costs and other things could enter into it as being differences that might be legitimate. To say there could be legitimate living expenses and other expenses to make, possibly the salary differences might be justifiable. But because of the way that negotiations went on, that sort of effect took place.

I can see built in to this act that exactly the same thing will happen. We will find that it will not necessarily do what I think the minister has claimed it's going to do. It's going to possibly put Vancouver -- a large fire district and police district -- as the norm for all the areas in the province. I would suggest that the working conditions, the working expectations, the job descriptions and so forth, of firemen in Vancouver and firemen in some of the outlying areas of the province are different.

There could possibly be expectations that because of those differences the salary remuneration could be different. But with this act, that will not happen. What will happen with this act is that the particular circumstances within given communities -- the ability of the particular community to pay, the circumstances of the job descriptions there -- will not matter when it comes to negotiations. Those are some of the reasons I have reservations about this particular bill, and those are things that have to be discussed during committee stage.

Another area that we have to look at is the fact that when you are in the negotiation process, what currently tends to happen -- and I think that's why this bill is on the floor -- is that the labour side basically sets its expectations rather high. If you're going to go to arbitration, you want to set them excessively high. On the other hand, what's the employer's duty? I suppose the employer's duty is to try to keep the bottom line and set expectations rather low. So you're going to have quite divergent views.

Supposedly, the act has sections that say there will be meaningful negotiation before binding arbitration sets in. I can see the situation where the employees, on the one hand, and the employers, on the other hand, will have quite convincing arguments that the last offer put in is the bottom line. "It's the best we can do, and it's a very reasonable offer that we've made." I have taken

part in some negotiations and I have yet to hear either side in the negotiation process say: "We put out an unreasonable offer here." How they're going to decide whether there's been meaningful negotiations is going to be a real problem.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Did the minister say: "Tough"?

Interjection.

D. Symons: I thought the minister indicated that that's tough. I think that's going to be one of the tough points within this legislation. That's one of the concerns I have. This will tend to cause exactly that to happen. It will cause the negotiating parties to set their limits quite unrealistically, either high or low. If we then get the Solomon effect of meeting somewhere

[ Page 15569 ]

in the middle, we may not necessarily hit a fair and equitable agreement. The middle isn't necessarily that, particularly if one or both sides are not negotiating in good faith. How the minister is going to determine whether or not good faith is taking place is going to be another job for Solomon.

Those are some of the issues that have to be addressed in third reading. In spite of the minister's protestations otherwise, those are issues in this bill that do not really meet the needs of solving negotiations when they reach this impasse stage.

So I will watch the committee stage with great interest and see whether we might have some differences and resolutions on those issues.

The Speaker: The hon. minister closes debate.

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to briefly touch on some of the issues that were raised by members in the debate. I look forward to the discussion that is going to take place in committee stage, because -- if I might be so bold as to suggest it -- throughout the debates I've heard on this bill, I would venture to say that my conclusion at least is that there is no disagreement with the need for legislation to deal with the issues that will be dealt with by this bill. And that is, if you like, something positive. At least there appears to be unanimous agreement that, in fact, we do need legislation.

That will leave us to debate some of the specifics in really one, maybe two, areas of the bill. Hopefully, it will be a useful debate.

I must say that I was somewhat surprised at the remarks of the member for Richmond Centre, because I was under a mistaken impression, perhaps, based on conversations I had with the member, that he was fairly enthusiastic about this bill. Perhaps he has changed his mind.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, that's fine. I must say, I think consistency is a good thing in this business, but it's not my job to ensure that everybody does stay consistent.

I could say, though, with respect to the two employers' organizations that have been referred to by members opposite, I have had meetings with both of them -- that is, the GVRD meeting held with Mayor Philip Owen, Mayor Jack Loucks of North Vancouver and Mark Leffler, and with representatives of the Okanagan Mainline group of municipalities and regional districts which bargain collectively. Without trying to put words in their mouths, I they and I left the meeting with the same conclusion.

They agreed that there needed to be a means of resolving these types of disputes, and therefore didn't fundamentally agree with legislation, but rather, dealt with the criteria that are in the bill. To a remarkable degree, the members opposite spoke exclusively on behalf of those groups. Perhaps there were some who were also speaking for the firemen and police. I didn't detect it in any of the remarks made by members opposite, except those of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

[2:45]

I want to make the point -- because it has been made almost implicitly in this debate -- about taking sides. I said at the outset, in my introduction to this bill.... I've said this to the employers' organizations, and I have also said it to the unionized sector of the firefighters, but not the police, because I've not had a chance to address them in any kind of forum. I've said very clearly to both sides: this bill is not intended to tilt the balance to one side or the other. I've said that directly to the parties involved. Rather, this bill -- and I have refrained as well....

People know my partisan politics; people know my background. They know I come from a labour background. But not once in this debate have I chosen to even remotely side with one side or the other. I am bringing forward purely and simply a bill that will facilitate collective agreements in areas that are fundamentally important to society. Those are....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Gee, the hon. critic for Forests wants me to deal with doctors now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, we're now in the closing remarks by the minister. Every member has had an opportunity to speak, and I do believe the hon. member who is interjecting at this moment has indeed had an opportunity to enter the debate. So let's....

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, he, in fact, entered the debate, but I can only say that most trade unionists in the province would be green with envy at the prospect of having a trade union like the doctors have in British Columbia. They not only control how many people enter but they control their practice, and it's about as good a closed shop as you'll find anywhere. They appear to be doing quite well, based on the income levels that I've seen published in the newspapers.

Let me try to wrap up very quickly, hon. Speaker. I want to reiterate that the bill contains three areas that are critical in terms of the issues the opposition has raised, the tests that have to be passed in order for a dispute to go to binding arbitration:

(1) I have to be satisfied, on the advice of the mediation division, that meaningful bargaining has taken place; (2) there is a list of criteria that I think cover the range of issues that were canvassed by members and that will guide an arbitrator; (3) the minister is able, under the bill, to offer additional criteria to the arbitrator; (4) while the arbitrator is trying to determine what an appropriate arbitrated settlement should be, that arbitrator is also empowered under the act to engage in mediation arbitration, and therefore has another useful tool to seek resolution of the dispute.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 31

Petter

Dosanjh

Pement

Priddy

Zirnhelt

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Hammell

Lortie

Miller

Smallwood

Cull

MacPhail

Barlee

Lovick

Pullinger

Sihota

Randall

Beattie

Doyle

Lord

Streifel

Jackson

Tyabji

Wilson

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

[ Page 15570 ]

NAYS -- 17

Mitchell

Serwa

Hanson

Weisgerber

Gingell

Hurd

Farrell-Collins

Reid

Warnke

Dalton

Anderson

Symons

K. Jones

van Dongen

Fox

Neufeld

Chisholm

Bill 35, Fire and Police Services Collective Bargaining Act, 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. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 49.

ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY ACT

(second reading)

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I would move that Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, be read for a second time. This act establishes Royal Roads University as an independent degree-granting institution. The act is consistent with the vision described by the Royal Roads advisory panel for a unique public post-secondary institution. The advisory panel was established to undertake an independent review and to make recommendations on the future direction of Royal Roads Military College.

As members may be aware, the federal government unilaterally determined to close Royal Roads, and that left the issue to be dealt with. As a province, we negotiated with the federal government at the strong urging of the elected members for the area and the citizens of the communities involved, and we were able to achieve an agreement. While I can never say that we are completely satisfied, at least the agreement will allow us to move on and open the institution that is going to be given authority by this act.

The purpose of the act is to give authority to the work that is required now to establish this independent, degree-granting university. As set out in the act, the purpose of the university is to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels solely in the applied and professional fields. These programs must be responsive to the changing needs of industry, students, and local and international communities.

Another purpose of the university is to provide continuing education in response to the needs of the local community. These programs will be offered through conferences and seminars, and certificate and diploma programs. The university will also maintain teaching excellence and research activities that support the university's programs, again in response to the labour market needs of British Columbia.

[3:00]

The act provides for a corporate governance model to enable the university to respond quickly to changing industry and community needs and to prepare students for twenty-first-century employment needs. The governance structure includes a board of governors who will have expertise in both academic and non-academic matters; the president, who is the chief executive officer of the university; the program and research council; and the academic council.

The board of governors and the president will have the powers and duties of the traditional academic senate, as specified in the act. The program and research council, composed of a majority of appointed external representatives, will advise the board of governors on instructional, program and research priorities, program objectives and desirable learning outcomes to ensure their relevance to the mandate of the institution.

The academic council, composed of elected internal representatives, will advise the president on such matters as qualifications for admission, curriculum content within priorities established by the board of governors, academic standards, and criteria for awarding certificates, diplomas and degrees and for recognition of academic excellence.

Qualifications for admission will include the recognition of prior experience. This is important in that the institution hopes to attract, particularly in the postgraduate field, people with a wealth of experience in the province who may not have academic degrees or qualifications. Looking at prior learning assessment will be an important part of the university, particularly in the postgraduate function. Mature students lacking formal entrance requirements will have the opportunity, as I say, to demonstrate that they have acquired the equivalent education through a combination of previous training and life experience.

It is noteworthy that the act uses the term "professor" rather than "faculty" to define teaching and research staff employed by the university. This reflects the fact that there will be no tenure for teaching staff and probably no faculties as such.

The corporate governance structure provided by the act will ensure flexibility in programming and staff requirements. This will enable the institution to undertake new ways of teaching and conducting research, to enter into partnerships with existing post-secondary institutions and to increase its ability to be self-financing, which is an important feature.

Although this act establishes Royal Roads University as a unique institution, by reference it does incorporate some of the provisions of the University Act. These relate mainly to the powers of the board of governors, the president and the university. The Royal Roads University Act, in establishing a university with applied and professional programming that will be responsive to change, is consistent with the government's commitment to investing in people -- and I spoke of that in my wrap-up of the estimates debate of my ministry yesterday.

It's very important in terms of being consistent with the government's commitment to investing in people by equipping them with the necessary skills and knowledge to compete in the provincial, national and global economies. I will close with those remarks, and I look forward with anticipation to second reading debate.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate on Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, on behalf of the Liberal caucus. Certainly I'm delighted that under the Canada-B.C. framework agreement on Royal Roads, the federal Liberal government is providing this province with $20 million for costs relating to the development and operation of the campus over the next five years. This funding will ensure that there is no cost to British Columbia taxpayers in 1995 and 1996.

While we are on the federal government issue, I would also stand as the science and technology critic for the Liberal caucus and, again, applaud the contribution -- the recent funding announcement -- by the federal government of $167 million to the TRIUMF research station. Certainly the Minister

[ Page 15571 ]

of Employment and Investment of this government and I have been at many announcements surrounding the future of that institution, and both of us believe fundamentally in the future of science and how important it is to this province. Indeed, we have one of the foremost research centres in Canada housed in British Columbia, and I think we can take tremendous pride in that.

In terms of how important ongoing research is to the future of Royal Roads, it will indeed be very, very important. I too would agree with the minister when he talks about the uniqueness of that facility. I do believe it will be unique. Certainly it talks about it being a small, independent degree-granting institution, offering graduate- and undergraduate-level programs.

In this context, we're talking about an institution that is financially independent, so we are indeed talking about a different way to provide education in British Columbia -- and, I believe, about a way that is complementary to the existing resources in the different institutions we have today, whether they be a formal college, a university program or a number of other skills programs around the province. This is one more piece of an ever-growing pie in terms of providing choices for students around post-secondary education.

I accept and support the notion of applied studies, and I certainly am delighted to see professional-degree-granting opportunities for individuals who are returning to school later in life, and who are, again, coming with a different set of skills and perhaps not a formalized degree. Indeed, all through the estimates debate with this minister, I talked about a seamless system. If we can recognize the credit base that individuals bring to the system and actually grant them credit for their work experience as opposed to a previous degree, I think the system is moving ahead extremely well.

Again, I would offer my acknowledgment of this particular act, because it appears that it will allow that to happen. I think that that news is always good news.

In terms of the federal contribution, I would hope that this minister will rise during his closing remarks and thank the federal government; $20 million is a significant sum of money. It will allow an expanded choice along the continuum. Frankly, this act and that funding will allow for the operation of the Royal Roads University. I can honestly commit in this debate that I don't believe this government would have come forth and operated that university this September without that funding contribution. I think that is a valid comment.

Again, just to speak very strongly in support of this act's seeming commitment to research and development, that is the future of this province. We spend untold dollars in this province encouraging young women to take to science and the study of mathematics, and now we are recognizing how important that is across the continuum. Again, that's always good news.

In terms of some specific aspects of the bill, I will certainly canvass these issues in some detail in second reading, but I would be interested in the minister's remarks on particular fundraising endeavours, and on whether or not the tax receipting for this particular institution will differ in any way from the other universities we know in the province.

Another particular question I would have for this minister, which perhaps he can address prior to committee stage of this debate, looks at removal of professors. My question would simply be: is there an appeal process in place?

If the minister could comment on those in his closing remarks, that indeed may allow us to move through committee stage of this bill much more quickly. So I'm standing in support of Bill 49, the Royal Roads University Act. I think it will again allow some expanded choices for students in British Columbia, and I urge its support.

A. Warnke: There are a couple of remarks I want to make, and I guess they're based on the response to the minister's opening statement on Bill 49. Indeed, the opening statement by the minister suggests almost a lament that the federal government unilaterally closed Royal Roads, and therefore the provincial government somehow was left something to be dealt with.

I look at this entirely differently. It's in that kind of context that I want to make one remark: military colleges -- and all military colleges -- unlike universities, are somewhat vulnerable or expendable. We have to be reminded that not only in Canada but throughout the world -- certainly the western world -- there was something called a peace dividend. The peace dividend did have an effect, insofar as it meant reallocating resources to the non-military sector that perhaps belonged formerly to the military sector.

Not only in this country but in other countries as well, a transformation is going through in the military sector. Of course, what's going to be affected by that are the various military colleges.

In the western world there have been some outstanding military colleges. Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth, England, certainly comes to mind; Sandhurst, of course; Cranwell; and in the United States, West Point and Annapolis. Actually, I visited the United States Air Force Academy several years ago. I have personal favourites: Fort Ord, California, and the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey, California, that I'm very familiar with.

All of these institutions and colleges have had to go through a transformation as a result of the peace dividend. Most people see that as a very positive thing. We've had distinguished schools and colleges in this country as well. Le College Militaire Royal de St. Jean in Quebec, the Royal Military College in Kingston and, of course, the Royal Roads Military College in Victoria. All of the colleges I've mentioned have had to go through an adjustment -- minimally -- as a result of the peace dividend.

Indeed, in the context of Royal Roads itself, it's very important to reflect on a bit of history as well. The Naval Services Act, which established the Royal Canadian Navy in 1910 -- and I believe Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the Prime Minister really responsible for that -- led to the establishment of the Royal Naval College in Halifax the following year. We don't want to go into the whole history, but as a result of World War I and one terrible incident in Halifax in 1917, it affected the college in Halifax and meant establishing, the following year, a college in Esquimalt on this side. In 1940, HMCS Royal Roads was commissioned. It's had quite a history since then.

I want to draw attention to the fact that this has not been the first time that there has been some discussion as to the future of Royal Roads College. Indeed, I draw the House's attention to the Landymore commission, which did attempt to articulate about the cost of training officers. This was back in the 1960s. The Landymore commission found that the cost of training officers was three times what it would cost to train the very same officers in some sort of university program with the ROTP. Nonetheless, the Landymore commission did conclude that the military colleges were cost-efficient. Another

commis-

[ Page 15572 ]

sion, the Glassco commission -- which some members might remember -- focused on the waste and inefficiency of the federal government. It did find that military colleges were not efficient according to the dollars spent. A Defence department advisory board, however, still supported colleges. This was in the context of the 1960s. It's very fair to say that the reason military colleges are expendable, not only in Canada but throughout the world, is that in terms of dollars, they are cost-inefficient. As a result of what we would now dub the peace dividend, those colleges are naturally quite vulnerable.

Some people in the 1960s had the foresight to say that somewhere down the line, Royal Roads and other military colleges were going to have to face the prospect of some sort of transformation. Therefore, about 1969 or 1970, there was the suggestion that Royal Roads should be the site of a world college. Indeed, one of its proponents was General Allard, who was the chief of defence staff for Canada. It was a large thesis that essentially Canada was moving to where the allocation of resources in a military context may have been best reallocated somewhere else. Therefore we must have a new vision for Royal Roads.

To his credit... It may have been the wrong decision, but the commandant of Royal Roads at the time, Colonel Lewis, convinced Ottawa otherwise. It's easy in retrospect to suggest that Colonel Lewis was wrong. On the other hand, as the commandant for Royal Roads at the time, he stuck up for the college.

It is very clear that in 1969 and 1970, the future of Royal Roads was beginning to be examined. Perhaps it's a mistake that.... In retrospect, after seeing what has happened, perhaps Royal Roads should have been the site for what later became known as the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific. Indeed, that was suggested at the time. So with 20-20 hindsight, perhaps that should have been the future of Royal Roads. Eventually, with the coming of the peace dividend, it's obvious that something had to happen with Royal Roads.

[3:15]

This is not new, and that is essentially the reason that I thought I would make my comments. This is not something to lament. This is not something that the federal government just somehow came up with from the upper clouds: this idea, in the era of cost-cutting, that they would unilaterally close Royal Roads. This issue as to the future of Royal Roads has been around for 25 years and more. In an ideal, perfect world, we would all like to support the idea of a military college. But time and time again it has been pointed out that in terms of moneys and government expenditures, they're cost-inefficient and therefore vulnerable.

There is another argument that this is a sign of the times. It's a great time in that in the era of the peace dividend, we can actually begin to shift some of our attention and resources from the military to the non-military sector. So be it. It's in this kind of context that I would like to put forward the notion that instead of a lament that something went wrong, there is genuine cause here for extending enthusiastic support.

It's not without some problems. One problem from the

summary remarks of the minister can be put this way -- that is, what is the impact of Royal Roads University on Camosun College in Victoria and, of course, on the University of Victoria itself? Within the greater Victoria area now, we have three institutions of degree-granting status. I think the way the minister has put out in the opening remarks that Royal Roads University is perhaps going to give us something different that Camosun College and the University of Victoria are not going to give us is fair enough. That's heading in the right direction. For that matter, therefore, it is quite proper that we lend enthusiastic support in this particular direction.

There is another point I want to raise as well. The bill as it reads certainly can be supported, but I want to draw attention to one part of the bill,

section 2(c). I know we can get it at committee stage, but it's a point I would like to raise. The purpose of the university, according to 2(c), is to maintain teaching excellence and research activities -- and that's fine -- that support the university's programs in response to the labour market needs of British Columbia. There is nothing wrong with putting forward the phrase "labour market needs." It is certainly a very good, noble goal to pursue, but to provide something that might have some implications, let's say when the university draws up its calendar, I have suggested....

I would like the minister just to contemplate it and perhaps he'll apply an amendment; it's entirely up to him. I'm not going to make a big issue out of it.

In the original provincial news release entitled "Royal Roads University to Start Up in September," the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour put it this way: "We have built a vision for Royal Roads University based on the recommendations we've received from the advisory panel...Royal Roads will offer contemporary professional mid-career graduate programs such as international business and marketing, environmental management and technology management." Those three phrases -- international business and marketing, environmental management and technology management -- are something very constructive and positive. It's something in that, somehow, and perhaps more.

I would say the university could certainly address socioeconomic needs, and that could be another phrase. If we could somehow ensure that that is in the context of this bill -- to provide the university with the aspiration and the scope in a more general and comprehensive context in terms of developing its curriculum -- it is something I would really support. Those are the two points I want to raise.

I certainly don't lament the development of this kind of situation. Indeed, I think it is the only option. Maybe, in that context, the government might see itself in a regrettable situation. It may be the only option, but I think it's a positive option that the government is pursuing here, and that's the reason I think this is headed in the right direction. It is based on 25 years or more of consideration.

This is nothing new in terms of establishing Royal Roads as a university, and I would hope that in passing this bill, we somehow not only lend enthusiastic support for the new university, but celebrate the fact that we have a new post-secondary institution in the province most worthy of its people.

L. Fox: I am pleased to rise and support Bill 49, the Royal Roads University Act. I find it quite amusing, though, that at the outset we've heard more defence in the last speaker's argument in terms of the actions of the federal government than we heard around the opportunities that this provides British Columbia to come out with a unique opportunity to create some new directions in secondary education.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Well, I don't know whether Ottawa's decision was good or bad, based on military needs. I'm not prepared to

[ Page 15573 ]

discuss that aspect of it. I guess, coming out of this, I'm a believer that there is a silver lining in almost every cloud. While we may have lost a facility that, indeed, was designed to meet different objectives, I think we have gained one that we can look forward to providing some unique opportunities in post-secondary education.

Before I read some of my prepared text, the only thing I would have liked to have had the opportunity to discuss when this bill came forward is the presentation made to our caucus by the faculty at Royal Roads -- and I know they made the presentation to the minister and government as well as, I'm sure, the opposition caucus -- around the opportunities for developing a wholly-owned, independent institution, which would have been funded on its own, generated its own revenues and controlled its own expenditures without needing any provincial or federal money.

It was a rather unique opportunity not only to look at a pilot -- perhaps it was only designed to be a two-year pilot -- but maybe also to try something new in terms of our post-secondary education. I would have liked to have seen us explore that. Perhaps the minister in his sum-up will tell us why that wasn't a viable option, because I would like to hear that.

By creating this entirely new university on a campus of the former Royal Roads Military College, this bill represents a significant change in the way provincial government governs its post-secondary education. I want to talk about one or two of the initiatives here that I really feel strongly about and really support in the bill. The university's mandate will be to provide academic programs aimed exclusively at applied and professional fields of study, responsive to the specific needs of British Columbia's labour market. I think that is an excellent initiative; that's what I read into this legislation.

The administrative and governing structures of the new university are very different from those of existing institutions. Royal Roads University will be an efficient and streamlined school, operating more like a business than a traditional institution. The introduction of two new councils in the university structure, entrenched in this legislative mandate, should help facilitate the progressive thrust of its technical and professional goals.

Charged with developing the educational and research agendas of the university, the program and research council and the academic council are interesting new creatures, in my view. And although I have some concerns about how they will operate, I hope that they are there to bring Royal Roads to the cutting edge and keep it there. Its emphasis on research and development programs, combined with a sharp focus on applied and professional studies, represents an important new direction for post-secondary education in the province.

Hon. Speaker, I guess I'm almost sounding like I'm the minister presenting the bill, but I feel strongly, having been raised in northern British Columbia, where all the emphasis in the past -- other than, as we've seen, the development of the colleges -- has been on the academic side. Having seen so many llost opportunities for young people, I really believe that if given the opportunity that could flow out of the intent of the bill.... I think there is a great opportunity here for young British Columbians, and I totally support the bill.

D. Mitchell: Today we are engaged in a process of creating a new university in British Columbia. Many of us will feel that Bill 49, the Royal Roads University Act, is something that should be supported with some pride. I think there are also some questions and concerns about this. But at the outset, I'd like to congratulate the minister for bringing forward the bill. At the very least, we can say that the military college that was closed by the federal government in far-off Ottawa will be preserved as a centre for post-secondary education in the province. At the very least, that opportunity hasn't been lost and the site hasn't been lost or forfeited for some other use.

I think the traditions of Royal Roads Military College should continue. Indeed, many might argue that it should have continued as a military college. That opportunity is not there, so there's no sense debating that or speaking about an opportunity that has been lost. But I think we can talk about an opportunity which exists today that is not being approached as creatively, perhaps, as one might want to. We're creating yet another university -- as the minister says, another independent, degree-granting university in the province.

I think it's a valid question to ask whether we need one. We have four publicly funded universities in the province today. We have another number of university colleges, which also grant degrees. There is a concern about the depreciation of the currency of the degrees that are granted by British Columbia post-secondary institutions today. There is a concern. Do we have too many degree-granting institutions? I see the minister shaking his head in the negative.

I know that he will have applications coming forward from other colleges who would also like to grant degrees and would like to have that degree-granting power. But I wonder if the opportunity that we're pursuing today to create a new university -- a separate, stand-alone university at the Royal Roads Military College site -- is the right approach. At the very least, we're preserving an opportunity for post-secondary education.

The board of governors that will be created pursuant to this act, the academic council that the minister spoke of, which is going to be appointed pursuant to this act, may have the opportunity, perhaps, to apply some creativity and some ingenuity to turn attention to the opportunity that I think really presents itself at the Royal Roads Military College site. What we have here, I think, could have been handled differently. It could have been handled a lot differently, and it could have addressed the concerns about an opportunity to do something better.

I know that the minister will have received representation not only from the faculty and staff of Royal Roads Military College, but from others in the post-secondary education community as well. The opportunity for some kind of an alliance with the University of Victoria, right here in Victoria, certainly is there and presented itself, but the government decided to reject that opportunity and instead go the route of a separate, independent university. I think the minister's going to have to answer why.

Why not create a bond or a strategic alliance with the University of Victoria and take a look at the opportunities for expanding Royal Roads Military College to create perhaps a unique institution, more unique than the minister has said? The minister has said that this is a special and unique institution. He has even indicated, in his second reading comments today, that the teaching staff will not have tenure, I think is what he said. The teaching staff at this university, unlike all the other universities, will not have tenure. That is different. It will be interesting to know why.

[3:30]

[ Page 15574 ]

It will be interesting to know about transferability or the ability to hire staff and faculty from other universities in British Columbia, if they'll be willing to go there, or whether this is simply a move in the direction of removing tenure from all university faculty in the province. It will be interesting to know if that's what the minister is starting here. He's putting the foot in the door to taking away tenure from all faculty in British Columbia. We don't know that. But at Royal Roads University the faculty and teaching staff will not have tenure. He has said that.

We have an opportunity to take a look at creating a unique institution, at taking Royal Roads Military College.... The federal government had no vision for continuing that institution; they simply wanted to close it. There was a complete lack of vision from Ottawa, and that's not unusual. In fact, that's something we in British Columbia have come to expect from Ottawa.

The provincial government not only had the opportunity to pick up the ball -- and I give credit to the minister that at least he picked up the ball and did not allow an opportunity to be forgone -- but they could have taken a look at creating a special institute for studying the oceans. Here we are situated on the Pacific Rim. We could have taken a look at an engineering institute that would focus on the handling of international disasters.

We could have taken a look at a number of other opportunities for a specialized technical training institute, because we have BCIT in Burnaby, which does an outstanding job, but is sometimes criticized for being the Burnaby institute of technology. A lot of people wonder why we don't have similar institutes in the interior and in the north and perhaps right here on Vancouver Island. There might have been room to create a specialized technical training institute.

Perhaps there's nothing in the purposes

section of this bill to prevent the board of governors of Royal Roads University from focusing the attentions, energies and talents that are going to be hired at this new university in these new directions. But the bill itself, in the explanatory note, simply says that the act establishes this new university "to offer certificate, diploma, undergraduate and graduate programs in applied and professional fields." That's a fairly general statement for a fairly general approach to post-secondary education. It's not very specialized or very unique.

So there is going to be a lot of weight on the shoulders of the board of governors the minister is going to be appointing pursuant to this act, and of the academic council that is established. The vision that is imparted to them in this act isn't very specific. The minister's comments in the House might be offering them some further direction, so when he closes debate I am going to be encouraging him to not only answer some of these questions, but to indicate a willingness during the committee stage to talk a little bit about some of the specialized visions that might be applied.

The reason I'm going to do that is that there are alternative visions for post-secondary education: how we're going to fund it and who is going to have the opportunity to participate in advanced education in British Columbia. I will note a discussion paper put out by the Liberal opposition recently which talks about directions for post-secondary education in British Columbia. The Liberal vision, if they should ever be given an opportunity to govern -- and heaven forbid if they are -- apparently sees privatization of post-secondary education as the way to go.

You would perhaps have to gain access to a voucher of some kind. Maybe you'd be able to spend your voucher at Royal Roads University, or maybe it wouldn't cover the tuition. I don't know. I don't know if the new "Directions for Post-Secondary Education" is official policy. I don't know if it has been approved by the leader of the Liberal opposition yet, but it talks about a vision for post-secondary education which is certainly at odds with the reality today. I wonder if the minister would have any comments on that, in the context of this act.

Interjection.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

D. Mitchell: I saw the minister's press release. I was actually quite impressed with his press release, but I wonder.... He didn't mention anything about that approach to post-secondary education in his second reading comments on Bill 49. I'm hoping that he won't miss the opportunity to do so.

As I said, Bill 49 establishes a new university -- another publicly funded university in British Columbia. I'm not certain that's what we need in British Columbia today.

I'm disappointed that the government didn't take advantage of the opportunity to use the very best creative minds, and some of the other ideas in the post-secondary education sector, to really apply itself to the Royal Roads Military College site, and to create an even more interesting and unique institution that might be aligned or affiliated with other post-secondary institutions such as the University of Victoria, and to focus specifically on some of the new emerging technologies -- some of the opportunities presented by our geographic location here on the coast to create something truly new.

We are creating a new mini-university. It's going to grant degrees, like many other institutions in British Columbia that grant degrees. I hope that it won't be the case that we're simply going to be producing more degrees, depreciating the currency of the degrees that are being produced in British Columbia and not really adding the significant value that we could to the post-secondary education sector.

M. Sihota: I rise in this debate as the MLA for the area in which the new Royal Roads University will be situate. I want to start by saying that this legislation is a tribute to the hard work of the people in the Western Communities of the greater Victoria area. They recognized that the federal government was making a mistake when it was closing Royal Roads Military College, and quickly rallied in this community to fight for and encourage the provincial government to protect Royal Roads and to create a university for the benefit of future generations who will be requiring training in a number of disciplines here in the greater Victoria area.

I want to talk a few minutes about this decision of the federal government, because I know other hon. members have spoken on it, particularly the member for Richmond-Steveston, whose comments I listened to with great interest. The decision on the part of the federal Liberal government to close Royal Roads Military College was a mistake.

The reason I say that is that on an international basis around the world we are seeing a change in the geopolitical makeup of the defence alignment, inasmuch as prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union there was one identifiable -- if I can put it this way -- enemy or area of concern. With the fracturing that has occurred in Europe -- we've seen that in a number of disputes that have occurred since the breakup of the Soviet Union --

[ Page 15575 ]

there is a real need to have our peacekeepers equipped with the requisite skills to maintain peace throughout the world. Royal Roads Military College made sure that Canada's brightest military minds were trained in disciplines so as to enhance Canada's peacekeeping skills and allow this country to do that which it has carved out a niche for, namely peacekeeping.

It is true that there are three military colleges in Canada. It is also true, as other hon. members from the Liberal Party have mentioned, that for the past 25 years there have been many studies that have pointed to a review of the three military colleges in this country. The majority of those studies have concluded that it makes sense for this nation to have at least one military college in western Canada -- here on the west coast of Canada, in the Esquimalt area, in particular -- and one in eastern Canada.

All of the studies that I have seen with regard to efficiencies pointed out repeatedly that the Royal Roads Military College was the most efficient of the three military colleges that were established in this country.

There's a need to ensure that people who are trained in, for example, peacekeeping duties, and in naval skills, are trained at a facility which is close to navigable waters. This is not the case for Kingston, nor was it the case for St. Jean, Quebec. That alone warranted the maintenance of a military college here on the west coast of Canada. In addition, it makes sense, when students are engaged in military studies, that we maintain a triservice facility so that students are equipped in skills that deal not only with naval matters but with matters relating to aircraft and the army.

I think the federal government, therefore, made a political decision not to offend the voters in the province of Quebec and in eastern Canada and to maintain their political base in eastern Canada -- to maintain a facility in eastern Canada and to deny western Canadian students the opportunity to be educated here in western Canada. I put that on the record only because I think it rebuts the arguments that have just been made by the Liberal Party in the sense that this was something that needed to be closed. It did not need to be closed. There was a compelling argument to maintain a military college.

Having said that, the federal government nonetheless made this ill-informed decision. Royal Roads and the site that this university is to be located on is a treasure here in the Western Communities, and people appreciate the importance of having an academic institution, particularly on the western side of the greater Victoria area. We, as a provincial government, could have done that which other Reform-minded governments -- I use that in the capital-R sense -- endeavour to do, which is to simply pass on these cuts to the communities and say: "Well, there's nothing we can do about it."

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I am being heckled by the Liberals now, because they're upset that the point has been made that a decision was poorly thought through in terms of the Liberal Party. If they want to heckle, I guess that's their choice, but I think it's important that they feel the pain that people in the Western Communities felt when the decision was made with regard to the closure of Royal Roads Military College, and that they feel some of the sting of the anger that I am expected to articulate on their behalf here in this Legislature.

Let me return to the point. We could have made a decision, as the government, to ignore the wishes of the people of the Western Communities, of the greater Victoria area, and allow Royal Roads to wither -- to allow that which the federal Liberals wanted to do: sell off those lands for commercial development and deny the establishment of an educational institute.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Again, I know I've woken the Liberal members opposite, who now wish to....

An Hon. Member: That's impossible.

M. Sihota: Some say that's impossible, and I guess there's some pleasure in the fact that I've been able to do the impossible.

But I know it hurts them to know that it was they who made the decision to close this facility. We made a conscious decision -- the Premier, in February 1994 -- to indicate that we would seek to preserve Royal Roads Military College. During the course of the last year a tremendous amount of work has been done by, first of all, the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, in seeking to fulfil that obligation that the Premier made, furthered by my colleagues from the greater Victoria area, the locally elected MLAs: the members for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Victoria-Beacon Hill, Malahat-Juan de Fuca, Saanich South...

An Hon. Member: Victoria-Hillside.

M. Sihota: ...and yes, the member for Victoria-Hillside, when he was a member of this caucus.

All of us worked diligently to try to encourage the government to protect Royal Roads. We were able to secure an agreement with the federal government, which I think is in the best interests of this province. It allows the federal government to contribute the same amount of money that they contributed in the province of Quebec to compensate Quebec for the loss of their military college. We are taking those funds and establishing an innovative educational facility here in the Western Communities.

I want to specifically acknowledge the work of the staff and faculty of Royal Roads, who worked aggressively with us over the past year in a grassroots campaign designed to save this facility and convert it into a post-secondary institute -- in particular, Drs. Boutilier, Dunnett and Akbar, who were instrumental in leading and spearheading that community desire. One afternoon last June, I think, they were able to attract 13,000 Victorians to Royal Roads to demonstrate to this province the affinity that people in the Western Communities and greater Victoria have to that site.

This educational facility -- and I want to credit the government for having made this decision -- will not duplicate the work of UVic and Camosun. Some hon. members have asked: why is this not an adjunct of UVic and Camosun? Well, we do not want to create a duplication of those program opportunities in the Western Communities. People can access UVic and Camosun for the programs available there. We want to make sure that Royal Roads University carves out its own special niche.

There's tremendous opportunity. One of those areas is in the area of environmental technologies and environmental

[ Page 15576 ]

training. I want to comment on that for a minute. We as a provincial government have designed or endeavoured to provide the infrastructure to ensure that the Western Communities and the people in the Western Communities prosper in the years ahead. We've made a commitment to establish and have started the work on $152 million worth of roadworks, to allow people to transport themselves from the Western Communities to Victoria in a far more efficient way. Hopefully, we'll follow that up with some announcements on light rail transit.

At the same time, we have provided for $30 million in infrastructure work for sewers in the Western Communities, to allow development to occur in the Western Communities.

[3:45]

But it seems to me that what really allows a community to achieve its economic potential is a leading-edge educational institute.

If you can say to the world, "Move to the Western Communities, and you can have access to the academic institution known as Royal Roads, which specializes" -- let's say, to illustrate my point -- "in the area of environmental technologies; you can live in communities like Metchosin and the Highlands, which have a rural quality to them, a high quality of life and a profoundly rich environment; you can work in Colwood in areas that we are sewering, so there's going to be more density, and locate your businesses there in proximity to Royal Roads," then you set the basis for that which has been created in communities like Stanford, where we saw the development of Silicon Valley -- high-tech industries situating themselves adjacent to a first-class educational institute and creating economic prosperity for that portion of California.

The same potential exists here in the Western Communities. We could become the home for green industries by taking advantage of Royal Roads and its ability to offer training in environmental technologies, by encouraging green industries to locate in one of the greenest areas in British Columbia, the greater Victoria area, and by making sure we have a transportation system that efficiently moves people from one area to the other. There are also opportunities with regard to international trade.

Indeed, as the minister has mentioned, this will be an institute that will be working in the form of applied arts as opposed to academic arts, so as not -- to pick up on the comments made by other hon. members -- to duplicate the programming that is offered at the University of Victoria and at Camosun College.

Let me also say that this facility will offer special programming to people in the Western Communities to deal with the needs of the people in the Western Communities. For example, we have a high percentage of women in the Western Communities who are endeavouring to make the transition, living in the suburbs of Victoria, from life at home to the workforce. They require upgrading in terms of skills so as to make sure that they can achieve their potential as human beings. We see a tremendous opportunity to fulfil their aspirations by establishing these types of programs, developed by the community for the community, in the Western Communities portion of the greater Victoria area.

It's a win-win. It's a win in terms of economic opportunities and the economic development of the Western Communities; it's a win in terms of an academic institution, which has been long overdue in that component of Victoria; and it's a win for the people of the Western Communities, who will now have access to post-secondary educational opportunities designed in a way that is tailor-made to their concerns. It is win for the people of the greater Victoria area who lobbied hard and aggressively and attracted the ear of a government that was prepared to listen.

It is also a win in the sense that it takes a decision that was poorly made by the Liberal government and converts it into something that future generations can be proud of.

H. Lali: I request leave to make a couple of introductions.

Leave granted.

H. Lali: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make an introduction of two groups of 80 students from grade 6, along with several adults, and their teacher, Mr. B. Bagnall, from Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. As well, there is another group of 42 visitors: students from grades 5 and 6, with several adults, and their teacher, Mr. Coppendon, from Hellen Keller Elementary School in Kirkland, Washington. Would the House please bid our visitors a warm British Columbia welcome.

G. Wilson: I rise in support of Bill 49, and I do so to offer some considerable congratulations to the government for preventing what would have been the exacerbation of a very bad decision, and that was the decision to close Royal Roads Military College.

I'm going to keep my remarks somewhat brief, because I know that my colleague for Okanagan East wishes to speak more specifically to the philosophy of the bill. I want to echo some of the comments made by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who talked about the incredible mistake that was made with respect to the removal of federal funding for Royal Roads Military College. I don't think Canadians generally understood the magnitude of the decision that was taken, but British Columbians clearly did.

We have to know -- because the constitution of Canada keeps us together as ten united provinces -- that the federal government has obligations to all regions of the country and to this province. Notwithstanding the fact that perhaps we didn't send as many Liberals back as they might have liked, we did not deserve the kind of treatment we received with respect to the cuts in budgets that we are unfortunately having to deal with.

I really do underscore what was said. I'm delighted to hear in this chamber that we are finally starting to talk -- at least on the matter of the principles of these bills -- about some of the broader issues and interests that Canadians must have and that we as provincial legislators have to have. We see the changing nature of alliances that exist continentally both north and south, because of our economic trade agreements and alliances, but more importantly, the different alliances that are now starting to take place with respect to the changing global political map.

It was necessary to maintain Royal Roads Military College in order to keep the very best and brightest minds available, so that we in western Canada could have a military training college that would allow those individuals who chose to take that path an opportunity to be trained in the most advanced and most modern of technologies.

I can say that I have a particular interest in it. I know that my colleague and I both do, because it was a place where we

[ Page 15577 ]

were married, and in the time leading up to that event we had an opportunity to have a tour.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: The member for Richmond East is saying that she enjoyed herself greatly there. It was very much a Liberal event, but I won't get into that. The interesting thing was that we had an opportunity to have a tour of those facilities and to see firsthand what exists there. I think the trouble is that an awful lot of British Columbians are not aware of the extent to which that facility has been provided with some of the most up-to-date, state-of-the-art equipment.

I would hope that the federal government does not compound its folly by removing funding from Royal Roads by attempting, in this transition period, to gut that institution of the equipment that exists there, particularly with respect to the science labs and the communications and electrical technologies labs. I would say that the next move this government has to make is to get in there and lock the doors and let them take nothing out. It will be in the interests of the federal government to try to move that equipment to the eastern institutions, particularly in Quebec.

I am suggesting that this government should move quickly now to make sure that the equipment that is there is there for the use of this institution as it is reconstituted and that we do not allow the federal government to come in and gut that institution. After all, it is equipment that has been bought with taxpayers' money, and that includes British Columbia taxpayers, which sometimes the central government in Ottawa tends to forget. They tend to forget that we are one of the key contributors to Confederation, and we often get very little back in return for our efforts.

So I would say that we have to secure that equipment, and we must move quickly to do so.

Let me conclude my remarks by saying that it took some courage for this government.... In a time when there is a huge call for fiscal restraint, it took some courage for this government to recognize the asset that that institution provided, not just for the people of British Columbia, but for all of Canada. It took some courage to come forward and say that we were going to get in there to preserve it, to protect it and to maintain the integrity of that institution.

For the small part that we were able to play, we met with the faculty out there and with the administration and with those that were organizing the move to try and have this institution put in place. We were as vocal and forceful as we could be in putting forward this proposal. So we're delighted to see that whatever our efforts have contributed to this cause has borne fruit. I would say that congratulations to this government are in order. However, we are going to look very carefully at the clause-by-clause sections of this bill.

There are issues, particularly a couple that were raised by my colleague for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, that I think need to be looked at and addressed, and more that will be commented on in the remarks by my colleague for Okanagan East that will follow.

R. Kasper: I would like to pick up on and echo the comments of the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. The government has shown remarkable vision in picking up the slack from our federal government when they abandoned the people of the Western Communities with their decision to close the Royal Roads Military College.

With the hard work and determination of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, the hard work and effort of my colleague for Esquimalt-Metchosin, and in particular, the local councils, the business community and the staff and workers of Royal Roads mounting a very strong, effective lobby to ensure that there was some form of post-secondary education maintained in the Western Communities.... Through this act, it will become a reality.

I am confident that the board -- which will help deliberate on the future direction of this post-secondary institution -- will reflect the economic realities of the community, the employment opportunities and the marketplace in the kinds of skills and training needed to make both the Western Communities region and the province more prosperous in the future.

It is important, though, that the partnership that has been developed over the past year and a half since the federal government decided to abandon Royal Roads Military College -- again putting additional costs on the backs of B.C. taxpayers -- struck a hard bargain to ensure that our taxpayers in this province would not be penalized for the federal government's abandonment of that college facility.

But after saying that, I'm confident that the people in the Western Communities will take great pride in knowing that there will be an education facility there that will truly reflect the values of the people of the Western Communities and will afford students of all ages an opportunity to seek a post-secondary education when other opportunities are not available at UVic or at other post-secondary education facilities.

I know that many members, I trust, will support this bill. I have to remark that I know that the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast has spoken highly of the government's decision; I'd like to echo that. I know that my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin has also spoken highly of it and actually played a very major role in making this piece of legislation and the government's announcement a reality.

I know that with the involvement of the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, there are other opportunities available with this facility. Whatever courses are going to be struck at that post-secondary facility, they will reflect involvement from the business community in both the Western Communities and the rest of the greater Victoria area. If it wasn't for the partnership that this government has established with the business community within this region, much of the hard work and effort that has taken place would not be a reality.

So I would also like to thank the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. He has shown a keen interest in seeing this particular institution become a reality.

Thank you very much. I take my place in support of this legislation.

[4:00]

J. Tyabji: I am happy to rise in support of this bill, and certainly there were days when we thought this bill wouldn't come forward. Many of us were quite concerned that Royal Roads would be lost forever to the people of British Columbia.

I would encourage anyone who hasn't spent any time up at Royal Roads to go there. As the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast mentioned, I myself would not have even known the asset that exists there if I hadn't had a personal interest in it, which developed, obviously, because we were married there and had the opportunity to get to know some of the faculty and to tour the facility. One of the things he

[ Page 15578 ]

brought up that I would really like to emphasize is the computer equipment and technology -- including satellite technology -- we have because this was a military college. The federal government funded the most advanced technology available for communications, for weather predictions and for geographic full-colour mapping. The scientific laboratories are unbelievably well put together.

When we were there a few months ago, what bothered me was that shortly after the federal government's decision had come out, the order went out to start removing assets -- any movable assets. There were beds going out; there were computers going out. Anything that was movable had an order to be shipped back east to the Quebec college. And this, I think, gets to the heart of why British Columbians become frustrated with the way the federal government treats us. We're almost like second-class citizens, and it's been a difficult exercise at best to see how the....

I think the Minister of Finance has to be given some credit for negotiations. I know the Minister of Employment and Investment was involved; and certainly the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, in addition to the minister who has brought this bill forward, has been part of the negotiations and the arguments in favour of this institution. But it has been a very difficult challenge for them to have any response from Ottawa. That's something that has to be stated for the record: the federal government didn't really care about British Columbians losing this asset.

In addition to the equipment, which is a very important asset.... I would hope that the minister is paying attention to the fact that the equipment should be kept where it is. I would also hope that the provincial government is going to make a requisition for the equipment that has already been moved back east to be sent back, because for their dollar they have paid the federal government, they deserve to have everything that the taxpayers of the province originally invested in at that site. I wouldn't like us to lose that, because it would be very difficult for this government to ever afford to replace it once it is gone.

Having said that, the land and the buildings on that site would be impossible to replace. Not only would we not have the money, but with the way that the province is growing, it would be very difficult to have land of that size and calibre put aside in this day and age, when obviously we treat land as a commodity. The commodity value of it would be too high to put aside for the public trust.

With respect to this bill, I think it's interesting, and perhaps a bit ironic, that the provincial government has chosen to experiment and go in a different direction from what we see in the University Act for the University of Victoria, Simon Fraser University, UNBC and UBC, and that we have in this bill an almost radical departure from the way universities have been administered in the past. I want to spend a minute just speaking about this, because.... The reason I mention that it's ironic is that we are going from a military college, which is a fairly conservative institution, to an institution that is of this minister's design, which is a radical departure. The reason it is....

There are a few things. First of all, there's no purposes

section in the University Act as it exists and as it governs the four other universities in the province. But we do have a purposes

section in this act --

section 2. I know the member for Richmond-Steveston mentioned it briefly. But if the purposes of this university are, as in subsection (a), "to provide continuing education," and, as in subsection (b), "to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs...in solely the applied and professional fields," then it's interesting that in subsection (c), we see that the purposes of the university are also, "to maintain teaching excellence and research activities that support the university's programs in response to the labour market needs of British Columbia." Now, this is certainly a bill that is the brainchild of the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour.

I remember last year's debate on the education councils, and in that debate, those also were a creature of this minister. I note that there's no provision for education councils in this bill, and that begs the question of whether or not those will be brought in automatically because they exist in the other statute, or whether they will not exist because we have an academic council in this bill. I'm sure we'll get to that in committee stage.

The other thing that I think is interesting is that on the board of governors there's no provision for cabinet appointments of alumni, which exists in the University Act that governs the other four universities. I would certainly speak in favour of alumni, at the point when there are alumni, being on the board of governors. That's something we can take up later.

But I think the most important difference between this bill and the University Act is that

section 46.1 of the University Act, which is headed "Minister not to interfere," reads:

"

(1) The minister shall not interfere in the exercise of powers conferred on a university, its board, senate and other constituent bodies by this act respecting (

a) the formulation and adoption of academic policies and standards, (

b) the establishment of standards for admission and graduation, and (

c) the selection and appointment of staff."

And then it says in

section 46.1(2): "Notwithstanding subsection (1), a university shall not establish a new degree program without the approval of the minister." So obviously there's a reason that there's no provision for the minister not to interfere in the new university.

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I see that the minister is trying to insult me by saying that I think too much. I think that's a very interesting angle, to put that forward as an insult. Withdraw.... I don't know if it's parliamentary language to say that someone thinks too much -- in this House. In this House, I think that would be seen as an insult.

That aside, it's important to note that there is a purposes

section which talks about responding to the labour market, and there's no provision for the minister not to interfere in the regular business of the university. Those are two things that don't exist in the University Act for the four other universities. As I say, it is ironic that this bill, which will govern a place that has been a more conservative institution, is going to be radically different.

We note that the president has expanded powers or responsibilities in addition to those in the University Act. Later on in the debate perhaps we'll get to whether or not that's because he or she will be picking up the slack from the lack of a senate. I know that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi talked a little bit about the lack of tenure that exists in this, and certainly we'll explore that in committee stage.

There are two things that need to be said. First of all, many people would argue that it is time for a radical change

[ Page 15579 ]

in the university institution. In that respect, in terms of supporting the principle of this bill, we're certainly not prepared to criticize the minister for trying to take some initiative in changing the institution of universities. For that I think he should be congratulated. When we get to committee stage, we can try to find out which direction he's trying to take.

As we said in the debate on the education council last year, the Progressive Democratic Alliance is extremely nervous when we see any kind of educational institution trying to respond to the labour market. That can be very problematic, because usually by the time government has done an analysis sufficient to respond to a labour market, the labour market has changed.

That's typical of any market, whether it's the agricultural market that the Minister of Agriculture tries to direct, whether it's education with the Year 2000 program, or whether it's post-secondary education, where we try to train people for jobs that are available today but which may not be available at the time they complete their program. That's where we have some concerns.

But overriding all of this, I think, is a sense of celebration that the minister has taken this initiative. His government should be congratulated. There's no question that if our grandchildren are around to enjoy that facility, it will be one of the legacies of this government, and for that, they should be very proud.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much for the opportunity, hon. Speaker. I'm certain that if it were up to some government members, they would not want me to have this opportunity. I know it surprises the hon. Speaker; nevertheless, I will keep it fairly short.

Perhaps I'll play a little bit of the devil's advocate in the Royal Roads situation. It's not often that I have an opportunity to agree with the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, but in this particular instance I do concur with his discourse on the need for Royal Roads to have continued as a military college. Over the last three or four years I've had the opportunity to talk to a number of people in active military service, and some who are recently retired, through the British Columbia Dragoons in Kelowna at their annual mess dinners.

I can see sort of a creeping paralysis coming over governments and society in Canada. It is ignoring our responsibility to our people and to peoples throughout the world by diminishing the size of our military commitment to the point where it is falling below the critical mass that will enable its continuation. When we lose a system such as Royal Roads Military College, we're losing a great deal -- a great deal in the continuity of staff, training and curriculum, which I think we have a responsibility in Canada to maintain.

It's my sincere and devout belief that the decision made by the current government in Ottawa was very wrong indeed. On that basis, I certainly am pleased to support the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

I come to this debate as a Social Credit member who is very proud of the Social Credit commitment to advanced education over many years, and I want to make that absolutely clear. Whether it's the University of Victoria or Simon Fraser or the Access for All program that enabled colleges and college-universities to develop throughout British Columbia, I'm very, very proud of that commitment.

We in this Legislature and most British Columbians recognize that our future is in a highly advanced, sophisticated, technological world. We need the best of our students to be educated in the best-quality facilities that we can possibly afford and maintain. I'm very pleased, too, with the university of the north, and I'm very pleased that a Social Credit government advanced the university of the north to the point where the current government couldn't stop it. Today we do have a very fine facility centred in Prince George, creating access opportunities for students in those areas.

When we talk specifically about the advantages of that, I think they're obvious to most British Columbians. I've looked at statistics that indicate that in the interior of the province, only 9 percent to a maximum of 10 percent of our graduating students went on to post-secondary studies in universities in British Columbia, which is a rather poor record compared to the Victoria area or the Vancouver area, where approximately 19 percent of those who graduated from grade 12 went on to a university education.

The Access for All program is creating opportunities for young people throughout the province to obtain university degrees, and I'm very proud of that. I know that in the future the whole province will benefit as we move along with a more sophisticated, more skilled, more educated group of young people taking their places in society and creating jobs and opportunities for other British Columbians.

The concerns I have with the Royal Roads initiative probably stem from practical considerations. Obviously, we've heard from the Minister of Finance and members of the government throughout the discourse and debate of the federal government's cutbacks in transfer payments. We hear a great deal about the impact on medicare. We must be well apprised that there are two beneficiaries of that funding: one is medicare, and the other one is advanced education, as you know.

With the significant and substantial cutbacks, we have some very interesting challenges with respect to the universities and colleges that already exist in British Columbia. In Okanagan University College, for example, we have space in some cases and too few professors. Our applied science program has had cutbacks simply because of the lack of funding for adequate staff for the demand for applied science. Other sites need expansion; they need the room. We're hard pressed to find the necessary capital funding to enable the student placement that society requires.

[4:15]

When we look at the cutbacks and find that we're going to divert more money into yet another institution, I just wonder what the impact will be on the other advanced education institutions throughout British Columbia. Obviously, there's a finite sum of money, and that becomes increasingly evident as runaway taxes and runaway costs and runaway debt in the province become more obvious and apparent. Are we succumbing to a knee-jerk reaction? Are we succumbing to an actual need and demand?

I recognize that there is an opportunity there, but from my perspective, coming from the interior of the province, I don't see that the Western Communities are that isolated or that far away from Camosun College or the University of Victoria. I wonder if this is the best direction in spending in the cause of advanced education that we can make in British Columbia.

There certainly will be challenges with the operation. As other speakers have said, there were opportunities for a private sector operation of the facility at no further cost to the provincial or federal governments. From my perspective, that would have been a very acceptable route. I believe in

competi-

[ Page 15580 ]

tion as the best opportunity for achieving a standard of excellence, and I would have welcomed that type of opportunity. Nevertheless, the minister has the facts and statistics, and is abundantly aware of the challenges facing British Columbians throughout the province. If the minister is confident that the funding can be found -- and I understand from the former speakers here that that is a very fine facility -- so be it, and welcome into the fold.

There are concerns about the quality and meaningfulness of the degree issued. With a great deal of pride, I note that Okanagan University College has taken on a close relationship, not only with the University of British Columbia but with the University of Victoria, and is using that accreditation in the initial years to indicate the quality of the diploma from that institution. It seems to me that it is probably a better system, rather than the creation of a new one, which may or may not have the acknowledgment of the credibility of that particular diploma.

I will look at this with interest. I think it's a positive opportunity. I hope that it doesn't sap strength and opportunities from other British Columbians. In the end, I believe that the Access for All program was a very good one. If we can give our students education in the areas where they live, undoubtedly they are going to continue on with their professional careers in those areas -- that is, home.

I'd rather see that than students from the interior of the province coming to the lower mainland or the southern part of Vancouver Island and then -- whether doctors, engineers or other professional individuals -- maintaining a livelihood here because there are a great many advantages here. We need students with the academic ability, the God-given grey matter and the enthusiasm and resourcefulness spread throughout British Columbia. In the end, that will serve British Columbians best of all. With that, I'll take my seat.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, I will call upon the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm going to run through very briefly to try to touch on some of the comments made by the members, and then we will look forward to committee stage debate.

The member for Okanagan West touched on a valid point. I don't want to get into debate about the military, but.... Other members talked about the need to service all of British Columbia. I must say that initially I was not overly enthusiastic about taking on this challenge, because in planning.... You know my feelings about post-secondary; I expressed them very strongly in summing up debate on my estimates. We have a very, very ambitious post-secondary initiative under Skills Now. We are determined that there be a general change in the thrust of our post-secondary -- real skills for the real world. We need that to build our economy.

Without getting into that in a detailed way, one of the issues that I feel very strongly about -- I come from one of the regions of the province -- is that the participation rates should be equalized. If we look at the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island, I think the figures are that roughly 35 people per 1,000 people go to post-secondary institutions. If you look at northern British Columbia and some of the other regions of the province, the participation rates are down as low as seven or eight people per 1,000 who go to post-secondary.

I feel we have an obligation to ensure that people, no matter where they come from in this province, have an opportunity to attend a post-secondary institution or take post-secondary courses. We're trying to move away from bricks and mortar as the only delivery vehicle and looking at distance education and a number of other issues. So we are trying to do that.

In funding our community colleges, for example, we have quite consciously -- over the time I've been minister -- increased funding in some areas at a much greater rate than we have in others. East Kootenay College and North Island College, for example, have received fairly significant percentage increases in recognition that their costs are higher, they cover a larger geographic region and they have smaller populations. We're trying to ensure that no matter where people come from in this province, they have some equal opportunity.

Therefore the prospect of starting a new post-secondary institution -- a new university -- here on southern Vancouver Island was to me, at first blush, not the way to go. People have talked about the need -- I think it was the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi who talked about the need and referred to the Liberal policy paper on post-secondary education. I'd be happy to give him a briefing on Skills Now, because all of the needs that have been identified are contained under the umbrella program Skills Now. We are, indeed, delivering many of those things that people are talking about.

We have a new technical university, which we have announced, in the Fraser Valley. That is important. It's linked with the three community colleges in the region: Kwantlen College, the University College of the Fraser Valley and the British Columbia Institute of Technology. There is a representative on the interim board from the University of British Columbia. We need to link and integrate our post-secondary systems to break down the walls between them, to ensure that there is no overlap and duplication and that we are providing the kinds of education and training that are relevant.

So we looked at the issue of Royal Roads. I don't want to take this occasion to get into some fed-bashing. I can do that quite readily, and I will, believe me. There are other issues that I will be talking about in the very near future where I will speak very strongly for British Columbia. While I can appreciate that we have been able to sit down and negotiate this agreement, which really parallels the Quebec agreement.... When I look at the sum total of the revenue from this agreement and some other recent agreements, it is very tiny when contrasted with the revenue that has been taken out of the province by the federal government.

I said in my estimates conclusion the other day that I will not thank the federal government for withdrawing money from British Columbia that is vital to training. They have withdrawn $30 million this year. That means that those groups around the province who have relied on the federal funding are now turning to the province and saying: "You must fund us." I'm being very hard-nosed and I'm saying: "No, we cannot do that. We have a budget; we have a plan. The budget is fully allocated, and we can't simply assume those responsibilities."

These are issues we considered. I did put together what I considered to be a very good panel of people: the former MLA Scott Wallace from Victoria; Bob Stewart, the former president and CEO of Scott Paper and a very knowledgeable, leading industrial figure; and a professor from UBC, Catherine Vertesi,

[ Page 15581 ]

who by coincidence happens to be the sister of the Leader of the Opposition. The panel was headed by Dr. Keith Saddlemyer, who made what I thought was a good recommendation -- not a detailed recommendation about program but rather a vision of what a university could be on the Royal Roads site.

So I was content with that to move ahead. I established some pretty tight criteria that there be no ongoing provincial funding. Time will tell. We must be realistic. Twenty million dollars is not a lot of money. It is not sufficient to do the job necessary to run and develop and maintain this university.

That is why we have chosen the approach we have taken, which is a partnership approach. We need to have private sector involvement with this university, and we need to have it as a place.... Whether it's the postgraduate people I'm talking about, who may come from industry -- there are many leaders in industry who do not have postgraduate degrees and might like to acquire them at Royal Roads....

We're looking at a university that has the ability to take on tasks that might run for a year or two years, to bring together assembled teams of people -- some from the academic side, some from the business side, some from the labour side -- to consider a particular problem, to find resolution, or at least as much as can be obtained, and then to disband. We do not want the traditional structure that exists in our universities now in British Columbia, because they do an admirable job.

We think that with the recent addition of the University of Northern B.C., we have added capacity for 1,000 new students there -- possibly up to 1,200 or 1,400. We have added 9,000 new full-time student spaces this year in our post-secondary systems, so space has not driven this debate with respect to Royal Roads.

I want to be absolutely clear on the agreement that we have negotiated with the federal government. I should say that it's not a failure on our part; it was the best agreement we could get. And it did parallel.... In fact, we've gone back and made some adjustments, which we'll be signing off soon. Because we think Quebec got a few more things, we have gone back to the table; we have got those now in our agreement, and we'll be concluding that fairly soon. But let nobody be under any illusion. The Royal Roads site is 640 acres. The agreement we have with the federal government gives us 136 acres. That's it.

The balance of the site is and remains under the complete control of the federal government, and we have absolutely no say in what might happen with the balance of those lands.

Because we are conscious of the concerns of the community of Colwood -- and indeed, all British Columbians -- because this is a heritage treasure, we did put in the agreement that any plans the federal government has for disposition of the lands have to meet the tests imposed by zoning bylaws or whatever of the municipality of Colwood. They cannot cast aside.... The federal government has a lot of power, you know, on their own lands, so we did put in the agreement that they must conform to the laws of British Columbia and the municipality of Colwood.

But the decisions they make are their decisions. The revenue stream is tied to the disposal of some of the federal lands. That is clearly spelled out in the agreement. There is a direct link between the federal government being able to develop some of those lands and the money flowing to British Columbia. We don't want to stand in the way of that; we have negotiated an agreement which will see the money flow, regardless of whether the lands have been disposed of. But there is a very clear linkage, and members should be aware of that.

I don't wish to enter into debates about what the federal government is going to do. That's between them and the authorities, particularly Colwood and other authorities in the province.

There are other issues, but I'm sure we will explore them in more detail in committee stage. With that, I would move second reading.

[4:30]

Motion approved.

Bill 49, Royal Roads University Act, 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. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 41.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a great pleasure for me to rise today for second reading of Bill 41, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995. As members will recall, last year this government introduced the Child, Family and Community Service Act, which was passed by the House. The act addressed public demand for significant change in the area of child protection. My ministry is currently working diligently with the child protection community to prepare to implement this act and its companion piece, the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Amendment Act, 1995, after they are proclaimed later this year.

I believe these acts represent a significant improvement in the legal framework required to protect children in the 1990s. As we move forward toward implementation, we recognize the need to continually examine the newly crafted legislation to ensure that it provides an effective framework for meeting our child protection mandate. The bill we are dealing with today proposes changes to strengthen, improve and clarify the Child, Family and Community Service Act. A number of these are technical in nature and therefore, in the interest of time, I'll direct my comments to those amendments that are most substantial.

As all of us in this House know, over this past year Judge Thomas Gove has been conducting an independent inquiry into child protection in this province. It was the wish and direction of this government that Judge Gove recommend improvements to the system. We are awaiting his findings now, but we have received an interim report that recommends a number of legislative changes, some of which I'm pleased to formally outline here today.

The first affects

section 2, the portion of the act that lists its guiding principles. These set out the absolute right of all children to be protected from abuse, neglect, harm and threat of harm, and produce a guide for the

interpretation and administration of the act. Judge Gove has suggested that we strengthen this

section by expressly declaring the principle that the safety and well-being of a child be the paramount consideration in the administration and

interpretation of this

[ Page 15582 ]

act. The rewording we propose will reinforce and clarify this central vision of our child protection legislation.

Another significant change affects

section 41, which governs orders made at child protection hearings. Currently, when a temporary custody order expires and a child is returned to his or her parents, the ministry cannot supervise the child's care without a further court appearance to obtain a legal supervision order. We propose to amend this

section to make the second court appearance unnecessary, allowing the courts to add a supervision order to any temporary custody order at the time that the custody order is made. This would improve efficiency and enhance the ministry's ability to protect children in their homes.

Further amendments that we propose include clarification of the circumstances when a director can seek a continuing custody order at a child protection hearing, when it is in the child's best interest to do so. We're allowing for extension of maximum time limits for temporary custody orders, when a court decides that's in the best interest of the child. That will prevent the court or a director from losing jurisdiction over a child just because of court delays or court scheduling. The act will require mandatory disclosure, by all parties involved, of information to be presented at child protection hearings.

In the act passed in 1994, only the director was required to disclose information on request. And we're creating a mandatory process to review complaints and the exercise of the director's duties.

In addition, the amendment act before us today clarifies the child protection responsibility of members of the public. Currently, subsection 14(1) of the act states: "A person who has reason to believe that a child needs protection must promptly report the matter to a director or a person designated by a director." In our ministry reviews of the legislation, we've actually determined that this wording is inadequate. It may place an unfair burden on the public to assess situations where a child may need protection.

Therefore we're proposing to replace this

section with a more explicit statement, which begins by saying the onus to report belongs with anyone who has reason to believe that a child has been, or is likely to be, physically harmed, sexually abused or sexually exploited by a parent or other person. It then goes on to reference a list of other situations in which a child may need protection.

The amendments before this House today represent the latest effort by our government to build a stronger, more responsive child protection system. Further amendments may be required as experience presents opportunities for further legislative improvements. That's often the case with new legislation. As we move towards implementation of the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995, we will continue to seek the opinions of the people we serve and those who deliver services.

We're also continuing to examine Judge Gove's inquiry -- the remaining interim recommendations, which could not be addressed in time for this legislative session. Some of those recommendations require extensive consultation with affected communities. For example, some of the interim recommendations have a significant impact on the court system, so my ministry and the Attorney General's ministry are carefully reviewing all of these issues and will address them with the bar and the judiciary. These and other similar consultations will continue, in anticipation of the final report of the inquiry into child protection, which we expect to receive later this year.

In conclusion, I would like to remind all of us in this House that the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995 was drafted after more than two years of consultation with British Columbians in all of our communities. It directly reflects their needs, wishes and concerns, and it introduces significant new ways of protecting children by involving them, their families and their communities. The amendment act before us today will improve our ability to protect children, an issue that affects each and every one of us. The way we treat our children today will affect the quality of life for all British Columbians in the future.

V. Anderson: I rise to respond to the minister's statement on Bill 41, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 1995. I would say in the beginning that we certainly agree with the principle of what is being undertaken here and with many of the directions in which the act is intending to go. Naturally, as we go through third reading, there are a number of issues that we would want to clarify as to meanings and

definitions and terms within the act.

Responding just briefly, though, to the minister's last comments about the articles from Judge Gove, which were recommendations he put forward to include in these amendments in this section.... As I looked at these recommendations, I discovered, I think, that only four of the 12 have actually been instituted. I find that interesting, because, being a judge, he certainly knows the court requirements, and he certainly believed that all of these should be considered seriously and brought forward before the act was proclaimed. That was his reason for bringing forth the interim report.

I'm curious to know in more detail why the minister has commented that they are working on these and want to do further work with the court.

I think I'd like to highlight the ones that, as far as I can see, have not been included within these amendments. I think we need to be aware of them and have them on the record. One of these stated: "...I recommend that the new act be amended to make it clear that the right of children to early determination of decisions relating to them is paramount, and that the onus should rest on any other party to show that their interests should take priority over those of the child." That's very important, because at the