1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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)

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6089 ]

CONTENTS

Amendment to Adoption Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, c.4 (Bill M210). Ms. Brown

Introduction and first reading –– 6089

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

(Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 75: minister's office –– 6089

Mr. Passarell

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Blencoe

TUESDAY, MAY 14, 1985

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to send greetings to 50

grade 11 students from Chemainus Secondary School in the Cowichan

School District. They have been looking forward for a long time to

coming to the Legislature today; unfortunately they are not here

because of budget cuts. I would like the House to send them greetings

in recognition of the fact that they wanted to come.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to

make a statement regarding the shortfall of seedlings in British

Columbia and the distribution of seedlings to tourists in Japan.

Leave not granted.

Introduction of Bills

AMENDMENT TO

ADOPTION ACT, R.S.B.C., 1979, c. 4

Ms. Brown presented a bill intituled Amendment to Adoption Act, R.S.B.C., 1979,

c. 4.

MS. BROWN: In introducing this bill, I just want to say that

it will allow the Ministry of Human Resources to establish an adoption

information register. This register would assist in the reunion of

mutually consenting adult adoptees and their natural parents. It would

also allow for the reunion of adopted adults and their adult sisters

and brothers.

I know that this is a controversial area, and the bill is really

just a means of opening discussion in this area and helping the

province come in line with eight other provinces in Canada. Just in

closing, I want to add that a resolution to this effect was passed at

the Social Credit convention in 1984.

Bill M210, Amendment to Adoption Act, R.S.B.C., 1979, c. 4,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,

SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

(continued)

On vote 75: minister's office, $127,740.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I can see that the treasury

benches are alive this morning. I think they're so pleased about the

new government in the Yukon last night. The NDP formed the government

and the Tories lost.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: What did I start, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nothing yet, hon. member. I was hoping we could get into Committee of Supply.

MR. PASSARELL: I've been so rudely interrupted here, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, please proceed. Vote 75.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to discuss an aspect of

universities in regard to my alma mater, Notre Dame University, which

this government closed to set up a similar institute called DTUC. I'd

like to extend an invitation to the hon. Minister of Universities for

the first week of August to go to Nelson with me — we can take my

motorcycle there — because it's the first reunion of Notre Dame alumni.

I think it would be great for this minister to go with me. I think I

have a spare helmet that he could use and we could....

MR. HANSON: Extra small, is it?

MR. PASSARELL: Yes, extra small. We could go up together to Nelson for the reunion.

I think most of are aware of the history of Notre Dame University in

Nelson. After it was closed it was set up as DTUC and operated out of

the University of Victoria. Now it no longer exists. I guess restraint

cuts. The government had justifications, wrongly, but they closed the

university, Mr. Chairman. Now we're faced with a fourth university,

Trinity Western in Langley. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand how the

government, in their restraint program, can justify closing DTUC and a

few short years later state that they're going to open up another

university, the fourth university on the mainland, called Trinity

Western.

[10:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't cost the government any money.

MR. PASSARELL: Certainly it does, any time you set up a new university.

Now I'd like the minister to answer a few questions if he will. How

can the government justify opening up another university on the

mainland — the fourth university — while they've neglected the

Kootenays, the interior and the far north? If there is another

university to be placed, it should be in the far north. It should be in

an area such as Prince George, which is central to the province, where

residents and students alike can attend a university without having to

come down to Vancouver or the mainland, where there are already three

universities. If this government is going to justify expenditures of

money for a fourth university in this province, put it into the rural

areas, into the interior, I would use, as an example, Prince George as

where this university should go, but not the mainland where there are

three other universities already,

The second question I'd like to ask the minister is in regard to

education programs that are conducted, particularly out at UBC, for

native students — native education programs in regard to teaching. I'd

like to ask the minister what percentage increase has been given to

universities in regard to this worthwhile program of teaching the

teaching profession

[ Page 6090 ]

for native students graduating and going through the native education programs.

Those were two specific questions. I know the minister has a dual

portfolio with Communications, and later I would like to discuss some

issues that we've discussed before in regard to communications and the

big, bad federal government that has come down on a number of good

British Columbians. But those were two specific questions that I've

addressed to the minister in regard to Notre Dame University, DTUC and

Trinity Western and the native education programs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications, I will advise the

committee that it is not competent for Committee of Supply to discuss

matters which involve legislation. Now, we have a bill before us,

PR406, which deals with part of the topic the member discussed, and it

would not be appropriate, nor would it be in order, to discuss Bill 406

or its ramifications. It offends two rules: the rule of discussing

legislation during Committee of Supply and the rule of anticipation.

That matter will be coming — or may come — to the Legislative Assembly

at a later date. With respect to all of the arguments that the member

has put forward, they are by and large in order. With respect to the

implications or any discussion regarding private bill PR406, that

debate would be out of order in Committee of Supply.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think I can deal with the

member's questions without offending the rules of the House, because

the difference between DTUC and Trinity Western is that one requires

taxpayers' money and the other doesn't. The original Notre Dame

University that was established in Nelson was a private university. In

my view, they took the first step to ruin when they asked for

government support, because there always is this anticipation: once

something is subsidized, the sky is the limit. If something must

finance itself, you then understand that if it can't carry the burden,

it collapses. That's the way it is with a business. But once you decide

that it's justified that the taxpayers support the particular interest

group, whether it's a ferry that's being subsidized or an educational

institution, there is then no limit to how much people should put in to

support that special interest. Because a subsidy can never be too

large, you can never satisfy the appetite of those being subsidized.

The difficulty comes when you sum up the total of the subsidies that

go all through society. Any individual subsidy may not be too much, but

the subsidy gets to be too big a burden for the taxpayer to carry, and

you find that society in general begins to erode. I would submit that

this is a general problem that we face in Canadian society today. Too

many things are being subsidized; the demands are too great. The

pressure to enlarge a subsidy or continue a subsidy for a special

interest, however desirable that interest may be, is never weighed

against the general damage that every subsidy does. There is no subsidy

which does not do some general damage. It requires taxes, and every

single tax inhibits business. So one has to recognize that at some

stage every subsidy becomes an undesirable thing.

I'm giving a very bad discourse on economics instead of dealing with

the vote. But this really was the problem with Notre Dame. As much as I

personally wanted to see an educational enterprise succeed in that

particular part of British Columbia, for the very reasons that the

member raises, the great difficulty is how you do this without

requiring an unreasonable subsidy. The people at Trinity Western have

managed that; they have got a draw that permits them to support

themselves. Far from criticizing Trinity Western, as Pacific Press

does.... Only yesterday the media were attacking Trinity Western

university, a self-supporting institution singled out for attack.

That's the kind of media that we have in British Columbia: demanding

subsidy, never thinking of the general good, and attacking those who

can support themselves.

Setting that aside for a moment....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that there is a

bill before us on the order paper, a bill submitted by Trinity Western

College — not Trinity Western university — who desire to be a

university. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey has already given them

that status. Nonetheless, it's on the order paper, and it shouldn't be

debated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's correct. I thank the hon. member for his

point of order, and the Chair has brought that point of order to the

attention of the committee.

HON. MR. McGEER: I was not speaking to the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We cannot address a bill that has been sent to

a committee of this Legislative Assembly, because that offends the rule

of anticipation. Also, the general rule in Committee of Supply is that

we do not discuss legislation or anticipated legislation, so any

discussion of any matters involving private bill PR406 are clearly out

of order. I think the committee is well aware of that.

HON. MR. McGEER: But that member was defending the media again.

Anyway, I hope the member will understand the spirit of it. I wasn't

intending to insult; I was merely drawing to attention that the media

don't need defending, especially Pacific Press.

MR. LAUK: No self-respecting MLA would defend the media.

HON. MR. McGEER: I certainly would never make that accusation of the member for Vancouver Centre, or the member for Atlin.

Mr. Chairman, the last point. Really, if it's a question of subsidy,

which is what you have to provide to create an interior university....

The draw in the local community is never enough to support that; there

has to be some attraction from a wider area, even if it's all over the

interior. If you were to pick Prince George, and the person in Williams

Lake would rather go to the coast than to Prince George, you've got a

local problem. So desirable as it would be, in setting up an interior

university you have to have some system by which a draw from a larger

geographical area can result. If the member can explain to me how that

can be done I would like to know it, because I've been unsuccessful in

attempting that.

With respect to teaching natives, if we can develop better methods

for doing that, certainly the member will find a very receptive

minister and ministry. Some years ago — my colleague the present

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) will know this — we set up

within the secondary and primary system a special office for bringing

in appropriate

[ Page

6091 ]

curriculum to the reserves and to the Indian communities around the province.

You would have to tell me in retrospect whether that effort was worthwhile or

not. If the universities can do more, I would do what I could to encourage them.

But the member should recognize that the universities protect their autonomy

very jealously, and the attempts that we might make, even to recommend to universities,

would be attacked by your members opposite, as indeed some of them did yesterday,

saying that the governments were instructing the universities to do what they

said. On the one hand it's wonderful to attack the ministry for allegedly

saying what's good and bad in the university curriculum, but when you turn

around and say, "Why don't you instruct them?" there's just

a little bit of a paradox there.

I believe in university autonomy, but at the same time the taxpayers

are paying 85 percent of the bill for universities, and there must be

an accountability. I just want to underline this. There must be an

accountability of the universities to the taxpayer — not to the

government, to the taxpayer. The universities have a very solemn duty

in this respect: a duty, I submit, that should be taken far more

seriously by the universities than they perhaps have to date. It's so

easy to come and ask for more money from government and blame all of

the ills of universities on the fact that more government largess was

not available to them. But it cuts both ways. If you're going to have

the bulk of your support coming from the taxpayer — and it has gone up

from about 60 percent to 85 percent in the last 15 years or so — then

there is a heavier duty to be accountable to the taxpayer. That would

include responsibilities towards native Indians. But it's too much to

ask that the government, even through the Legislature here, should try

and get heavy with the universities in telling them what they ought to

do or what they ought not to do.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, listening to the minister's

economic dissertation and because of Bill PR406, which I can't

mention.... But hypothetically, if there is a fourth university in

British Columbia, are you saying that there is not going to be one

penny of public tax dollars going to this fourth university? You were

saying in your economic dissertation in regard to the closing of Notre

Dame that public subsidies were going to it. Are you saying that if

there is a fourth university in British Columbia in the next six months

or next year, there will not be any public moneys going to it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, we have an anticipation problem, hon.

members. Further, the records will show that that debate has been

discussed in another forum.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's correct: there's no provision, and as

far as I'm concerned, there will be no public money going to Trinity

Western except what we provide in the way of student aid. Student aid

is not to the institution, it's to the student. Students at Trinity

Western, I think, have quite rightly asked that they be put on the same

footing as students from the rest of British Columbia. These are

British Columbia students. They are eligible for Canada student loans.

You might have a different view, but it seems to me that in fairness,

if they are British Columbian and the subsidy goes to the student, they

should be entitled to the same subsidy as those attending public

institutions.

[10:30]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Minister, I don't think you'll find

anybody on this side complaining about B.C. students receiving student

loans in regard to how student loans have been cut back over the years.

That's a misnomer on your part, if you believe that the opposition is

opposed to B.C. students receiving financial assistance.

My last question to the minister: you haven't answered if you're

going to go up to Notre Dame with me in August on the back of my cycle.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anticipation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Anticipation. If the member had asked me a

week ago I might have said yes. But, Mr. Chairman, after the

experiences of the Speaker last week, I want to do my driving in

armoured cars. In any event, while I will decline the wild adventure of

a motorcycle ride with the member opposite, I'll certainly give thought

to the general invitation.

MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to change the topic now and deal with

the area of medical research, which I know has always been of prime

importance to the minister whose estimates we are now debating. I think

everyone in this room and elsewhere in the province would agree on the

great importance of finding cures, particularly for cancer and many

other deadly diseases.

I want to discuss my concern over the manner in which the minister

has involved himself in this whole area of medical research. My concern

is that the minister has done a sort of one-man show on this, with very

little consultation with the UBC and the researchers who were there. I

suppose if everything went smoothly, since this minister came into

office in this area, we could perhaps leave it alone, even though I

would still be concerned about the lack of consultation with other

researchers and scientists in British Columbia.

The minister's record from back in 1981, I believe, when he first

made his original announcement about a purification lab at UBC, seems

to me to be rather chaotic. The minister, whether he did this on his

own or had bad advice, has kind of imposed upon the province — and

let's face it, they're the people who paid for this — what is, perhaps,

a waste of money because of the way he's handled this.

I hope the minister can clear it up for us, because we have now

embarked on a $31 million disease fighter at UBC. I would like to

follow it through from the beginning with the minister and ask him a

few questions so he can put to rest some of the concerns that have been

expressed to me by people.

The minister, I think, went right ahead on his own and space was

allocated in the UBC Health Sciences Centre lab a few years ago for

this first move into the study of fighting cancer. I think the minister

was involved in bringing a man by the name of Robert Oldham up from the

United States. I don't believe, from the information I have, that this

Dr. Oldham survived very long at UBC.

One of the first things I'd like to know is who the minister consulted

with. Was this on your own initiative to bring up this Mr. Oldham, who lasted,

I understand, a total time of six weeks in this lab he was to be in charge of?

I understand that in the time he was up here there was a certain amount of alienation

with other researchers. At one stage I believe Mr. Oldham actually suggested

flying in patients to be used. 60

[ Page 6092 ]

patients from the United States. I find that almost unbelievable.

I'd like to ask the minister if this was actually a recommendation

of this man. I understand that some of the things he did antagonized

the Cancer Control Agency of B.C. I understand also that at another

time Dr. Oldham was even offering high-paying jobs to American workers.

Anyway, he lasted six weeks at UBC. How did this man ever get here?

Just what did it cost the taxpayers of British Columbia to have Mr.

Oldham in this position at UBC for six weeks?

Yesterday the minister had a great time condemning the federal

government for their waste of money, saying that we all must pull in

our belts and that the greatest scourge in this nation of ours, if I

recall, was the problem of debt. The implication was that he alone was

concerned about the wasting of money. I throw it back to the minister

right now. Will you please stand up and tell this House how much money

was spent on Dr. Oldham, who lasted for the grand total of six weeks at

UBC? That's my first question to you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: The member asked how much taxpayers' money

went into the payment of Dr. Robert Oldham when he was in British

Columbia. The answer to that is zero. Dr. Robert Oldham was head of the

testing program for new biological agents in treating cancer at the

National Cancer Institute in the United States. It was really Dr.

Oldham who inspired the idea of a biological therapy institute, and

originally suggested to the Welcome Foundation in Great Britain that

such an institute be created somewhere in the world.

The concept behind it, Madam Member, is to seek out new methods for

treating cancer, remembering that cancer therapy has gone through four

stages in its evolution. The first was simple surgery to cut out the

offending tumour, something which has very limited curative value

because, as we know now, cancer cells are distributed through the body,

and cutting out the tumour, while it reduces the tumour burden, seldom

by itself succeeds in a cure.

This was subsequently supplemented by radiation therapy, originally

starting with radium when people first began to learn to use various

forms of radiation for therapeutic purposes. Sophistication in that

respect has tremendously grown so that now the favoured method of

radiation treatment is cobalt therapy, something which is produced in

the nuclear reactors that my friends opposite are so greatly opposed to.

Coming after that was the field of chemotherapy. About 500,000

agents have been tested as chemotherapeutic agents. Of these about 20

have reached the market and about ten are widely used. The hit rate in

taking synthetic chemicals or those that are obtained from various

plant and other sources is about one in 50,000.

More recently, Mr. Chairman, people have developed newer techniques

for characterizing and synthesizing proteins — an extremely difficult

field of chemistry that until recently had eluded the best in

biochemical technology. But now methods are available for

characterizing proteins, particularly those that are produced by the

body in its own defence, and then incorporating these in various ways

into in vitro systems — that is, outside the whole living organism —

that then can be be made in quantity and tested. Because the hit rate

with the body's own products is obviously going to be far better than

one in 50,000, it creates a totally new horizon for the treatment of

this dreadful disease.

Nowhere does there exist a dedicated facility for exploitation of

this particular possibility. The person who had the original concept

was Dr. Robert Oldham, who persuaded the Welcome Foundation that this

would be a desirable thing to do. Because of the existence of

outstanding facilities in terms of a teaching and research hospital at

the University of British Columbia, something my friends opposite,

particularly the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), also

opposed.... It was opposed, I might add, as well by the Pacific Press —

both the Sun and the Province

— in their interference with what is good by their own brand of

politics. The suggestion was made that of all the places in the world,

this was the most promising. Dr. Robert Oldham, the person who

originally conceived this idea and who is head of the testing of these

new agents for the National Cancer Institute, was engaged to explore

the possibility and to try to get this institute established.

Thanks largely to him, this will go ahead. I will not deny, Mr.

Chairman, that there was considerable resistance on the part of those

who did not think of the idea first. No place is beyond its local

politics, and unfortunately some of that exists right here in British

Columbia. But I can say that the project is going ahead with the

cooperation of many groups who originally had opposed the concept. So I

believe everybody is now on board.

[10:45]

The project has been announced. The financing has been obtained.

It's a joint project involving the Terry Fox Medical Research

Foundation and the Welcome Foundation. It will be financed privately.

It will be carried out at the University of British Columbia, which

will be a tremendous addition to that institution at no cost to the

institution, at no cost to the taxpayer, and one which we hope will

produce not only cures for disease but commercial opportunities which

will bring additional moneys into British Columbia, all of which will

be dedicated through the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation to

further medical research and science. So there's no private profit

involved. There's every prospect of having one of the outstanding

institutes in the world that will be devoted to progress in one of the

hottest fields of medical research, dedicated to one of the most

dreadful diseases afflicting mankind.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for the dissertation he

just gave to the House; it was most interesting. But he has very

carefully avoided a couple of basic answers to the questions I posed to

him.

The minister said there was no taxpayers' money involved at all.

Surely the minister, as the minister in charge, was responsible — or

the university was — for a budget to accommodate Mr. Oldham, and surely

that would involve taxpayers' money to some degree. Was the money all

private then — everything — at the university? No money was involved at

all from the university?

HON. MR. McGEER: No money from the university. The money came

from Pacific Isotopes and Pharmaceuticals, which is a subsidiary of the

Terry Fox.... Or it may have come from the Terry Fox Foundation. But in

any event, that is not taxpayers' money; it's the money of a private

foundation and its commercial subsidiary.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

[ Page 6093 ]

MRS. DAILLY: It is interesting, Mr. Chairman, how as the

years go on people accommodate their thinking to whatever area they're

involved in. I can remember when that minister was on the other side of

the House, in opposition, and he was one of the first to point out that

if you're using public facilities there's a certain amount of

taxpayers' money that is involved. I think that for the minister to

suggest that no taxpayers' money was involved when this was set up at

UBC leaves one open to question that answer.

However, I'd like to ask the minister, carrying on from there.... He

claims that Mr. Oldham left because of professional jealousy; that's

really what he's saying. I would just like to get on record that my

understanding is that it wasn't a question of professional jealousy; I

think it was the Canadians involved — the people rather at UBC, whether

they were Canadians or not — being concerned about the minister

unilaterally imposing into this major area of research someone from the

United States, who apparently did not turn out to be satisfactory. I

think there are certainly two sides to that story, Mr. Minister.

However, I don't think to belabour that point is going to gain us

anything. I think that at this time we're all concerned about the

advancement of cancer research; certainly we would support that part of

it.

My concern, though, is that this minister, with his unilateral

approach to all areas of his ministry, is in the long run, I think,

open to some criticism. Through the years, if one could analyze it, I

would say that he was also involved in a waste of taxpayers' money in a

number of his special projects that he himself unilaterally involved

this government in. Somehow or other he seems to get the government to

go along with him. I think that this lack of consultation is very poor.

I think that, in the long run, it's the people of the province who

suffer.

I would like to say to the minister that I understand that in other

countries there are consultative committees set up when it comes to

medical research. I simply want to ask this minister: why do you

persist in always moving entirely on your own, without involving some

of the top brains and researchers we have in this province, who I'm

sure would like to be involved before you make these major decisions of

millions of dollars in research — only with your own private feelings

and ideas being concerned? Why don't you involve people?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, that's a "When will you stop

beating your wife?" type of question. Let me just give two answers.

First, with respect to UBC, rental was paid by these private

foundations to the university for the use of the facilities, and a

similar financial arrangement will be made when the biomedical

institute is established. In other words, facilities that the

university would otherwise not have will be available, and appropriate

financial consideration will be given to the university. So they not

only have the opportunity to have outstanding scientists in an

important field that would not otherwise be there, but they'll also

make money on the deal.

With respect to scientists and involving scientists, unfortunately

you can't guarantee for every project that you will consult every

person who will be insulted if they aren't consulted. Of course, the

NDP has friends in the scientific community who will be very quick to

point out that they're Canadians and they weren't consulted. But I can

assure the minister that there were very wide consultations around the

world about this particular project. Science is international. It knows

no geographic boundaries, nor does it recognize race or nationality in

the people who contribute. Therefore, if we're to practise science

competitive with the world, then we ourselves have to join the world

community without prejudice to nation, race, colour, creed, but only

respect for the people's scientific achievements and their ability to

contribute.

In this particular case, the individual who was sought, Dr. Robert

Oldham, had a very influential position with the National Cancer

Institute in the United States, and he didn't get that post by

accident. The people who worked on his team did not arrive because they

were Americans or because they were near Fredericktown, Maryland, where

the institute happened to be. They came there because they were capable

scientists devoted to this particular field. The reason Dr. Oldham is

not here now is because he decided he didn't want to try to do that job

here, and he left. As far as I'm concerned, he is a very capable

individual who did a great service to us all. I'm sure he will continue to do service wherever he happens to be.

I very much regret that we have small-mindedness in our scientific

community in British Columbia, and I think the member has revealed some

of that today. However, I can say that in the case of who will direct

this institute, an international advisory committee has been

established which involves some outstanding scientists in the field

from the United Kingdom, the United States — particularly Harvard

University and Stanford — and Australia. And there are local people —

British Columbians, if you like. One is Dr. Smith, who I'm sure is

known to the member, and who came to British Columbia some years ago

from the United Kingdom. I don't know whether you would want to call

him a Canadian and a British Columbian; I would. I point out that many

scientists in British Columbia did not originate here. That includes

Dr. Patricia Baird, who is on the board of governors at UBC — she also

is not a native British Columbian but is a British Columbian now — as

well as other people from British Columbia and other parts of the world.

When you're doing something like this, there's no substitute for

competency. You have to go for the very best, wherever they are in the

world, and this is what's being undertaken right now. I should give the

member fair warning that the world is a big place. Canada is a small

country in the world, and British Columbia is only a part of Canada.

Therefore, if one is seeking the best in the world, it may not be that

the best person in the world is from British Columbia or from Canada.

As we have been fortunate in the past in being able to bring the

Michael Smiths from the United Kingdom to British Columbia, so that

process may need to continue if we're to have outstanding science and

make suitable progress here in our province.

MRS. DAILLY: One final comment on this matter. A point I'd

like to leave with the minister — and it's a basic concern — is that we

do have good people in British Columbia, and the minister knows that.

I'm sure you're quite right that across the world there are other

excellent scientists and researchers, but as the minister well knows,

we also have at UBC people who have won awards — in fact, someone very

close to him. We have some very outstanding people.

My concern is that this minister, in his unilateral way of

developing policy and new programs, is setting a dangerous precedent.

Let us say that government allows the minister,

[ Page 6094 ]

who can be so powerful in this area, to do entirely

what he wants, without setting up any consultative committees

throughout the province. We could conceivably end up with someone who

is embarked on dangerous research. This minister is certainly not, but

what I am trying to say to him is that he doesn't seem to have any....

There's no shield here to protect the public from, say, a politician

who wanted, for his own devious purposes, to move into research that

could be dangerous. I'm just saying to the minister that I feel he has

a responsibility to see that he has around him a credible consultative

committee, so that all the people of British Columbia feel that when

his moves are made, they are made not just unilaterally, on whatever

may be his particular desire at the moment, but with the best interests

of all the people, using the best brains in this province and

elsewhere.... I'm saying to the minister that I think we'd all be more

comfortable, and those who work at UBC who have expressed concern would

also be more comfortable, if the minister could get off this kind of

one-man show bit and get down to doing this thing in a more, shall we

say, defined, consultative manner. So I just say to the minister: will

you please give consideration to that? Otherwise it's a very bad

precedent to set in this province.

[11:00]

HON. MR. McGEER: I just want to give the member some

reassurance that that's exactly what has been done. I'd be delighted —

without taking the time of Committee of the Whole — if the member would

come down to my office, and I'd show her all of the local people who

are involved and the whole procedure that has gone into setting this

institute up.

I want to assure the member of two things. First of all, it's not

done with taxpayers' money; and it's not done by the minister. The one

thing that I did, Madam Member, was help draft the articles for the

Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation. What the Premier did was make

the government's BCRIC shares available to that foundation, which I

thought was a very fine and appropriate gesture. I just wish the BCRIC

shares were worth more.

Everything that's been done since has been done by that foundation,

and I'd like the member to have the articles of incorporation of the

foundation. We have been in touch with the Fox family. The foundation

has outstanding people on it. It does have a scientific advisory

committee. This committee has local people on it, but it's also

international in scope. I've been around science long enough to know

not to do the very sort of thing you're suggesting. It has to be

international, and because you can't have an advisory committee of 100,

every local scientific person who might like to be on the committee

can't be on it. But we do have local people, and it is international in

scope.

I'd honestly like the member to be aware of all that. I'd like not

to take the committee's time, but to give her reassurances. Then if you

want to ask me questions after you've seen it all, I'll answer them in

the House.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to turn the minister's attention to

the so-called scholarship program. I think that's what it was called in

last year's budget. In this year's budget it's called the loan

remission program. I'd like to ask the minister if the academic

criteria for this program have been defined. And how is it to apply? Is

it to apply equally to all programs? First of all, I guess, have

regulations or guidelines been established? Is it going to apply to

1985 graduates — this year? Looking at the minister and trying to read

his body language, I think maybe he'd like to ask the same questions.

HON. MR. McGEER: We have, as the member knows, made provision

in the budget for a program. One of the members opposite said we had

the worst program in Canada. At the moment that's correct. But we've

made provision to adjust for that. When the details of the program are

known, they'll be announced. I personally feel badly that our old

program couldn't survive the financial holocaust that British Columbia

has been exposed to with the collapse of world commodity prices. We're

trying to work our way back to a level of generosity that was second to

none during the halcyon economic years in British Columbia. We

obviously have got to improve our program. That's why provision was

made in the budget, and we're going to do that.

How best to spread the money that's made available in this budget is

undecided, but we'll be making announcements before too long. I can

give the member the general principles that we think are appropriate. I

would invite his comments on them. First of all, we think that people

who live in the rural — that is, the non-metropolitan — areas deserve

special consideration. We've done our best to get facilities into

smaller communities all around the province, but obviously we can't

give every program in every small community. Those who want to go on to

specialist training are going to have to go to the extra expense,

compared with the person in the metropolitan area, in order to get

their program. We believe that should be recognized.

The members opposite may not concur in this, but we also believe

that merit should be recognized: the student who works hard and does

well in his program deserves a greater reward in terms of government

support than the one who doesn't. That's a difference, I think, between

the NDP and Social Credit.

These are the two factors that will play a role: one is academic performance, and the other is geographic location.

MR. NICOLSON: I certainly have no objections to recognizing

merit, but also I would hope that there is a bursary aspect to this

which recognizes need. With $1 million, I don't know that you're going

to have to worry about finding too many eligible people, because until

it becomes a larger amount of money it certainly isn't going to fill

the needs of everyone.

I would like to ask the minister if it's going to be different for

different programs; or are students in all programs, at least all

baccalaureate programs, say, going to have an equal opportunity?

HON. MR. McGEER: The idea would be to apply it equally to all programs.

MR. NICOLSON: Will it be in effect this year, for '85 grads?

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't make that promise. When we cancelled

the program, those who are graduating in 1985 had partial benefit of

the old program.

Of course, the reason for saying that we have the worst program in

Canada is that at the present time we have no program, and you can't

get less than that. I think it is fair to say that the money set aside

in this year's budget, whatever program is introduced, will obviously

have to grow as it

[ Page

6095 ]

becomes locked into the several years that people are in a post-secondary program.

I'd be very pleased to have the opinions of the members opposite as to the features that should be incorporated.

I'd just like to make a little philosophical comment, because I wish

there could be more general consensus on this subject. If people who

had the ability to pay were prepared to take on more of the burden of

the cost of their education from their own resources, that would leave

a great deal more money that could be applied to people in need,

because the whole objective of education is to take advantage of the

human resource regardless of the ability to pay. Whether it's

universities or whether it's broader programs in Canada, the

middle-class entitlement, where people who can pay themselves are

relying instead on tax funds, leads us to the problem of balancing

budgets that can't be balanced with the income from taxes.

If you say it's only a transfer payment, and therefore we might as

well have it on taxes, you find your businesses can't compete

internationally. New businesses have the burden not only of taxes but

of past debt. Therefore you supply so much baggage for your industry to

carry that it cannot be world competitive.

Now if you've got an entirely internal market and don't rely on

international trade, then perhaps you can say it really doesn't matter,

because all businesses are in the same boat. But per capita, Canada

trades more than any nation on earth, and therefore we are extremely

international in our outlook. Compared with other nations, we are very

ill-suited to have a skewed tax structure. I just pass that off as a

general problem, of which the universities are just a tiny part.

MR. PARKS: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. PARKS: It gives me great pleasure to welcome from the

most dynamic suburb of greater Vancouver, a group of students from

Burquitlam Elementary School. We are fortunate to have a number of

grade 6 and grade 7 students with us, and along with the two classes we

have their teachers, Mr. Ralph Davies and Mr. Brent Robertson, and also

the principal of the school, Mr. Donald McDonald. If I want to make

sure I don't get into the bad books with one of my daughters, I also

have to give a very special welcome to one of her good friends, Miss

Tanya Jacobs. I ask the House to join me and make them welcome.

MR. STUPICH: The minister mentioned the gift of BCRIC shares

to the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation. As I recall it, at the

time there were strings on those shares to the effect that they could

not be transferred.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman. The

problem was that this was a very large block of shares, which.... Had

it been sold as a block, that would have had two effects. It would have

given control of the corporation to the purchaser, whoever that might

have been, or it would have flooded the market with a large group of

shares, which, if they had to be dispersed without there being a block

buyer, would have had a depressing effect on the value of the shares.

That's why restrictions were put on at the time.

The problem with having done that, and why changes were subsequently made,

is that the shares, under those circumstances, were valueless to the foundation.

The foundation wasn't getting any dividends. They couldn't sell the

shares. Because there were no dividends and because they couldn't be sold,

they had no value as collateral. Therefore, to try and make something of the

asset, which was all the Teffy Fox Medical Research Foundation had to act upon,

the change was made to remove that restriction. The foundation still didn't

want to sell the shares, for all of the reasons that we've discussed, but

the shares did have some collateral value.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: They can be transferred and sold, and they

now have collateral value, but the collateral value is in a pretty

dismal state of affairs. The combination of the collateral value of the

BCRIC shares plus SRTCs has made possible Canada's share — British

Columbia's share, if you like — of the joint venture with Welcome

Foundation for this research institute. It really has been made

possible because of the SRTCs.

MR. STUPICH: I wasn't aware that that change had been made,

and certainly from the point of view of the Terry Fox Medical Research

Foundation, I'm pleased that it has been made. I expressed the concern

at the time the government had announced the gift that it was rather an

empty gesture, in that the possibility of BCRIC paying dividends in the

medium term are something worse than remote. If the Terry Fox Medical

Research Foundation could make no use of the shares, by way of selling

them or using them as collateral — and you can't use them as collateral

if ownership can't be transferred — then it wasn't anything more than

an empty gesture at the time.

It's rather a shame that these revenue-producing assets that were

owned by the Crown at the time the present Social Credit administration

took over, and that were indeed producing revenues annually, were

turned over to private enterprise — or at least a public corporation

operating in the private sector. The results have been anything but

good since that date.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying is that the shares....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. We are in the

estimates of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications,

and the ownership or subject matter of a private corporation — a public

private corporation — is, I think, beyond the estimates of a minister.

MR. STUPICH: My point, Mr. Chairman, is that if the

government hadn't so badly mismanaged these assets that were Crown

assets, then the Terry Fox Foundation would have benefited much more by

the government's action. That's all; it's simply government

mismanagement that has hurt the sincerity of this gesture.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your comments dealing with....

[ Page 6096 ]

MR. STUPICH: I made my comment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the first time I have had the

opportunity to discuss the university estimates, and in particular, of

course, I am concerned about the University of Victoria. The minister

and I have had, since my arrival here, a number of discussions in

estimates and during question period about this institution. Of course,

I, along with my colleague from Victoria, am deeply concerned about the

impact of his priorities and his policies on this fine institution. We

have, over the last few months, Mr. Chairman, seen the serious erosion

of very competent, highly recognized and well-thought-of academics,

research people, who have decided....

AN HON. MEMBER: You?

MR. BLENCOE: And others, many others, who are now seriously

seeking or looking elsewhere because of the climate. We all know, as

one example I introduced to this House, the comments from a highly

recognized mathematician at Purdue University who is clearly not coming

to the University of Victoria because his primary consideration was the

perception of the adverse political climate with regard to higher

education in this province. Not only are we losing some critical people

to research and development, a key area for the future of this

province, but we also are getting people who are just not going to come

and take some of these jobs.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You use filthy language, Mr. Member, but it's

not. It is absolute truth, Mr. Chairman, that what's happened to the

universities in this province has become a scandal, not only in British

Columbia but in North America. We are the laughing-stock of North

America in terms of how we treat our universities in this province. The

universities have tried diligently to deal with this

Alice-in-Wonderland government in terms of its attitude toward

universities, and we continue to see erosion of some critical programs.

Of course, I think it's going to take us years to recover in these

areas.

Yesterday I heard the minister defending what he obviously considers

one of his pet projects — the Open Learning Institute. He made some

comments which I think reflect the sad state of affairs with this

government: that it's city slickers who are trying to attract rural

students to universities; that there's something wrong with going to

universities and those of us living in the urban areas are trying to

attract those students to get a higher education. Doesn't that reflect

where this government's coming from in terms of higher education?

According to this minister, the attitude really is that those students

back in those rural areas are far happier not getting a higher

education; that they'd rather stay home and not get a proper education.

Somehow it's the city slickers who are trying to entice these poor

young people away from their rural communities to go to university and

maybe learn something. And do you know what? Maybe they'll learn what

this government is all about and maybe start to see where your

priorities are. You don't have any priorities in terms of higher

education in British Columbia.

What an incredible statement by the minister: that the people living

in the cities want to attract those poor rural students to come to

university. I'm glad to see young people in the chamber today. What

this government is saying to young people in those rural areas is that

you really don't want to attend university and get a degree and a

chance to participate in the twenty-first century in terms of job

opportunities. Stay home. Don't bother with universities. Somehow we in

the lower mainland or on Vancouver Island are trying to attract you

students down to universities. I think that really says in a nutshell

what this government's attitude is toward universities.

Mr. Chairman, if you really look at this government.... You've heard

some of the comments over the last few years from some of the back

benchers and some of the cabinet ministers about universities; that'll

show you where they're at. They really have very little time for higher

education in British Columbia. The future, in terms of participating in

the new era, the twenty-first century and all of the technological

complexity that has been generated.... Other jurisdictions are

galloping ahead of us in terms of training our young people; it's

astronomical. Much of our future is ensuring that our young people are

trained in these critical areas. We all know, for instance, of a major

resignation at the University of Victoria — one of the most highly

respected people in the engineering field, Mr. Len Bruton. Mr.

Chairman, we cannot do that. We've got to have stability in the

university situation. We've got to have budgets that the universities

know are going to be there for at least two, three, four years so that

people can get on in an environment that is conducive to solid

research, not only for the public sector but for the private sector.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This minister boasts about the Open Learning Institute. Those rural

students, I suppose he says, can watch the television and learn a

little bit. Well, Mr. Chairman, I did a little homework this morning

and maybe the minister will speak to this. The budget for '84-85 for

the Open Learning Institute was approximately $4.8 million; the budget

for '85-86 will be cut by $627,000. This comprises $539,000 cut from

the Ministry of Education and $88,000 from the university contribution.

If this goes through, it is a higher percentage cut than at any other

post-secondary institution. We have the minister, in so many of his

answers as to what's happening in the regular university system, saying

that they can go to the Open Learning Institute. Sheer hypocrisy.

Here's the truth: he's also cutting the Open Learning Institute. So

they get their programs cut, the good faculty people leave the regular

institutions, and what do we find out? That the Open Learning Institute

is also going to get a 13 percent cut.

I hope I'm wrong. This $627,000 is supposed to take up the slack,

Mr. Chairman, in what's happening with our regular post-secondary

institutions. If the Open Learning Institute is supposed to take up the

slack, then why is the minister...? From what we can see, for 1985-86

it is going to receive a 13 percent cut. That really shows where this

government is at: they remove funding, a 5 percent cut in the example

of the University of Victoria for this year and a 13 percent cut that

might be able to take up some of the slack, according to the minister,

for those programs that won't be offered; yet he removes 13 percent

from the Open Learning Institute. Mr. Speaker, I think it's sheer

hypocrisy. I think the people of British Columbia, particularly those

young people who are currently in university or about to go to

university,

[ Page

6097 ]

are beginning to see through this strategy of this government and lack of support for our universities.

One other example is at the University of Victoria. The library of

any post-secondary institution is the core, in many respects, to the

education and to the research for those students to be able to do'their

work properly. Libraries are critical not only to students but also to

faculty and for research. Because of the current policies of this

government, and what's happened to the University of Victoria and a 5

percent reduction in budget next year, it looks like the university,

every single day next session, will have to close the library doors at

6:30 in the evening. At the moment it's at 11 p.m. Just think of the

ramifications of shutting libraries at 6:30 in the evening,

particularly for those students who are trying to get evening course

work done, mature students.... Even students themselves have gone to

classes during the day, and they can't get to their library in the

evening. This is the result of these policies. The very focus of being

able to get the background for your post-secondary education — to go in

and do the research, to prepare your course work, to prepare for your

term papers, or whatever.... It looks like they're going to have to

close the library at 6:30 in the evening. That is scandalous, Mr.

Chairman. That is going to curtail much of the work of the University

of Victoria in the evening, and it's going to have a dramatic effect on

those students who wish to get evening access to the library.

This is what's happening to our universities. The very focus, where

students can actually, after their daily work in the classroom, with

their faculty.... We still do have some very good ones left at the

University of Victoria, excellent people — I have to say that. I hope

they will stay under this current government. But after they have done

their daily class work, they go to the library. Next year, if we don't

have any changes, it's a distinct possibility that the library at the

University of Victoria will be closed at 6:30 in the evening. That is

probably one of the most critical things that could happen to a

university. It's totally unacceptable. It cannot be tolerated. I hope

this minister will ensure that that doesn't happen. The library must be

open to all, at reasonable hours; otherwise, the university and what it

represents starts to crumble; you can't get in to do your homework; you

can't get in to do your research; you can't get access to the books and

the information. This is the ludicrous situation we have at the

University of Victoria, with this current government. It's got to

change.

I have a few other things, if the minister wants to comment.

HON. MR. McGEER: I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the member has

requested that we intercede in the University of Victoria and run their

library for them.

I think I agree with the member that it's a terrible, awful thing

that the University of Victoria, with the same amount of money this

year as last year, is unable to keep its library doors open. I don't

know the exact number of millions of dollars the University of Victoria

has, but I'll get that in a few minutes and give the number to the

member. But it is many, many millions of dollars, and with all those

millions of dollars, they can't keep the library open.

I think we have to ask some questions about the management, if

that's the circumstance. If it is the wish of the members opposite....

The member said he wanted me to assure him that this wouldn't happen.

If the NDP caucus wish interference with the University of Victoria in

the millions of dollars that they've got, and if they want us to send a

trustee in to run the library and order how the money should be spent,

I would be willing to take that up with my colleagues, as a request of

the NDP, and ask if we should go along with their request and interfere.

Perhaps we should look at it in another way and say that the member

has found fault with the way the University of Victoria is spending its

money and its priorities and say they should change them and put the

library at the top of the list rather than the bottom. I would go along

with that member's opinion, but not his methods.

[11:30]

The member has identified an American mathematics professor from

Purdue University who might not want to test the political waters of a

foreign country and perhaps would....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, fine and dandy. I can't recruit for

the University of Victoria. You mentioned the resignation of Dean

Bruton, but I think I explained to the House some time ago during

question period that the government had given more money to the

University of Victoria for engineering than the University of Victoria

had been able to spend on engineering. Here we had a dean demanding of

the university, and indirectly of the government, that they put money

in a bank account for his future use at a time when the government is

running a deficit of close to $900 million. I didn't find fault with

treasury board officials and my colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Curtis) when he said: "We can't be in the circumstance of borrowing

money quarterly — or however often it has to be done — in the form of

treasury bills to meet our daily expenses, and then do the same to fund

bank accounts."

It was made very clear that the university would have the

engineering money when it needed engineering money. The government has

started building a new and expensive facility at the University of

Victoria — I've forgotten what the amount is; I think it's over $16

million — at a time when money is hard to come by, to give an

absolutely top-class facility to those places.

Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, we cannot deal with faculty

members, no matter how valuable they may be in their discipline, if

they make unreasonable demands of a government during difficult

financial times. The university was told they would get the engineering

money when they needed it, but that we weren't in a position to finance

bank accounts. Does the member disagree with that? Does the member

realize that there was engineering money given to the University of

Victoria that was unspent because they didn't have anything to spend it

on? It was sitting in a bank account drawing interest. It may be very

nice to have an interest-bearing account, but that isn't proper in a

time of difficulty.

The Premier has said to the universities and to the Universities

Council that we have an overall problem on our hands, and you can't be

the last ones to recognize it or pretend it doesn't exist at all. The

ex-dean of engineering at the University of Victoria has done well for

himself. He's got himself a raise in pay, and I suppose it would be a

promotion to be dean of engineering at the University of Calgary, which

is a large and well-established school. We can't fault him for accepting

[ Page 6098 ]

a promotion, but we can and do fault him for making

unreasonable demands on the people of British Columbia, on the

taxpayers, when he had money in a bank account — saying that he

wouldn't stay unless this, that and the other thing is provided as cash

in advance to a bank account for his use. No one can do that. With the

greatest respect — and I believe academics should be respected and

should have autonomy — there are limits beyond which no reasonable

person can go, and I would with the deepest regret say that in this

particular case those limits were exceeded.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you know, the minister can give all the

various rationalizations, but the basic problem is that there is a

feeling, a perception and a reality that the way this government has

handled the universities has not been a healthy exercise. They are in

trouble. The public knows that, the students know that, the parents

know that, and the minister can twist and turn and try to put the blame

back on somebody else, but the reality is that people know what's

happening. You can't see these things happen in terms of critical

people leaving the universities, expressions of deep concern and

frustration, perceptions not only in our own province but also abroad

in other countries — and what they're saying about the universities....

You can play numbers games as much as you like, but we've got some real

problems.

The minister, for instance, can try to shift the blame for the

library closing back to the university. But I would say to the minister

that the reason they're coming down to that kind of situation is that

they don't have the support from this government. They are now down,

not to bare bones but to virtually raw bones, and it's so desperate

that they're seriously considering closing the University of Victoria

library at 6:30 in the evening instead of leaving it open to 11 o'clock.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tedious and repetitious.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm responding to the minister, who says

he wanted to shift the blame back to the management, if you will, of

the University of Victoria. They're having to deal with the crazy

policies being put forth for the universities in the province. He can

twist and turn and say: "Well, it's their problem. They can shift money

here and there in the university." But there's no more money to shift.

You know, another cut in the University of Victoria.... If we get one

next year, it won't be just staff that are going to get laid off; we

will start to see departments totally eliminated. That's a fact and

will be stated by the people in charge of the University of Victoria.

We'll see whole departments totally eliminated, obliterated, years of

trying to establish some of these key areas. Because of the lack of

support and belief in the future and belief in young people and

investment, we're going to see departments totally abandoned at the

University of Victoria.

It has been said over and over again: post-secondary education and

research and development has to be on the cutting edge of the future.

We can talk about partnership deals and tax relief, which has been

offered by this government, but you ask any industrialist why they move

into a new community and into a new province. One of the first things

they look at is the state of the universities and the post-secondary

education for research, for background help to their work. What's the

support like? What are the dollars being given? Mr. Speaker, we are in

a very sad shape in this province, and there's no question about that.

I cannot accept the minister's turning around and shifting the blame

for things like the library. They're having to react to the lack of

support. Where do we end? Close it at 6:30? Close it at 3:30 next time

around? You begin to wonder what the point is of having a library in

the University of Victoria, because unless you can get access to do

your research and your background work, you're shortchanging those

students who are paying good money for that education, and they can't

even get into the library to do it, Mr. Chairman.

The minister can shift blame and do what he likes, but the reality

is that the university is having to react to his priorities and his

lack of support for universities.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister got up and talked

about the engineering faculty out at the University of Victoria

squirrelling away money. Yet when the university announced it was to

have its own new campus, new buildings, etc., and people were brought

in on the promise of a commitment — the word not just of the minister

but of the Premier, who made the original announcement.... And then in

a letter of 1983, under the minister's own hand.... I guess that the

numbering system they use here would indicate February 8, 1983, because

it refers to a letter of January. I would hope they were not so remiss

in their correspondence that they would be responding to a letter on

August 2. It's a letter to Dr. Petch, president of the university, in

which he says he has:

"...examined in some detail your proposed phased

approach to the development of a school of engineering at the

University of Victoria, forwarded under cover of your letter.... In my

opinion, it represents a well-conceived method of proceeding which is

realistic in terms of today's economy.

"I am pleased, therefore, to give it my general

approval and accordingly have requisitioned a cheque in the amount of

$500,000, which has been set aside in this fiscal year to assist in

this development. I hope to have an opportunity to personally present

it to you upon return from holidays.

"On page 3 of your proposal you indicate line items

startup costs for the faculty of engineering as follows. Year '82-83,

$500,000; '83-84, $1 million; '84-85, $1.5 million; '85-86 and

subsequent years through to 1988-89, $2.7 million. While costs of this

order appear reasonable to me, I do not want the university to be under

the impression that a final decision has now been reached to provide

all of the required startup funding through line-item grants in the

ministry's budget. It may be that the funding would be provided by a

combination of ministry line-item grants and by money set aside by the

Universities Council for new program development. It might indeed prove

more advantageous to provide all of the required startup costs by the

Universities Council through a reordering of new program priorities to

reflect more appropriately the requirements of today's society. My

officials are presently exploring this possibility with the

Universities Council."

At that time, then, the minister was very flexible

and certainly indicating three possibilities. One would maybe have been

pretty accurate in anticipating the second.

[ Page 6099 ]

He closes with: "I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future I

will have a positive response from the Treasury Board concerning the

capital required for the project."

So that was in February of 1983. More correspondence, of course, flew back and forth, but then in 1984, the minister says:

" Operating Contributions — Other, Engineering

Expansion. I am pleased to advise you that by January 4, 1985, the

University of Victoria will have received a cheque for $750,000 as part

of its engineering expansion grant for 1984-85. As you know, the

ministry did not receive the total amount of funds it requested for

engineering expansion in 1984-85. Accordingly, I have made a

presentation to Treasury Board for the balance of funds. As yet, no

decision has been made, and I shall contact you as soon as there is

something further to report.

"As with other items in Operating Contributions — Other awarded

to the universities, it is not the government's intention to continue indefinitely

special funding for engineering expansion."

You know, this isn't what they said when the Premier made his

announcement. It was a new project, there was new money. All of this

changing of the goalposts, as becomes very evident in looking at

correspondence, has been a backtracking from the original announcement

of the engineering faculty at the university.

Very serious questions were raised at the time. Should we proceed

with an expansion there? Then, of course, Simon Fraser University also

had to get into engineering since it was allowed over here. Or should

we have really brought UBC up to standard before expanding? Those

questions were undertaken at that time. The government made a decision

to go ahead and expand, but then it starts to talk about cutting into

other operations of the universities and other funds.

[11:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

On December 13, 1984, Deputy Minister A.E. Soles wrote to Dr. Petch

regarding implementation of the mechanical engineering program. He said:

"At this time I cannot say precisely how government

may respond. As you know, the ministry is still awaiting a decision on

an earlier Treasury Board submission which requested the balance of

funds required for the UVic engineering expansion program in 1984-85.

It is extremely difficult to assess the feasibility of introducing the

mechanical engineering phase of the engineering expansion program when

the total funding requirements for electrical engineering have yet to

be approved by Treasury Board for fiscal years 1984-85 and 1985-86.

"I should note that, as with other items in Operating

Contributions — Other, Dr. McGeer has continued to stress to all

universities that it was not the government's intention to continue

indefinitely special funding for engineering expansion."

So, again, the goalposts are starting to move even

more, and indeed 1985-86 will be the final year in which special funds

will be available.

So, you know, if you go back to the original press releases — and I

don't have copies of them right here; I do have some copies of them in

my office — it was a totally different picture that was painted. What

the university has resisted is eroding other programs in order to

assimilate what was supposed to be something new, something special and

really something that was seen as additional in terms of programming.

The minister has talked about people having money in the bank. Well,

there was supposed to be capital money at one time to build a brand new

facility — a building — or I think there was talk about occupying the

former CBC building, which eventually became the BCTV building. I think

that there was lots of talk about this sort of thing. Well, they really

cut back on the capital requirements for building, I think using some

of those old army huts and things like that, which I thought I'd seen

the end of. I don't see too many of them left around the University of

British Columbia anymore, but there are still a few of them out at the

University of Victoria. That's about what some of these programs ended

up being housed in, so there was tremendous change in capital.

Now the ministry advanced moneys.... There was a program to bring in

the second phase. It was not supposed to be a one-department faculty.

It's almost a contradiction in terms: how can you have a faculty if you

have only one department? That wasn't the commitment, and so what we

have done.... I think that we've done very serious injury to the growth

of engineering at the University of Victoria, something which the

government embarked upon wholeheartedly and has ended up supporting

faint-heartedly. I think it is an absolute tragedy. It's just one more

example like the tunnel study — the other kinds of things that this

minister starts with so much enthusiasm, and then loses interest in and

abandons. We have made an investment there, and I think the only way to

support that investment is to see this project through.

You know, this government is seeing so many other projects through,

other projects which are not nearly as deserving or as promising and

which bring us news each and every day of their ill-advisedness. Yet in

this project, which does have promise and still has promise, the

government has waffled. So we don't have a faculty of engineering; we

really have a department of engineering. We have stopped in mid-stream,

and there is nothing worse and nothing more inefficient and nothing

more irresponsible in terms of the spending of public funds than to

start something and then abandon it in mid-stream.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I have the pleasure of

introducing a number of students from the Gibsons alternative school,

who are visiting and in the galleries at the present time. I ask the

House to join me in welcome.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, in defending the activities of

the Science ministry, I might say I'm terribly proud of that fixed-link

study. The government got enormous benefit of free information from

leading architects and engineers around the world, who produced a

practical conceptual design for linking Vancouver Island with the

mainland. That design is to have a Deas Island–like tunnel going

through the shipping lane out just off the mouth of the Fraser River,

and then a floating bridge that would go across the Georgia Straits and

link in with the closest islands this side. For it to be self-

financing the traffic would need to be about three times what

[ Page 6100 ]

the current ferry traffic is. Mind you, building

that fixed link, of course, would partially end the isolation of

Vancouver Island, and that in itself would open up traffic. So I think

it logically could be built before the ferry traffic triples.

It's important to consider the isolation of the capital of British

Columbia. I think that's a factor that all of us who sit in this

assembly must recognize. British Columbia is half the size of western

Europe, and having the capital on the very tip of this vast

geographical area, isolated by water, is like having the capital of

western Europe on the island of Sicily. Sooner or later people are

going to have to come to grips with the capital city's being in an

anomalous geographical position. It's difficult for the majority of

British Columbia citizens. But that difficulty could be overcome by

this fixed link, and that's why the Ministry of Science, looking far

into the future, developed this practical — and I want to stress

practical — plan for linking Vancouver Island with the mainstream

population of British Columbia.

It turned out to be a disagreeable plan to some, the member for North Vancouver....

MR. DAVIS: They had that technology in the year 1800.

HON. MR. McGEER: They were going to build one across the

will be consummated long before that. People will look back on this

study and say: "Boy, did we get a bargain in those days." So I just

want you to keep that in mind.

I agree that those in the Gulf Islands, who want their magnificent

isolation — which I agree with and support — and their subsidies —

which I disagree with and don't support — are not attracted to this

idea. But it could be just a one step onto Valdes Island, which has

virtually nobody on it, so that we could leave that isolation and still

bring Vancouver Island, an economically depressed area of British

Columbia, into the mainstream for the future. Now there are many who

like the peaceful isolation of Victoria. I support that concept. But is

isolation consistent with the capital city being the hub of government

activity? I ask the members opposite to consider that question.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: We've got the member for New Westminster

(Mr. Cocke) who says: "Forget the fixed link and move the capital,

because it's cheaper." Is that right? Well, you can't have it both

ways. Do you want the fixed link or do you want to move the capital? I

think that's the question for the future. The member for New

Westminster says move the capital. I say build a fixed link, because I

think the fixed link will bring other benefits, besides making the

capital more accessible to all British Columbians.

Anyway, moving along, the question of UVic engineering. What we do

when we set aside these special line-item grants is attempt to cover,

for the institutions, their startup costs, because you've got to get

faculty, you've got to get equipment, and you have to put everything in

place before the students can come in. So the startup funds are for a

limited period to cover this aspect. But you can't have a student

taking engineering and biochemistry, or engineering and arts, at the

same time. If the students are in engineering they're not in something

else. That's why the university has got to be able to phase out old

programs at the same time it phases in new ones. You have a student

population, an age cohort, and if you bring in a new program you're not

going to take entirely new students; you're going to give them a

higher-level course that they prefer to the ones they're forced to take

now because the first choice isn't available. That's part of a

university setting priorities.

We like to leave it to the universities. And we like to think that

if they're getting an operating grant of $51,029,767 and a total grant

of $62,405,527, they should be able to keep the library open past 6:30

in the evening.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report very minimal progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada