1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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, MARCH 26, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4791 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Proposed tenancy of B.C. Hydro in B.C. Place. Mr. Macdonald –– 4791

Crown corporations at B.C. Place. Mr. Lauk –– 4792

B.C. Place negotiations with Sweeney Cooperage. Mr. Barnes –– 4792

Northeast coal cost-benefit analysis. Mr. Leggatt –– 4792

Rural electrification. Mr. D'Arcy –– 4793

Ministerial Statement

Student Aid. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4793

Mr. Lauk –– 4794

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities. Science and Communications estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 206: minister's office –– 4794

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Barber

THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MACDONALD: I would like to call

the attention of the House to the fact that my niece, Mary Elizabeth,

is in the gallery. I ask the House to bid her welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: You may have noticed in the corridors a short time

ago a group of unusual people that would make the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes) look like a runt. I don't mean the one in the front

row; I mean the one in the back row. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith)

and I are very proud to have invited to our galleries today some very unusual

British Columbia athletes. They

are the Canadian champion basketball teams. The men's team, the

Vikings, are from the University of Victoria, and the women's team, the

Vikettes, are also from the University of Victoria. Each team won the

national championship last year, and to prove it was no fluke they each

won the championship again this year — two years in a row. It's

unprecedented in the annals of Canadian basketball.

As I was

telling the teams, having been a member of the team that played for the

first Canadian college basketball championship — it was in prehistoric

ages when little guys could play basketball, but the stakes were very

high because the winners that year went to the Olympic Games — I know

the thrill, dedication and hard work. On behalf of all the members I'd

like to say how very proud we are. The Minister of Education is going

to introduce these people individually.

HON. MR. SMITH:

I'll start with the Canadian champions, the Vikettes: Mrs. Kathy

Shields, coach; Carol Turney-Loos, assistant coach; Brenda Smith,

manager; Cindy Smith, captain; Tracey McAra, captain; Jane Boe, Janine

Prince, Leslie Godfrey, Shelley Godfrey, Sandy Lewis, Sue Shaw, Shawnee

Harle, Donna Digby, Jamie Mackie and Luanne Hebb. Another rarity of

this double win is that we have a husband and wife team of coaches and

a husband and wife team of assistant coaches. I'll introduce the

Vikings: coach, Ken Shields; Bill Turney-Loos, assistant coach; Bill

Chapman, manager; Ted Anderson, captain; Dan Brosseuk, Ryan Burles, Jim

Larson, Kelly Dukeshire, who used to play for Oak Bay, Kevin Danes,

Quinn Groenheyde, Bruce Hamilton, Craig Higgins, who used to play for

Oak Bay, Gerald Kazanowski, Greg Kazanowski and Eli Pasquale. When we

presented the most valuable player award at the high school basketball

finals last weekend, you'll be glad to know, Ken, that we told the

winner that he had to come and play for the Vikings.

MR. BARNES:

Having been designated as a runt by the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), I nonetheless would like

to associate myself with his remarks in congratulating the Vikettes and

the Vikings basketball teams from the University of Victoria. I would

just like to remind the House that that minister himself was somewhat

of a star in his day. There was a team called the UBC Tall Timbers. I

don't know how he ever got on it, but he had his day as well.

On behalf of the tall first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and this

runt, the second member, I would like to wish those people continued success.

We're all proud of them as fine and upstanding British Columbians. Good

luck to you.

MR. HANSON:

I would just like to add my congratulations and the congratulations of

my colleague, who tells me he used to play for the First United Church

team — very badly, he adds — and having been an old basketball player

myself, I'd just like to tell the team that we're very proud as MLAs

for Victoria to have you representing Victoria in the national finals.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mrs. Lillian Barrett,

daughter-in-law of the illustrious Cecil Barrett, VC, whose picture

hangs on the outside wall of this Legislature. I make this introduction

without her permission — I just met her in the hall — but for this

gallant company of men whose pictures are there, and for the great

service they did and what they represent, which saved this nation for

democracy, I just thought it proper that I introduce her to the House

today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today are a group of school students from Brocklehurst in

Kamloops, accompanied by their teacher, Allan Dodd. I would ask the

House to please welcome them.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker,

in the gallery today we have a visitor from Vancouver whom I'd ask all

members to welcome. The particular area of Vancouver is Vancouver

South, on a constituency basis. Joyce Whitman, who has just been

nominated to represent the NDP in that constituency in the next

election, is here looking at the two seats over there, and we'd ask

especially those two members to join with us in welcoming a constituent

of theirs.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure

today to introduce to the Legislature Mayor Bob McPhee of the city of

Courtenay, who is here today in his capacity as president of the Mount

Becher Ski Society. With Mayor McPhee are Wolf Clar, who is the area

manager for the ski hill, and society directors Ernst Jensen and Don

Gordon. I'd like them all to be made warmly welcome.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We have another visitor from Kamloops today, a long-time friend of mine. Will the House please welcome Claude Richmond.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to ask the House to welcome two guests of mine in the gallery: Elaine Cash and Mr. Herb Lett.

Oral Questions

PROPOSED TENANCY OF

B.C. HYDRO IN B.C. PLACE

MR. MACDONALD: I have a

question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In

the light of reports that private developers may put up a tall building

on B.C. Place lands and that B.C. Hydro will move into that as a

tenant, I ask the minister this simple question: have there been any

discussions with respect to B.C. Hydro — of which the minister is a

director — moving to B.C. Place?

[ Page 4792 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Has any consideration been given to B.C. Hydro moving into B.C. Place as a tenant, rather than owning the building?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: There are negotiations between the management of B.C. Hydro and B.C. Place. Those negotiations are still going on.

MR. MACDONALD:

I presume from the minister's answer that no final decision has been

made. Do those discussions embrace B.C. Hydro going into B.C. Place to

help save the finances of that situation?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, that's part of it: to subsidize that as a tenant, so that hydro

bills will be even higher because there will be a developer making

something as a landlord. Is that part of the discussions? Are the

reports we've heard true?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I

haven't heard the reports that the member has heard. If he has them

down on paper somewhere, I'd like to see them. There are negotiations

going on at the present time. B.C. Hydro is desperately anxious to move

into new quarters as quickly as possible. As you know, they have a

large responsibility to a private tenancy in the Simpsons-Sears

building down on Hastings, among others, and have had since your time

in government, I believe. So it's very important for them to find new

accommodation. Those negotiations are going on right now.

CROWN CORPORATIONS AT B.C. PLACE

MR. LAUK:

This is a question to the Minister of Environment in his capacity as

the guru of B.C. Place. Are there are any discussions going on with

respect to any other Crown corporations moving into the B.C. Place

lands?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Not that I know of, but there may very well be.

B.C. PLACE NEGOTIATIONS

WITH SWEENEY COOPERAGE

MR. BARNES: This is a question

to the Minister of Environment. Instead of forcing eviction by

expropriation, can the minister advise the House whether he has ordered

officials of B.C. Place to go back to the table and negotiate with

Frank Sweeney of Sweeney Cooperage?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It is my understanding that the subject is under appeal before the courts. Therefore it is one I do not wish to comment upon.

NORTHEAST COAL COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and

Small Business. Could the minister advise, in respect to the northeast coal

deal, as to whether a cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken and what stage

that analysis is in'?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

In answer to the member's question, yes, there is a cost-benefit

analysis going on. But I think the member knows as well as I do that

that is not really an exact science. It depends on who is doing the

study. Cost benefit studies at the best of times depend on what one

wishes the outcome to be. Let's face it, that's the reality.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That seems to amaze the socialists across the way, but that is a fact.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer, Please continue.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm just amazed that the socialist hordes opposite

are so amused by this statement of fact, which has even been known by

the scientists who originally wrote the book about cost-benefit

analysis. However, regardless of the cost-benefit analysis, history

will prove that northeast coal is one of the greatest developments that

ever took place in Canada or the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT:

I just want to be clear. The cost-benefit analysis study is still going

on. Is that the answer the minister gave to the House? I just want to

make sure that's correct.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want

to make it perfectly clear that regarding northeast coal we have

analysed cash flows, tax returns and so forth. Now we're doing yet

another study which is not yet complete. The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT:

I take it that the minister is confirming to this House that the

government that he represents has committed itself to literally

billions of dollars on northeast coal without completing a cost-benefit

study. Is that right?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We've done

several studies with different economists — Price Waterhouse

Associates, etc. The benefits from the development of northeast coal

will indeed pay for every cent that's put into it, and history will

prove that. If the socialists are against it, I dare them to stand up

in this Legislature and say so.

MR. LEGGATT: Will the

minister confirm to the House that he intends to keep going at

cost-benefit studies until he finds the right one? Is that why he

hasn't got it finished?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I will be

happy to answer the member's question. As I've said before, when

additional tonnages are sold in most of the southeast and northeast

parts of the province, history will prove that this is the best

development ever undertaken in the province of British Columbia or

indeed in Canada. I want to tell you further that if we'd listened to

the socialists over there nothing would ever have happened in this

province. History has proved them wrong time and time again, and

history will prove them wrong this time.

MR. LEGGATT: The federal DREE recently released a list of studies on northeast coal which were conducted by

[ Page

4793 ]

both

the province and the federal government. All those studies are

available to the public except three. One of those is called

"cost-benefit analysis." Will the minister confirm that it's his

government that's trying to cover up the cost-benefit analysis that is

presently there?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Even though I

think the question is somewhat argumentative and meant to impute

certain motives, I would like to advise the entire Legislature that I

have prepared and am willing to table at any time.... It will take

about half an hour. I'd be most happy if the House would give me the

opportunity to table all the studies that were indeed tabled in Ottawa;

I have them ready. As a matter of fact, they are in the Clerks' office.

I'd like to further inform that member that this minister or this

ministry or this government is not holding back any reports which are

completed.

MR. LEGGATT: Do I therefore have the

minister's undertaking that the cost-benefit analysis listed in the

documents tabled in the federal House of Commons will be tabled in this

House? Will they be tabled today or tomorrow?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I said that I'd be quite happy to table these documents at any time. I

don't want to take up the time of the House. I intended to do it during

my estimates, but if it is the desire of the House, the Whips can get

together. I'd be quite happy to do it at any time.

RURAL ELECTRIFICATION

MR. D'ARCY: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. For a number of years in this House a succession of British

Columbia governments have had a philosophical and financial commitment to the

principle of rural electrification in the remoter areas of this province. Can

the minister advise this House as to whether or not his Ministry and his government

still have that commitment?

The

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, of which the minister is a

director, has been advising applicants for rural electrification

services that they are receiving no funds from the provincial

government in this regard. Can the minister confirm this? If it is

true, will he retract his statement that his government still has a

commitment to rural electrification, at least as far as its energy arm

with B.C. Hydro is concerned?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I

certainly will not retract the statement. When the government took over

the responsibility for transit from B.C. Hydro, we requested Hydro in

kind to take over rural electrification at that time, because of the

significant savings that would be put forward to B.C. Hydro as a result

of the transit commitments made by this government. B.C. Hydro

responded very positively to that. We now have in this year's budget

over $5 million committed to rural electrification. Next year it's

expected that it will rise to something like $5.3 million or $5.4

million. It will continue to rise because B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority, through its board of directors, has established a formula by

which there will be a significant percentage of its total budget

committed to rural electrification.

MR. D'ARCY: Can the minister confirm that the provincial government

of B.C. has merely transferred a taxation-benefit function from itself to a

Crown Corporation, so that those services are now being served by B.C. Hydro

ratepayers?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I guess that the only way I could answer that is that the provincial

government took from the backs of B.C. Hydro ratepayers something like

$70 million or $80 million a year in transit subsidy. B.C. Hydro has

now picked up the responsibility for some $5 million a year of rural

electrification subsidy. That's a responsibility which B.C. Hydro

should have and has accepted willingly, as part of its responsibility

as a major Crown corporation, to make sure that electric power is made

available to as many citizens of this province as possible.

STUDENT AID

HON. MR. SMITH:

On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) I would like to announce that there

will be changes and improvements in the provincial student aid program

effective September 1981. I will outline for the House what those major

improvements will be. There is a federal-provincial task force on

student aid which has a preliminary report, and that report has been

circulated to various groups and students for further comment.

Following that report's finalization there will, hopefully, be some

lasting changes to the Canadian student loan plan. Some changes have

been made by Parliament this session, but to bring some relief to our

students at the next academic year of September 1981 we're going to

implement some provincial changes immediately.

First of all,

the maximum grant available for full-time single students in this

province will rise from $1,700 to $2,000. That will mean that with the

loan portion of $1,800 available the maximum that a full-time single

student can receive will be $3,800 instead of $3,500. More

significantly, for married students and single parents — the two

categories that have the major need in this province for attending

college and university — the grant portion will rise $700 to $2,400,

making a total of grant and loan for married students and single

parents of $4,200 instead of $3,500.

The eligibility limits

used to be that only students in a program of 26 weeks or more could

receive aid. That has now been reduced to 12 weeks to reflect that we

have many students in our colleges today who are taking vocational and

technical programs of much shorter duration. So there'll be an entire

reduction of eligibility to 12 weeks for full-time students.

Another

change will be in the field of adult basic education. Hitherto adult

students going back to try to get high school courses and graduation

were not eligible for student aid. They will now be eligible for

student aid for their direct educational expenses.

The

criteria for assessing need have been given an inflationary increase of

14 percent to take care of the cost-of living index in Vancouver of

13.3 percent. It will be easier to qualify now and take account of

inflation.

A further change will be that the front-end loan

portion of student aid will be raised from $600 to $800 so that it will

be possible to divert money to the area of the needy. Also, the amount

of student aid money available this year has been raised from

approximately $11 million to $15 million in the estimates.

[ Page 4794 ]

Finally,

there will be additional money put into the work study program of

student aid, to provide for funds just under $1 million. This creates

campus employment for students in their field of study.

These

are major changes, but they are put forward this year on an interim

basis until the changes have been made to the federal loan portion of

this program and can be integrated.

MR. LAUK: A more

detailed discussion of these changes may be helpful in estimates. I

greet the minister's announcement, and congratulate the government for

finally acting on these recommendations. It's not just sour grapes. I

should tell the Premier — who's yawning at our remarks — that there are

many students in this country who have not been able to attend

university and post-secondary education this year and have lost a year

— perhaps two — because of the delays in bringing about needed reforms,

if for no other reason than inflation. The minister has known this. But

better late than never.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

UNIVERSITIES, SCIENCE

AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 206: minister's office, $147,400.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, not wishing to filibuster these very important estimates,

I rise just to express, as did my colleague the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Smith), our satisfaction that we have been able to make some

interim moves in the matter of improving student aid in British

Columbia. It's been a matter of considerable distress to myself during

the period when I was chairman of the Ministers of Education of Canada

that we were able to make so little progress with the federal

government in getting joint action between the federal government and

the provinces in this matter. And thus our province — and I hope others

too — has taken unilateral action on an interim measure. Sometimes

things can be better done by the provinces than the national

government, particularly when they reach consensus.

When we

have circumstances, as we do in Ottawa today, where extremely

controversial programs are before the national parliament — I think of

the energy program, and of the bitter debates that are going on now

with respect to the constitution — then the necessary legislative time

to pass beneficial measures for all the people of Canada gets shunted

aside, as one debates the more major and controversial issues that face

the nation. Provincial legislatures are not in that kind of difficulty

in terms of the time of the House, and therefore they have a degree of

flexibility and speed which frequently permits things to be done much

more rapidly and effectively, serving people who need that service

closer to their homes. Education, of course, is a provincial

responsibility, and it has always seemed to me that it would have been

better for the national government just to turn the revenues over to

the provinces and let them do the job, instead of trying to insert

itself into policy, only to find that it lacked the legislative time to

be effective.

When I spoke earlier today, to give a rundown

on some of the activities of our ministry, I did not cover one rather

important aspect which I would like to draw briefly to your attention,

Mr. Chairman, and that involves our activities with respect to

discovery parks in British Columbia. The government made available to a

non-profit foundation called the Discovery Foundation a sum of money

which it was then able to use in conjunction with the universities to

develop research parks on university campuses, with the idea of drawing

this province into the modern era of high technology and its industrial

spinoffs.

I had the pleasure earlier this month of

testifying before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee with respect to

trading — particularly with the United States — and the ways in which

we build up surpluses and deficits in certain kinds of industries in

Canada. One of the examples that was chosen was that of the computer

industry — and this has been the subject of some debate already in the

House during this past week. I can't remember the precise figures, but

they go something like this: our deficit in the computer industry three

years ago was between $500 million and $600 million; the next year it

was about $900 million; this year it's estimated to be $1.9 billion;

and three years from now it's estimated to be over $5 billion. That's a

single industry in the high technology field — and the area that is

growing generally nine times faster, in terms of employment, than low

technology industry.

The circumstance we're in in Canada, if

one takes the computer industry and others like it, is that we're

building up alarming deficits with enormous speed. Our alternatives are

either to do without these modern inventions or to sell off our

unprocessed resources at an ever-accelerating rate. The question is:

can we continue to accelerate the selloff of our resources in order to

compensate for our desire to get in, as consumers, to these

high-technology areas? We're not going to do without computers in

government. Businesses aren't going to do without them. This is

repeated many times as we consider other rapid-growth high-technology

industries.

What we've done to try to give British Columbia

a stake in this newly developing field is to provide the climate where

we ourselves can participate in the high-technology developments of the

future. We have two of our discovery parks now functioning, one

adjacent to BCIT and the other on the Simon Fraser University campus.

It's my hope that the University of Victoria will have its discovery

park underway before the year is out and that they will be able to

follow through on their early efforts to become a computer centre for

western Canada. In addition, the board of governors of the University

of British Columbia has approved in principle a discovery park for that

particular campus, and negotiations are underway now so that they too

will have a high-technology location. The Discovery Foundation, in

addition to all of the campus-based sites, is looking to larger

industrial sites in the lower mainland where firms that are already

established and are in production can find a larger place in which they

can establish their plants and then grow.

We place great

stock in these high-technology developments. Only time will tell how

successful they will be. But as a nation Canada is going to have to pay

great attention to high-technology industry in the future, or else

we're going to be left very far behind countries like Japan and the

United States and those of western Europe which have embraced the new

technology and are at the cutting edge of the growth industries of the

future.

[ Page

4795 ]

MR. LAUK: It's so nice to have the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) back. We didn't have that kind of rudeness....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, I believe at the outset of our transactions today vote

207 was called. For the record, that should have been vote 206. If that

meets with all members' approval, the first member for Vancouver Centre

continues on vote 206.

MR. LAUK: According to

Nicolson on Beauchesne, I'm informed that once passed over, a vote

automatically fails. I've always felt the minister has been excessively

paid for the effort that he's been making, so I think we'll just leave

it at that, Mr. Chairman. Does that meet with your approval? No? Well,

then I'll press on.

It was with deep regret that every man,

woman and child, huddled together in their inadequate housing in

British Columbia and paying some of the worst tax burdens anywhere in

the country, heard that the hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) was leaving public life. I mean, his office must have

been and still must be swamped with the letters, petitions and

entreaties that he stay at the helm and take us through another 18

years of Mr. Science. I'm sure the minister will rise in his place and

confirm that and table all of those letters in due course.

One

of the problems in British Columbia with post-secondary education has

been an attitude of elitism toward the whole concept of education. I'd

like to point out the difference in philosophy between this side of the

House and the minister with respect to that attitude of elitism. We

believe that the opportunity for post-secondary education should be

available to all people who wish it and to those who think they can

benefit by such education. I think that it should be available,

irrespective of one's income or economic status or who one knows in

B.C. That's not always the case, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever

that this minister has made the attempt, as a true democrat should, to

make this kind of education available to all citizens.

There

is an ever-increasing economic and financial barrier to entering

universities. There is a cultural barrier that is reinforced by this

minister, and above all, and pointing most seriously to this particular

minister's culpability in that regard, there is the attitude that

somehow it can be scientifically measured just how well a student may

perform at the post-secondary level by introducing a series of

"streaming" tests, which is a massively expensive testing program, to

determine how well people are doing from region to region. This is a

totally irrelevant exercise in terms of encouraging individuals to

obtain more and greater education.

What has happened is that

over the years the participation rate in post-secondary institutions in

this province has gone from one of the highest in the country to one of

the lowest. I didn't see the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications getting up and bragging about that. Is he of the view

that only an elite few should get a higher education? The people of the

working class and working families are not capable of going to

university: is that what the minister is saying? I'm sure he would

admit that he is of that view privately. I'm sure he would also say

privately: "After all, it's been shown by history that only those

people of a special class in our society have the brains and the

ability to go to university." Well, if one measures brains and ability

by the minister's criteria, that may be correct, because when one works

as hard and long against the cultural and financial barriers which I'm

talking about, sometimes university education seems so impossible and

out of reach for the average individual that the attempt is not even

made.

Statistics Canada advises that full-time enrolment at

universities is down numerically in B.C. more than any other province

in Canada. That's shocking information. The provincial figures are from

1979-80 and 1980-81 in British Columbia. In 1979-80 it was 30,870: in

1980-81 it was 30,420, which is a percentage decrease of 1.4 percent, a

decrease of 450. In Alberta there were 30,615. Between last year and

this year it is down slightly, but it's only a fraction of a percent.

Enrolment in Newfoundland is up by half a percentage point. It is down

slightly in Saskatchewan. It's up in Ontario and Quebec this year. Now

I only cite those figures to show the trends.

I hope the

improvements in the student aid loan program will encourage a higher

participation rate in the next school year, because if these people are

better educated and more highly skilled, they will come off the welfare

and unemployment rolls. They create wealth and the benefits of which

this minister has spoken in his 18 years in this House. There should be

a greater incentive for those who are in economically poorer

circumstances to achieve their full potential in post-secondary

institutions. It's a sad thing indeed that we've gone from second or

third in a participation rate in Canada to seventh or eighth place,

which are the most recent figures we've been told. That's a disgraceful

situation for an industrially rich province such as ours with vast

resources to call upon to provide incentives for people to receive a

higher education.

The philosophy of education is based on

the political philosophy which one holds. I state again that the New

Democratic Party is of the view that education should be available to

everyone, and that means an egalitarian approach. It's not an approach

to lower the standards of higher education to the lowest common

denominator, but to encourage all segments of society to reach those

high standards and to achieve a higher education. Last year I think we

spent $120 for every man, woman and child in B.C. This year the

minister intends to spend $144 in higher education for every British

Columbian.

The big question that most citizens must ask when

confronted with those figures is what they are getting for that kind of

money. What are the people in the outlying districts getting? What are

the people in certain economic classes getting? Are they all just

paying taxes for an "elite" to go through university? It was true when

I was at university and it's true today that the universities of B.C.,

all three of them, seem to be middle-class preserves — preserving what

class distinctions we have in Canada and providing evidence of that

tremendous barrier to a higher education. Most of them have got

nothing. Of what value is their $120 or $144? Does the minister think

about providing an education and making it more accessible to people in

the outlying areas?

The minister seems to have the

philosophical point of view that a certain Mr. Bennett had. I'll quote

Mr. Bennett, not the Premier of the province, but a man named Arnold

Bennett who said: "A university education cannot be handed out

complete, like a cake on a tray. It has to be fought for, intrigued

for, conspired for, lied for, and sometimes simply stolen. If it were

not, it would scarcely be an education." That sort of a voice from the

past is a part of the typical nineteenth century liberalism that the

minister espouses, and I know that

[ Page 4796 ]

it's

part of his economic philosophy. I don't know whether this minister

entirely supports that point of view. But by his practices, speeches

and policy statements the elitism creeps through everything he does to

the extent of destroying the democratic ideal that Canadians should all

be pursuing.

I think that his unhealthy association and

support for independent schools — and I mean unhealthy association from

the point of view of supporting independent schools in a way in which

he attacked the public education system....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

Oh, here we go. Now there is the classic example of what I'm arguing

about. If that poor chap had access to post-secondary education, we

would not have to be hearing from him in that manner at this time.

Right behind that member is a classic example of how any amount of

education is no help whatsoever.

If you have the philosophy

that education is a struggle, then you start putting up and encouraging

the barriers that are there. I think that this minister is doing just

precisely that. What is the government doing to support students who

are facing relatively formidable odds in attaining higher education?

Well, they've been very helpful. They've done away with the Work in

Government program which provided hundreds of jobs to university

students. They take away with one hand and then come back and give with

another — this afternoon with a student aid program. I don't know where

we're going to end up — with a net benefit or a net loss. At the same

time, it seems to me a rather short-sighted thing to do — paring off

the Work in Government program, which provided hundreds of jobs to our

university students, so they could make some money and provide some

service instead of having the handouts and the giveaways that have been

announced this afternoon. We need the support. We need the subsidies.

At the same time, wouldn't it be more in keeping with their philosophy

and with ours if we gave jobs instead of welfare to our students?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Am I keeping the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) from an appointment? I certainly wouldn't want to.

I was hoping for the undivided attention of the soon to be retired minister. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

The

Work in Government program provided an opportunity for many students to

contribute to the government service, to learn something and enhance

their education, and at the same time to provide for their dignity and

feeling of well-being. We owe that to them, as we owe it to all of our

citizens.

One of the most attractive and creative programs

was the Work in Government program, where students from various

universities would receive summertime employment in various ministries.

Although it was too early to tell, from that group of people it was

hoped we would get some of our top civil servants — people who would

see and have the experience of public administration and be proud to

serve their provinces, instead of just hearing about the negative

aspects through rumour and the press. They would see it firsthand, come

in, support and work, eventually, after graduation, and we wouldn't

have to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars we do every year

hunting down people who will work for us in government. They'll be

there. They'll be British Columbians. They'll have had the experience

and the benefit, and they'll be available to us. It seems to me that it

was very short-sighted for the government to cut away the Work in

Government program.

There's a brief item that I've been

asked to raise — and I'm delighted to do so — with respect to Simon

Fraser University. About one and a half years ago, in response to

numerous complaints, Simon Fraser University commissioned an external

review of the condition of its residences. This review concluded that

the condition of the residences was abominable. It's chiefly related to

the fact that little money had been made available for renovation and

upkeep, due to a political decision made to subsidize the residences in

order to be able to offer an education to students who might otherwise

not be able to afford it. However, with the cutbacks of education

funding, the university was forced to leave the residences on their

own. I now move that the minister be taken out and publicly flogged.

Will you accept that motion, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. LAUK: That's absolute bias. Mr. Chairman, I hope you are listening carefully to this. It's a very important issue.

Since

the overall rent structure was low, this meant that little or no funds

were available to do the necessary upkeep. That's really the

development of a slum on campus.

At the time of the receipt

of the report, a conflict developed on the board of governors, I'm

told, as to whether to raise the rents to cover all immediate upkeep

costs or not. The decision at the time was to allow a 10 percent

increase in rent with specific instructions that the university was to

petition the council and the minister for at least $1 million in order

to bring the residence up to an acceptable level. The idea was that

rents would be gradually but steadily raised to something close to

market levels, but we all know that in the last few years market

levels, if achieved on campus, would be another horrendous financial

barrier, and the announcements of this afternoon, for example, would

just be tokenism.

[Mr. Lea in the chair.]

The

director of student services informed me that the council was positive

on the idea of providing some funds. However, the minister rejected

this outright in a memorandum to the university. I hope that's wrong,

but that's the information that I have. Therefore the university is

considering a different course of action. It will be recommended to the

board of governors at their April 21 meeting that $1.8 million be spent

on renovations. The rents in the Louis Riel House are to be increased

from $185 to $300 for one-bedroom apartments — it's an increase of 62

percent for these students; and from $225 to $375 for two-bedroom

apartments — a two-thirds increase again. They hope this increase will

place these apartments in about the middle of the comparable off-campus

market.

Clearly, under this new policy, the present tenants

will be paying for past decisions made by the board of governors and

the government. Tenants will directly be paying for much of the costs

of renovating the housing, which has taken 10 years to develop — in

other words, the negative aspect of it. I say to the minister through

you, Mr. Chairman, this is patently unfair.

[ Page 4797 ]

What

shall policy be on this issue? We must keep in mind that in the near

future the minister may no longer be there. This is an opportunity for

him to intervene and provide greater government assistance to the

housing on the Simon Fraser campus. I'm sure all hon. members would not

object to not changing the name from Louis Riel House, but perhaps

changing one of the names to the Pat McGeer Memorial Home in

recognition that the minister, through his generosity and magnanimous

spirit, saw the evil of his ways, retracted the memorandum and provided

some government assistance. The deputy, of course, agrees.

We're not asking the minister to adopt your position and my position on

these matters, but I'll state them to the minister, in any event. Subsidizing

students from disadvantaged economic backgrounds should be done through the

financial aid system, and there are ways in which that can be done. Funds for

the renovation of the residence should come directly from the provincial government

— its plant, its capital. Perhaps this could come jointly through university

education funds and housing funds; close to $2 million would cover that. Rents

should be set at something close to the lower end of the off-campus housing,

and they should be very gradually increased at the lower end of that market.

The university is an artificial situation, and residence requirements near it

are created by the site of the university itself. It can be argued that it's

the same with cities and towns. But because we are dealing with people who in

the beginning of their careers are not in strong economic positions in earning

capacity and so on — they make really nothing — they should be subsidized, and

indeed the rents should be gradually increased at the lower end of the market

and should perhaps be artificially low.

a contingency measure in the the meantime, I am urging the minister to

raise the funds from the provincial coffers. We also intend to urge the

board of governors to find some money in their treasury — perhaps from

the university's contingency fund. This seems to me to be a grave

emergency.

I know that the contingency fund has been kept to

build a university club, but perhaps we could put up a plaque instead.

Wouldn't that be all right? We'll put up a plaque instead: "These

residences have been renovated, thanks to the kindness of the board of

governors, the president, and the Minister of Universities, who forwent

their tremendous desire to have a private, exclusive club for the elite

on this campus. Instead they designated the money to that contingency

fund to go for the renovation of housing for students, in their bold

and continuing commitment to the democratic ideal and to the education

of our young." I'd ask the minister to consider that appeal.

Another

thing that has disturbed me, which the minister did not turn his mind

to.... The minister has concentrated heavily on research and science,

rather than on higher education. Although he is only peripherally

interested in industrial jobs through research, he did not address his

mind to an industrial strategy in the universities — not just to

discovery parks research and what have you.

The big question

now being posed in British Columbia and elsewhere in the country is:

why are so many university graduates ending up in jobs that are totally

unrelated to the studies they've undertaken? At this stage I'm not

arguing that universities should not be that reservoir of a liberal

education available to all of us, or that they should should not always

be tied to a materialistic goal. Education in itself in a democratic

system is the essential ingredient that protects the democratic system.

The more educated the more of us are, the less chance there is of

losing those freedoms and democratic ideals that we have protected so

far. I am told — and the figures indicate — that thousands of students

wind up in jobs totally unrelated to their studies. That can't be a

good thing. It just can't be related to their keen desire to receive a

liberal education and go out and drive a cab. It's causing widespread

regret among their families and all of us and causing lots of debts,

because they have their university education debts. They move into jobs

that are not producing the kind of income they need to pay off the

debts. Perhaps they are the lucky ones. Some don't end up with jobs at

all, but they are not the majority by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps

we're not counselling properly. Perhaps we're not providing the kinds

of courses necessary, particularly in the vocational training end.

We'll be dealing with that with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith). But also perhaps the universities are failing to respond. They

are failing to deal with the undergraduate. The tremendous

concentration on research and postgraduate work is undermining the

confidence of the public in the universities. It's also undermining the

ideal of educating as many people as possible in a democratic society.

Those who would benefit and seek university education should be

regarded as our most valuable resource.

The universities

seem to concentrate on that handful of special people who go into

postgraduate research. I think that's regrettable. I don't argue that

we ignore postgraduate research. I support some of the things the

minister said this morning, and we must continue to invest in research.

But if we do that at the expense of the undergraduate, at the expense

of educating these large groups of men and women who will take

professional positions in our society and who will be the

influence-moulders in the community, who will provide an economic

upsurge to the knowledgeable and sophisticated society that we dream of

— a community that is not easily hoodwinked or deceived and is positive

and productive.... The job of the universities is still primarily the

undergraduate.

I'm reminded of John F Kennedy....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

For the benefit of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), he was President

of the United States. He said: "Let us think of education as the means

of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a

private hope and dream which if fulfilled can be translated into

benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation." That, to me,

is really the primary thought I have when I think of the undergraduate

fresh from high school coming to university. He has a private hope,

yes, seeking out his own goals, as private as they may be, but in the

end benefiting the community to a great degree.

I do think

the minister is not totally responsible for this elitist view of

post-secondary education. I think university administrations have a lot

to answer for too. But we have to get back to that idea of a democratic

institution and not an elite one, to the idea of an education for

everyone who seeks that opportunity, cutting down the financial and

cultural barriers.

Thank you for your patience, Mr.

Chairman. I only have two hundred or three hundred points to cover.

Having covered five of them, I'll wait for the minister to reply so far.

[ Page 4798 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: The

member raised some interesting and relevant points. In our education

system at the post-secondary level our full thrust, over the last five

years, has been to do precisely what the member says we ought to be

doing. We've greatly enriched both the quality and depth of the

programs that are being offered, and never has it been easier for

students to attend post-secondary institutions than it is today. The

fees are at a record low in terms of percentage of costs.

suppose, Mr. Member, one could eliminate fees altogether, as they do in

countries like Australia; but what you find there, and what you find in

most countries of the world, is very great restrictions placed on the

numbers of students who can attend. Therefore you get institutions in

Australia where there are no fees but where there are quotas, and if

you don't get the marks you don't get in. If you go to very highly

competitive countries like Japan, you start getting your whole career

shaped in kindergarten. People who get into the right kindergartens get

into the better primary schools; if they do well they get into the

better secondary schools, and if they do well they get into the

universities. But far from that approach, here our doors are open wide

to virtually everyone who wants to benefit from a post-secondary

education. For those who don't have the prerequisites, and therefore

confront a barrier because of past inadequacies in their education, we

provide the opportunity through the Open Learning Institute for them to

take more advanced courses without any prerequisites at all and without

having to leave their jobs or their homes.

What we've done

is to give post-secondary education at the university level, and to

have tremendous redundancy what with that and our college system, which

in every region provides the first two years of university. If that

isn't enough, you can get it through the Open Learning Institute. Simon

Fraser University in particular has encouraged people to take their

degrees on weekends and at nights, so that they can hold their jobs in

the Vancouver area and continue to take their programs. All of the

institutions have kept their fees low. So it seems to me that people

are working towards those objectives. I'm not sure what further things

we could do in light of what has to be some limitation placed on the

total amount of money. We're still the most generous in Canada. But I

suppose that if the province were wealthy enough, we could commit even

higher amounts than we've done up until the present time, and probably

that will be the case in the future.

The particular instance

of the Simon Fraser University residences was raised. Far from

discouraging Simon Fraser, we have encouraged them to undertake that

upgrading and to prepare residences on a proper management basis, just

like the other institutions have with their residences. What we did say

— and perhaps this was what the member was referring to — is that those

moneys that were set aside by the Legislature to take care of the

operating costs of education per se should not be drained off for the

purposes of housing, simply because we vote the money in the

Legislature to be applied to actually tutoring the students and not

housing them. What the member says about the mismanagement of the

residences at SFU is entirely correct. On the other hand, Mr. Member,

it would be unfair if we were to use educational money to house a small

percentage, while we took that money from others who might want it for

true educational purposes. Even within institutions where there is

housing, those students who are receiving that student housing are

getting a benefit relative to the many students who would like to be in

that housing but who are forced to live off the campus — as is the case

at SFU, UBC and UVic — where they have inferior accommodation and pay

much higher rents. So what you do when you lower the price of your

student residences and get them so that they're not self-financing is

confer a particular benefit on one institution or a minority of people

at that institution. If you're going to be totally fair with the money

that you make available, then what we vote for educational purposes in

this House should be used for educational purposes, and what we may be

able to vote for housing we can use for housing; but that should not

discriminate and give a special benefit to a few on one particular

campus.

We have told the institutions that they may have

access to the Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority,

thus giving them a source of capital that they used to have from CMHC

but don't have now. All we've said is: "Make it fair; put the thing on

a self-financing basis and give every student the same break. But don't

sap off educational funds for a special group of people at one

institution, because in our view that would be unfair, given the

constraint that we have generous amounts of funds which are

nevertheless finite."

Now it does disturb me, as it disturbs

the member, that frequently there is a mismatch between what people

study in institutions and what they pursue in terms of their careers. I

think that in some of our harder subjects like medicine, or like many

of the programs which are given at BCIT, you do have lineups, and

people know perfectly well what they want to do, but they don't get a

chance to do it, which is wrong and unfortunate. I suppose I've been

the loudest critic in British Columbia of the fact that our medical

faculty, for one, is too small, and that many of our highly skilled

trades have too long a waiting list, while we bring in people from

outside to fill the jobs. That certainly is not anything we can

congratulate ourselves about or anything we can excuse ourselves for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Law school is too big.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, we're not going to make any comments about the calibre to members in the House here; they can judge for themselves.

any event, I think the students are in many cases well aware of the

programs that lead directly to employment and of the ones that are less

likely to bring about that result. I'd like to say that there were

greater opportunities in those that do lead directly to jobs. We don't

attempt to run the institutions. We do attempt to encourage them to

expand those programs, and when they have redundancy, to let it be

slimmed down. That's a difficult thing to do, but I subscribe to what

the member says — that pressure should be kept on to achieve exactly

that result.

MR. LAUK: I thank the minister for

considering the issue. I do think, though, at this stage the Simon

Fraser housing situation demands provincial attention. I don't quite

agree that we can separate a student as a student without looking at

his total needs. Just providing an education is one thing, and I think

that is the first responsibility of this minister's portfolio, but he

should also be a keen and committed advocate with other ministers and

agencies to make sure that his students are properly housed and have

economic subsidies where needed.

I haven't gotten into the

universities for people living outside the lower mainland and the

greater Victoria area,

[ Page 4799 ]

but

it is scandalous. People living in outlying districts just simply do

not have access to universities, and the participation rate from those

communities is scandalously low — the worst anywhere in the country. We

look with some degree of hope to the Knowledge Network, but it's so

fledgling and embryonic that we can't look to it as a solution to that

problem.

Part of the problem is student aid and part of the

asks if I would agree to having a university wide open and making marks

and merit the criteria for entry to the university. It just depends on

who's doing the marking — who's providing the testing. For better or

for worse, I was told in elementary school that, if I was not retarded,

I certainly couldn't possibly make it through high school. Maybe they

were right then — I don't know; maybe the subsequent higher institutions

of learning were wrong. In any event, it depends on who's doing the

testing. I'd like to see the universities wide open, and I would like

to see us try to provide as best we can a place for serious students to

obtain an education.

I want to touch on something else. I

want to talk about the more humorous side of the minister. A lot of

people — and they're more uncharitable than I am — have claimed for

years in this province that the minister is totally and absolutely

without a sense of humour. I want to say now that that's false. This

minister has a tremendous sense of humour. He has played the largest

and most successful practical joke on all of the people of Canada — let

alone the province — of any other person I've ever heard of. He argued

seriously for — now wait for this — the longest exhaust-pipe in the

world to be built between Victoria and Vancouver. I remember the

headlines. I asked some of our research staff to keep a running record

of this controversy, because I had been an admirer of the good doctor

from Point Grey for many, many years. I knew that he had this Tom

Sawyerish side to him and that he was capable of the practical joke. It

was at great expense to the taxpayer, I might add, but what's the price

of a good joke, I always say. I mean, why quibble about $100,000,

$200,000 or a million here and there. I mean, let's have our fun. After

all, the good doctor comes from an established British Columbia family.

They've been paying taxes for years....

MR. COCKE: And reading the riot act.

MR. LAUK:

Yes, and reading the riot act, but it seems to me it was a bit dear.

"Tunnel Vision Piggy-Backing Under Water" was the first Victoria Times

headline. We got all kinds of them here as it progressed. "Take Car

Onto Tunnel Train — McGeer's Vision of Island-Mainland Link" — do you

remember that? It was last year. We were all wondering why, all of a

sudden, this mad idea was coming forth from Mr. Science, but if you

looked at the debates in the Legislature, you knew they were on the

tremendous scandals that the government was getting itself into. There

was the Eckardt commission, there was Gracie's Finger, there was the

Vogel problem. There were all kinds of situations that were totally

embarrassing the government. The Social Credit Party was going down in

the polls. "What better way," said the Premier to himself, "can we get

out from all of this heat? Let's go to the Island — this little

imaginary Island — that Dr. McGeer sits on and ask him for a solution.

Let's ask the Wizard of Oz what to do." We came up with the longest

exhaust-pipe in the world.

Another headline states: "Victoria Watching Japanese for Tips on Building

Tunnels." I mean, that boggles the mind. Can you imagine the good doctor

from Point Grey permanently resident in Japan watching the Japanese building

tunnels? It didn't say how big the tunnels would be. It didn't even

say whether they were sand tunnels or sand castles; he'd be there watching

them.

Here's another: "McGeer Talks Tunnels With Group of Experts; the Mystery Grows."

"McGeer Enthusiastic About Island Tunnel." Remember that? March 29.

"McGeer Vague on Plans for Island Tunnel." That was the day before.

"Floating

Highway to Vancouver." He decided to throw in a floating highway. This

man has an imagination, Mr. Chairman. No one can ever attack him for

having a lack of imagination.

"It looks like either separation or a ten-mile long spike." That was another comment on the tunnel.

They go on — "Flowers Don't Grow in an Undersea Tunnel, says Danny Boyd."

"U.K.'s Channel Still Only a Dream After a Century, but McGeer not Convinced."

"McGeer Puts Island Link Plans to the Cabinet." Who took him seriously?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

My good friend took him seriously, didn't you, pal? Nod your head.

Attaboy. He took you seriously because he thought you were serious, but

I knew you much better than that. I knew what you were doing all along.

This is why I kept this scrap-book on you. I've never found anything so

amusing in all my life,

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You're constantly cleaning your glasses. Do you spray them or what?

But

there were people who took this fantastic proposal to build a tunnel

seriously. Nobody in the Province , for some reason, ever thought to ask

themselves what normal human being would travel in a 30-mile tunnel in

an earthquake zone under the sea from city to city. Malcolm Turnbull

didn't have any trouble accepting this practical joke as being serious.

He said:

"Pat McGeer's $3 billion proposed transportation link

to Vancouver is now a simmering political time-bomb due to explode in the next

few weeks. McGeer, the medical researcher turned Universities, Science and Communications

minister, has successfully held the public's interest with his proposed

bridge–road tunnel crossing concept for almost a month, much to the increasing

annoyance of the NDP opposition. The floating tunnel concept first developed

for an international design competition by a British engineer eleven years ago,

and now elaborated on by B.C. engineers, has quickly become joke fodder

for the legislative corridors. It is called 'the bunnel' by Bill Vander

Zalm, 'a tinker toy' by Alex Macdonald, and by some of the other opposition

MLAs 'the mad professor's missing link' (McGeer is a former University

of B.C. professor). But aside from the bantering there is nail-biting about the

transportation link within the NDP caucus."

[ Page 4800 ]

Nail-biting. Do you remember biting your nails, Mr. Chairman?

"The

proposal has caught the opposition on the horns of a dilemma. In short,

they don't know what to say or do about it. When first proposed, they

pooh-poohed the idea and hoped it would go away, but now they are

scared because it has diverted attention from the issues the NDP has

tried to create in the Legislature, and particularly their continued

but not too successful attempts to discredit the Premier."

No, we've been a hopeless failure there, haven't we?

"For

the more imaginative members of the cabinet the transportation idea is

the type of visionary diversion that politicians dream about."

For

the more imaginative members, Mr. Chairman. You know who was against it

— the poor member for Cariboo, the Minister of Transportation and

Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Poor fellow. A most unsuccessful,

unimaginative politician. The poor Minister of Highways and

Transportation — where is he these days? He's so unsuccessful he

doesn't know what the real world is all about. But Alex Fraser was

against the tunnel, and he was one of the less imaginative members,

says Malcolm Turnbull.

"It is also vintage

B.C. Social Credit politics, reminiscent of the type of ploy that

former Premier W.A.C. Bennett pulled on the B.C. public on a number of

occasions, particularly when under prolonged fire during his 20-year

reign. Of course, McGeer, a former Liberal Party leader and a product

of the late Bennett's heyday, is milking the diversion for all it's

worth. But there is one startling difference" — are you ready for this,

folks? — "between the Socreds of today under Bennett the younger and

the Socreds of yesteryear: the current Social Credit crew are far more

cautious, and in this case some are almost as scared as the NDP."

I don't know whether I should go on or not.

But it was finally put to rest, and we got this item:

"Science

minister Pat McGeer's idea of a bridge tunnel link between Vancouver

Island and the mainland is being set aside. McGeer has been an

enthusiastic supporter of such a link" — and is now issuing buttons

that say Support the Pipe; I interjected that — "but a $60,000 report

commissioned by the government on such a project...suggests it

would cost more than $4 billion, according to sources in Vancouver.

McGeer has said that if the project costs more than $2 billion, the

government would probably not approve it." How did you arrive at the $2

billion — just by throwing a dart at the wall? "The report has been

completed but not yet released. McGeer wouldn't say what the final cost

estimate is, but agreed Wednesday that $4 billion would not be far off."

said it would be $4 billion. As soon as the minister came out in the

hall with his hare-brained idea, the first thing that the member for

Victoria said was: "Why, this thing is going to cost at least $4

billion." We didn't charge you a dime for that advice. It was there,

but because of your blind faith in science you had to go to an expert

to have him tell you the same thing — $60,000 later.

"The

sources say: the report points out ferry traffic would have to increase

by at least 200 percent over the next 10 to 15 years before the costs

for a fixed link could be justified." Can I remind the minister what he

said at the time before he went on to this hare-brained scheme, about

how costs in developing our ferry service were reaching such

proportions that it would be far and away more economical to go the

tunnel route?

It was the minister's little joke at great

expense to the province of British Columbia. Now we're left with a bill

to the experts; they must be laughing, because everybody appreciates a

good joke. I'll tell you who isn't laughing, Mr. Chairman: the

taxpayers of this province aren't laughing. This year $625 million in

extra taxes have to be raised — needlessly, we point out. This is the

kind of extravagance and playing with the taxpayers' money that has

cost us so dearly and has brought this government to the financial

disaster it has brought itself to today.

In introducing

these estimates I am saddened indeed that the minister had to spend

$60,000 and other such moneys on wasteful whims — nothing more and

nothing less. I wonder how far that $60,000 could go to help improve

some of the housing at Simon Fraser. I wonder how far that $60,000

would go — and more that the minister spends — on some of the other

basic cost items under his ministry, instead of a hare-brained scheme.

It cost the taxpayer $60,000 simply to distract attention from the

Legislature of last spring — a very cynical attitude toward politics.

Although

we admire the minister's creativity, we know full well that the

taxpayer of this province no longer thinks he's funny. I think that's

why the minister has decided to retire. He says he's politically tired,

but I think he knows that the taxpayers have had the final straw. They

knew it was time for the old professor to pack his satchel and walk off

under the gas lamps for that last time — white-knuckled and ashen faced

— to AirWest and take his last flight to Point Grey.

MR. NICOLSON:

We listened to the minister give an outline of some of the projects

he's undertaken. I don't think we dispute the value of trying to bring

about a conversion to the utilization of natural gas. We can question,

however, the government's schizophrenic policy where on the one hand

they are bemoaning the fact that we can't export our natural gas out of

this province fast enough — we can't consume it fast enough — and yet

on the other hand they're saying that this is the way we're going to be

able to save on the importing of petroleum. I agree with the saving of

imports, generating the energy here in the province and being

self-contained and more self-reliant. The minister, though, is not the

great innovator. Indeed, when I worked in a factory back in the 1960s

we ran our lift trucks using propane and butane. The technology by

which they're now utilizing methane or liquid natural gas is not all

that much different, but it's welcome. The minister has provided a

service there in terms of the little bit of publicity he got.

His

almost taking the credit for the mushrooming of dishes all over the

province is rather a little bit much indeed. Before the minister's dish

had sprouted on the Legislature lawn, one of my students phoned me one

evening and asked if I could recall the formula for the focal length of

a parabola, with which I furnished him. He now has a private business

enterprise where he is manufacturing dishes here in B.C. He is, in

cooperation with the existing regulations of the CRTC, endeavouring to

bring dish satellites and extended television services to isolated

mountain parts of the Nelson-Creston constituency. As I'm sure my

colleague from Esquimalt will expand upon, we certainly don't object to

those efforts either.

The minister indeed seemed to emphasize the science and technology aspect of his portfolio more than the education

[ Page 4801 ]

situation.

I don't take any great issue with an open-skies policy, at least within

the restricted terms of reference that the minister mentioned.

It's

rather difficult to criticize a portfolio which is largely high

technology and which is a two-edged sword. I note some of the research

projects that are taking place right now. One is the use of microwaves

in automatically grading lumber. I see a problem in this, inasmuch as

while we will perhaps be introducing new efficiencies and remaining

competitive, we are also looking at eliminating jobs. One of the

aspects of the minister's portfolio and of the Science Council of

British Columbia is the dearth of research taking place to find out

what the impact of high-technology research is going to be on the

workplace. How is this going to affect our workforces? Things are

moving at a very rapid rate in the one very small field, in which I do

try to keep current, of microcomputers and microprocessors. I think

that anybody in the industry is astonished by the rate at which changes

are being accomplished. Things that people thought would occur in ten

years have happened in five years and three years.

If any

leaps are being taken.... Certainly increases in budget are before

us here in terms of research allocations. The minister talked about

what Canada should be doing and where we stand with respect to Ireland

and other countries that we would normally think of as our

technological inferiors. He pointed out that we stand well behind

certain countries that we might wrongly assume we would be ahead of.

Certainly we're not in a league with Japan, Germany or the United

States. As the minister indicated, we're more on a par with Portugal,

Spain and other countries that are just emerging from rather oppressive

regimes and only beginning to come into even a second-wave technology.

Having

said these things and realizing that there are benefits for research, I

would ask the minister what is being done in terms of looking at the

sociological effects of some of the research we are undertaking. What

is it going to be and how are we going to cope with that? To reduce

costs by getting into the automatic grading of lumber by the use of

microwaves, which apparently shows some promise, is going to solve some

problems, but it is going to create others. If our research in this

province goes ahead wildly in one direction and lags in terms of

sociological research, then I think we do a disservice.

Another

thing I would like to bring up is what I think is the minister's

responsibility. He talked about medical research being one of the most

— I think he said the most — important areas; he did not qualify it.

There is a very sensitive subject in medical research; that is in the

area of vivisection. Just as we have had people opposed to the leg-hold

trap and the manner in which trapping takes place, we also have people

who for humane reasons are absolutely and totally opposed to

vivisection.

I want to make it quite clear that by my

remarks I'm not saying that I come out in absolute opposition. But I

must agree with people who are opposed to vivisection, inasmuch as it

would appear that vivisection experiments are not properly supervised.

If the minister wants to start talking about turf, by saying that we in

British Columbia should have control over cable television and that we

should have control over things which affect us here in British

Columbia, I think the minister should also take responsibility for the

supervision of experiments which are being funded here in British

Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you agree with the minister's stand on television?

MR. NICOLSON: Oh, we've said that before.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You do.

MR. NICOLSON: We said that back when René Lévesque proposed it in 1974 or 1975.

When

the minister goes selecting turf I would be very disappointed if he

were to say, for some reason or other, that there is the Canadian

Council on Animal Care which is responsible for inspecting animal

experiments in Canada. I would be disappointed if we were just to say

that that's where things begin and end.

There have been some — perhaps you could say — "break-ins" into a few

laboratories, where people went in and looked at what was going on. This is

what was found in the past year at the G.F. Strong research lab.

"We found 13 dogs in the darkroom. They were in small cages,

standing on inserts of expanded metal. They had been devocalized, and the only

sound I heard was the thumping of their tails hitting the sides of the cages

when they saw us. One was trying to bark but instead only made a pitiful gurgling

sound: it had been surgically mutilated. All were in advanced state of starvation.

The stench was indescribable. The dogs were covered with excrement that was

oozing from a

section of tissue that was approximately four inches long protruding

from their abdomens. Some of the dogs were turning frantically, trying to bite

the

section of bowel hanging from them. Their motions alone obviously indicated

the pain and agony these dogs were experiencing. One German Shepherd I saw was

only a living skeleton and its ribs were visible even though it had a heavy

coat. I immediately wanted to leave the room, as I felt sick...." and so on. Others were taking pictures.

"The next room we examined contained many cages of rabbits.

At my feet was a rabbit I thought was dead but it started to crawl across the

floor, dragging its mutilated hind quarters, which were saturated in blood.

In one of the cages was a rabbit that was so deformed it looked like it had

melted in a corner of the cage: another was dead. Some of the cages had 'starve'

written on the door tags. I remember wanting to put the rabbit on the floor

out of its misery, but I was incapable and didn't know how to bring a swift

death to this pathetic creature."

I see that the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has left. I can remember

his eloquence in talking about the need for humane treatment of animals when

we were discussing leg-hold traps back in 1974 and 1975.

A visitation was also made to what was the old Heather Pavilion at

the Vancouver General Hospital, where they found animals in a similar

state, with cages placed one upon the other so that any elimination of

wastes went through bottomless cages from one animal down on top of

another. The Canadian Council on Animal Care makes visits. They make

them on a random basis, basically with a phone call in advance. I would

like to ask the minister if he does not agree — and I'm sure that

experimenters would come back with fantastic counterarguments.... But

where does the truth lie" Where does the responsibility of this House

lie in

[ Page 4802 ]

terms

of trying to reconcile the great gulf and credibility gap which exists

between other people who respond, such as those who responded to a

letter from the municipality of Chilliwack, who found that dogs being

taken from their pound were ending up in this Heather Pavilion

experimental station...? And the letters that go back and forth! On

the one hand you have the anti-vivisectionists; on the other hand you

have people almost saying that there is an ideal situation.

Now

I recall that when I attended the University of British Columbia dogs

that were being experimented upon were exercised, there was care taken

of them — the little bit that I saw of it. Certainly we didn't have

this kind of a situation, where animals are being ill-housed and

ill-cared-for. If this type of experimentation must go on in the name

of science, and we subscribe to the fact that man is the highest

biological form and that other biological forms are simply here to

serve man — if one even accepts that — at least there should be some

degree of humanity in the way in which we do this.

I would

like to ask the minister if he would not be agreeable, if he does not

think it a good thing that there be a standing committee of the

Legislature — the Select Standing Committee on Health Education and

Human Resources is, I believe, the standing committee — activated in

order to hear both sides of this issue and to make recommendations, so

that perhaps British Columbia–based people of good reputation and

representing both points of view might be able to inspect these

facilities, on a random basis, without warning, and make sure that

everything is being done to keep the very best of standards in this

very sordid.... You know, it's an area in which many learned people

— people who have been engaged in animal research — are now totally

against it for any purpose whatever. People like Ivan Illich and other

philosophers are totally opposed to it. One can quote many people of

great repute who have come out totally against this. But I think that

we as legislators have some responsibility, and this is where it lies.

It lies with this minister, because these are the things that are being

done in the name of research, and I'd like the minister's comments.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, there is no place at all for cruelty to animals in

medical research. There is no need for it, and there is no excuse for

it if it does exist. Every investigator nowadays signs an agreement

before he undertakes any medical research that his experiments conform

with the standards that have been set for animal care and animal

treatment in any medical research. Those standards are regularly

monitored and enforced — not just by the Canadian Council on Animal

Care, but by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Any

other responsible group of concerned citizens that wishes to set up a

society of some sort that would inform itself about standards that are

applied here nationally and internationally would, I think, be welcome

to do the monitoring.

Now you're always going to have people who will set their own standards

and make their own accusations independently of what any responsible group might

say, because they're prejudiced and think that because medical research

is going on there must be something cruel. So they will break in, as has happened

in British Columbia in the last little while. There has been a great deal of

vandalism undertaken, supposedly in the name of friendship to animals, but it

is in fact cruel to them and cruel to humanity — quite apart from individual

irresponsibility. So I think that one shouldn't give encouragement through

this to nuts. One should make certain that the responsible groups are in fact

doing their job, because their standards are quite adequate. There is an understanding

and an obligation on the part of every investigator to be certain that he does

not cause animals suffering, that he is not cruel and treats animals with the

care and respect that they deserve.

medical research, just as in the slaughterhouse, animal life is taken.

I don't think there's any question about that, and I would think most

of the people in this Legislature are meat eaters — some may even be

hunters. I'm sure the fact that man takes animal life is certainly no

shock to members of the Legislature and, indeed, that does happen in

medical research. That's not different in quality to the standards that

are established outside of the medical research fraternity. The answer

I would give to you is that the standards which are set are, in my

view, proper and appropriate. If they're not being enforced, then we

should look at means by which this can be done. I certainly don't think

we should embark on witch hunts, because there are responsible groups

that are supposedly taking this responsibility and are competent and

happy to do so. I think that we should really attack the thing through

them. I'd be quite prepared to bring to the House the kinds of standard

forms signed by investigators, the sorts of standards which are set and

the groups that are supposedly monitoring it all.

With

respect to social research on the impact of high technology, it's a

little difficult to sum up what may happen in an area overall when

you're just commencing a new venture. What we can say about the

experience of high-technology industries is that they offer two things.

The first is growth, because the average growth of high-technology

industries in North America has been ninefold greater than resource

and low-technology industries. So this is where opportunity and

employment will come from. The second basic fact is that wages are

higher because these industries are growing and making a profit, and

therefore they're in a position to pay higher wages.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

problems occur in areas like Silicon Valley when the firms want to

expand and there aren't any workers that can be employed. They say in

Santa Clara county that the largest want-ad

section of a newspaper in

the United States is that one little county paper. They say that the

way you get a new job down there is to turn into a different driveway

in the morning. The firms are looking for places in which they can

expand outside of the area, because that's the only way they can

expand. If they stay in the area, they can only get their workers

through the expense of somebody else who is trying to expand. This is

why I've paid at least a half a dozen visits to that area interviewing

various firms and suggesting to them some of the advantages of moving

to a place like British Columbia. One of the big advantages of a place

like British Columbia for them is that there aren't a lot of other

high-technology firms sapping all of the available people. In the

high-technology area, they're working in almost virgin territory, and

that's of high interest to them.

Another is that we've got

an abundant supply of electrical power. You might think that that's a

strange thing for them to want, but if you're running a production line

making chips that are being impregnated from ion guns and there is a

surge in power throughout your week's production.... Ample supplies

of guaranteed power are very important to them. It's

[ Page 4803 ]

real danger down in California where they have not planned as well as

we have, and where they're facing regular brown-outs. Another important

resource that we have here is lots of water. Again, California is a

water-short area, and if you're going to have the surgically clean

atmospheres that are required for reliable production of large-scale

integrated circuits, you've got to have a lot of water. We have that.

the availability of people, power and water are very important pluses

for us, and it speaks well for our opportunities for the future. I'll

tell you what the largest negative is, because I think we must speak

frankly about these things and the cards just have to be laid on the

table. They consider the labour climate in British Columbia to be one

of the worst negative features of any area in North America. This

happens to be the reputation we've built for ourselves. Whether we

agree with it, disagree with it, or like it or not, that's the

perception. Therefore, when these people consider whether or not they

can get into an area and become a good corporate citizen, they've got

to ask themselves if they are going to have a stormy time, or if they

can enjoy the kind of tranquillity which is more characteristic of

other areas of North America than our own. Anybody who thinks that I'm

prattling nonsense can go down and do some of these interviews

themselves. I think you will quickly learn, whether you agree or

disagree, that this is the perception. We're going to have to work very

hard in B.C., if we want a share of the fruits and benefits of high

technology, to overcome this factor which most of these firms consider

to be the largest negative for B.C.

As a kind of incidental

event, one of the favourite areas at the present time, since a lot of

these firms, having originated on the west coast, have a bias towards

the west coast, north or south, was the state of Oregon and the area of

Vancouver, Washington, just north of it. That was until Mt. St. Helens

erupted. The one thing that will spark more paranoia than everything

that I've described to date is dust. If you see a little grain of dust

sitting on one of these chips you'd throw it away. On two occasions the

wind was blowing away from us, but towards Vancouver, Washington, and

Portland, Oregon, which bumped them down to the bottom of the list.

MR. BARBER: We're exploiting their misery, Pat.

HON. MR. McGEER: Sure. If the wind had been blowing in the other direction we might be suffering from another negative.

But

with all of that, I do remain very optimistic that this location will

be looked upon with considerable favour in the future, that we will be

able to reassure people, we will be successful, we will be able to give

workers here an opportunity at something better than they've ever had

before and, maybe down the way — I'm talking 20 years — we'll have to

face some of the sociological problems that occur with tremendous

success, like they've had just south of San Francisco. Perhaps they're

experiencing problems of growth — not problems of pollution, but

certainly problems of housing. These are things that go with growth and

success. Perhaps we've got to be thinking about that down the road a

little bit, but for the present, we don't have the basis to undertake

the kinds of studies the member's referring to.

MR. NICOLSON:

I'll be very short. I would still like the minister to tell me if he

does not believe that animals in the last year or two have been placed

in cages and stacked one upon another with screen bottoms so that when

they eliminate their waste it's coming down upon the animals below.

These are animals that are subjected to all kinds of probes and a

multiplicity of experiments. Can he guarantee me that that is not

happening anywhere — even in the greater Vancouver area?

HON. MR. McGEER:

You asked me, Mr. Member, if I believe what's been stated. The answer

is no, I don't believe that. I think that if a specific complaint is

laid, it certainly deserves investigation. I think that either I or

others who regularly do these things would be very pleased to

aggressively investigate any charges of that kind, because it's an

abuse. But the answer is no, I don't believe that.

MR. NICOLSON:

If photographic evidence is presented to the minister, would he be

willing to set a standing committee of the Legislature in motion to

really look into this?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd not be

prepared to guarantee that we'd set up a committee of the Legislature,

but certainly I can assure the member that I'd be very pleased to look

into anything of that kind, if you've got responsible evidence. But you

see, the thing is that when complaints are laid, the SPCA or the

Canadian Committee on Animal Protection are right on top of things like

that. That doesn't mean to say the system is perfect. Obviously I can't

guarantee that there isn't cruelty going on out there somewhere. There

probably is, simply because people aren't perfect. We'd be pleased to

took into that.

MR. KEMPF: I have a few words to say

in regard to the estimates of the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications, but before so doing I would ask leave of the House to

make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. KEMPF:

Joining us in the chamber this afternoon are a fine group of young

northern British Columbians, students from three schools in my

constituency: Nechako Valley, Fort St. James and Fraser Lake.

Accompanying these students this afternoon are Mr. McPherson and Mr.

Cursons, teachers from Nechako Valley Secondary School. Mr. Cursons is

the chairman of the Vanderhoof air show, the second largest — soon to

be the largest — air show in British Columbia, which is held once a

year in that great community of Vanderhoof, and will be held again this

year on July 25 and 26. I invite all members of this chamber and all

members of the community of British Columbia to attend that air show.

It's something to be seen and is certainly fast becoming a very fine

air show in this province. I would ask all members to make these people

welcome this afternoon.

On the minister's estimates, while I'm on my feet I would like to commend the minister for the serious

promotion in this province of our high-technology industry. It's long

overdue, and I believe in the future it will benefit many British

Columbians as well as people from other parts of the world.

Particularly

while this group of young northern British Columbians is with us this

afternoon, I would also like to commend the minister for the open-skies

policy which he has promoted in this province. As northerners who live

in very rural areas of this province, we appreciate that kind of

program to provide assistance for the promotion of TV reception

[ Page 4804 ]

discs, which in many communities in my constituency of Omineca are the only way in which you can receive TV reception.

would also like to commend the minister on his new educational channel.

With the educational channel and the promotion of TV discs, all the

people of this province, including those in my constituency, not just

those in the large urban areas of this province, will be able to

receive that channel. As you know, Mr. Chairman, being a northern

representative, we in the north do not have the services or the

amenities of those living in the lower mainland of this province, and

it's that kind of thinking and programming which will assist us as

rural members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the spirit of letting

debate reciprocate between all sides of the House, I recognize the hon.

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, followed by the member for Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem).

MR. MITCHELL: There are three major

issues in this particular ministry that I would like to cover in this

debate. I think these issues are every day becoming more and more

important in how they affect the community. I think the major problem

that developed in the province this year — much to my dismay the

minister took no active interest in it and made no positive public

suggestions of assistance — was the B.C. Telephone strike and the long

negotiations that preceded that strike.

I feel this minister

has in his power the greatest ability to bring to the public the

problem of what is taking place in the telephone industry, and what is

developing in telecommunications and micro technology not only in

British Columbia but in the whole world. I was quite surprised that the

minister, with all his ability and flamboyance, didn't get into this

discussion early. I know there are times you feel that you are stepping

on some other ministries' toes because it is labour negotiations. It is

quite true that it is a labour negotiation, but his ministry also has

the responsibility of correcting and giving input. The description in

the estimates says that it is also concerned with the rates charged and

the standard of service offered by telephone companies. I feel that the

standard of service offered by the B.C. Telephone Co. deteriorated to

such an extent that it was imperative that this ministry got into it,

gave input and gave some explanation about what is happening to the

technology in this particular industry. He had an opportunity to

explain just how effective the new technology is and how it is taking

over this particular industry. He had an obligation, Mr. Chairman, to

set up some kind of communication between the telephone company, the

union involved and the many communities of British Columbia who are

being vitally affected by these changes.

Within the province

of British Columbia last year, nearly 800 employees were going to be

phased out of their jobs in various smaller communities in one way or

another. What effect would this have had on the community, on the

economy of the community, on the social life of the community and on

the workforce of that community? I think this is one of the programs

that the ministry could have pioneered. It could have taken a lead in

what is happening to the workforce in that community.

I know

from my small involvement as the communications critic that I spent

many hours talking to technicians, tradesmen, administrators and

supervisors from B.C. Telephone. They tell me of the technical changes

that are happening in that industry, of people who spent 5, 10 and 15

years working in the industry mastering a trade and who learned how to

do repairs in various sectors of the industry. They now find that with

the new equipment which has been brought in, when something becomes a

problem, a few red lights flash, someone comes down the line, takes out

a whole component of that particular machine, replaces it and ships

that component back to the company for repair. This has a great effect

on the type of training and the workforce that must develop in that

industry. People who have been working 10, 15 and 20 years are now

phased out of that industry. As I have said before in this House, we're

not going to eliminate the wheel. Technology is here. I think we must

start to plan what is going to happen with this new technology and

where and how we are going to phase out people who are becoming

redundant. We can't allow it to go on and on until it falls flat on

someone's face.

I was quite surprised that this ministry

didn't take that leadership, get involved, try to get some input and

make some commitment to those people who are involved. What type of

service is this company giving to the public? I can assure you, Mr.

Chairman, that the minister himself, with his long ivory-tower

connection with the universities, realizes that when you lose the

morale of any group of people the type of service that they are giving

to the community and to their employer goes down. You know that after

14 months of a long-drawn-out strike, and explanations that they are

being phased out — that they as individuals are becoming redundant in

the workforce — the type of service that they're going to give is not

going to match the high technical capabilities that they have. It's

only normal.

I feel that this ministry should be giving some

leadership. This is the Ministry of Universities, Science and

Communications. This is the ministry that can and must give the

leadership that is needed to make an effective transformation from one

technology to another. As I make this recommendation to the minister I

think there are other studies that must come into consideration.

I'm

quite happy that the minister is actively pursuing the bringing in of

the new silicon-chip industry. These changes are going to affect not

only companies like B.C. Telephone but our whole industrial development

in British Columbia. They are going to affect the type of industries we

have and how we are going to manufacture our resources, so that we can

manufacture these resources in this country without shipping them out

to lower-wage areas. I feel it's important that this industry be

promoted in British Columbia and that this ministry not only do the

studies but bring this information back to the public.

think it's important that the public, the trade union movement, the

business community and political parties of all stripes become partners

in the changes that must and will take place. We can't stop them; what

was new yesterday is old today. It's important that the education and

the type of training we give to our youth today — the people who will

enter the workforce tomorrow — be compatible with the type of industry

that we are going to have down the line.

That input and

study must come from this ministry with the full cooperation of every

member of this House for every member of every strata of our society.

To sit back and say that something is just part of the capitalist

society and that the socialists over here are not interested.... It

is the people over here who are more interested, because after the next

election we will be having those decisions to make. I feel it is

important that we....

[ Page 4805 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want to bet?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes — $100!

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't bet; it's against the Constitution Act. I'll find somebody to bet with you though, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew continues on vote 206.

MR. MITCHELL:

As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am quite disappointed, on listening to the

minister, that he hasn't brought out these new ideas that he should be

preparing and promoting, that he wasn't involved in these changes.

There's

another issue that is going to affect and is affecting the general

public because of this new technology, the new computer industry. This

is something that we in British Columbia and Canada must face. That is

the right to privacy and the Videotex industry. I know the minister is

well informed on what happens in computers. Every one of us, one way or

another, has a record in many facets of a computer. We go to a doctor

and our doctor makes a record. The vast majority of doctors today store

this information in data banks or computers throughout the city. If we

have a driver's licence there is a record of that. If we go to a bank

and take out a loan.... Each and every one of these businesses has

a record on us. I know so many people today think the only records kept

are those of criminals. Actually, every one of us has many records and

I think it's important that we must bring in some type of regulation

that the rights to that record should remain private to the individual

it concerns.

I think that we can no longer afford by default

to allow this information to be stored in data banks or computers. With

the way computers are set up in a modern world, tied into a telephone

line, some 12-year-old child in New York can get into a computer

situated in Washington. He can pick the brains and pick the

information, because basically a computer is a very simple machine;

once the key to get into it is mastered, computers all over British

Columbia can be open to people who have no rights to the private

records of anybody. What is happening right now in British Columbia is

that companies are getting into these personal files. There are right

now records of women who were not hired for jobs because their

doctors' files said that they were pregnant. It had nothing to do with

their qualifications, their need or anything else. Because someone

could get into a computer, that file that had nothing to do with that

person's application for a job — no request or permission was given by

either the doctor or the person involved — was tampered with and that

job was denied.

We have people who have been denied

promotions, Mr. Chairman, because someone got into the file of an

insurance company that stated that that person was turned down on an

application for insurance. I say that we in this Legislature and the

minister must give some leadership to protect the privacy of the

records that are on file in computers today — your files, my files

and the general public's files. If someone is involved in an accident

and he is unconscious in the hospital, and if you can get his medical

file to be used on a case where it is important for his life, that is a

justified need for getting into that file. If someone is making a loan

who has a long record of not paying his bank loans off, maybe that

would be a justified excuse, but I believe the abuse in the computer

world is taking place today because there is no legislation to date to

cover that particular subject. I think that legislation can come in

with some leadership from this ministry.

In many cases in

personnel problems, if the personnel manager for some reason or other

has a difference of opinion with an individual, he can write anything

on his personal file. Anything can be filed on a silicon chip hidden

away in some computer; years later someone can get into that computer

and out comes certain information that is untrue. I say, Mr. Chairman,

that this ministry can bring some leadership into this particular

industry to protect individuals' rights to their records, and what goes

into that record and what goes through this modern technology. The

understanding can come from this Ministry, and this ministry has yet to

show that leadership.

I can't say that I'm really impressed

with some of his reasons and his record over the last year — the record

that he has shown to the community and to new industry, and the record

he has shown in involving people who are going to be affected by that

new industry. If I can very humbly give some of my suggestions, these

are some of the grounds that he should check over, some of the groups

of people that should be involved and some of the problems that are

going to face our communities because of new technology. Somewhere down

the line we must have a right to get into our records and check that

they are true, and we must have a right to say where they can be used

and how they can be used. I don't believe that something that is hidden

in a computer is the property of anyone but the person whose record it

is.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to make a

couple of suggestions. I feel that our minister, through education and

his connection with the Knowledge Network, and with his desire to

pioneer something new, can give some leadership to his government in

bringing the television to some of the debates in this House. I feel

that — and I say this very honestly — he can at least start off with

televising the debates of question period and all the ministerial

statements that are made. I feel that through his Knowledge Network,

his technology and his personality we must take the information that is

coming out of this House. It should be dispensed throughout this

province, and his is the one Ministry that call lead that.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

To advise the House, while we're in estimates we can discuss the

administrative actions of a department, but we cannot discuss

legislation. If the member or any member wishes to speak to that, the

Chair would have to find that out of order. The necessity for

legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply.

MR. MITCHELL:

Thank you. I'm not discussing legislation. I'm asking that we get a

little leadership from the minister. We feel that he should give that

leadership now and get it out to the public.

I'd like to

close on an idea that he did bring to this House that I spoke on

earlier on in my speech. If he has the opportunity to go into these

areas like California where he is interviewing the various types of new

industry that are coming in, and if it's true that the reason new

industry is not in here is because of labour unrest or labour-strike

records, I think it's really important when he goes on these trips that

he not only take the critics of the Ministry of Universities, Science

and Communications, but also men and women who are active in the

business community of that industry and

[ Page 4806 ]

people

from the trade union movement so that there can be some open and

straight debate on what is happening. If some of these stories that are

untrue are surfacing in other countries, then there are people in the

business world and the trade union movement who can squelch them and

give the actual facts. I know it's easy to get up here and throw out

statements without any substantiation or record that they're true, but

have some witnesses down there other than the minister and his select

few. Have others from the community who need to be involved give their

input.

I feel if we take this attitude toward all our

development in British Columbia, we'll go ahead instead of having this

class war that is developing from the opposition over here. They keep

saying that they are the pure, true, capitalist free enterprisers and

we are the true socialists. This sort of philosophy went out, I think,

years and years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's a true socialist?

MR. MITCHELL:

Well, I don't know. We've been branded as that. The thing is that there

is no such a thing as black and white today. There is no such thing as

a pure, free enterprise capitalist. There is no such a thing as a pure,

true socialist economy, because today we are living in a mixed economy.

We are living in an economy that must be nurtured and developed. It's

not going to improve by shouting names across the floor of this House.

It's not going to improve by running down and making attacks on one and

another. It's going to improve when we — with the leadership of this

government and of this opposition — involve more people in the active

cure of some of the problems that we are being faced with.

was this opposition.... When this government would do nothing with

the B.C. Telephone strike, when it was dragging on and with a lot of

unsubstantiated charges that there were certain people going to be

charged with criminal offences, instead of the leadership coming from

that government the leadership came from the Leader of the Opposition

on this side of the floor. It was the leader of our group who had the

guts to get on the phone and phone people in the industry and the trade

union movement, who got in there and got involved so as to get the

negotiations back on stream.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, at this point I must remind you that we are on the debates of

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. I think you

might be canvassing the estimates of another minister. That is my

opinion at this point. Could the member relate the remarks to the

administrative actions of the department.

MR. MITCHELL: This is definitely why I'm relating to this particular

ministry, as the critic of that particular communications ministry. One of the

most vital things in British Columbia is B.C. Tel. The B.C. Tel application

for a CRTC increase and their long-drawn-out strike both tie into communication,

and communication within the province of British Columbia is a most important

part of our industry. When this ministry failed to give that leadership, and

when that leadership had to come through my committee, through the Leader of

the Opposition, that particular strike was solved. We must develop cooperation,

and we must develop a real communication within industry and business and take

a different approach. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, we want

some leadership, and in the last year he has not given it.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, I will not discuss the portfolio of the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), but I will remember it when it does come

up, and I'll be bringing to the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Mitchell) the

chapter and verse of what the Leader of the

Opposition did to those negotiations. I'll make no further comment at

this time.

Today I want to make a remark on the speech made

by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) when he heaped

left-handed praise on the tunnel from Vancouver to Vancouver Island and

suggested it was a stupid idea. I want to tell him that without

imagination people perish — that's the truth. It took imagination and I

commend the minister on the imaginative thinking.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

For example, Jules Verne, in Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea , had

an atomic submarine that circled the earth under the sea. He didn't

have the technology; he had the idea but not the technology.

The fixed link is much more simple than that. We have the technology and some day — very shortly, perhaps.... What

this government is doing is thinking 10, 15 or 20 years ahead. Thinking

is very important, and I commend the minister for his thinking. I

accept what he did as a proper job of his office.

I want to

say to the minister how pleased I am with his promotion of technology

parks. That is the only area where British Columbia can prosper. When

we are so far from the manufacturing centres of Canada and our consumer

goods are hampered.... We cannot sell our consumer goods in the

United States because we have duties against them, and we can't sell

them to ourselves. Consequently manufacturing in large amounts and big

consumer goods are impossible in British Columbia. Technology is

another thing. The great difficulty of surmounting the trade barrier of

the United States.... It is a known fact that, for example,

televisions cost $200 more here than they do in Bellingham. Why is

that? Because of duty. Because we have to buy them from our suppliers

in Ontario. We must have another source of effort, and that source of

effort is technology. We have the electric power and the power

resources to do just that. It takes promotion and vision on the part of

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications to promote

this factor. Without that portfolio there, we would be far behind. With

the thinking, ability and promotion that's going on, we will succeed.

believe we have one small problem: this province does not produce a

sufficient number of engineers. I think that the total number of

engineers produced in B.C. is an average of 150 to 200 a year. They

need 600. Now where do they come from? They come from Ontario, the

United States and Europe. They're good engineers — they train them, and

we use them — but these people are not akin to British Columbia. They

have no direct loyalty to this province. I think we should be producing

the engineers ourselves, but the University of B.C. alone cannot

produce sufficient engineers. It has not done so.

I believe

that the University of Victoria is now gearing up for an engineering

faculty. I appeal to the minister to consider a faculty at Simon Fraser

University. I had lunch three or four months ago with Dr. Pedersen and

the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) at the university,

and we

[ Page 4807 ]

talked

about that. They're ready and willing, I'd like to tell the Chairman

and the minister, to establish a faculty. As a matter of fact, they're

anxious to do so. I appeal to the minister to take this under very

special consideration at this time. If we're going to develop

technology anywhere, we have to have more engineers. We have to have

them now. If we start today to establish a new faculty on the mainland,

it will hardly be ready in time. I say that there's not a day to be

lost. I urge the minister to consider this very seriously.

MR. COCKE:

I would probably second the proposal of the member for Dewdney if Simon

Fraser University would guarantee that we weren't going to have a Lady

Godiva's ride out there as well.

MR. DAVIS: What's wrong with it?

MR. COCKE: Well, I know that you're an engineer, but surely you see something wrong with that nonsense.

would like to ask the minister a couple of questions about a pet

project out at UBC — a "pet" of many people. That is not Pierre Elliott

Trudeau. It's the TRIUMF nuclear reactor, or nuclear creator — the

machine that makes the radioisotopes. It strikes me that this is a very

valuable adjunct to our health-care system, in terms of potential. I'm

told that in order to get the right ingredients out of the TRIUMF, you

require positron emission tomography. "PET" is what it's called. The

minister knows very well what I'm talking about. The minister would

probably also say in his answer to this question that somewhere in his

recent past he's seen to it that the project has been given a grant of

$658,000. My understanding is that that grant had a bit of a hooker.

Tied to the grant was....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Now I said what I said, and I said it positively. There are two meanings for words, as you well know.

The

grant was tied to the fact that the tomography would be bought and made

by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. They were to deliver that this

February. B.C. paid $250,000 down. This February they came back with

their hands out like this, and they said: "We need another couple of

hundred thousand bucks." Now it's virtually predictable. Way back in

ancient history in the early seventies, AECL had been doing health

machining for some time but had been very dismal in terms of their

delivery. As a matter of fact, I think that some things ordered as far

back as 1971 have not been delivered to this day. So now they come back

to us, and they want $200,000 more. It strikes me that the original

grant of $658,000 that the minister gave is going to be inadequate. I'm

informed that Siemens of Germany — but from their Amsterdam plant —

manufactures similar equipment that could do the same job for $500,000.

I'm also informed that Ortec in the States can do it for a million

dollars. Somewhere in between these is what we want. But we want it

delivered.

Now I understand that if we are going to have to wait another year it means

that the minister's pet project is behind another year. I'm also under

the impression that he may wait a lot longer than that. I do hope we are not

going to send more good money after bad — if their delivery is going to be as

bad as their history. I'm not casting aspersions about the atomic energy

commission of Canada — on a lot of the work they do — but in the health area

they have had a dismal record. I'm not sure why we went to them in the first

place. I wonder if the minister could very quickly give us an answer to that

question, because I think it's rather important. I wonder also whether the

minister or the university or the TRIUMF group has given them the additional

S200,000 they want.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I can answer that question quickly, because I know a great deal about

that particular project. First, I'll give just a little background for

the members. The TRIUMF facility is Canada's number one big science

project of the last 35 years. Of its kind, it's the greatest

accelerator in the world, and it has the greatest capacity to produce

medical isotopes — it has no rival. One of the particular things it can

do is produce positron-emitting isotopes, which lend themselves to an

absolutely dramatic and almost magical technique called positron

emission tomography, whereby the brain and organs of the body can be

visualized at work if you've got a machine to do the visualizing.

set up in our province a policy whereby institutions could buy large

capital buildings which are written off over a longer period of time.

An application for a positron emission tomograph came through that

route. It was recommended by the university, the Science Council and

the Universities Council, and a sum of $645,000 was made available. The

atomic energy commission was to deliver their machine this past month.

There is alleged to be a major design fault, so that the machine will

not reach specifications. On the market today the best machine in the

world, the one that produces the highest resolution, is made by the

Ortec Corp. of California. I think they want more than a million bucks.

I'm

advised that the route being followed is to cancel the contract with

Atomic Energy, and they have agreed to return the money. That money

will be used to build the machine right at TRIUMF following the design

of the Washington University at St. Louis group under Michel

Ter-Pogossian, which many feel is capable of producing resolution

comparable to the Ortec machine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, they did not do their job well. Unfortunately there were design

faults. They built the machine, but it didn't reach specifications.

think what's involved here is that if you've got the finest

isotope-making machine in the world, it's a shame to give anyone else

an advantage by not having the best imaging machine. This will be one

of the important routes through which international medicine will be

practised in British Columbia. I don't anticipate that there will be a

request for any more money. I think the money that is available will be

used by them to build their own machine. Hopefully it will be done by

the end of the year.

To the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) with respect to engineering: I heartily endorse the

attitudes people have had about emphasizing engineering education.

That's why in these estimates $1.5 million has ben set aside for our

three universities to pursue their programs in engineering. I

particularly hope Simon Fraser University will do as the University of

Toronto has done: start a Bachelor of Science program in engineering,

specializing not in old-fashioned engineering of how to build bridges

and highways, but in the more modern solid-state physics engineering

that underlies a

[ Page 4808 ]

lot

of the high-technology industry we've been talking about today. I have

very high hopes that we're going to see exciting things in engineering,

because it's really the cutting edge between academia and industry.

We've done the traditional engineering things quite well: mechanical

engineering, mining engineering, old-style chemical engineering, civil

engineering, etc., but really very little of the modern solid-state

physics and electronics which underlies much of the Silicon Valley

high-technology industry.

I'd like to go back for a moment

to some of the matters raised by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

(Mr. Mitchell). First of all, as a government and as a ministry we've

said we wish to have jurisdiction over the B.C. Telephone Co., because

we think that telecommunications appropriately should be within

provincial jurisdiction. In this, we're only asking féor equal treatment

with the other provinces across Canada. The federal government really

attempted to trade this off in constitutional debate and say: "We'll

give you this, but we want you to give concessions in other areas." We

said we were not interested in dealing that way. This is something

which should stand on its own feet, simply because that's the way it is

in other provinces across Canada. Every single province now is of the

view that telecommunications should be regulated at the provincial

level. We stand ready to take that over, but because it's

an act of the

federal parliament there isn't anything that we can do. I'm sure that

we would not have been welcome in our ministry if we meddled in a

labour dispute, no matter how positive our motives might have been. It

was handled up to a certain point by the federal Minister of Labour. I

realize the Leader of the Opposition made an effort to contribute, as

did our Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), when he chose the

mediator who finally got the thing settled.

I agree with the member that we have to do something about computer confidentiality.

I'm not quite sure how one tackles that from a legislative point of view,

but it is certainly something that deserves attention and undoubtedly will receive

attention in the future. It's one thing to have regulations, but people

are going to steal; you're not allowed to rob banks, and people rob banks.

We can't, as you know better than I, do things in the criminal sense here.

This is why we've got to look at what's within our jurisdiction. In

any event, it really deserves thought and attention. We'll certainly attempt

to do that.

Members know my view of the televising of the debate here — pollution of the

airwaves or not.

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew said, we're into a totally new

era with respect to telecommunications. I think that everyone is really

aware of that. The satellites have totally removed terrestrial

distances. Now if you're going to send your telephone communication by

a satellite, it really doesn't matter if it's across the street, to St.

John's, Newfoundland, or to London, England. It's all the same

distance. When it goes up there and pops back, the distance is up to

satellite and back again and not any distance over land.

The satellite really makes us all into communications equals. It doesn't

matter where in British Columbia you live — behind a high mountain or whatever.

As long as it's going up there you are on an equal b