1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th 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, DECEMBER 10, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2941 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 2941

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act (Bill 6 1). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Mr. Williams –– 2941

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 2942

Open Learning Agency Act (Bill 58). Second reading

Hon. S. Hagen –– 2943

Mr. Jones –– 2944

Member's statement

Resignation of first member for Boundary-Similkameen. Mr. Hewitt –– 2946

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Harcourt

Open Learning Agency Act (Bill 58). Second reading

Ms. Edwards –– 2947

Mrs. Boone –– 2948

Ms. A. Hagen –– 2949

Mr. Ree –– 2950

Mr. Harcourt –– 2950

The House met at 10:09 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) is unable to be here today and he has asked me to

make a brief introduction in his stead. Seated directly behind me in

the gallery are a group of students from Glen Lake School with their

teacher, Jean Markowsky. I would ask the House to please join me in

welcoming these people.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, for a diminishing number of

members — and I mean a diminishing number of members; I believe there

are only six, maybe fewer — this concludes 12 years as members of this

assembly for some of us: the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and

myself and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). For some of us this was

a day which we will remember. There was a time in this chamber when

this particular day was a day that everybody recognized, but it's

getting that fewer and fewer of us from the class of '75 recognize it.

To my fellow colleagues from the class of '75, congratulations for

sticking it out.

Hon. S. Hagen tabled the ninth annual report of the Science Council

of British Columbia and of the Secretariat on Science, Research and

Development for the year ending March 31, 1987.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call adjourned debate on second reading

of Bill 61. The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) adjourned

debate. I see he's not here, but I'm sure debate will proceed.

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS

EXPORT CHARGE COMPENSATION ACT

(continued)

MR. WILLIAMS: Less adequate, I'm sure, than the member for Prince Rupert.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Carry on, carry on!

This bill is kind of fascinating, Mr. Speaker. It's before the

House, and I don't think we have an agreement with Canada on all the

details. Maybe the minister can help us out in that regard. I don't

know if we've got an agreement with the Americans on all the details,

but maybe the minister can help us out in that regard.

We've established a date of January 15, 1988, for coming to grips

with this, and I guess the minister is crossing his fingers hoping that

all the mess and details will be sorted out by nextyear sometime. Or am

I just too confused? But it does seem to me that's the kind of problem

there is in the Ministry of Forests these days. There are probably

various camps arguing on various sides over there.

How can you prepare a budget? Goodness! You came in with all your new rules

and regulations in October; it's still not clear where all those pieces

are going or what they're going to mean in the end. Gosh, you've got

to prepare a full budget for the next fiscal year, and there are obligations

there that you say will be the companies' obligations, which are currently

the Crown's obligations. If you don't have legislation, you're going

to end up with those obligations still on your back. You told us you were going

to clean up that mess in terms of those companies having a free ride.

MR. CLARK: A leap of faith.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is one more leap of faith in terms of this government's operation.

It's not at all clear. The one thing the forest industry dislikes

the most in this province is uncertainty. We have a real author of

uncertainty here in the present Minister of Forests.

MR. CLARK: No contest.

MR. WILLIAMS: No contest.

Have you got the act cleaned up with Canada, Mr. Minister? Have you

got the act cleaned up with the United States, Mr. Minister? I think

not.

The other strange thing about this is that it's not clear in terms

of the refund arrangements for the export- tax that British Columbia is

currently receiving and that the industry is paying. Under this

legislation, the date could be flexible. Maybe the minister could

explain why it would appear that the date could be flexible in terms of

the refund period.

[10:15]

The new rules with respect to stumpage came into effect at a certain

time, when one could argue there was a duplication in taxes. But the

legislation doesn't tie the minister to that date, in terms of refunds.

So it allows the potential for overpayment to the industry, for

example, which would be very unsatisfactory and could be inequitable

between parties, or it could be overly generous to all the parties.

Maybe that's the minister's inclination, given his history. But it

doesn't seem reasonable that the firm date would not apply — period —

in terms of refunding funds that are very significant dollars indeed.

The other point I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the

integrated industry in the last couple of years has never in the modern

history of the province done so well. The pulp industry is doing

incredibly well. Just think about it. There was a Canfor announcement

earlier this week, made by — interestingly — the Minister of Economic

Development rather than the Minister of Forests, but I guess that's

just a matter of pecking order and seniority. The announcement was

significant. There will be $300 million plus spent on the Port Mellon

plant and subsequent expenditures on a paper mill.

This company was on the ropes two and a half years ago. This company

was on the block, available for sale — lock, stock and barrel — for

peanuts. The free enterprisers weren't smart enough to pick it up. This

company was on the ropes. They had debts of something like $600 million

in terms of current bank obligations, and the bulk of those debts has

been paid back out of cash flow in the last couple of years. Just think

about that. A company that was totally on the ropes, going down the

drain, as wobbly as they come, is now secure and sound. The reason is

the money they made in pulp. That's the reason. Hundreds of millions in

profit. And still a system in place that has meant that this

jurisdiction provides through the generosity of the Crown the

lowest-priced feedstock for

[ Page 2942 ]

pulp mills in the world. Half the price anywhere

else in the world is the price they pay for the raw material for our

pulp mills in British Columbia. That's incredibly cheap raw material.

And the price of pulp has gone up dramatically — hundreds of dollars a

tonne in recent years — and each time the industry has pushed their new

prices, they've stuck. So it's an unparalleled success in terms of

getting new prices to stick because of high demand around the world. We

should reflect on that,

This ministry has pursued a new policy announced in October in terms

of getting improved funding and improved prices from the industry, in

terms of the Crown's return on its assets. That's a bit of progress.

Some of us — I and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), former Ministers

of Forests both — argued in the spring of this year that there was at

least a billion dollars in terms of underpriced assets, in terms of the

Crown selling timber and pulp material in this province. We don't have

to back down from those statements at all, Mr. Minister.

There is now an academic study out, published by the Institute for

Research on Public Policy out of Carleton University, that looks at

uncollected economic rent in western Canada. The editors are Thomas

Gunton and John Richards, professors of economics and resource

management at Simon Fraser University, along with associate Richard

Schwindt at Simon Fraser and other academics in western Canada. They

list the uncollected economic rent from Crown resources in western

Canada. They suggest that the uncollected rent in British Columbia,

depending on market, could be as high as $2 billion annually. The

member for Omineca and I were too conservative. Highly respected

academics, in their list of uncollected economic rent in the west,

where the Crown owns the resources, suggest that it could be as high as

$2 billion annually.

If you look at the huge profits made by companies.... Canfor is not

different from the others. All of them in the pulp sector have

reaped enormous profits in the last couple of years. They've reaped

those profits because we undercharge for the raw materials and because

there's an oligopsonistic system wherein the unintegrated sawmills

don't get the price they should for the chips that they produce out of

producing lumber.

MR. CLARK: Explain that word.

MR. WILLIAMS: Quasimonopoly, for the benefit of those not familiar with the word.

We have only 20-odd pulp mills in the province. There's a question

of transportation of chips to those mills, and each of them has

regional advantages in terms of being the only mill in the region, in

some cases, and being able to discriminate or not pay the price that

the raw materials are really worth because they're the single buyer.

Several sellers, single buyer. It's a severe economic problem in terms

of having the small, unintegrated mills survive.

That's where the advantage is taken. The advantage is taken of those small

mills that have to deal with the big pulp mills as the single buyer, and the

advantage is taken with the Crown, which has been asleep at the switch in terms

of collecting what the resources are worth. Progress has been made, and the

new ministerial statements and policies are outlined but still not backed up

by legislation. We anticipate that. If the warring factions in the cabinet and

in the ministry can get together, we look forward to having the next bill before

the House.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: You need all the help you can get, Mr. Minister.

This bill raises more questions than it answers, really, because the

date is wobbly. It's an elastic date. It's not clear in terms of the

compensation question how you're going to move that around and whether

it will be as equitable as it should be or whether it will be too

generous. So it provides those opportunities that are of concern.

You don't appear to have worked out arrangements with the nation or

the United States in this regard, so those are huge question marks. We

have this date down the road, and we have the question of additional

legislation, which is needed in order to make it all work. I don't envy

the folks in Treasury Board trying to pull next year's budget together,

because you folks haven't pulled your act together.

Maybe you know what you want; maybe you're having trouble with your

other colleagues and with other people in Treasury Board. But clearly

the act is not pulled together, and this one is a faltering step in

terms of pursuing the whole question of a proper return on our

resources in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: I advise the House that the Minister of Forests will close debate.

HON. MR. PARKER: In answer to some of the questions from

yesterday from the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), he was

concerned why we would have to talk to the Americans at all about

whatever we're doing in British Columbia. I would have thought that as

the forestry critic for this House, he would have determined that since

the Americans constitute a substantial share of our market for our

forest products, we would probably talk to our customers. We are indeed

talking to them. We are in negotiations with them on the matter of the

memorandum of understanding that has resulted in the federal

legislation on the softwood lumber products export charge. In those

discussions we talk about a number of things: first and foremost, the

replacement of the softwood lumber tax on British Columbia softwood

lumber shipped into the United States, and the changes in forest policy

in British Columbia that serve to replace that charge.

So naturally we talk with the Americans. We also have to deal with

the memorandum of understanding, which is a two-party agreement, and

therefore you must talk with the other party. You don't stand around

talking to yourself, although across the floor it seems to be a

preferred method of doing business. I can't understand why you just

stand around and talk to yourself. But I guess if they had the mandate

to do this, they'd probably stand around talking to themselves and

wondering why they weren't getting anywhere. We talk to the other

party, and we're making substantial progress, and we hope to be able to

report just what the details of that progress are within the next few

days.

Bill 61 provides for refund of the export tax paid. The member was

concerned whether it has to do with how lumber is priced, etc. It's a

charge on wood sold into the United States, and this bill provides for

a refund of export tax paid, so that our industry isn't double-charged.

[ Page 2943 ]

Another concern he had was that what we're undertaking here provides

no guarantee that there won't be further countervail action. The member

seems to think that life is full of guarantees. He should know by now,

at this stage in his life, that there's nothing guaranteed, that life

is a dynamic process, that change is very much a part of business,

personal life, public life. There are no guarantees.

He alluded to the industry being greedy, jumping too aggressively

into U.S. market opportunities and seizing too great a share of the

U.S. softwood lumber market, thereby causing the American lumber

interests to lobby their government for a countervail move against

Canadian lumber and specifically British Columbia lumber. When an

opportunity exists, if you're in private and free enterprise you seize

those opportunities. But those things that you don't have control over,

such as exchange rates — and the exchange rate that was at the very

root of the concern between the two nations.... You cannot control that

particular facet of commerce. Our dollar was down considerably, some

four or five cents below what it is today, and it made a real advantage

to the consumer in the States to buy Canadian lumber on that basis.

The question has been raised this morning about why this particular

piece of legislation provides for some leeway in the dates of

enactment. We are still in negotiations with the U.S. Department of

Commerce, through the Canadian Ministry of International Trade, and

until our negotiations are complete and the date set for rebate, we

have to provide for flexibility. This bill deals with that quite

effectively.

[10:30]

The bill also provides for dealing with such concerns as

overcompensation on a rebate or undercompensation on a rebate. With a

little bit of homework, the member opposite would have been able to

determine that for himself.

Slipping off the topic of the morning, namely Bill 61, and

commenting on the recent announcement by Canfor and the fact that they

were on the ropes, as was a lot of the forest industry in the province

several years ago — and now are reaping great benefits, great profits —

isn't it great that they were able to announce the total value of $1

billion worth of expansion improvements and new opportunities in the

forest industry? And aren't we thankful that they were able to

accumulate some profits to make that happen; to bring in a partner from

Japan — Oji Paper — and make a substantial contribution to the further

stability of the forest industry in British Columbia, to the employment

opportunities, to the foreign trade opportunities, and to the revenue

opportunities for British Columbia? The private sector is much more

capable of putting together such beneficial packages than government.

The member likes to refer to the state of our industry. We're

fortunate indeed that our industry survived those years when he was in

the driver's seat, driving it into the ground, picking up a lot of bad

assets that have impacted on this province for years.

MR. JONES: He knew where he was going.

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes; he disappeared, didn't he. Anyhow, we're

talking about uncollected economic rent. You like to talk about academics who

seem to know everything that's going on in the world. I guess academics

are not unlike a lot of the editorial boards. If they're so great, why aren't

they serving in public office? They obviously have all the answers. We talk

about $2 billion in uncollected economic rent in the west: I wonder how much

of that is in Manitoba and other parts of the west, and what resources we're

talking about, and what amount is actually attributable to the forest industry,

and in what way. It's nice to make innuendoes and to fish because you don't

know what you're talking about and you're trying to find out what might

be going on, so you fly a whole bunch of incredibly inane questions and expect

other people to do your homework for you.

Anyway, this bill serves to assist our industry in dealing with the

softwood lumber products export charge, and I commend it to the

Legislature. I move that we now read it a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill 61, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act,

read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 58.

OPEN LEARNING AGENCY ACT

HON. S. HAGEN: I have the honour to move second reading of

Bill 58, the Open Learning Agency Act. This legislation will create the

Open Learning Agency, which will merge the operations of the Open

Learning Institute and the Knowledge Network.

The purpose of this bill is to provide a framework that enables

government to develop an integrated and responsive system to open

learning, using distance education techniques and technology along with

conventional delivery methods. The Open Learning Agency will play a

coordinating role in the development of open-learning programs in the

province.

[Mr. Petton in the chair.]

The agency will work in close collaboration with the universities,

colleges, institutes. boards of school trustees and other agencies

concerned with education to develop and use open-leaming methods in

providing educational programs and services to the citizens of our

province.

The bill will establish planning councils for each of the three

components of the agency. These councils will be composed of

representatives from the post-secondary education system who will

provide input and recommendations to the agency respecting educational

programs and courses.

An important function of the agency will be to coordinate and

facilitate an educational credit bank for students. This is a process

whereby a person may obtain credit for both formal and informal study,

which can lead to a certificate, diploma or degree. Any certificates.

diplomas or degrees granted by the Open Learning Agency require the

endorsement and support of the relevant planning council. Currently

over 200 courses are offered, from non-credit personal enrichment

offerings to high school completion, and from occupational and

vocational certificates and diplomas to university degrees.

[ Page 2944 ]

The Open Learning Agency will operate the Knowledge Network, the

educational broadcasting arm of the organization. The Knowledge Network

currently broadcasts educational programs to over 255 communities and

has an average weekly viewership of close to 500,000 people.

Because of the vast size of our province, open-learning education

methods are essential in ensuring that our government's objective of

equality of access to education is achieved. With the establishment of

the Open Learning Agency, we can offer educational and training

opportunities to British Columbians in all regions of the province.

I commend this bill to the House and move second reading.

MR. JONES: I'd like to welcome the minister to the House

today for one of his infrequent visits. It's always a pleasure to see

him. I know he's working very hard on his portfolio. It's always a

pleasure to hear his remarks in the House.

Ironically, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari)

is not able to be here this morning; she's speaking to some 500

students in Vancouver. So I've been asked to comment on second reading

of this bill.

It's always very difficult when it comes to responding to government

initiatives, particularly in education, from this side of the House,

because there's always tremendous potential for very worthy projects to

take place in the education field. However, government also has the

opportunity to impose ideological projects, and we've seen so much of

that in recent times in this Legislature. It's easy to be skeptical

about the kinds of initiatives that government is taking.

I must frankly admit that I'm not really clear on the need for this

legislation. The minister read some fine-sounding words about

coordination, integration, framework, development and a number of

things, but did not convince me of why this particular initiative is

being taken. We have, I suppose, with this legislation tremendous

potential for either using advanced education in this province or

abusing it.

British Columbia, as a result of initiatives taken by Dr. McGeer

some years ago, has shown leadership in this area — I suppose following

the lead of Britain. For some ten years now we've engaged in distance

education, serving the citizens of British Columbia and providing, as

the minister indicates, particularly adults in this province with a

wide range of opportunities for learning experiences that have, I'm

sure, advanced their lives in many ways. It has provided access that

was formerly unavailable to sparsely developed communities, to isolated

areas of this province, and without this opportunity there would be no

other avenue for this enhancement of their lives.

There are some well-deserved pats on the back for the Open Learning

Institute, the Knowledge Network. To use modern technology to create

these universities without walls, to use television and satellites and

facsimile transmission and the mail services to provide educational

opportunities that the people of British Columbia want and need, is

certainly commendable.

We have, I think, even greater potential here for improving access to education

in this province and expanding beyond this province, for taking these kinds

of opportunities, developing our technology and being a leader in that area,

and moving beyond British Columbia to Pacific Rim countries and to the Commonwealth.

I know there was talk earlier this year of Vancouver becoming a centre for the

Commonwealth Open University Network. I had hoped that this legislation had

something to do with that, because there was tremendous potential there. I don't

know where that's at right now, and I'm sorry the minister didn't

bring good news as far as that was concerned.

We've seen this kind of potential blossom in other parts of North

America. Some years back Massachusetts was considered an economic

basket case, but through the establishment of innovative and vigorous

educational institutions they're now in a situation of zero

unemployment. So the potential for establishing this administrative

centre in Vancouver was a great opportunity. I hope we can still

achieve that, to provide much needed employment opportunities for

British Columbians, to provide jobs and diversify the economy of this

province. This technology has the potential to be a moneymaker for

British Columbia. If it's properly used — and I stress "properly used"

— in a sort of balanced way, to provide post-secondary opportunities,

it can become a major asset to the economy and the well-being of the

citizens of this province. That's if it's properly used.

However, as I mentioned earlier, there's always a double-edged

sword, particularly when we're dealing with a Social Credit government.

The government of British Columbia.... The minister smiles. Does the

minister deny that this Social Credit government has over the years

consistently underestimated the tremendous potential in educational

opportunities for developing the economy of this province? I think any

public opinion poll — and I'm sure the minister has seen these kinds of

things — would confirm that that underestimation has taken place.

HON. S. HAGEN: How about last year?

MR. JONES: I don't know if any polls have been done or if the minister has any polls on public attitudes from last year.

[10:45]

I will grant the minister that in my visits to post-secondary

institutions in this province I have seen at least a temporary change

in attitude. I hope it will be a continuing one. We do want to see this

kind of development take place in this province, and if this is what

the minister intends, then he has the wholehearted support of this

member.

I think the minister agrees that the Social Credit philosophy of

education in this province over the years has been one of finding ways

to save costs. In public education right now — and, I suppose, in

post-secondary education — we have action teams going around with that

very purpose in mind. That is their sole focus. At the same time, on

another track, we have citizens of this province suggesting to Barry

Sullivan, the royal commissioner of education, the very thoughtful,

positive and constructive kinds of things that should be done in

education in this province. The Social Credit philosophy has been

that'education is an albatross around the neck of government, that it's

a sinkhole, that it's strictly a consumer of public funds and not a

place to invest in the future of our people, particularly our young

people, that it's a waste of tax dollars.

The real danger, and the other side of the sword in this

legislation, is that we're going to view this technology as a vehicle

for replacing traditional education methods in this province. I can

just see some Social Credit philosophers rubbing their hands with the

opportunity for television to replace buildings and teachers, to do

away with an expensive

[ Page 2945 ]

process that we have, investing in young people in

this province. We do not want to see this kind of abuse in this

province, to see a replacement of education by television, a

replacement of real education, which is as much an environment as

anything else.

If the minister doesn't think that the academic community in this

province is concerned about that, then I think he should perhaps spend

more time out of the House and check these things. There is tremendous

concern about television replacing traditional education in this

province. I know the minister is a conscientious minister and is going

to respond to these comments. With the kind of attitude towards this

Legislature that we've seen displayed recently, I wouldn't be surprised

if we would use television to replace the Legislature. I don't think we

want to see that kind of thing, and we don't want to see television

replacing traditional education in this province either.

I'd like to raise a few questions that perhaps the minister can

respond to, and I would put him on notice that certainly if there are

no responses to these questions, we'll try again in committee stage of

this bill.

The first question relates to the

section of the bill that talks

about collaboration with boards of school trustees. It seems to me that

the traditional role of the Knowledge Network and the Open Learning

Institute is not specifically to deal with boards of school trustees in

terms of setting up off-campus courses for high school students. That

was at the post-secondary level. In the Ministry of Education's brief

to the Sullivan royal commission, they very clearly mentioned the

enhanced possibilities of home schooling for public school children in

this province. To me, that is a travesty, and if the Minister of

Advanced Education thinks that the people of this province are going to

buy into a scheme whereby public-school-age children are going to be

educated via television as opposed to experiencing the rich environment

of the schools of this province, he has another think coming. If this

is what is intended by this section, he's going to act a fight on this

one.

Another question that I'll ask the minister and to which I hope

there will be some response is a sincere question about the

relationship of the Company Act and the College and Institute Act, and

why there is the

section in the bill that bypasses these areas. Is

there a specific intention of the minister that is something positive

and constructive in terms of this part of the bill, or is he doing an

end run around the academic community of this province?

I would also like to ask the minister what is again the overall

question, rather than use general terminology about coordination and

framework and development: what is really behind this bill? Why are we

bringing forward this bill at this time? Where is the pressing urgency?

What is the need for this bill? Why are we, on one hand, in a

section

of the bill dissolving the Knowledge Network and the Open Learning

Institute, and then re-establishing them in another part of the bill as

separate components? I think the minister probably appreciates my

skepticism, given the kind of attitude towards education that this

government has had over the years.

Fundamental to the abuse of this kind of thing is the overall

question of this agency expanding the number of boards of directors to

set up a much larger bureaucracy that is going to end up competing with

the established institutions of learning in this province.

Again, while I'm on boards, I would hope the minister, who I think is highly

respected in this province, would see that these government appointments to

these boards would go a little beyond what we've seen in this province,

whereby the only qualification for appointment to these boards is some connection

with one political party in this province. I know the minister would like to

see holding those board positions people who have real qualifications in terms

of the academic community. The minister is responding positively and I'm

very pleased to see that.

A major concern I have is with respect to the scope of degrees that

are going to be offered under this new agency. A

section of the bill

indicates that, as opposed to what currently exists where the Open

Learning Institute grants baccalaureate degrees in arts and science,

we're changing the wording to the prudential granting of all degrees.

Perhaps that means post-baccalaureate degrees. Perhaps we're going to

give master's degrees and doctorate degrees. Or does it just mean that

we're going to go beyond arts and science?

Perhaps the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) is the one who

has suggested this section. That member is perhaps wishing to advance

his collection of degrees by a sort of mail-order method. I think he

has some degrees from Columbia — or was it Columbia Pacific or some

such institution? — and perhaps this was the suggestion to the Minister

of Advanced Education to create a situation whereby rather than the

kind of environment and research opportunities and exposure to a wide

variety of faculty, credible in this province.... I think it's of great

concern to the minister that we maintain the high standards of

postsecondary institutions in this province so that we attract people

for teaching positions, we attract students and we make this a major

learning centre of the world. We have the potential to do these things.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But if we get into television replacing these institutions, we're

going to lose any credibility that we have in the world academic

community. The minister has to be concerned about the scope by which

these institutions are going to be granting degrees. We can't get into

a situation where television is used as a vehicle for replacing the

academic environment, replacing those buildings. Certainly it would be

a cost saving, but that environment is irreplaceable.

I know the minister, under this legislation, is setting up bodies

with chancellors, and I hope there is some democratic structure to this

so that those boards and structures have representatives from the

teaching staff. I have written to the minister with the complaint of at

least one participant in the Knowledge Network or Open Learning

Institute who felt a tremendous loss of his rights of authorship of

courses in this regard. Without that representation, there can be

further abuse of those rights.

As I say, we have tremendous potential for development, for

providing access to areas of this province that have been unserved, for

reaching out beyond British Columbia to the Pacific Rim and to the

Commonwealth countries, for making British Columbia a leader in this

area even more than it already is, and for making money for this

province in terms of education. Or we have the opportunity for abuse.

So I reserve judgment on this bill. It's really up to the minister

to respond and convince me that this is a worthwhile bill for the

citizens of British Columbia, and I await his response.

[ Page 2946 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I have been advised by a member that he would

like to make a personal statement, and I think most members of the

chamber would like to be here. If it's agreeable to members, I would

ring the bells and get back to Bill 58 after the member's statement.

[11:00]

Member's Statement

RESIGNATION OF FIRST MEMBER

FOR BOUNDARY-SlMILKAMEEN

MR. HEWITT: I rise to make a personal statement pursuant to

section 55(

l) of the Constitution Act, and at the end of my remarks I

will be giving formal notice of my intention to resign as MLA for the

constituency of BoundarySimilkameen.

Interestingly enough, today completes my 12th year as a member of

this House. Members will recall that the Social Credit Party under Bill

Bennett was first elected as government on December 11, 1975. I have

enjoyed the past 12 years. I have been honoured to have the opportunity

to serve the people of Boundary-Similkameen and the people of the

province.

I have also been honoured to serve as a cabinet minister for ten

years and was able to participate in a number of exciting and

progressive decisions which have benefited British Columbia. The

decision to proceed with Expo 86 was one of them. My term as Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs gave me an insight into the

complexities of the marketplace.

As Minister of Agriculture I gained an understanding of the value

the agricultural community has to the well-being of the province and

the country. My involvement as minister responsible for the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia and as minister responsible for the

B.C. Systems Corporation was also very rewarding. Working with the

directors and employees of those corporations, we were able to change

them from losers to winners. Both corporations are now held out to be

the leaders in their respective fields by the private sector and by

other provincial governments.

The experience I have gained as MLA and minister over the past 12

years, coupled with my background in accounting and finance and

administration, will greatly assist me as I embark on a new career.

As for the future, I am pleased to announce that in conjunction with

the announcement of the federal Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. John

Wise, in Ottawa, I have accepted the position of chairman and chief

executive officer of the Farm Credit Corporation of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, in making this announcement I would like to state that

the Premier has been aware of my discussions with Ottawa, and I would

like to thank him for his support and encouragement. I mention this

because I want to quash any speculation — media, have you got your

pencils ready? — that I've resigned over any disagreement over

decentralization, privatization or any other action of the Premier or

the government. The Premier and his cabinet have my full support.

Mr. Speaker, we in this House must be aware that nothing is as constant as

change. We have seen examples of that recently: countervailing duties, free

trade, the Canadian constitution, the Meech Lake accord and, most recently,

two world powers, the United States and Russia, signing a disarmament agreement.

I compliment the Premier for questioning and challenging the status quo. Far

too often, politicians tend to shy away from change in case it may upset some

of the electorate. The only caution I have for the government is that you give

consideration to the impact of your decisions on employees and their families.

Every effort should be made to lessen that impact.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the members of this

parliament, and of previous parliaments going back to 1975, for making

the past 12 years so rewarding. I certainly will miss it. I will miss

the debate that my colleague from Vancouver South and I had over grapes

and wine, and I'll miss the discussions that I've had with my

colleagues the member for Delta and the member for Omineca from time to

time.

If I can leave any advice to my colleagues, it is to maintain your

sense of humour, and to remember that we are like actors on a stage: we

enter, we enjoy the spotlight, we perform and then we exit, to be

remembered or forgotten by the quality of our performance.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank

the people of Boundary-Similkameen for their support over the past 12

years. I hope I have served them well.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I hereby give formal notice of my

intention to resign as MLA for the constituency of

Boundary-Similkameen, my resignation to take place effective midnight,

December 10, 1987.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's easy for us to see

today that though at times we have our differences and our arguments in

the House, we certainly develop a great attachment to it. The first

member for Boundary-Similkameen has no doubt developed a very great

attachment to the House and to working for the people of his

constituency and this province. We've had an opportunity to discuss

this, and I realize that it's been a difficult decision for the member.

But the opportunity offered him in his new post is enormous. He has all

the qualifications, and I know that there's a tremendous future for him

in his new position.

Perhaps we can best describe the first member for

Boundary-Similkameen as Mr. Dependable. He's always been there; he has

served extremely well in all capacities. He has served on the back

bench; he has served on numerous committees; he has served as minister

in a number of portfolios; and he's always been there and always come

through. He's always landed on his feet, so to say. He gave his

constituency and his province the very best.

We're sorry to see him go, but we wish the member all the very best.

We're grateful that he's assuming a position of such importance with

agriculture in Ottawa, in an area where he will continue, I'm sure, to

serve the people of the province in a way that all of us will

recognize: not only the contribution he's given in the past, but the

contribution he'll continue to give.

It's an area he has loved, agriculture. He served agriculture

extremely well, and I know that the farm community in British Columbia

as well as the people of British Columbia will continue to benefit for

many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, we wish the first member for Boundary-Similkameen all the very best and a happy, long future.

MR. HARCOURr: On behalf of the New Democrat MLAs in the House today, I also would like to extend our

[ Page 2947 ]

congratulations to the first member for

Boundary-Similkameen. I want to say that, on a personal level, I have

always found the member to be a very pleasant and enjoyable human being

to deal with, even when we agreed to disagree on minor things like the

financing of Expo and other issues like that. It was done in a

good-spirited way, and I'm sure that he will carry that same approach

to the public's business into his new responsibilities. We're going to

miss that part of you, hon. Member, in this Legislature.

We also share a few other values. First of all, the hon. member

comes from a similar value system in the credit union movement, which

is self-help, mutual aid and cooperation. Gee, that reminds me of an

election speech I heard last fall. And I was just reading through the

parliamentary guide and noticed that the hon. member is a member of the

United Church, the church that I also belong to. And we're also united

by our haircuts. Those of us who have the privilege of being so

distinguished in appearance are going to miss you here in this

Legislature, and I'm sure the hon. member, from his background that we

share in the United Church, agrees that God made perfect people and

then put hair on the rest of them.

So although we agreed to disagree on issues like Bills 19 and 20, on

the trade deal that we're looking at, and on privatization and

decentralization, we can agree that this is a great institution that we

all participate in and that with the leaving of one of our members we

all feel the leaving, but we remain, aside from our political

differences. colleagues in our great democratic institution. I would

like to close by saying we wish you well in your new career and, being

an eternal optimist, we know we'll make a New Democrat out of you yet.

OPEN LEARNING AGENCY ACT

(continued)

MS. EDWARDS: I rise to make a few points from my experience —

post-secondary and distance education. Contemplating some of the

directions that we could go in this province on distance education,

which of course is what this agency is designed to achieve: the sum

education for people at a distance, as they say....

I'd like to point out to the minister, and I'm not sure how aware he

is of this if he grew up in British Columbia, that British Columbia is

a bit of an adolescent when it comes to distance education. I grew up

in Saskatchewan, where the ways of distance education had been bred

into the whole fabric of the society. I took my post-secondary

education in Saskatchewan, worked in Saskatchewan, and then moved to

British Columbia. If you lived in Vancouver, you had a difficult time

as a person not in the education system as a student, teacher or

instructor accessing any of those facilities, but I discovered when I

went to the rural parts of British Columbia that it was even more

difficult.

The problem was an attitude. It was an attitude that I see changing. My colleague

suggested that it was ten years ago that it changed; I think it was a little

more than that. Nevertheless, it's not a very old movement, and British

Columbia is only now trying to get a large percentage of the people involved

in post-secondary education — as well as elementary, but I'm only talking

about post-secondary — and to get them involved in the attitudes that make the

distance part of post-secondary education effective.

I myself have been an observer of a number of the movements that

have happened in British Columbia. Of course, one of the first ways the

government in this province decided they would try to reach the people

was to establish a number of colleges. Colleges were established with a

mandate to develop the distance-education techniques and in fact to

reach out from within the college regions and get to the corners of

their own reagions. They barely got started at that when that was all

taken away by a centralized sort of agency, and that agency has moved

from one sort of phase to another sort of direction. It went through a

process of saying,"We're going to have open learning like Britain," and

when people started suggesting that what we had wasn't anything like

Britain — it was all brought in by members of the government

administration arm. perhaps, and some of the politicians as well — it

was: "Oh well, we've gone to Texas, and now we know how it's going to

be done and we're adding a bit from Texas to the British system."

I've been asked, Mr. Speaker, to allow an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney-General would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I would like to welcome to the House a Grade

12 class from Mount Douglas high school, here with their teacher.

Hilary Spicer. This is a French class, and they are here for the first

time to view the deliberations of the House. Thev certainly picked a

very historic and moving moment, watching the resignation of the first

member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Heixitt). That seldom happens.

I've been in this House eight and a half years, and I've never seen

that done in that way. I've seen some resignations, but I've never seen

them done with that class. You have seen an interesting and historic

moment, and you can get some idea of the kind of depth of feeling and

tradition that people do develop here, which has nothing to do with

party. It has something to do with the importance of the chamber. I

welcome you and the House welcomes you.

MS. EDWARDS: As I say. there have been, in the progress that

we have made so far, a number of different initiatives. We go this way

and go that way, and some of it was zigging and zagging. In fact, I'm

not too sure how well we've done. I would ask the minister to address

this question, too, because we have a difficult time in trying to.... I

haven't tested this recently, but there was a time when I regularly

used to try to find out some answers as to how well the Open Learning

Institute had done. Of course, it used to announce the number of people

enrolled and so on and so forth, but in fact we had a difficult time.

First of all, there were no figures, for example, for people who had

completed degrees, diplomas or certificates offered within the

institute or through the classes in other institutions. We also found

it difficult to measure.

I don't want to say that the activities that go on through the Open

Learning Institute — which would now go to the Open Learning Agency —

and the kinds of things that the institute puts out through the

Knowledge Network.... I mean, they're very useful. It is simply not

something that we measure by completion rates and so on. But we also do

not have clear figures, and it seems that there is a considerable

[ Page 2948 ]

question in a number of people's minds as to whether in fact we are addressing the right audience with what we are doing.

I hesitate to say "traditional" in case it's misinterpreted, but the

traditional and the forward-looking educators in this province are

still saying the same thing that has been said for years: education

occurs most importantly and nearly always needs the interaction between

people to occur very well. That has been a major problem when

considering the business of delivering education by television.

What has happened is that we know that correspondence approaches

have not been successful. You can measure them almost anywhere and they

have a very low completion rate. So the process in British Columbia,

and I won't apply any particular name to it, has gone from

correspondence courses to sort of a combination with videotapes. That

kind of thing has been put in through the colleges and so on.

Now one of the things that happens — this comes with a lot of

discussion about socially remote people and so on — is that there's

considerable doubt that in fact you get to the socially remote people

by putting it on cable television. It certainly is true that you don't

get the geographically remote people. The minister will recognize, even

from the Winter Games in Fernie last year, the problems in the remote

areas of getting to what we, when we sit in the urban areas, think of

as mainline television. We think we just switch on the machine and it

comes; it does not do that. Even if you can get to the people who have

cable access, there are very few of them; there are many people who

don't have that opportunity.

I am interested to know how establishing the Open Learning Agency

will address these problems better than they were being addressed, and

I hope they will be addressed better. Distance education has received a

whole lot of attention in this province. There has been some very

exciting thinking done on it; there's been some very good planning. All

sorts of things have been done. But, unfortunately, too often when

something happens that has been very good, there have been cutbacks,

and that affects not only the programs that were planned but, by echo

effect, the people who were working on distance education. It's

happened too often that the people who were in the system, if they

developed a distance education product that would be very good, would

impact on their own jobs, and would lose their jobs. That's been made

very clear to them, so what do people do? They sit on their hands.

This whole pattern has happened many times. There are a lot of

recriminations that could be made about who should do what, but the

problem of funding and the ways that these things have been

administered and brought in have prevented this province from following

up on many of the exciting initiatives that have been suggested, and

the theories and planning that have been done by some of the people who

have magnificent expertise in the area of learning.

There is also a question — I'm not sure, and I would like to hear

the minister's response on this too — of who is going to benefit the

most from this kind of education. In other words, I'm not sure that the

direction of what's going through this agency will match the figures

that we have and the knowledge that, if we don't have it, we should get

about who is missing out in our education system.

In fact, one of the largest groups is the one that needs adult basic education;

that is education for adults who have not yet received a high school diploma,

and certainly not a degree or so on. Those people are perhaps in the greatest

need. I've seen a number of places where this is the largest group of people

we should be reaching. Is this kind of education going to reach those people

who are not skilled learners? They have not been taught the craft of learning.

I think that kind of consideration should be taken into account when

this agency is set up, because those are the people who are not in the

system; those are the people who are at a distance. I'm not here to

suggest how we deal with that. I'm suggesting that it should be

addressed, and it must be put into the package of what's happening here.

Education is certainly one of the strongest underpinnings of

successful economic performance in our communities. For that reason I

applaud the minister for what I think is his aim, which is to continue

to improve and expand learning from the centre of our population. It's

certainly not the centre of the province, and I don't think it's the

centre of the world; it's the lower mainland, where our urban

concentration is. We have a great hunger for more education in other

parts of the province — in the interior and so on. We have been asking

— and this is a bipartisan issue — for a university, for more

postsecondary facilities in other parts of the province. We want better

and broader college facilities; we want universities; we want better

adult basic education facilities too.

I hope that this does not come as something "instead of." If it's a

substitute, we would rather save the money and have the other

facilities, because we need those facilities very much.

Having said that, I'm just going to ask the minister to address

those remarks, because they are matters of considerable significance to

those of us in the interior. I know that cuts across party lines.

MRS. BOONE: This is an area that is of great concern to many

of us. It is very important to those of us who live outside the lower

mainland, because in many instances we depend on open learning and the

Open Learning Institute to obtain our education.

[11:30]

The point I want to make — I hope the minister really listens to

this — is that I do not believe in any way that by increasing the scope

of the Open Learning Institute or by promoting it in such a way, it is

going to take the place of a university in the various parts of the

province. There was a time when a Minister of Post-Secondary Education

came to Prince George and said that there was absolutely no way that

they would receive a university in that area, that any university

education could be obtained through the Open Learning Institute. At

that time the college principal, Charles McCaffray, very aptly stated:

"Well, if that's the case, if university education can be obtained for

us via the Open Learning Institute, then why are we bothering building

universities at all? If it's good enough for us, then it ought to be

good enough for you people in the lower mainland as well."

I want to make the point that a university structure outside the

lower mainland in various parts of B.C., including Prince George and

the Kootenays and the Okanagan area, is an absolute requirement, as I

see it, for a community to grow. It needs to be there for economic

development. It needs to be considered as part of the entire growth of

that community. So often we do not consider the educational aspects and

how they relate to economic development. I think these things go hand

in hand, that you cannot develop economically unless you also grow

educationally. Companies look to communities to find out what their

educational requirements are, what they've got to offer employees, what

they can gain from that

[ Page 2949 ]

community for their employees, and what they will

have to give to their people when they think in terms of moving there.

I appreciate any improvements that will bring about better quality

education and greater access to education for those outside the lower

mainland area. But I must emphasize that this does not in any way

replace a full-grown university-type program that could exist within

communities.

As an aside, and similar to what my colleague from the Kootenays

said, it's really important that the ministry understand the various

areas. For that reason, I hope that board members will be appointed on

a regional basis, and that they will be representative of their areas.

When I go to places, I've often found that they say: "Well, it's not

possible for me to obtain the Open Learning Institute here, because the

channel that the Knowledge Network comes on is scrambled in this area."

That's not an uncommon thing to happen. So we need to have people from

the regions who know what the particular problems are, who can explain

to the board what's happening there, so that they know distances, if

there are problems in communication, what facts are involved and how

realistic various approaches are in those areas. I hope the minister

will consider appointments on a regional basis, and that we don't see a

board such as this dominated by people from the lower mainland, who

often have no knowledge of what goes on beyond Hope. I think that's

probably fair to say — from all sides of the House.

I see the minister nodding his head over there, so I take it he's in

agreement with this. But you haven't heard the last from me in regard

to a university in the north.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to make some comments in second

reading of this bill. The first thing I would like to do is just go

back a little in history. Unfortunately, because of the timing of the

presentation of this bill, I have to rely on my memory. I haven't had

as much opportunity as I would have liked to do research and to bring

more detailed information into the comments I'm going to make.

As I see it, this bill, in its simplest form, amalgamates two

existing educational organizations within the province: the Knowledge

Network and the Opening Learning Institute. First of all, I'd like to

note that, particularly with the Open Learning Institute.... When it

was first introduced in the province, my recollection is that it sprung

fairly well full-blown off the head of the then minister. I'm not sure

if he was Minister of Education or Minister of Post-Secondary Education

at that time, but it came into being out of an idea that he had in a

eureka kind of way. He had some consultation with Britain, which is an

island of very dense population where people may, in fact, not have

access to post-secondary education for some of the same reasons that we

do not have access for all of our people — lack of facilities. But the

very nature of the geography, population and demography of that country

was very different.

It seems to me that in some ways this amalgamation is springing up

in somewhat the same full-blown way. It was introduced yesterday

without even the presence of the minister, and we are going to move

fairly quickly to discuss it in the House.

I am disappointed with that kind of process when we're looking at a

major educational reform. I say that not because I don't think we

should be having major educational reform, but because I would be much

more comfortable with a process that lets us know that consultations

had occurred among the various parties who were going to be concerned

about this agency; that there had been some opportunity, perhaps, for

discussion to take place, as it did with the establishment of the

colleges before they were instituted in the province, and that a lot of

those processes are in place.

I think the reason for that is that although the minister gets the

very best of advice — and I know he is a very hardworking person in

gathering that advice — it seems to me that at times we move too

quickly in getting that advice. There isn't an awareness of process.

We've talked a lot around a number of major initiatives that have been

occurring in the province, about the importance of process to people in

understanding what the goals and objectives are, and the framing of the

legislation or the reaulations or the decisions that would implement

good and productive changes.

I would just note in the context of this bill coming down that

yesterday the minister made public a report on the future of BCIT; a

report, as I understand it, that was commissioned not by the minister

but by the Premier, with the report going to the Premier and not

specifically originally to the Advanced Education and Job Training

ministry. There are significant changes suggested in that report.

Out of that process, which again seems to come out of the Premier's

office rather than out of the minister's office and which he has now

accepted and is beginning to work on, I would hope that the process of

responding to any recommendations in that report would involve some

open dialogue among the education community.

The second thing that I want to note is that the purposes of this

agency are very far reaching, certainly to concur with the intent that

I think is inherent in the bill, that there should be greater access. I

don't need to repeat to the minister the record of this province in

terms of access to education in regions outside the lower mainland. He

knows it well, and I know it is a concern of his.

Something in the order of 5 percent of students who go on to take a

university degree.... We know too that in the college level there are

people who go so far in their academic and career training, but because

there isn't access in their communities, they aren't able, for

financial reasons, to go further.

We had an opportunity to discuss some of that informally yesterday

around some of our mutual concerns, and I think we both agreed that

education available to students where they live has one very beneficial

result for our province: people very often then stay within the

geographic area in which they've grown up to work there. I agree that

this is something that meets the aspirations of young people, and

people going on with lifelong learning — to remain in communities where

they have an affinity and a commitment to those communities.

However, this is a very broad-ranging bill in the kinds of changes

that it may make possible, and it is very minimally flushed out in the

purposes that are defined for that agency. I want to just associate

myself with my colleague for Kootenay around some of the concerns that

we have about education in the remoter regions of the province that do

not provide people with an opportunity for hands-on instruction and

contact with instructors. Certainly that's very characteristic of open

universities upon which our own were originally modelled in Britain.

I think I also want to associate myself with the comments of my

colleague for Prince George. In no way should this particular bill be

seen to preempt the need for institutions that are degree granting and

that require full or virtually full

[ Page 2950 ]

attendance in order for people to achieve that particular status.

There are a number of details that I want to go into in much greater

length, but I would like to have more opportunity than I've had at the

present time, since this bill was tabled for the first time yesterday

without any prior notice, to my knowledge, to look at those clauses. I

look forward to the thrust of clause-by-clause debate with the minister

to follow up on the specific aspects of this quite far-reaching bill.

MR. REE: I find this bill very positive and very ongoing. For

some time I have felt that our educational institutions, particularly

in the classics and at the secondary level, are archaic in their

methods of teaching. I guess 1,000 or 2,000 years ago, teachers stood

up in front of a class and lectured to them and taught them. We are

still doing this 2,000 years later. There is no change in the actual

method or form of teaching.

This bill is far reaching because it is starting to implement and

use the new technology — technology which we have had for some time.

Although, as I said, it is now fairly new, it is broad enough to

incorporate additional technology as it is developed over the coming

years.

I see no reason why we need the archaic classroom in a great number of teaching situations.

MS. A. HAGEN: Shame!

MR. REE: I expected such comments of "shame!" coming from the opposition, who are the great supporters of the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

There will be a great change in the future in the methods of

teaching and in the qualifications of teachers with respect to

teaching. I recognize the need, in most instances, of hands-on teaching

with respect to a student, but that hands-on teaching need not be the

standing in front of a classroom to lecture and teach from that

position. The hands-on teaching will, I believe, in the future develop

as a motivator. What a student will require more is a motivator.

[11:45]

We have the technology today where thousands of people could be

taught the same subject matter at the same time. We are also

developing.... The technology is there but cannot be implemented yet

because of a question of costs. A thousand students over a thousand

individual minutes could punch in and get that course, each one on a

different minute cycle. They could play it back. So you could have a

thousand students taking the same subject, not at the same time, but

certainly in the same time-frame. That technology is going to be there.

It could accommodate the slower learners and the more efficient

learners. What we are going to need in our educational field, as far as

teachers are concerned, are motivators and communicators through this

technology, rather than standing in front of a classroom and reading

the same notes year after year.

Mr. Speaker, we could cut down on the number of teachers teaching the same

course. As I suggest, we could have one teacher almost provincewide teaching

that course. I recognize that there are many courses where you are going to

require the classroom scene. Certainly in some science courses and the science

courses at university, the classroom scene would be needed. But the new technology

can teach courses such as law. I see no reason why we have to have the same

classroom situation in law school that we have had for many years.

One of the members of the opposition was sort of averse to

correspondence courses. They didn't think they suited; people couldn't

learn from them. I certainly disagiee with that, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I

leave myself open on this, but I took grade 11 by correspondence course.

AN HON. MEMBER: It shows.

MR. REE: I had no problems with it. I had no problems either

with grade 12, and I did graduate with a law degree from university. So

maybe it does show. Maybe the value of the correspondence course does

show — maybe favourably, Madam Member.

MR. JONES: It was said that it was a low completion rate. That's all that was said.

MR. REE: Maybe the low completion rate, yes, lacks the

motivator, not the teacher. Because the education is there. The

information is there; it is available. The motivator is required, not

the teacher. Correspondence courses can, if the student has the

initiative, the motivation, be of great value as an adjunct to the open

learning method, through our other means of communication. They could

complement each other.

I strongly support this bill; I think it is going to be a great

adjunct to the educational knowledge of the members of our community. I

know British Columbia, with its Knowledge Network and other educational

facilities, is in the forefront in the world, and I anticipate we will

become an example in the world and will benefit from that. It's a

pleasure to speak on behalf of this bill, which I believe is very

positive.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to close the debate from our caucus on

this bill on the Open Learning Institute, not by going over the

well-expressed remarks of other members of our caucus from Burnaby

North, from the Kootenay and from New Westminster; what I'm going to do

is say that we as New Democrats think the concept of opening up

educational learning opportunities for British Columbians is a good

one. The idea of using modern technology in McLuhan's world of the

global network is a good one, particularly in a province which is 95

percent mountainous, so that it's very difficult for people to travel

and very difficult for radio signals to be received and to use the

latest in modern technology — including the battle about getting

receivers for those signals throughout British Columbia in remote and

rural communities. The idea of using satellites and satellite receivers

and of an institute that can make learning and education and extended

knowledge available to British Columbians wherever they live in this

great province of ours is a good concept.

Also, the idea of extending adult education is very important. I

think most people are aware that it's anticipated that people will have

three to five career or job changes during their life. In a modern

world you need skills to be able to do the work that's available in our

economy. So that's a good concept.

But you've heard some of the concerns of our caucus about abuse,

about access in a real sense, hands-on teaching — even given the

controversial success of the member from the north shore in his

correspondence courses and his feeling that it's an either-or. You

either have hands-on or you have this new technology. We think it's a

mix. So those have been expressed. I also know Dr. Walter Hardwick, who

had a very

[ Page 2951 ]

great role and was a pioneer in putting this

together. He's an old friend of mine and played a very active role. So

I'm aware, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure the minister knows, that I have

been kept fully up to date on the operations of the Knowledge Network

and these other initiatives.

We have two concerns that I want to emphasize in my remarks before

we adjourn. The first one is in regard to the existing institutions. We

have a number of statements, letters, petitions and meetings that the

minister has received and had with people like Dr. Strangway of UBC,

Dr. Saywell of Simon Fraser, Dr. Petch of the University of Victoria

and with college administrators outlining a number of serious problems

they're having with ageing plants, with the replacement of professors

over the next ten years. The professors are ageing very quickly, and

there's a need for a large number of master's and PhD students in this

province, and it's a very competitive situation right across North

America.

We have the problem of ageing plants, the need to do just basic

maintenance. They have been neglected for a number of years now for

economic reasons, or because of conscious policy decisions over the

last few years. We feel that those existing institutions should not

suffer with any new initiatives that are taken.

We also, Mr. Speaker, are quite aware of the fact that up to 8,000

students have been turned away from the doors of the colleges because

of a variety of reasons that I won't go into here. They've been dealt

with before.

So that is our first major concern that I would like to express to

the minister, Mr. Speaker. We cannot neglect the existing fine

institutions that we have in this province which are into a catch-up

and keep-up challenge of very massive proportions in terms of training

and finding the necessary professors and instructors that we need, of

bringing their plants up to a proper standard of maintenance and of

replacing ageing facilities, and we don't need to neglect the existing

institutions.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, and I would like the minister to hear this,

it is very important for British Columbia's development that we do not

foreclose the very real need in this province to build this province by

having hands-on teaching institutions in the north and the interior,

which are more than the fine two-year degree-granting colleges that we

have now.

We have built railroads, highways and hydroelectric systems, and we have built

all of these economic development tools. Well, we've got another one, and

that's education: an absolutely essential investment in the young people

of this province. I picked that up everywhere I've been in this province

this year. I visited 110 different communities, and I've met hundreds and

hundreds of young people who feel that they have no option but to leave their

home towns. I think that's a real tragedy, that our fine communities like

Nelson, where I spoke to a high school class.... Ninety percent of them

felt they had to leave Nelson because there weren't educational and job

opportunities. In Vanderhoof, Dawson Creek, aAlberni — throughout this province

there are communities that are losing their lifeblood, the young, because there

aren't educational opportunities in the north and the interior.

That's why we feel very strongly — and we'd like to work with the

minister — that there should be a four-year degree-granting institution

in Prince George to serve the north. In the largest tree-farm licence

area and the largest forestry area we have, it could specialize in

forestry. Then we could have some of the functions of BCIT and UBC, as

satellite programs there, to specialize in forestry, and we could have

our young people becoming foresters and forest technicians and

entrepreneurs who do more than just make 2-by-4s and produce pulp

bales; who replant the forest and are tree-farmers. On the other side,

as we have pointed out continually, we could add more value to the

trees, the logs we cut down, by way of furniture. computer paper and

all the other products that add so much value and so many jobs to the

great treefarm that we are here in British Columbia.

We feel, Mr. Speaker, that there needs to be another institution in

the interior, a four-year degree-granting institution, not just

academic but also technoloaical and vocational. There is a tremendous

need there. It could possibly also specialize in mining and

agriculture, which are two significant activities in the Cariboo and

throughout the Okanagan and into the Kootenays.

Mr. Speaker, those are the two major concerns that we want to pass on to the

minister and that we would like to follow up with him, to develop these two

major challenges we face, of maintaining and improving our existing institutions

and continuing province-building with the greatest investment we can make: the

young people, the displaced workers who need new skills, particularly in the

north and the interior — and that there be new institutions for them.

MR. SPEAKER: I would advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. S. HAGEN: Will I have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to answer the questions this afternoon?

MR. SPEAKER: If you act into committee.

HON. S. HAGEN: Well. I want to respond to the questions that were asked, but I'm looking at the time.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that if you adjourn as House Leader, we can come back and you can close debate this afternoon.

Hon. S. Hagen moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Hagen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:58 p.m

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada