1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 6

[ Page 11617 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Sihota: With the indulgence of the House, I have a number of introductions to make today. Some very important guests in the visitors' gallery are the recipients of British Columbia's environment awards. Each year the Minister of Environment honours individuals, organizations and businesses who have made a contribution to the environment in British Columbia. I would like to introduce the recipients of the awards who are here with us today.

There are six winners in the individual category. With us today are Ted Barsby of Nanaimo, Melda Buchanan of Comox, Ric Careless of Vancouver, Bob and Nancy McMinn of Victoria and Leo Rutledge of Hudson's Hope. Randy Stoltmann of Vancouver will also be honoured with an award to be given posthumously, in recognition of his dedication to the environment. As members may know, Randy died in a tragic mountaineering accident two weeks ago. His parents Frank and Alita are joining us in the Legislature today.

The winner in the youth category this year is Students Acting for Global Awareness of Maple Ridge. Nadine Raynolds and Dwight Milford are in the gallery from that organization.

Mayor Sandy Santori of Trail is here to accept an award on behalf of the Trail Community Lead Task Force. There are also recipients on behalf of the Chilko Lake Study Team, namely Annie William, who is the band administrator and former chief of the Nemaiah band, Charyl Flinton of Share the Cariboo Resources group, and Jay MacArthur, co-chair of the Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C. Rusty Joerin from the Brant Festival is also here to receive an award in the community and municipality category.

Finally, in the business and industry category, Suzanne Dill is here from Fairy Treats Family Restaurant of Kootenay Bay, and Jim Wigglesworth is here from Penticton to represent Penticton Paper Shuffle. Lastly, Neil Brookes of Enderby is here to accept an award in the environmental education category on behalf of the Kingfisher Environmental Interpretive Centre.

Hon. Speaker, I would ask that all members of the House join me in extending a warm welcome and congratulating these individuals and organizations in their success in securing the 1994 environmental awards.

D. Lovick: On your behalf, hon. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce two guests. One is a special guest and the other is a very special guest. The special guest is well known to many of us in the chamber, namely Janet Stockton Barnes. The very special guest is an 85-year-old woman from Los Angeles, California, who I understand came here with one particular purpose in mind, namely to check up on the kid. The kid of course is our hon. Speaker. I ask all members to please join me in offering a very warm welcome to Mrs. Anne Boullon, the Speaker's mother.

The Speaker: Hi, Mom. [Laughter.] Oh, boy.

Are there any further introductions?

K. Jones: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This is a very special day for you.

Visiting with us today is a group of students from my riding, Surrey-Cloverdale, from the elementary school called William of Orange Christian School. Approximately 21 grade 7 students are here. Their teacher is Mr. Mel Deglint. Some of their parents are here with them. They've been touring the precincts and enjoying a beautiful day in Victoria and the surrounding area. They've actually been camping here for the last two days and will continue through the weekend. I'd like to ask the House to extend a warm welcome to them.

R. Chisholm: I'd like the House to welcome 70 grade 5 and 6 students with Mr. D'Archangelo from Chilliwack Central Elementary School. They're here to enjoy democracy in action. I hope we put on a good show for them. Would you make them most welcome.

S. Hammell: A group of 80 grade 5 students from Simon Cunningham Elementary in Surrey is in the gallery today. With them are their teachers, Ms. Stemler and Mrs. Wallace. Could the House please make them welcome.

E. Conroy: I'd like to welcome the mayor of the city of Trail to the Legislature today. When a city like Trail takes the bull by the horns and shows there is some environmental cleanup that can be done -- and it's being done and recognized -- I think the city of Trail deserves full applause for that. I welcome the mayor and wish the rest of the House to make him welcome as well.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, yesterday the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society pleaded guilty to stealing charity money. The special prosecutor, Ace Henderson, said: "If you want a full public airing of evidence or testimony, the public inquiry is the forum for that." My question is for the Premier. Will the Premier commit today to following the recommendation of the special prosecutor and fully air this information before the public, so the people of British Columbia will know who in the NDP is responsible for stealing money from charities?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the special prosecutor made it very clear that he was looking at the issue of criminal charges and that a number of the concerns he was being asked about were not before him. I think this question is going to be before the court. There will be sentencing representations, there will be sentencing and then there will be an appeal period. I have said...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. M. Harcourt: ...that I certainly would encourage the prosecutor's report to be made available. Until we see the contents of that report, statements like the one the Leader of the Opposition has made are premature.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member?

G. Campbell: I am sorry that the Premier doesn't understand that a full public inquiry into this matter is essential for everybody in British Columbia, including this government. I can tell you this, hon. Speaker: if this government isn't willing to hold a full public inquiry and if

[ Page 11618 ]

we ever form government, I guarantee you there will be a full public inquiry into this matter. It is absolutely essential.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

[2:15]

G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. For the Premier to have the audacity to suggest that the charities broke the law because there wasn't enough supervision from the Socreds is kind of like a bank robber saying: "I robbed the bank because the door was open." It's hardly worthwhile, but will the Premier today...? How can the Premier possibly say to the people of British Columbia that the fact that NDP fundraisers broke the law, committed a criminal act, is the fault of the former Social Credit government?

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: This affair is clearly casting a shadow over not just this NDP government but the entire NDP. The Premier said yesterday that Mr. Stupich and others involved in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society were simply taking advantage of some loose rules to get out of debt. Loose rules? We're talking about a society that has pleaded guilty to criminal acts, not to taking advantage of loose rules. When will the Premier start to learn and understand that taking advantage of loose rules is one thing, and committing criminal acts against the people of British Columbia another?

Will the Premier not show some leadership? Will he not be accountable for his party and for his government and have a full public inquiry and start that now, commit to that today?

Hon. M. Harcourt: When this matter was first brought to the Legislature's attention a couple of years ago, I made it very clear to representatives of the New Democratic Party that the relationship between the New Democratic Party and the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society should be severed. That took place.

Secondly, allegations were made by the Liberal opposition that MLAs were misusing their constituency allotments. That matter was investigated by the conflict-of-interest commissioner. After investigating that, the conflict-of-interest commissioner exonerated, cleared, every one of the MLAs. Those funds were used properly for constituency purposes.

I have said that when this matter has followed the due process of law -- and we respect that due process of law -- I will encourage the special prosecutor to release his report. At that time, after we've all had a chance to review the report -- instead of having the language that has coloured this Legislature -- we will be able to see what should proceed next.

W. Hurd: Over the last 24 hours we have been subjected to an astonishing number of comments from the government with respect to this case, the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Investment said the society was "caught in the land crash of the 1980s and they ran afoul of some of the regulations."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

I'd ask the hon. member to please permit the Chair to do his job. Hon. members, it's very difficult when you have issues that appear, even to the Chair, at some point, to be sub judice and that on the other hand, are not so clear in terms of whether they are in order or not. I'm doing my best to allow members to express their legitimate concerns during question period. However, it is totally inappropriate when members lose the respect that all members should be accorded when they're asking questions or giving answers. It would be of great assistance if I could have that courtesy.

Would the hon. member please proceed.

W. Hurd: The Minister of Employment and Investment said they ran afoul of some regulations. What they really ran afoul of was the Criminal Code of Canada.

My question is to the Attorney General. In order to clear up the confusion between what the Premier has committed to with the release of both the Attorney General's report and the RCMP report into this investigation.... Will he commit today to release both those reports so the people of the province can get to the bottom of this sordid mess in Nanaimo?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: From the beginning in this matter, the Assistant Deputy Attorney General for the criminal justice branch has taken conduct of the case, and he did so, in the beginning, by appointing a special prosecutor. He did so in this case because, as members know, the Owen report of 1991 recommended that there be a clear distinction, a clear separation, of the administration of justice when cases came before us that had a potential political overtone.

From the very beginning in this case, there has been no political involvement by the government or the Attorney General; nor will there be at this point in this case; nor will there be at any point in this case. This matter is in the hands of the special prosecutor and the Assistant Deputy Attorney General, and it will stay there, because that's the thrust of the Crown Counsel Act. I am not going to use the authority the act gives to give special directions, because I think that is moving into a political arena, which I will not move into.

The Speaker: A supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: The special prosecutor has advised the people of the province that he will not release the report without the ordering of a special inquiry. On the basis of the special prosecutor calling for an official inquiry, how can the Premier sit there today and refuse to call for that inquiry? Will the Premier call today for a special inquiry into this affair in which Nanaimo charities were ripped off for hundreds of thousands of dollars? Will he stand today and tell the people of the province that he is going to call for that inquiry?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Liberal opposition has gone from using highly charged and coloured language to manufacturing what other people have or haven't said, and that is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to say that the RCMP report -- which reports are not released in any case -- should be released here. The members know better. The Liberal opposition knows, for a whole series of reasons, that that never, ever takes place. I have made it clear that I would like to see the special prosecutor's report released so that we can review it in public.

When the special prosecutor has completed his presentation -- which he will be doing -- on the sentencing hearing, the sentencing itself and the appeal procedure, we will be able to see his report at that time.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

[ Page 11619 ]

W. Hurd: Yesterday the Premier was quoted in the media as saying that events in Nanaimo were prompted by a sour real estate market. Unfortunately, it appears the government has outlined their new policy: honesty based on market conditions. My question to the Premier is: can he stand in the assembly today and say that he is proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party, given the fact that his party stands accused -- and has been found convicted -- of ripping off charities in Nanaimo?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If members will check my statements of two years ago, I think they'll find I made it clear at that time that the New Democratic Party disassociated itself from the activities of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, and when this information became known, that its activities were not to be involved with the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I was very unhappy at that time, and I'm very unhappy at this time.

PROFIT ON LAND REMOVED FROM ALR

R. Neufeld: My question is to the minister responsible for lands. While in opposition, the NDP said that profits realized on private land removed from the ALR should be shared with the government because they are windfall profits. Now we learn that the previously unreleased 1992 Peat Marwick review on agriculture also recommended this outrageous scheme as a way to maximize profits for government. Can the minister tell us if the government has come to its senses and rejected their earlier stand and Peat Marwick's advice?

Hon. M. Sihota: This is a sensible and rational government that makes rational, pragmatic decisions.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: Many property owners bought their land from the Crown subject to covenants which stipulated it be used for agricultural purposes. One of my constituents has been told that his covenant will be lifted, but only if he pays the government the difference between his land's value as an agricultural parcel versus its potential as a rural residential subdivision. Can the minister explain why the government would go through this, which amounts to extortion of the value received through rezoning?

Hon. M. Sihota: If the hon. member has a problem in his constituency with a constituent, I would be happy to take a look into the matter.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: It would be nice if the minister would give an answer. We notice we don't get an answer from the Premier on their little scam in Nanaimo. Maybe they should give an answer on this one.

I have a letter here which states:

"B.C. Lands will agree to lift the covenant, subject to payment of the difference in the current market value as an agricultural parcel and the value as a rural residential subdivision."

This is on 21 acres covered with trees in northern British Columbia. It's ridiculous. Doesn't the minister realize that this is nothing more than extortion by his government? How can he tolerate such an abuse of private property rights?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. M. Sihota: The hon. member raises an issue in correspondence that he hasn't tabled before this House, and he refers to covenants which I haven't seen and conditions with which I am not familiar until I see them. We may be able to deal with the problem that his constituent has. It seems to me that if the hon. member were deeply and sincerely concerned about the situation faced by his constituent, he wouldn't be grandstanding in this House. He would be bringing the matter to me directly or through the policy mechanisms within the ministry. If nothing else, the way in which the member has raised the issue demonstrates again his lack of understanding of how the parliamentary system works.

IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW DIRECTIONS PROGRAM

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities declared that New Directions is out of control and demanded that this minister suspend this impossible plan. There is no one left who supports this plan. How many protests must be made on the steps of this Legislature before he will finally admit that his efforts to implement New Directions have been a complete and utter failure?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The UBCM has been involved from the beginning in the plans for implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and in the regionalization of control in decision-making regarding health care. We are developing a framework to assess local needs carefully and involve local people in doing that. We will continue to do so.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: The Union of British Columbia Municipalities -- 179 municipalities -- have said to this minister: "Stop. Patient care in this province is suffering." By October of this year, he will have fast-tracked this process. We will have 21 regional boards in this province. Will the minister finally put the health of British Columbians before his pride and admit that the fast-track implementation of New Directions is off track and off base?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to assure members of this House and the public of British Columbia that the reform of health care governance in this province will not jeopardize the quality of health care they can expect.

Last fall, the UBCM contacted me and said we needed to speed up the implementation of New Directions; this spring they have contacted me and said they have concerns about some of the decisions that have been made. From the very beginning, the UBCM has been an important partner in the New Directions process. They continue to participate around this province; they continue to serve on community health councils and steering committees. Like all stakeholders, the UBCM may disagree with some decisions that are made but not with others. This is to be expected.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell terminates question period.

Hon. J. Pement tabled the annual report of B.C. Rail.

[ Page 11620 ]

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK

Hon. J. Pement: I would like to inform the Legislature that June 5 to 11 is National Transportation Week. This week, I invite the people of British Columbia to join Canadians across Canada in celebrating the contributions transportation makes to our economy.

[2:30]

Here in British Columbia we have a lot to celebrate. The deficit is down, jobs are up and our economy....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Hon. J. Pement: Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. J. Pement: Mr. Speaker....

The Speaker: Would the hon. minister just wait until we can get some order. Would hon. members please permit the minister to make her ministerial statement. I hope when there are responses that you will receive the same courtesy. Please proceed, hon. minister.

Hon. J. Pement: Before I was rudely interrupted, I must say.... The deficit is down and jobs are up. Our economy is one of the strongest in North America, and it's getting stronger every day. We're in a good position to begin working to fulfil the promise of British Columbia.

As part of the B.C. 21 capital development strategy, we are building a safe and efficient, fully integrated transportation system to serve the people of British Columbia for today and for the next century. The economic benefits of transportation construction will be maximized and shared in all regions of the province. Jobs, training and tendering opportunities will be created for local workers and businesses.

When developing B.C.'s transportation network, we will protect the environment and our communities. We will encourage the use of environment-friendly alternatives, work with environmental agencies to lessen the impact of transportation development on the environment, and liaise with local governments to integrate land use with transportation planning to create a more livable community.

Transportation is not just about rails, roads, boats and airplanes; it's about business, industry and communities. Above all, it's about people. With that in mind, I ask you to join me in recognizing the people in British Columbia who work to keep our transportation network running smoothly, because it is people who plan, build and maintain our transportation network.

D. Symons: I would like to thank the minister for the advance copy of her ministerial statement; I appreciate that courtesy.

I would add Liberal support for recognizing the importance of transportation in our society, both for the economic health of our province and for the convenience of our citizens and tourists. I am pleased that this government has belatedly recognized the importance of transportation. I say belatedly, since for the first two and a half years of their mandate they virtually froze any highway capital construction and only completed those projects for which the previous government had already let contracts. It is refreshing to note that as they are reaching the end of their mandate, they have now resurrected black-top politics.

We do have a lot to celebrate in this province. We are blessed with a land of beauty and rich resources that have helped to carry us over the tough times faced by much of the rest of Canada. There are, however, some problems that have not been addressed but that need addressing. The provincial debt continues to grow at an ever-increasing rate, and along with that the size of government and bureaucracy has also increased. Despite our relatively strong economy, more and more of our tax dollars are going into paying the interest on the debt and not into services. This trend must be reversed.

We in Canada need a national transportation policy and agency. Through the provincial highways ministers, there is a fledgling start to such a program, but there needs to be a more determined effort on the part of all players to get it off the ground. I have proposed, both last year and again this year -- but it has yet to come forward in this House -- a motion that would ask the federal government to return at least 50 percent of the federal fuel tax -- some $500 million for B.C. -- to the province of origin in the form of transportation projects. This could become the funding arm for a national transportation agency.

We recognize that there are limited financial resources, and they must be wisely allocated. A good, efficient transportation system delivers economic benefits to us all. Quick delivery of services and goods helps our businesses compete in today's markets. Our beautiful scenery, combined with good transportation, is a tourist magnet.

Transportation Week helps to remind us of the important part that our highways and transport play in our lives every day. I hope it also makes us realize that our preoccupation with the automobile cannot continue. Viable alternative modes of transport must be developed now to meet the needs of tomorrow.

L. Hanson: It certainly is a surprise to me to hear this government's dedication to transportation in British Columbia. They inherited a provincial transportation infrastructure that recognized the important social and economic benefits to the province and also the need for a dedicated funding scheme that contributes dollars over the years.

It would be most interesting to look at the record of this government. They've presented no new initiatives; they've given us no long-term vision. Last year this government collected more in highway tolls, gas taxes, licence plate fees, vehicle permits and other related revenue than it spent on the entire budget for the Ministry of Highways. They collected $1.2 billion from the transportation systems of B.C. and spent approximately $750 million. The capital record of this government shows that in 1991-92 there was $388 million -- almost $400 million -- dedicated to capital construction for highways.

They have progressed to the point where, in this year's budget, $10 million is dedicated to capital construction.

When you know these facts, it's unbelievable that the minister could brag about the deficit being down. The sad truth is that the minister has been not thrifty, but she has been ignored in the budgetary process. Highways spending has been moved from her ministry to a Crown corporation. The province has changed from a pay-as-you-go system to a debt-driven one, borrowing more than $300 million for highways construction through B.C. 21. Decisions about highways spending have been hidden away in B.C. 21 as well.

[ Page 11621 ]

Why? The government believes all government spending is political spending. They want to spend highways money in ways that benefit constituencies, based on their political importance to the NDP. They want to benefit the union bosses who bankroll the NDP election campaigns.

We have no difficulty in recognizing that transportation is one of the most important responsibilities of government. We certainly have no difficulty in recognizing all of the many thousands of people who keep our systems working and safe, and we certainly support that. An efficient transportation system moves goods to market, people to places and tourists to our towns. It is the most important economic development tool that governments can create.

But this government has ignored the importance of our transportation infrastructure and has allowed it to deteriorate. Since they got into office, the opinion that transportation is not a priority has been proven. This government proceeds to cut spending and force highways contractors across the province to sell equipment and lay off their workers. Now, through B.C. 21, it is encouraging these contractors to buy that equipment back -- as long as they become a closed union shop.

Not only has this government's transportation policy been deceitful and political, it has been disrupting and damaging to the economy of British Columbia. This government has no vision and no interest in building this province through efficient and cost-effective transportation developments. Having said that, we do recognize the importance of transportation not only to British Columbia but to Canada, and to the people who have made transportation what it is today -- with no credit to this government.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast rises on what matter?

G. Wilson: I ask leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave not granted.

D. Lovick: I rise pursuant to standing order 40 on a point of order. I raise this issue without rancour but only because I'm concerned about what seems to be happening more and more in this chamber.

The member for Peace River North, in posing a question to the Minister of Environment and challenging a policy of that minister, accused the government of extortion. Extortion, to my understanding, is a criminal offence under the Criminal Code, and that is simply....

Interjections.

D. Lovick: Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the lack of respect for this chamber is demonstrated instantly by members opposite, who won't even allow the point to be made.

The point I am making is that the standing orders are very clear what is admissible or permissible language and what is not. With the greatest possible civility and deference, I want to suggest to my colleague the member for Peace River North that he was quite out of order, and I think he ought to voluntarily agree to withdraw that reference to extortion. It is entirely inappropriate and out of order.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the same point of order, I think the member makes a valid point. It seems to be that time of year, as we wind toward the end of the legislative session. But hon. Speaker, I would caution that member to take some time to read Hansard, and read the comments made by his own caucus members, including the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. Perhaps he could rise on the same point of order in objection to comments made by that member.

J. Weisgerber: I was going to suggest that indeed it was only the members of the government, when in opposition, who perfected the art of inflammatory language, and those members across the way know very well of what I speak. Indeed, having sat in the House for five years and listened to comments from the member for Nanaimo, and from the majority of the cabinet, I think the word "extortion" is rather soft language. Indeed, when I look at the conduct of this government over the last little while, "extortion" again seems like rather soft language for this government.

I recognize that there is a need to approach this House with the dignity that it deserves. But indeed, words like "extortion" are simply part of the dialogue that has gone on in this chamber longer than I've been in it, and as long, I suspect, Mr. Speaker, as you've been here. I know that with your experience and your wisdom, you'll recognize just how frivolous this point of order really is.

G. Wilson: I think the comments made by the member for Nanaimo should be taken with notice. If we are to do the people's business in this House, it seems to me that we have to have respect for all members. If there is a member who believes they have been impugned by unparliamentary language, it is customary for a member to stand and withdraw.

I have noticed the lack of decorum in this House, and I echo what the member for Nanaimo was suggesting. There are many matters in which individual privileges of members are being abused. The usual custom is that the government, not an opposition, denies an independent member leave to stand up and respond to a ministerial statement, for it is generally not the opposition that is fearful to hear from another member of the opposition but the government.

[2:45]

I think there are many ways in which the rules of this House can be tightened in order to let parliamentary business be done in a manner that not only respects the dignity and privileges of all members of this House but, more importantly, demonstrates a level of dignity to the people of British Columbia we purport to represent.

The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo for presenting his matter. I must say that the Chair, as well, is very disturbed by the tone of things in this House of late. It's quite apropos that he raises the matter, and I appreciate the comments by all members on this subject. I certainly intend, at the earliest opportunity, to come back with a statement in response to this situation in which we find ourselves.

Presenting Petitions

D. Mitchell: I rise to present a petition. This petition deals with the long-awaited, long-delayed reforms of recall and initiative. The petition says:

"...whereas the attached petition from over 80,000 citizens of this province gathered since the 1993 provincial budget indicates that there is an anxious public waiting for an opportunity to participate in such forms of direct democracy, therefore the undersigned petitioners respectfully request that this hon. House do now bring forward legislation which will provide for these democratic reforms, empower this province's citizenry, and recognize the expressed desire of the electorate.

[ Page 11622 ]

"And that this hon. House ensure that such legislation will be effective in its ability to fulfil the mandate given in the 1991 referendums."

Mr. Speaker, 80,000 British Columbians have signed this petition.

The Speaker tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library and the 1993 annual report of the ombudsman's office.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Government Services. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 22.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 22; D. Lovick in the chair.

S. Hammell: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hammell: The second half of those 80 grade 5 students from Simon Cunningham are just leaving the gallery. Before they leave, could the House please make these students welcome.

The Chair: I call the committee to order. We are on Bill 22 and, I believe, on

section 3,

section 9. Shall

section 9 pass?

L. Reid: I believe we have canvassed

section 9 in some detail. I would simply ask the minister to clarify community representation. I understand that last time he said that eight bodies would be appointed to the process. Could he very briefly give me some sense as to how that process will happen?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I indicated last time that we have constructed the bill so that the ratio of representatives of the public to the additional representatives -- staff and students -- being added through this bill would never be less than the two-thirds to one-third prescribed in the bill. We are certainly not limited, as currently, although the existing act calls for five, I believe, in some instances, public representatives.... I think in one case I cited about 17.

The process is really very difficult to describe, because there is no precise process. We canvass people in the community; we request the president and the board chair to supply us with recommended names. We generally canvass, as you would normally expect, and take all the names that are submitted under advisement. We strive for a balance. We clearly want people who have the interest of the college at heart -- in other words, not someone to sit on the board just for the sake of being there, but someone who has a genuine interest in the issues.

We try to make a decision that reflects this government's view that we should try to reflect the makeup of our society, with respect to gender issues, ethnic issues, aboriginal representation and people from the business community. In my view, people from the labour community should be involved, and they are.

We try to reflect the makeup of our society, and I think we do, for the most part. I'm quite pleased with the people I've met who were appointed prior to my term of office, or prior to me taking this job, and with those I've since appointed. I hope that answers the member's questions. Ultimately the decision does come to me, and I must take it to my colleagues for their endorsement.

The Chair: Before proceeding and recognizing the member for Richmond East, let me just point this out to members, to clarify, if I may, some confusion. There is apparently a discrepancy between Orders of the Day and Hansard. I understand that we have dealt with

section 3,

section 9, on division. Technically, then, we ought not to be discussing it. However, given the minister's willingness to answer and the legitimate desire for information on the part of the member, perhaps we can entertain one more question before we go to

section 3,

section 10.

L. Reid: If I may beg the minister's indulgence, the question that has come to me regarding the board process has simply been whether or not the people who live in the community around the said institution or college will be drawn into the board process. Will it be representative of that locale, as opposed to the broader academic community at large?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it will. The distinction, if I could make it, between those and the university boards is that the university boards frequently have members who represent broader public interests and who may not necessarily reside in the community in which the university is located. Universities aren't limited. In other words, they're not prescribed by boundaries; colleges are. Although individual students are free to attend wherever they may want to within British Columbia, every college has a specific boundary, and the members of the board are drawn from that region. I don't think that we've ever drawn from outside that boundary in any case that I'm aware of.

While I'm on my feet, and bearing in mind that

section 9 was passed previously, there is a motion standing in my name on the order paper for an amendment to

section 2.1. I'll seek the direction of the Chair with respect to how we proceed with that. It was an issue that was identified by the member for Okanagan East. The amendment simply seeks to correct the error that was noted by that member. If it's the Chair's decision, we can proceed for the sake of convenience at this point.

The Chair: It would expedite matters somewhat, minister, if we could finish

section 3 first, and then we can entertain the amendment on

section 2.

section 3,

section 10.

G. Wilson: There isn't really much to be said from my perspective, save and except that the minister indicated before that board members were not paid. In fact, some colleges do offer an honorarium to board members. My question comes back to whether or not a faculty member or a student elected to a board would be eligible for the same honorarium as somebody who was appointed to the board.

Hon. D. Miller: In reviewing the Blues, I did note that I made that statement, and it was in error. In fact, a range of honoraria are paid to board members, as I think they are typically in almost every case with school board members, as an example. Where that doesn't apply, interestingly enough, is to members of boards of universities. Currently, institutions and boards themselves determine the quantum of those honoraria, but the change reflected in

section 10 is

[ Page 11623 ]

that in this case the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may set the remuneration. It really gives us the power to determine whether or not it's too rich. We don't necessarily have to intervene; we don't necessarily have to set those. I don't think they're set abnormally high. I did not bring a list of all of the institutions and the honoraria that are set, but I think they range from $2,000 to $3,000. They're not high, considering the service that board members perform and the hours they put in, not just in the regularly scheduled monthly meetings but in the subcommittees that exist with all of these institutions.

The remuneration is very modest, considering the time and energy put into the boards.

G. Wilson: I don't take issue with the amount, because I think the minister is correct -- the remuneration is relatively small. What I do take issue with is that this act provides for a staff member or a faculty member, on full salary at a college, to be elected to a board and then receive remuneration for sitting on an administrative board that will be determining their salary. I think the minister would recognize that that puts the individual in a clear pecuniary conflict of interest.

Hon. D. Miller: I am advised that the act only really deals with the appointed members, not the elected members who are being added under this bill. So in that sense, the only change is that prior to this act coming into force, the boards themselves would set the remuneration, and subsequent to this act coming into force, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would have the power to intervene, if necessary.

I'm further advised that that is really in compliance with the recommendation of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and that the authorization of remuneration for appointees to college and institute boards be consistent with the requirements for appointees to other government organizations. It's an issue that I haven't looked at too closely in the Public Accounts Committee, but it's clearly an issue they've dealt with in the recommendation they've made -- and one that we've accepted in the change that we're discussing.

G. Wilson: I sit on Public Accounts, and I think it's a good idea that remuneration be set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I don't have a problem with that. If different remuneration is allowable, that's fine. In some colleges, I know that board members actually turn the money back into scholarship funds and other kinds of things. So there are lots of ways it can work. That isn't my concern.

[3:00]

There is nothing in the language of this bill that isolates elected faculty or staff board members from appointed board members. There's nothing in here that says that remuneration is only available to those appointed through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If that's the intention, then surely there should be a

section under

section 3,

section 10, that says that remuneration only applies to those members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That way it's very clear that elected people can't receive pay to sit on a board when they're on a full salary from the institution that they're governing. That puts them in a clear conflict of interest.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that there really is no provision in the bill for remuneration for elected members; it's only for appointed members. My reading of this particular

section doesn't allow me to draw that clear conclusion. Nonetheless, from the advice I'm receiving from my staff, that is the case. There is no legal authority in the bill for paying an honorarium to an elected member.

G. Wilson: On the same issue, I hear what the minister's saying. I don't argue that nothing provides the authority for them to be paid. I would argue that there's nothing in the act that says they won't be paid. They're going to be a member of the board. It states what the board composition is under

section 9. We already canvassed that, and we lost the vote. Then it goes on to say: "Remuneration of board members." It doesn't make any distinctions as to which board members. It says: "...an institution pays to members of its board." It doesn't say those members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If that simple amendment would clarify that situation, I think it would go a long way to removing the potential conflict, at least in part, that faculty and staff may find themselves in under the guidelines of conflict of interest that this government itself has introduced.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll continue to insist that the advice I'm receiving from staff is that there is no provision in the act to provide remuneration for elected members; it's only for appointed members. I appreciate the member's remarks. I look at the clause and also think that it's not clear. As I understand it, there's no specific clause in the University Act that deals with honoraria for members of university boards. They're not paid remuneration. In taking the advice I'm receiving with respect to the construction of the bill, it's certainly not the intention that elected members would receive remuneration.

The Chair: Member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, I think we've canvassed this fairly thoroughly, but carry on.

G. Wilson: What I would like to do, if I were to yield to the member for Richmond East, is quickly draft a very simple amendment that would clarify this situation, and then there would be no problem.

L. Reid:

Section 10(2) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may set different remuneration for members of different boards." I agree with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast that the

section is unclear as it currently reads.

I'm wondering if the minister can comment on

section 10(2). Is that the

section he believes will allow appointed members to receive remuneration but elected members to carry forward, hopefully, and be remunerated through a salary provision but not through an additional amount of money? Is it his intention that this

section allows appointed members to be paid but not elected members?

Hon. D. Miller: No. It simply reflects the fact that the colleges are different. The boundaries of some urban colleges are not that extensive compared to the boundaries of some rural colleges. Members frequently have to travel overnight to attend board and committee meetings, and clearly that's more onerous with respect to loss of pay and those kinds of things. It's really just a recognition that they are different. It depends on the geography or the area of the province they come from.

L. Reid: For my clarification, hon. minister, would remuneration be different based on the number of students or the number of board meetings they would attend? Or is it based solely on the size of the region they must cover?

Hon. D. Miller: The prime consideration would be regional. But we would be guided by the work of the Public

[ Page 11624 ]

Accounts Committee and the recommendations that led to this clause. I might say, though, with respect to the issue of remuneration in total, that I really don't know if certain members will be satisfied. The clause as it stands is fairly clear, in that it allows the government to set the remuneration -- not that we necessarily would, but it simply allows that to happen.

It may be that some work may be required on the issue that has arisen with respect to elected members. I could, for example, using the same logic.... It now has occurred to me that an elected member may have to travel some distance and to stay overnight. It may be appropriate in some instances that there be honoraria to compensate for out-of-pocket expenses and those kinds of things.

To briefly use another illustration that concerned me to some degree -- I again draw from my own experience -- I was an alderman at one point, and we received an honorarium or remuneration. I used to note with some irony that when I left the mill I happened to be working in to go to a meeting, I went off the payroll, yet the guy who went with me was a staff member and he didn't go off the payroll. And we were both going to serve that same public function.

We're not all equal. You can't always address those kinds of questions, and I don't propose you do in this case. But I know of cases in the new University of Northern British Columbia where people indeed have to travel a minimum of three days to attend a board meeting and in some cases lose their livelihood for that period of time. I've intervened to the extent that I've talked to employers and said: "Look, I think you should contribute, as a matter of public service, for this individual who in fact is performing a very valuable public service, because I'm not able to and the university is not able to provide any pay for the job."

Maybe there needs to be some latitude. Perhaps with members of the other parties, I'd be happy to look at the issue of those elected members and where it may be appropriate in some cases. Or maybe that's an issue the Public Accounts Committee might want to revisit. It's certainly not something that I.... I don't think it's a major issue. We're talking about very small amounts of money. I think members would agree that it's important where people are prepared to serve and that we don't want that service to be an onerous thing with respect to the individual's involvement. I would prefer that we leave the

section intact and that perhaps through consultation, a provincial or ministerial policy could be developed that would be appropriate. I will see, Mr. Chairman, how that floats.

L. Reid: I think the example you just cited, hon. minister, is somehow contrary to what's listed here. It says: "...different remuneration for members of different boards." The example you just cited looks at different remuneration for members of the same board. Was that your intention?

Hon. D. Miller: Clearly, I implied that, and I don't think the

section here prohibits, limits or restricts that ability in any way. The example I was citing was a university board, which is not allowed to....

G. Wilson: I think we can make this more complicated than it needs to be. Most boards have an operating budget that covers matters of travel and ongoing expenses. Remuneration tends to be out-of-pocket expenditures. If faculty or staff are elected to a board and they have to go on extended trips or whatever, there's presumably going to have to be some provision within their collective agreements with respect to leave. That's not unusual; that happens now, and that's done outside of this kind of thing.

So I would offer what I hope is a friendly amendment under

section 10 that would simply clarify this question -- that is, to add: "

(3) Remuneration may be paid to only those members appointed to the board by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." How it's paid, when it's paid or the amount that is paid are not affected by (1) and (2), but this does make it clear that there can't be double-dipping, and it removes the potential conflict of interest that would exist for a fully paid faculty or staff member sitting on a board and also receiving money from the administration.

On the amendment.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm going to argue against it. I just think that there may be circumstances where it is quite legitimate for issues to be determined as a matter of policy as opposed to being strictly defined in legislation. I have been using an example -- and the member and others have used examples -- of a member of faculty who presumably would be eligible for a leave of absence to attend board meetings even if travel was involved. That same situation would not be true for a student representative on the board, and it might be that the student representative would be caught in that.

In rural areas, where board meetings are sometimes held in different communities rather than always in the central community, it seems to me that it would be a limiting factor.

So I think it's quite appropriate to.... We're not talking about Fort Knox here. We're talking about very modest amounts of money, which are intended to compensate people in a modest way for the contribution they make and the public service they carry out. I think the member would appreciate, given what we're talking about, that those issues can be covered as a matter of policy. It is not that significant, quite frankly. I certainly would appreciate the member's consideration for me to deal with those issues as a matter of policy.

I've already indicated to the House that I'm quite prepared to consult with members opposite in the development of that policy. So I think we're capable of dealing with the issue. I don't think we need to confine or limit the situation with the amendment that's being proposed, and I would really ask for consideration in passing this

section intact and dealing with the issue as I've suggested.

L. Hanson: I have a question for the minister, then, to help me decide whether I should support the amendment or not.

Section 10(1) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may set the remuneration that an institution pays to members of its board." That would seem to me to say that if they set an amount payable to board members, it would be applicable to all board members. The minister says that they can handle the situation by policy. That would seem to say that if you set anything, it's got to go to everybody. I'd like some idea of how the policy might be used to offset that, because that's what it seems to say.

[3:15]

Hon. D. Miller: Policy can certainly provide

interpretation. That sentence does not necessarily have to be read or interpreted the way you have interpreted it. In other words, saying that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may set the remuneration that an institution pays to members of its board does not imply explicitly -- one could probably read it implicitly -- that there is no flexibility to have different amounts, depending on the circumstance, for example, between those members appointed and those

[ Page 11625 ]

members elected through the faculty or the student societies. So it's not limiting.

I repeat what I have said: I am quite prepared to sit down with members opposite and my staff to try to develop a policy paper that accurately reflects the feelings there -- based on the assumption that it's not the desire of any member or party to unnecessarily restrict the kind of service that I have talked about before, in keeping with the spirit that I think has existed for many years in local councils, school boards and college boards, which seeks in a very modest way to compensate those individuals who provide that public service with some limited compensation for the time and effort they have devoted to whatever particular board they are on.

Keeping with the spirit and the intent I have just described, I am sure we are capable of dealing with the tiny intricacies of whether members are appointed or elected.

L. Hanson: It's not an earth-shattering issue. I agree with the minister that it isn't the end of the world, no matter what happens with the legislation. But in our attempts to provide direction to various organizations and so on, clarity is very important. Therefore I am going to support the amendment.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, not to belabour the point, I think we recognize that we have the ability to deal with the differences that exist. Chairs of boards, for example, probably get a little more money than board members, so already there is a discrepancy or difference. We recognize in this chamber that certain members get more than others. In a party that is recognized, money is made available and everybody gets the base MLA salary. But in addition to that, if you're the Whip, the caucus chair, or have one of the officers' jobs, you get additional money.

Maybe that doesn't apply to some parties, but the members know what I'm talking about. Really, what are we talking about? Are we saying that we are prepared to recognize that in this chamber and in parties but that we're not prepared to have some flexibility to develop a policy to deal with people who make very much less than we make here? I think we have canvassed this, and we should proceed with

section 10.

L. Hanson: I have one last point. In another life, I had some experience at a regional district level. Because the act didn't allow for different levels of pay for different representatives, it was ruled that they had to pay everyone exactly the same amount, regardless of their responsibilities. That would seem to argue with the flexibility that the minister is suggesting. Again, it's not going to change the way of the world. Even though I would support the amendment, I'm not going to argue with you.

G. Wilson: I have one last question for the minister. Is the minister confident that the language, as it's set here, would not put elected faculty or staff, if they receive remuneration, in conflict with the Members' Conflict of Interest Act? Has that been checked through? Have you looked at that in terms of the service? This is a public board, right?

Hon. D. Miller: It is my view that the issues of conflict relate to matters that we canvassed earlier in debate. When issues come to the board that would put a particular board member in a conflict of interest in the sense that there is personal gain, the board must make bylaws to deal with that issue of conflict. The fact that remuneration is received to carry out a particular function is not an issue of conflict, I don't think.

G. Wilson: I want to be very, very specific on this now. The minister is saying that a faculty or staff member may be paid to sit on a board that is negotiating a contract for the remuneration of a staff or faculty position for which they are on full salary. That's what this does.

Hon. D. Miller: With respect, hon. Chair, we had an extensive debate and passed

section 9, which dealt with these issues.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I said very clearly that if, for example -- let me construct this in a hypothetical sense -- a college board had a member of the faculty association on it, and that board was conducting negotiations with the faculty association, clearly the faculty member in that case would not and could not participate in those negotiations if the end result of those negotiations was that that faculty member had a pecuniary interest that would be dealt with. They would absent themselves. That's pretty basic and fundamental. We have said that over and over again. That issue really was dealt with in

section 9. That is a conflict. A conflict is when you have something to gain as a result of your influence on the decision. Conflict is not complicated. We all know what it is.

The Chair: In my judgment we are moving dangerously away from the amendment before us, and I would therefore suggest that perhaps we could deal with the amendment. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived on division.

Section 3,

section 10 approved.

section 3,

section 11.

L. Reid: Very briefly, this says "serves a 3 year term" and "serves a one year term." Could you comment on who may be holding either of those terms of office? My question relates specifically to whether or not there's been any consideration to including alumni members as part of that process.

Interjection.

L. Reid: Alumni members -- members of those institutions who are graduates, if you will. Has any consideration been given to weighting an alumnus into a three-year term as opposed to a one-year term?

Hon. D. Miller: At the college level I don't know if the term "alumni" is necessarily one that you'd want to use. An alumnus is someone who has graduated from an institution. Someone who indeed previously graduated from the institution may be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but that's neither here nor there; they would then fall under the scope of this section.

The current policy is to appoint board members for a one-year term, with the option of reappointment for a two-year term and then a subsequent, and final, three-year term. This policy allows for competent and qualified people to continue to sit on the board, while providing flexibility in terms of the kind of balance I talked about earlier in response to the member's question -- the issues of gender and minority groups, etc.

[ Page 11626 ]

L. Reid: Is there any maximum number of years that a person may serve? When it says further terms, is it basically open to discussion and appointment or election?

Hon. D. Miller: No, it does not limit. In other words, there is no line saying that that's it, you can never run again.

Section 3,

section 11 approved.

section 3,

section 11.1.

G. Wilson: I'm curious, because the language appears to suggest that the registrar becomes involved in establishing and administering the conduct of the election of members to the board. But they can only do that after there is consultation with the chair of the board and the chief officers of the representative groups. There are two questions here. Clearly this means that in the initial round, the registrar consults with the chair of a board that currently does not have elected members, because obviously you have to do that in advance of the election.

I wonder why that process was put in place, why you would have the registrar consult with the chief officers and the chair of a board to which the members are currently not elected, and why you would not have allowed the faculty, staff and student associations at the various colleges to conduct those elections as they see fit. First, why involve the registrar in that?

Second, is it anticipated that the conduct and rules of those elections will be consistent throughout the college system, or can they be determined by each college system, so that there may be quite a variance with respect to how it proceeds?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll answer the last question first. Clearly one would want to seek consistency, but in the same vein that we talked about earlier, not all of the institutions are the same. In some, in fact, there may be a single campus. I'm trying to think now if there is one with a single campus -- maybe not, but two campuses at the most. In some of the far-flung rural areas of the province, there may be half a dozen campuses. Therefore a system of elections that would seem to me appropriate but consistent with the general principles of elections needs to be adopted.

The registrar is used at the university level. City clerks are used at the municipal level to conduct.... Certainly in my experience -- maybe not always in every other municipality -- the city clerk becomes a kind of chief electoral officer, if you like. They are seen as the unbiased civil servant. Therefore it's appropriate that they discuss with the chair of the board and the chief officers of the representative groups -- faculty, staff and student associations -- a process that clearly needs to be unchallengeable. I agree that it needs to have consistency, but at the same time, I suppose, it needs flexibility to recognize different circumstances.

Section 3,

section 11.1 approved.

section 3,

section 11.2.

G. Wilson: Voting is something that clearly is important on a board. We recognize that there are going to be differences with respect to remuneration. We recognize that this board, by nature, is going to.... In total, I think we're looking at eight appointed and four students. In total, there is going to be a possibility of 12 people plus the president and the chair on this board. When you come to negotiate matters of contract, you're going to immediately exclude the faculty representative and the staff member on the board.

I would suggest that most boards will immediately exclude the student representatives as well. That would be my guess. I've been there, and I know what happens; I know that you've got a staff association and a faculty association -- and they often work together because there's often a kindred spirit among the union representatives -- and the students themselves are in an association which may indeed preempt it.

[3:30]

What you're saying is that the president, who is going to be an active participant and an active member on the board, will be exempt from voting. I guess the reason is that the president represents the administration. Then you say you're going to exempt the chair of the education council from voting. I guess that is because that has a majority faculty makeup; I would assume that's why you've done that. If I'm right, that seems to fly directly in the face of what the minister has said with respect to the conflict-of-interest provisions in sections 9 and 10 above.

Maybe the minister can tell us why he singled out the president and the education council chair as being two people who will sit on the board but not be voting members.

Hon. D. Miller: Currently the president is not a voting member of the board; that's the way it is right now. We're not changing that.

I'll go back to the clause that dealt with the ratio; in other words, where we wanted to clearly maintain the two-thirds to one-third, at a minimum, between those appointed and those elected members. If we were to then say that the chair of the education council had a vote, we would run the danger of changing that ratio. Therefore that individual has been excluded. The education council has a specific mandate which we will deal with, but for those reasons we have not added the power of a vote to the chair of the education council.

G. Wilson: Then it directly contradicts what has been said earlier. However, I don't want to belabour this point. Quite honestly, save and except for getting our commentary on the record, one wonders sometimes what this whole process is all about.

The other concern we have with respect to the voting provisions on the board.... The minister has already indicated that it is possible for a faculty member or a staff member to be elected board chair. That's unlikely, I would grant you, because the majority of people who are on this board are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, therefore the voting weight given is of real concern.

It is conceivable under this legislation -- I'll grant you not likely, but conceivable, and it is allowed for -- that the chair of a board would have to absent themselves from a vote taken on the collective agreements of faculty or staff if they happen to be a faculty or staff member. That's an unthinkable proposition. In that case, if it were to come about, surely the president should be given the opportunity to cast a vote in order to keep the balance the minister is concerned about and the ratios similar to what he is suggesting now.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain I followed the path the member was on. Let's try to deal with it on a more simplistic basis.

The board is comprised of appointed members and elected members. We've gone through the debate about whether or not people agree. The member who is a former instructor from Langara agreed, I think, as I recollect his

[ Page 11627 ]

remarks. But there has been a variety of opinions, so we're proceeding there.

The next question that arose was the issue of conflict. We've clearly stated that there have to be bylaws that deal with the issue of conflict -- guidelines for members to avoid putting themselves in a situation of conflict. I've described conflict as a situation where a person exercises the authority that they have, knowing that that would result in a personal gain for them. For example, if, as a member of the board, a member of the faculty was elected chair of the board by the other members of the board.... I guess one could argue that the likelihood of that happening may be slim, but it could happen.

Clearly, there may be a disincentive in that a member of faculty, given the ratio that I've talked about -- two-thirds to one-third -- might want to say: "I don't want to be elected chair, because by doing that I deprive myself of a vote." Therefore they diminish the ratio and their ability to exercise whatever influence board members exercise through their persuasive powers. That member knows all about persuasive powers.

Perhaps a fairly elaborate scenario has been constructed that is just a little too hypothetical. The facts are pretty clear and straightforward, and I don't know.... We're here to get into it. I want to answer legitimate questions; I don't want to deny members the opportunity to ask them. I try to treat them seriously, but I just think this construction is fairly elaborate and probably unlikely. In any event, other sections deal with issues of conflict.

Section 3,

section 11.2 approved.

section 3,

section 11.3.

G. Wilson: The concern we have with

section 11.3 -- and we'll canvass this much more thoroughly in

section 11.4 -- is the fact that we have now established a provision where the government, by edict, is telling every institution that they must establish an educational council. This is not something the colleges have willingly come forward with. As I've mentioned, many of those colleges already have instructional boards; many of them have internal advisory committees. For example, PAC, the principal's advisory committee, is something that's pretty common in a lot of colleges.

They're set up because the people who are involved in the business of delivering education, the teachers, and the people who are in the business of receiving education, the students, and the people who are involved in the administering of education deem them to be necessary in order to facilitate an orderly, proper and progressive way of doing business.

I have to say that whenever government comes down and by edict says that an institution must.... That's what this language says in

section 11.3(1): "Each institution, other than the Justice Institute of British Columbia, must have an education council." It begs the question: why must they have an education council? Why is it that this government knows better than the colleges -- many of which have managed extremely well to this point -- how they should internally organize advisory capacities on matters of curriculum, class size and so on?

Hon. D. Miller: In previous debate we've talked about some parallel between the universities and the kind of traditional model that has existed in academia for centuries, I suppose, and that is that the faculty are involved in those issues of curriculum and education. At the university level it's through the senate.

We didn't wish to duplicate that, but we felt, given the advancement of degree-granting status to four of the community colleges and two of the institutes -- and potentially more of the community colleges in the future -- that it was prudent to have a system with faculty involvement in curriculum development in the issues that are listed in the subsequent section, in order to ensure that not only the quality of education but the degrees that were ultimately obtained by individuals from those institutions had credibility. It is time-honoured; it's a slight adaptation of the university model.

We obviously don't want to recreate university at the college level, because in many ways they have been quite different and carry out a very different and important role. But it allows that same situation to develop at the community college, if I can draw that analogy between the universities.

W. Hartley: I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Today in the House we have a group of grade 5 students from the Haney-Pitt Meadows Christian school in my constituency. They are here with their vice-principal and teacher Ms. Kifiak. Today they asked me a number of excellent questions on the front steps of the Legislature, and they are in the House to observe legislative procedure. Please welcome them.

L. Reid: In terms of the minister's most recent comment that each institution must have an education council, I am suggesting that for many institutions this may simply constitute a name change, not a real change in structure. A lot of these institutions may have a structure that resembles an education council already, and there may be just some fine-tuning. Is that your understanding as well?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Before introduction of this bill I visited community colleges where I talked about this proposal. In a joint meeting with one president and a couple of faculty members, they said that that's what they do now. In that institution it simply formalizes what has already existed.

L. Reid: May I just seek the minister's clarification. Under

section 11.3(2), it says: "The board of the Justice Institute...has the powers and duties of an education council...." What would constitute a quorum on the board of the Justice Institute for them to be involved in those kinds of decisions?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: For clarification, was the question: what is the quorum for the board of the Justice Institute?

The Chair: The member says yes.

Hon. D. Miller: A majority constitutes a quorum.

L. Reid: If it's a majority for the Justice Institute, is it a majority for all the colleges and institutes? Is the quorum the standard across every institution and college in this province?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I believe that is the case.

[ Page 11628 ]

L. Hanson: In this

section the education council brings up an issue that has been of some concern. We had to almost go into double overtime to decide to support the bill in second reading. While there are a number of good things in the bill, there seem to be a number of things that are going to complicate and bureaucratize the administration advisory system to a point where it is going to be difficult for that system, which is working quite well. I think it pretty well has a reputation as an efficient, well-run organization, providing a very acceptable service.

Not only is it recognized in British Columbia, but I think it is recognized across Canada as a system that is delivering an excellent product efficiently and with great benefits to our students.

[3:45]

The difficulty we had with the bill was the cost and the complication of the administrative system. It appears that the formation of the education council -- which is the one in

section 11.3 -- is mandatory. It's going to have some responsibilities that are explained later, but there are dual responsibilities along with the board, as I read the act.

The concern is that we have a system that is working very well. Why do we need to change it and complicate it? Why do we want to add more cost to it, make the system more cumbersome and make it more difficult to assist the education program? While I recognize that that is not only in

section 11.3, that concern has been expressed to me and my colleagues by a number of people who are directly involved in the education system at this level.

[3:45]

I think it's appropriate that we ask the minister to comment on that aspect of this bill. I don't mean to go over second reading again, but because this mandates the education council, I think this is an appropriate place for the minister to comment on that.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm prepared to, hon. Chair, but I seek your guidance. I also don't want to get caught belabouring this. In other words, to get into a debate at this point on the powers of the education council and then to have to repeat it when we actually get to the

section dealing with the powers of the education council.... I'm sure that member has no intention of doing that, and perhaps others don't, but we could be fairly relaxed in our approach. I've got some legitimate interests here. I'm not going to get hung up, but I don't want to be inflexible.

There has been a change. We are proposing a change that is fundamentally linked to the establishment of education councils. Although the member is correct, there have been those who disagree, and some disagree more strongly than others. There are also those who agree quite strongly on the issue of the education council, its advisory role, whether it should have specific powers, and all those kinds of questions.

I've explained that we are expanding the role of the community colleges and two of the institutes in a significant way as part of a broader thrust. We are trying to refocus our education system -- not totally, but in part -- to try to have curricula and degree-granting programs that are more relevant, that give community colleges and institutes the opportunity to grant those degrees in their own right, autonomously and separate from established universities. We're going through a bit of a change with respect to the role of these institutions.

As the role of the education council is laid out in the further sections of the bill, you can see that they are focused on the issue of curriculum development.

Just let me look at two sections: sections 14.1 and 14.2.

Section 14.1 talks about the advisory role of the education council: it must advise the board; the board must seek advice from the education council; mission statement; non-credit programs; qualifications for admission policies; criteria for awarding certificates, diplomas and degrees -- just a whole range of things that currently have the involvement of faculty. Further, under the powers of the education council in

section 14.2, it must make bylaws, with my prior approval, for the conduct of business. Subject to the policy and directives, it will set policies concerning examinations, evaluation of student performance and student withdrawal from courses. It will set criteria for academic standing and for awards recognizing academic excellence.

We've tried to be very clear in laying out those areas of jurisdiction for the education council and how that relates to the board -- all with the intention, as I've said, to complement the changes that are taking place in the institutions themselves. As has been pointed out by some members, there really is a bit of inconsistency across the piece in community colleges. Some see this as simply formalizing what they already practise, in some ways.

In other words, they involve their faculty in a very extensive way, and there is a very good relationship established between the faculty, the board and the administration. As for others, I guess you could argue that maybe there's some distance and they're not as close as the legislation calls for.

In seeking to get some level of consensus, we engaged in some pretty good discussion with members of the faculty association and members of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia. As I indicated in our previous debate, it wasn't as you would expect, as an old Labour minister would understand -- that you always have absolute unanimity on every point. But broadly speaking, there was some consensus.

I know there have been letters written; I have copies in here from some colleges, boards and presidents, saying: "No, we were concerned about this." I suppose it's true that almost any change would produce a similar result. There might always be people who would say that there was some concern.

Notwithstanding that -- and not to say this in a political way -- I repeat that the response I have received from community colleges has been very enthusiastic. I was in Prince George yesterday. I met briefly with members of the administration, and subsequently with members of the faculty. It was a pleasure, obviously, to be there and to confirm that there's....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: The member from Prince George enters her endorsement.

Clearly, there was some enthusiasm there. We are providing some new capital money for new buildings. The college sees itself as being in a key position to deliver the kind of change, the focus that we're talking about, in the technical area. We had the pleasure of going to a local manufacturer, Canadian Woodworks, and in the first announcement under the quick-response portion of the skills initiative, we have now provided some $89,000 in conjunction with the employer for a series of training programs for the employees of that organization to make them more efficient.

By the way, it's one of the wonderful little value-added plants in this province that produces finished windows and doors, not only for the domestic market but also for the European market. There's a lot of enthusiasm about the skills initiative and the changes that are taking place. I suspect there will always be some level of concern. Broadly speaking, I have said to the parties -- the boards, the administration and the faculty -- that there's a challenge in

[ Page 11629 ]

this legislation. Some wanted to go further. Some didn't want it to go as far. I said that the challenge now is for all of them to make this work. As we'll see, there's an override there. If the thing falls apart completely, I guess it will land on my desk and I'll try to make it work. But I don't think it will fall apart. I think it will work. But it is a new relationship. We've tried to be clear in terms of the roles of the various parties, and I have a lot of confidence that it's going in the right direction and that, indeed, it will work. Undoubtedly there will be the odd wrinkle along the way, and we'll take care of it.

L. Hanson: Hon. Chairman, thank you for the flexibility you're giving us in this discussion.

I certainly won't argue with the minister. Most of the things that are here, and the responsibilities of the education council, were in effect in the past. Nobody is arguing about that. But I think the minister would recognize that once it is written in legislation, as opposed to being done within an organization because it has to be done, there's quite often a different approach to it.

I know the minister, and I was pleased to hear him say that he thinks this will work and that it will improve the system. I have some grave reservations that it will, but I don't say that on a partisan or political basis. I think the university college is one of the most important educational institutions that we have in the province. I really want to see them delivering that product. I don't want to be able to say later: "See, I told you that it wasn't going to work." I want to make it work; I want to see it work. That's where those concerns come from. After those few remarks, I know that the minister will pay special attention to making it work.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's remarks. It is often a challenge to try to get people with some differences to go in the same direction, but it's not one that I'm unfamiliar with. Clearly the forest sector had some of those same elements, yet out of that we were able to forge some alliances that I think will pay dividends in the province.

I think the clincher with respect to these changes at the community college level will be the other programs that go with them. They're going to be busy. I've said to the colleges: "I think you're going to be where the action is." I think that both the faculty and the board's administration are going to be occupied and, as I say, quite excited about the changes that are taking place. That's a good, positive atmosphere to work in and in which to make it work.

Finally, I did point out that somewhere in here there is a short clause that says: "If all fails, you can put it on my desk." What I've really said to the parties is: "You don't want to do that. You don't want to have me make decisions about what's in your interest." I think they understand the message that's quite implicit in that statement.

J. Tyabji: I hope the minister will recognize that I was attending to other duties in my job, and I have missed some of the debate on this. It seems to me that when we look at

section 11.4(3), there isn't a limit to the number of people who will sit on an education council, except the limit that would be dictated by a majority vote of the education council. I heard the member for Richmond East ask some questions about a quorum. I'm not sure if this was covered. If the education council has been made larger by a vote of the education council, so that there are more voting members, is it the larger voting membership that will vote on more members, or is it going to be the original education council, basically the core?

The Chair: I would just remind members that we are dealing with

section 11.3. We may wish to pass that

section before we get into

section 11.4.

J. Tyabji: I'm sorry, this is part of the difficulty with losing sight.... Have we been canvassing the cost and who pays, with regard to education councils? I didn't hear any questions on that.

Hon. D. Miller: Before I answer that, I want to go back to what I said at the outset. I'm quite prepared to be flexible, and I have no wish to limit debate. But neither do I want to have it so free-ranging that once we cover one

section and substantially move on to another, there's this wide-ranging latitude so that we can hop back to one which we've already spent a considerable amount of time on. I honestly and sincerely don't want to dig my heels in here, but I really must insist that there has to be some logical progression in this debate. So I seek your advice, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I would take the submission from the member for Okanagan East -- if you're dealing with

section 11.3 and the question hasn't been answered. I've just come into the chair, so I'm not familiar with that.

J. Tyabji: It sounded like the minister was saying that if I plan to canvass this subject in

section 11.3 and then bring it up again in 11.4, he'd object to that. I don't plan to bring it up in

section 11.4. We are talking about the education councils, not the composition of the councils, so it does belong in

section 11.3.

My question to the minister is whether there has been adequate canvassing of the cost, and who will pay.

Hon. D. Miller: Again it's part of the difficulty of members coming in after having missed part of the debate. For example, we've already talked about some institutions where all this legislation really does is formalize what has been and currently is in place.

[4:00]

Clearly there may be some very minor, modest budgetary issues, but those will be dealt with internally by the administration. There's really no additional cost.

J. Tyabji: While I was upstairs I did hear that debate with regard to the existing informal structures that the minister is saying are identical to the education councils -- or the education councils make those structures formal.

I'm sure the minister has seen the College-Institute Educators' Association of B.C. Profile, in which they talked about education councils being established and about this being a new body. It's interesting that the College-Institute Educators' Association sees this as a new body, with 50 percent from faculty and then, as laid out in the bill...and talks about the powers of the council. Certainly, from their perspective this represents a new development. As the minister has said, some bodies in some of the institutions resemble education councils. But clearly, for it to be something that comes out in Profile, it's relatively new.

I'd like to ask the minister, since he hasn't answered the question yet, if there's been any budgetary consideration for these new councils by his ministry.

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I just answered the member's question. She chose to ignore the answer and repeat her question. I can do no more than answer it, and I don't intend to answer it an infinite number of times.

[ Page 11630 ]

J. Tyabji: The only thing I heard the minister say is that there will be no budget cost for these education councils. I heard him say this represents no new cost. Perhaps he's saying the cost of the education councils will be borne by each individual institution, and therefore he hasn't budgeted any more in his global budget.

But surely he has recognized that each institution -- especially the ones that don't have anything resembling an education council -- will be having to budget for the education council. It will consist of a minimum of 20 voting members plus two non-voting members, with remuneration rates to be set by cabinet. If remuneration is going to be set by cabinet, then there must have been some consideration by this minister.

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, the member has not participated in the debate. We have canvassed the issue of remuneration quite extensively; it does not apply to the education councils. Had the member been here, she would have understood that. I really say we should move on.

J. Tyabji: It's a very simple question. It seems the minister isn't even prepared to answer the question as to what the new bodies in these institutions will have to pay. There's no question that cabinet is setting the remuneration for the board. However, the education councils will be costing institutions money. I'm sure the minister recognizes that. He's saying he doesn't recognize that they will be costing any money -- which is interesting, because surely they have a mandate.

I know some more questions need to be asked under this section. I'm not sure if the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has some questions.

Since the minister is not willing to answer that, the last question I have on this

section is: in his discussions with the College-Institute Educators' Association, when he was talking to them about Bill 22 coming out and the new education councils, did the issue of the internal budgets of institutions come out as part of their discussions?

Hon. D. Miller: Not that I recall.

D. Mitchell: I seek leave to introduce some guests.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: We have in the galleries this afternoon a group of grades 4 and 5 students from Signal Hill Elementary Shool in the Pemberton Valley. This very enthusiastic group of students are here for the first time to see the House in action. I would like to ask members of the committee to welcome them here this afternoon.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister let us know at what point he began discussions with the College-Institute Educators' Association on the establishment of education councils?

Notwithstanding the eagerness of the Liberals to pass this section, I didn't hear the minister's comment, because he kind of mumbled it while he was still seated.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, with all due respect, I fail to see what the question has to do with the bill. At what point did I start to talk to members of CIEA? The member has been around these chambers for some time. If she had paid attention, she would know that the issue of this change in governance was the subject of the Carter commission, which made various recommendations about changes in governance. There have been ongoing discussions over a number of years on the issue of changes in governance. We have canvassed this issue extensively.

We have already described the fact that we are expanding our university college system to give degree-granting status to some of those university colleges and institutes.

It's interesting to note that if those institutions are now going to have the kind of credibility that we think is important, if you're going to get a degree from BCIT or Emily Carr College or Malaspina or the University College of the Cariboo or the University College of the Fraser Valley or Okanagan University College, you want that degree to have some credibility no matter where you go in this country or in this world.

By having these education councils, by having the kinds of changes in governance that we're talking about, we will satisfy the criteria of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, for example, which will give us the credibility to move forward and provide educational opportunities for the young people we see sitting in these galleries today.

A question about when I first talked to somebody has absolutely no relevance to the issues at stake in this bill. Hon. Chairman, it tries my patience -- as is obvious -- to continue to have these kinds of questions. Let's get on with this thing.

J. Tyabji: It's really unfortunate that the minister's patience is tried by due diligence in committee stage debate. I find it interesting that the minister talks about credibility. On the one hand, he's telling us that the education council is just a formality to entrench something that already exists, and on the other hand, he talks about the revolutionary changes he's making by bringing in education councils. Which is it? And when did he start talking to post-secondary institutions about an education council? Why is he afraid to answer the question? Was it this minister or was it his predecessor? I see the minister is going to have a hard time answering the question. In that sense....

G. Wilson: Question.

Section 3,

section 11.3 approved.

G. Wilson: On a point of order, hon. Chair, there are two members of the government in this House; there are one, two, three, four, five members of the opposition in this House. Clearly the vote failed. I did not rise on a point of order when the previous Chair took a vote, not only once but twice, and then sent a note saying they are more interested in appearance than in reality. Hon. Chair, clearly that vote failed, and if the government wishes it to pass, the question must be put and the motion must then be called on division.

The Chair: In my opinion as Chair, the vote was taken, the decision was made by the Chair, and if you wish to have a full division you can call for one.

J. Tyabji: Notwithstanding the eagerness of the government and the Liberals to pass this section, I would like an answer to the question. Was it this minister or his predecessor who began discussions with the College-Institute Educators' Association?

The Chair: Shall section...?

J. Tyabji: A question was directed to the minister. I'm not sure if he heard it, because I know he left the chamber for a minute. The question was with regard to discussions. I am

[ Page 11631 ]

sure he's not afraid to answer the question and that the question is very easy for him to answer. I hope he is not just in such an obstreperous mood that he has decided not to participate in the debate of a bill that he's so proud of...that he'd like to crow about to the people in the gallery who are trying to see how democracy operates in British Columbia.

section 3,

section 11.4.

J. Tyabji: With respect to the composition of an education council -- although we don't know whether this body is just a formality of something that already exists or a revolutionary change in governance of the post-secondary institutions -- under

section 11.4(3) the education council can be increased. Throughout this

section it talks about votes of the education council. It's not clear whether there is a differentiation of status between those who are established as voting members of the education council by this bill and those who are added to the council by a majority vote of the members so established. Which would it be?

Hon. D. Miller: My understanding is that they may vote on other issues, but not on the issue of expanding the size of the council. The

section deals with the ability to expand the council. It's really intended to deal with.... The wording states quite clearly that there needs to be agreement, but it allows additions to the council to deal with specific educational issues where the expertise may be lacking in those members who are already sitting on the council. That's why it requires agreement from both parties, essentially.

L. Reid: I would refer specifically to

section 11.4(1)(c): "...4 must be educational administrators appointed by the president." My sense of that is that these individuals, hopefully, will be representing the corporate interests of the institution -- some kind of fiscal accountability. Was it the intention to have such individuals appointed -- i.e., to appoint people with a very strong background in some fiscal management for those institutions?

Hon. D. Miller: I think, rather, that the administrators should have a very strong background in educational issues. Ultimately, perhaps there may be some cost implications when change takes place, but those are really dealt with by the board. The primary focus of the education council is to deal with educational issues. That's really the area of expertise.

L. Reid: Four "must be educational administrators...." Am I to understand that each institution in this province has at least four? I understand the corporate structure, being what it is.... Would maybe half of their current administrative quota be represented here?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, and further to that, the member may wish to look at the definition

section that defines the term "educational administrator" -- deans, really.

J. Tyabji: As a follow-up to the original question, how is it laid out in the bill? Will it be by regulation that there be a differentiation between the voting members in this

section and those who are brought on by a majority vote of the original members? As I read this, there is no difference. Is the minister planning to bring something in by regulation? The minister had said, as well, that the number of its voting members may be increased for one year -- provided that subsection (3) is used for the purpose of adding people with qualifications that don't already exist on the council. That's not specified in that section, so how is that understood?

[4:15]

Hon. D. Miller:

Section 11.4(3)(

c) describes the circumstances where these new members can't vote. Therefore, with those exceptions, they can vote.

J. Tyabji: With reference to the minister's comments that people would be added for the purpose of adding qualifications or experience to the council that didn't already exist, how is that understood by this section?

Hon. D. Miller: That's the intention. I don't know that it has to be defined, because the council cannot be expanded except by agreement of the president and a majority of the education council. Clearly, those members who have much more experience than you and I in dealing with these issues, having considered the matter and having agreed that there's a need to expand, would, I presume, make the right decision.

J. Tyabji: The minister had said, though, that the intent of that

section was to allow them to increase their voting members for specific reasons and that that would be the intent of having an increase in the number of voting members.

Under subsection (5), it says: "The board may appoint one person to be a non-voting member of the eduction council to serve for one year." What is the purpose of that section? What was the need to include that in the education council?

Hon. D. Miller: Just so there's an awareness on the board's part of the issues that are being discussed at the education council -- so they can be apprised of those issues.

J. Tyabji: Under subsection (1), it talks about the composition of the education council. How was that formula arrived at?

Hon. D. Miller: The discussions that were conducted through CIEA and the Advanced Education Council.... As I said before, there wasn't always unanimous agreement, but they arrived at that through discussion.

J. Tyabji: To what extent were students involved in the discussions, particularly since we find out that they're elected for one year as opposed to the other members of the education council being elected for longer terms?

Hon. D. Miller: There were discussions with students. In fact, it may be that, given the vagaries of student life, they may be on the campus for only one year.

J. Tyabji: The minister has said that there were discussions with the students. Were those discussions undertaken by the ministry, or were they represented to the ministry by other bodies within the institutions?

Hon. D. Miller: No, we talked to them.

J. Tyabji: Not only did I not understand what the minister said, but I don't know if he answered the question. Could he repeat that?

Hon. D. Miller: That makes us even.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Chair, we're doing our job in committee stage of a very important bill. Notwithstanding the

[ Page 11632 ]

snickering from the Liberals, who will again be voting with the government in favour of this, this minister should be answering questions on the sections of the bill. We can be here a lot longer if we're going to have exchanges where I have to ask the same question two or three times before I get an answer.

The question is a simple one. The minister has said that there were discussions with students with regard to the education council. I note that the terms of the students serving on the education council have been limited to a shorter period than those of the other members of the council. In asking if there were direct representations to the students, I couldn't hear the minister's answer. I don't think he answered the question. I think it's an important point for the students attending these institutions. Out of respect for them, I think it deserves an answer.

Hon. D. Miller: I've never been able to detect a specific rationale for why that member might ask a question two or three times, as opposed to once. But now that I know the secret, I would refer the member to

section 11.5 -- and hopefully we'll get there fairly soon.

J. Tyabji: As I said, if the minister had answered the question -- which has nothing to do with

section 11.5 -- the first time, we would have had the answer, and we could have moved on. The minister has not answered whether or not there were discussions with the students, although he said: "We talked to them." What I'm trying to determine is: did the ministry have discussions directly with the students, or did the minister accept representation from people who were speaking on behalf of the post-secondary institution, who claimed to be representing the students?

Hon. D. Miller: I have discussed this piece of legislation extensively with members of the faculty association. I have discussed it extensively with members of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia. I have discussed it extensively with students directly, through the Canadian Federation of Students. I have discussed it with members of the public. I have discussed it and discussed it and discussed it. Hon. Chair...

An Hon. Member: I am disgusted.

Hon. D. Miller: ...I am to the point of getting disgusted.

Seriously, I appreciate that the member has legitimate questions, and I'm quite prepared to try to answer legitimate questions. But I am not prepared to go around in circles. For example, if the member asked when I first discussed this with the member of such-and-such organization, I think it's legitimate to say that I have discussed it. I may not recall the actual date that I first discussed it. But is the precise date on which I discussed an issue relevant to the issue at hand, or is the issue that the matter was canvassed quite fully?

I've also been very candid in saying that there continue to be some areas of disagreement. As we get to the end of the bill -- which we hope will come in our generation -- there is an area where the students take exception to some of the language in the bill. Throughout the bill, there are areas where I've been very clear to suggest that there's not absolute unanimity among all the interested people who will be impacted by this legislation. Nonetheless, it's an important change.

I did say that

section 11.5 deals with it. There is really no limit. Although the students were limited, I think it clearly is a reflection of the fact that the most transient population at a college or institute are the students.

H.L. Mencken got a letter from his father once, receiving some sound advice. After he'd been going to university for years and years and had gotten into the habit and didn't want to leave, his father actually wrote him a letter and suggested that it had to come to an end -- which may be sound advice for this debate. He had to actually leave the institution at some point and venture forth into the real world and do what most of us do -- struggle to survive.

Nonetheless, the point I was trying to make was that students generally have a fairly short life at any institution, and the bill reflects that. But it does not restrict.... You will note -- and I did try to suggest that if we got on to

section 11.5 we could see this -- that under subsection (2), students elected under

section 11.4 serve a one-year term and may be elected to further terms under that section.

I am feeling genuinely frustrated as I attempt to answer the questions, but I think I do have the right, as every member does, to express that frustration. When a question is asked three or four or half a dozen times and I continue to answer it and finally say that it's just a waste of time, I expect, hon. Chair, that perhaps you might provide some direction to the members as to whether or not we have fully canvassed a section, whether or not we are tending to get tedious and repetitious and whether or not it might be timely to move on. Really, you're my defence -- if I can put it that way -- in this debate.

I want to repeat to that member and every other member that I will seriously and legitimately attempt to answer every question they have, but I think there's an onus on the members to try to ensure that their questions are not simply intended to fill the silence, but to become more informed about the bill.

G. Wilson: I find it incredible that the minister feels frustration, when he has all the power, all the members and all the numbers to railroad this thing through the House. They are indeed attempting to do so.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: He's saying that everybody feels frustrated. Of course, what this minister would like is for all members of the opposition to simply put up no opposition whatsoever to the government program and to allow it to go through unscrutinized and unquestioned, and pretty much just push on regardless. That's what the minister would like. Of course, he certainly isn't going to receive that from the Alliance members, if he receives it from others.

The point here is that the minister has determined that every one of these institutions must have -- he didn't say they should have; they might have; it's recommended they think about it; or maybe the colleges, now that they've moved to degree-granting status, should have -- some form of administrative committee to look after the degree-granting question. This minister has dictated to the colleges that they must have a council; that that educational council must have 20 voting members; and that, of those 20 voting members, there must be faculty, students, educational administrators and support staff. It even tells them how many members they have.

Then he goes on to say that if they wish to reduce or increase the numbers, they are able to do so. But guess what. It has to be agreed to by the president and the majority of the voting members of the council. So we've set up this educational council, told them it has to be there and told them how many people have to be on it and what the

[ Page 11633 ]

makeup has to be. This isn't decided by the colleges; this is decided in this legislation by this minister. Then we turn around and suggest that if they're going to increase it, the president has a veto over that. So we're giving the administration veto authority over the reconstitution and restructuring of that. Then he suggests that even if they can get the president to agree, the total voting members....

Keep in mind that we're talking about voting members here, because there are also opportunities for appointment of members who are non-voting. We're setting up two classes of representatives on this board -- the same as we've just done on the college boards -- where we're going to have people who will get remuneration and others who won't, some who can vote on collective agreements and some who can't, and so on. We're now setting this up, and it says: "...(

d) the total of voting members exclusive of those elected or appointed under subsection (3) is 20 or more." So 20 becomes a kind of magic number here. That's problematic, and I think the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi has some questions along those lines.

My question to the minister is this. If educational institutions are going to be charged with putting together recommendations on the list.... And under

section 14, there's a long list of things that they're supposed to do, some of which, I would point out to the minister, are currently covered by collective agreements -- which, of course, this government takes with a grain of salt and is ready to toss out, as it tosses teachers into provincewide bargaining and has just now introduced a new commissioner to literally gut the health commission and the unions.

I see the Minister of Health laughing. He might well laugh because -- guess what -- those unions have just started to read what this government is attempting to do. So has the LRB, which is quite upset with this government. But that's another issue.

The issue here is that the government has dictated.... It has determined how these things are going to work and has told the colleges they must have these faculty members. The member for Okanagan East asked a simple question about cost, and there is a cost value here. If these education councils are going to be charged with the kinds of things that you're saying they have to do in

section 14, they're going to have to spend a lot of time meeting, deliberating and setting down policy.

[4:30]

Collective agreements are going to have to provide, I would argue, for time off or release time for faculty and support staff that are going to sit on these councils, because that's the way it works right now. That's what happens when faculty take on duties on instructional boards, when they take on administrative roles as coordinators, when they set up programs with respect to articulation -- when they set up all of these kinds of programs that happen right now. So the minister must have thought this through.

Can the minister tell us, then, what is the cost of the faculty and staff component with respect to the release time that this ministry is suggesting will now be shunted away from direct educational delivery into administration? That's what this is: it's an administrative, middle-management committee. How much is going to be taken out of the classroom and put into this education council? Or has the minister decided that this educational council is going to provide additional funds to those degree-granting colleges that are going to actually have use of this educational council when it comes into play?

What's it going to be: are they going to get more money, and if so, how much? If they're not going to get more money, how much money is going to be lost from direct education?

Hon. D. Miller: The member answered his own question right at the end, when he asked: exactly what happens now? You can make a ten-minute speech and arrive at the conclusion that the ten-minute speech was a waste of ten minutes.

I repeat.... The members talk about costs. They seem to be wanting to know what's the price of a cup of coffee. If two people get together and have a meeting, we'll have to put a cost on it. You tell me what the cost is, hon. member, for us not to proceed with degree-granting status for four university colleges and two of our institutes. You tell me what the cost is if we don't do that -- the cost in lost opportunity for students in this province.

I would have thought that this member, having taught in a community college, would be an enthusiastic supporter of this legislation -- not be nitpicking here about the cost of a cup of coffee, but instead be enthusiastic about getting on with the job of providing these kinds of opportunities for students in this province: an opportunity to get a technical degree from the B.C.

Institute of Technology; an opportunity for Emily Carr College to advance their animation program into a degree-granting program; an opportunity for the University College of the Cariboo and Malaspina College to move into those applied areas where we have skills shortages, where employers are looking for people to fill real job vacancies right now. And that member, who taught in community colleges, is wasting everybody's time nitpicking over the price of a cup of coffee. He should re-examine his purpose in being here.

Is he in favour of this kind of change, or does he want to endlessly chatter about how many angels can dance on the head of the pin? Let's get on with the business at hand. I've got all the time in the world; if the member wants to waste every member's time, carry on. There's little I can do to prevent you. If that's your wish, hon. Chair, within the rules.... I guess the job is up to you, because I certainly can't satisfy either one of these two members.

G. Wilson: That was somewhat entertaining, although it is becoming a bit repetitious. The fact of the matter is that the minister didn't answer the question, and the reason he didn't answer the question is that he doesn't know what the answer is. He hasn't got a clue what the cost of this is. The minister says this exists right now. It does not exist right now. If the minister had any knowledge at all of how the community college system works -- and as we move into the degree-granting institutions, how they're going to work -- he would know that it doesn't exist now.

I believe not one member here in this House has spoken out against providing degree-granting status to some community colleges. I don't believe there's a single member who doesn't think we ought to move that way. But why is it that we need to have an education council composed of a mandated number of faculty, students and staff? That was the question. Why is 20 the magical number? That's what we asked this minister.

What is so necessary with respect to this that could not be done -- as it has been done over the years -- through instructional boards that are established within the institutions, and by having degree-granting disciplines develop the prerequisite amount of course requirements and decide on those course requirements on a provincewide basis through a provincial articulation system, as happens right now?

We know what's going on here. It's a movement to get college boards to start redirecting the system of education, directed by government. That's clearly what's going on in this system. The minister has said quite clearly that the intent

[ Page 11634 ]

of this ministry is to start to direct program funding into the institutions that supply the kinds of courses this minister and this government think are important -- not what college communities think are important, but what this government thinks is important.

The reason they don't care if you have faculty and student members on a college board so they can negotiate their own collective agreements is that they know darn well that they're going to do to college instructors what they did to teachers. We're going to have a centralized bargaining agent; we're going to have a CIEA or some other provincial bargaining agent, and we're not even going to worry about whether the local boards have an issue on that, because it will be done provincewide. It's the same thing they're doing to health unions right now. That's the ideological agenda of this government.

Do you know what the net result is to the taxpayer? More money. It costs more, that's what it does, and less is going into the delivery of education.

The second thing it does is allow this government to direct how those educational programs are going to be developed and delivered in this province. It's the heavy hand of Big Brother government telling us all how we're going to do it. That's what this legislation is all about, because if it wasn't, it would simply say that community colleges or colleges that have degree-granting status must have an education advisory board or council to provide for the following. That's where it would leave it. It wouldn't tell us that it had to be 20; it wouldn't tell us how many faculty, students or staff had to be on there. It certainly wouldn't spell out a whole list of things as it does under

section 14, some of which are already covered under collective agreements that are going to have to be amended to take account of this particular piece of legislation.

My question to the minister -- or to the minister's delegate, since this minister clearly knows so little about this particular subject.... It is not surprising that a Minister of Labour who's looking after advanced education would not be able to adequately defend his own bill....

J. Tyabji: Especially when he has left the room.

G. Wilson: To whomever the minister's delegate is, since the minister has left this debate, can they tell us why there is the magic number 20? Why is that set as a minimum? What's so magical about 20 for colleges, when the colleges and the size of colleges vary substantially around this province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thought I might stand and participate in this debate on the establishment of education councils at colleges in this province.

I have to confess I'm having a tough time recognizing, in the comments from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, any relation between his characterization of these councils and the reality they will have in colleges around this province, any relationship in his characterization of the plans for developing a comprehensive education system that inculcates skills for the people of this province who need to find jobs to employ those skills, any relationship in his characterization of long-term educational planning by this government....

Quite frankly, I see almost no connection between the words he speaks and the legislation before us.

Let's deal very specifically with the establishment of education councils. I am quite frankly amazed that this member -- who, like me, has taught in colleges in this province -- fails to see the paramount need for establishment in legislation of a council that hears clearly, on appropriate matters, the voice of those who deliver programs, study in the institutions and provide support for the ongoing operations of colleges in the province. This member would simply deny those internal voices the right to have their say on appropriate matters.

Here we have established in legislation a clear mandate, a clear composition and a clear set of requirements for the operations of education councils. The member would say that somehow this is unnecessary and has come about by happenstance. I cannot believe I am hearing that from this member, who I understand was at one time considered a leader in his faculty association and even purported to speak for them.

Here we have a proposal to supersede an ineffective provision in the current legislation for program advisory committees which were not uniformly adhered to, had varying powers and compositions, and were often more ignored than heard in the operations of colleges. Here we have a government that takes clear direction to establish the right of those who work in institutions and deliver educational programs to have their voices heard.

He would talk about some magical number. Well, as my colleague the hon. Minister for Skills, Labour and Training has said: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" He would talk about whether it should be this, that or the other number, ignoring the clear provision in this act for the number to change to meet the needs of a particular institution. He would simply go on and on, quite frankly ignoring the reality of those who work in educational institutions and colleges, ignoring the reality of their mandate to deliver high-quality training and ignoring the educational initiatives of this government.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

G. Wilson: As I heckled from the floor -- and we might as well put it on the record -- we can see right now that 20 angels can dance on the head of this pin. They're all called the angels of the education council. Ten are faculty, four are elected students, four are educational administrators and two are support staff elected by the support staff. That's the number.

Nobody has yet answered the question. It's a very simple question: in this bill, why is the number 20 so important that you have legislated it as a minimum?

Hon. D. Miller: Various members have tried to point out that it's really not important; it only seems to be important to that member. Twenty is a number that allows the kind of balance described in the bill. I have answered this question; it has been answered time after time.

With respect, hon. Chair, I ask that you allow these proceedings to move forward.

G. Wilson: The number is important; it must be important. If it isn't important, then delete 11.4(2)(b). Get rid of it, because that talks about making sure the ratio is maintained. If you increase or decrease the numbers, the ratio....

I notice the minister is now reading the bill; that's good.

Section 11.4(1)(

b) says the ratios have to be maintained. It says under

section 11.4(1)(

d) that the total of voting members, exclusive of those elected or appointed under subsection (3), is 20 or more.

Interjections.

G. Wilson: Under 11.4(2)(d)....

[ Page 11635 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Does the member know what

section he's on?

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. minister. Is there a point of order or clarification?

Hon. D. Miller: The member is referring to 11.4(1)(d), and clearly he's on the wrong section. Does he know what

section he's talking about?

The Chair: I'm sure that's a rhetorical question, so I will simply go back to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and see what happens.

G. Wilson: It may be a legitimate question for this minis