1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 1990

Morning Sitting

[ Page

10355 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Energy Efficiency Act (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 10355

Private Members' Statements

Bone marrow. Mr. Long I –– 10355

Mr. Perry

Fair election practices In B.C. Mr. G. Hanson –– 10357

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Provincial government emergency response. Mr. Peterson –– 10359

Mr. Zirnhelt

Honest, open and fair government. Mr. Sihota –– 10361

Hon. Mr. Reynolds

University of Northern British Columbia Act (Bill 40). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10363

Mr. Harcourt –– 10370

Mr. Jones –– 10372

Mr. Miller –– 10374

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. PETERSON :

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts this morning are 53 grade 5 students from

Mill Bay Elementary School, with their teachers. On behalf of the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), I'd like to ask the House to

please join me in making them very welcome.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a good friend of mine from East

Vancouver, Rob Burkart, a chartered accountant. I'd ask the House to

make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

Hon. Mr. Richmond, on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis), presented a message a from His Honour the Administrator:

a bill intituled Energy Efficiency Act.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce Bill 36, Energy

Efficiency Act. This act will demonstrate government leadership by

promoting the efficient use of energy in British Columbia. Increased

energy efficiency provides a clean, safe, new source of energy at a

time when concern is growing about the rising environmental costs of

energy use and production. Regulations under the Energy Efficiency Act

will set minimum energy efficiency standards and maximum energy

consumption levels for new appliances and other energy-using equipment

sold in British Columbia. Regulated appliances must also be labelled to

show consumers that they meet minimum energy efficiency standards. By

requiring new household appliances and other energy-using equipment to

meet minimum energy efficiency standards, this act will lower energy

costs to consumers, reduce energy-demand growth and buy time to develop

new sources of supply, and it will send a clear message to British

Columbians about the importance of energy efficiency. Minimum energy

efficiency standards will be implemented through regulation after wide

consultation with industry and consumer groups.

Bill 36

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

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

Private Members' Statements

BONE MARROW

MR. LONG : Today I'd like to just bring up a refresher on a private

member's statement I made a year or so ago with regard to the bone marrow

registry. It was two years ago that people from the small town of Powell River

joined together to form the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society, and it is still

active and raising money today.

First

I'd like to congratulate one of our members here in the House, Jan

Pullinger, for her donation of bone marrow to her own brother. I know

she's working very hard for the rest of the people in this province.

There are two different kinds of bone marrow transplants — related

and unrelated. The case of the member who donated marrow to her own

brother was a related marrow transplant. There are some who do not have

the opportunity to receive marrow from family members, because of the

match or because they are the only child. That is what this registry is

for — those people with leukemia who must get a match from

unrelated donors. This is what the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society

is all about. It's about saving lives.

Today I'd just like

to put on record a report from the Canadian Red Cross which gives an

update on the status of the registry. The Canadian unrelated bone

marrow donor registry was officially acknowledged and funded as of

April 1, 1989. Approximately $3 million was awarded to the registry

from the Canadian Blood Committee for a three-year period to establish

a registry with 50,000 donors in it from coast to coast in Canada.

Prior

to April 1, 1989, it had been operating on an ad hoc basis with funds

provided largely by the Bruce Denniston Society of Powell River.

Approximately $300,000 was given to the registry from the Bruce

Denniston Society, and it was matched by funds from the provincial

government of British Columbia. In addition, computerization of the

registry has been accomplished with moneys donated from the Woodward

Foundation of British Columbia and matching funds from the provincial

government. Thus, approximately 25 percent of the funding for the

registry, which is a national program, has been provided by the people

of British Columbia.

Although the national office of the

Canadian Red Cross Society is in Ottawa, the national coordinating

centre of the unrelated bone marrow donor registry of Canada is located

now in Vancouver in the blood centre, and the directors are Noel

Buskard, manager, and Janice King.

As of this date, ten

bone marrow donor recruiters have been hired within the registry to

begin recruiting donors across Canada. Six more will be brought on

board shortly, so that 16 out of the 17 blood transfusion centres in

Canada will be recruiting unrelated bone marrow donors in the near

future. Prince Edward Island, which is the seventeenth centre, will not

begin to recruit donors at this time. Thus this has truly become a

national registry recruiting effort underway from coast to coast.

Obviously

this could not have been achieved without the seed money from the Bruce

Denniston Society during the year of operating before the registry was

formally funded, as well as the large

[ Page 10356 ]

contribution from the government of British Columbia.

The

Red Cross Society blood transfusion service has been asked to take on

this program because it is one of the few health care agencies in

Canada which has a coast-to-coast network that is fully computerized.

In Canada we feel that all bone marrow donors should become blood

donors first to ensure that their health care standards are acceptable,

and that their blood donations are free of any infectious markers. This

has been well accepted by the Canadian public and ensures a high

standard of quality to the bone marrow donors of this country.

The

Canadian national coordinating centre in Vancouver has now established

international links with the United States, Great Britain, France and

the Netherlands, and is linked to these countries by modern electronic

communication equipment, which ensures a turnaround time on donor

searches of approximately 48 hours. This is made possible by the grants

of both the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society and the government of

British Columbia. It means that Canadian patients have access to over

300,000 donors worldwide, which would give us more than a 50 percent

chance of finding a compatible donor for most patients.

[10:15]

Unfortunately the registry worldwide is 98 percent Caucasian, which

makes it unlikely that many successful searches will be accomplished

for patients of Oriental or non-Caucasian extraction. Efforts must be

developed to increase the ethnic balance of the Canadian registry as

well as of other registries.

The size of the Canadian

registry is now over 11, 000 donors, with over 7,000 coming from

British Columbia. Fifty-three unrelated bone marrow transplants have

been performed to this date in Canada, which means that Canada has

performed more of these transplants per capita than any other country

in the world. This is largely due to the fact that there has been an

effective registry in operation. Approximately half of those

transplants have been carried out in British Columbia.

Although

the registry has been operating for approximately two and a half years,

it is only in its second year of official funding. Its accomplishments

also include the provision of five unrelated bone marrow donors to the

United States, and it is anticipated that Canadian marrows will be

provided to other conglomerated countries such as Great Britain and

France. Less than half the donors for Canadian patients have come from

Canada, which emphasizes the fact that international connections are

extremely important in satisfying the needs of Canadian patients.

Further connections will be developed with countries such as Japan and

China to try and address the ethnic inequality in the registry as it

currently exists.

It needs to be emphasized once again that

none of the accomplishments of the registry could have been achieved

without the initial help of the Bruce Denniston Bone Marrow Society and

the government of British Columbia,

MR. PERRY : It's

a pleasure to respond to a statement like this. I've had a long

interest in this subject, perhaps first stimulated by MY contact with

Doug Sokolowski, who was a very brave RCMP officer from Powell River

who died of leukemia a number of years ago and whom I had the privilege

to help treat. His family — particularly his wife — were also

remarkable people. They left a very strong impression on me about

Powell River, as well as the individuals involved. I've also been

particularly honoured that my colleague the second member for Nanaimo

donated marrow to save her brother's life last year. I have a personal

friend, whom I had the privilege to meet at a public meeting last

night, who was saved by bone marrow transplantation last September by a

donation from her brother. Therefore I'm extremely interested in the

unrelated bone marrow donor program that's run through the Red Cross.

I'd

like to point out a couple of observations. It's quite exciting that

two Chinese-Canadian children were recently transplanted in Vancouver

for the disease of thalassemia major, which I referred to the other day

in a question to the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen). It's

important to recognize that none of the very exciting developments,

from which people like the second member for Nanaimo's brother or the

young Chinese-Canadian girl in Toronto who is hoping to receive a

transplant for a plastic anemia None of the benefits they are receiving

or hope to receive would ever have been possible without many years of

basic medical scientific research.

In Canada we don't fund

basic research as well as virtually any other industrialized country in

the world. We can go back to people like Sir Frank McFarlane Burnet,

immunologist and even to Soviet scientists back in the 1930s, 1940s and

even earlier, who did important research in immunology that has made

these advances possible.

I'd just like to remind the House

that one of the major limitations still on the program is the

difficulty in funding the Red Cross programs. I recently visited the

Red Cross centre in Vancouver and saw the exceedingly cramped

facilities where blood is stored, which are totally inadequate for a

modern country. A major problem that the Red Cross faces chronically is

achieving satisfactory, consistent government funding to meet the blood

supply needs in British Columbia, let alone the needs of new programs

like bone marrow transplantation. I think what's exciting about that is

that it offers us an opportunity.

One of the most exciting

things about bone marrow transplantation is that it ties people

together in a sense of community. From our heritage, going back to the

days of the founding of the CCF.... There's something wonderful about

bone marrow transplantation in that it shows us again the

interrelatedness of people not only in their own local community, but

throughout the world. The very idea that somebody living on another

continent might directly save the life of somebody in our country, or

vice versa, and that, as in the case of my colleague from Nanaimo, part

of that person will actually go on living as a new

[ Page

10357 ]

genetic entity in another person, is something that we never could have conceived of in the past history of human beings.

Interjection.

MR. PERRY :

As my colleague the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger) points

out, she has been cloned. What a marvelous experience! It transcends

the science fiction nightmares and gives us some understanding of the

real potential of science to benefit humanity in the world. I'm very

excited about the programs. I hope they continue to expand, and I hope

that all members of this House will consider encouraging their

constituents and setting an example themselves by registering for the

bone marrow registry.

MR. LONG : I think

the people of British Columbia have shown Canada and the world

where this registry is going and for what reason, and that is to help

the people who are stricken with the disease. I would be remiss if I

did not mention that without people's involvement to start with, and

their donations to make this possible, it could never have started; it

would never have been.

I also have to mention that in this

case a total of $300,000 was raised by Powell River, a small community

of 18,000. They had the RCMP and others working on it. After raising

the $300,000, they asked me to come to the government of British

Columbia and to the lotteries branch. I went at that time to the

minister in charge, who happened to be my colleague on the other side

of the House from me right now. I don't know whether I can mention

names, but we thank him.

The $300,000 was given under

special consideration by the minister administering the lottery grants

because of the emergency of the bone marrow program. I thank the

minister for the decision which he made for the bone marrow people of

this province, and I thank our government for participating with the

people of British Columbia to make this a positive, real thing for

people all over the province and, in fact, with computer link-ups with

that money, for people all over the world.

MR. SPEAKER :

Hon. members, just before proceeding with the next private member's

statement, the Chair finds itself in a very awkward position today. The

second private member's statement under the name of the first member

for Victoria (Mr. G Hanson), located on page 16 of today's Orders of the Day ,

is listed as "Fair Election Practices in B.C." On page 18 is Bill M221,

intituled Fair Elections Practices Act, in the name of the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Firstly, I ask the member to go to his seat

if he wishes to intervene. Secondly, I ask him not to intervene while the Chair

is making a statement. Would you please return to your seat.

What

is important here is that the standing orders we have today require the

Chair to either ask leave of the House or to ask the member, prior to

making his statement, whether this statement will be in conflict with

the other one. The simple way to do it is to ask leave of the House for

it to proceed, because the bill is not printed. However, I am bound by

the standing orders that bind me. I would ask leave that the member can

now proceed. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER : On that basis, would the member please proceed.

FAIR ELECTION PRACTICES IN B.C.

MR. G. HANSON : I appreciate the members of the House doing that. I intend to spend most of my time on aspects not included in the bill — just to avoid any confusion. Again I appreciate the members' support on that.

British

Columbia has made some major steps forward in election practices in

this province in recent years. We have some major hurdles to overcome

yet. We now have, as a result of justice Thomas Fisher, a fair

redistribution for the next election. We're pleased about that.

However, there are some holdovers from the bad old days which put us in

much the same position as we've been prior to previous elections.

One

is that that 500,000 British Columbians are now not on the voter list

here in the province of British Columbia. That is a staggering number,

Mr. Speaker, and it varies riding by riding. As you know, a while ago

the ability of citizens to register and vote on voting day was taken

away by legislation in this House. Unfortunately, that was not in the

same spirit as the redistribution that occurred with justice Fisher. In

my own constituency of Victoria, some 7,000 citizens are not now on the

list. In some ridings, such as in downtown Vancouver, it is far in

excess of that. It's estimated that 25 percent of the population moves

every year. That's just a statistic. When we look at the number of

people who voted in the last federal election, and look at the number

of people who were enumerated as of April 30, 1989, when the

enumeration was completed, and we extrapolate those numbers and deduct

an estimated population of non-eligible citizens, we come up with a

number of 500,000. That's totally unacceptable.

As you can

recall, in 1986, when the ability to register and vote on election day

was in place, after the votes were tallied and the statement of votes

came out of the public service, it showed the following percentage of

section 80 votes: Vancouver Centre, 16 percent; Atlin, 13.6 percent;

Prince Rupert, 12.2 percent; Vancouver-Little Mountain, 11.3;

Vancouver-Point Grey, 11.25; Surrey-Newton, 11.1; Surrey

Guildford-Whalley, 11.05; Prince George North,

[ Page 10358 ]

10.96; and the lowest was Shuswap-Revelstoke, 4.5 percent.

we turn on the television set every night and see people in all parts

of the world fighting for democratic processes, the most fundamental of

all is the right to choose the government that represents your

interests, the one that can meet your aspirations. Easy and free access

for eligible voters to exercise their franchise is the most fundamental

aspect.

If the Premier of British Columbia were to drop the

writ today, the legislation allows ten days to get on the voter list.

But when you exclude the weekend days, the time when the phone is busy

and the time it takes to ascertain precisely where a person gets on the

list, you find out that the window of opportunity to exercise one's

franchise is in actual fact substantially smaller than the ten days.

don't want chaos at the ballot boxes and polling stations in British

Columbia, where because of some administrative procedural rule, people

are denied their right to choose the government that is going to lead

us into the nineties. The election should be based on the issues and

policies of the parties of the day and their ability, through force of

argument and debate, to put those forward to the people. No eligible

citizen should be denied that opportunity.

[10:30]

On April 30, 1989, 1,711,510 people were on the voter list. In the

federal election, 1.9 million voters were registered. The current

voting-age population is 2.2 million. With the number of people

moving....

We've done research in our own riding, as I'm

sure members opposite have. Let me give you the example of

Victoria-Beacon Hill: the census population is 41,384; not eligible,

6,000; eligible voters, 35,384; voter list, 27,631; voters estimated

not on the list, 7,753. This is a very small riding, equal in size to

the new redistributed ridings. But just in the southern part of the

Victoria precinct area, it's down 7,100.

Mr. Speaker, I

know members opposite know that many constituents are tenants. They are

more mobile. There are people coming of voting age, who are not

registered. With the changes in the Election Act, the enumeration was

done in the third year, rather than in the second. That gathered people

up, but now they're falling away. The longer the time between now and

the next election There doesn't seem to be the urge and drive to go to

the people that we sensed in the spring. Now the momentum is rapidly

going into reverse.

I want to comment also on a second

substantial element of fair election practices in British Columbia

which is ignored: that is, the need for election expenses legislation.

The new commission to be established We now have time in this session

of the House to introduce legislation

MR. SPEAKER : Time is up, hon. member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks),

I'm pleased to rise and take my place today in the Legislative Assembly

to respond to the thoughtful comments of the first member for Victoria

and his concern about election lists and enumeration.

think the member made part of the case that I'm going to make, when he

indicated that he was doing some estimating of who may be on or off the

voter list. But first of all, to the issue of

section 80 and that type

of voting, I would like to put on the record why we changed the

legislation following the 1986 general election.

Election-day

registration, of course, was intended to be used only by those people

not registered anywhere else in the province. However, the post

election analysis of voting records indicated that in some areas of

greater Vancouver, over 83 percent of duplicate registrations were of

the

section 80 variety, and on Vancouver Island, over 71 percent were.

It would seem' therefore, that many people used

section 80 only to

submit a change of address, rather than for its intended purpose.

the 1983 general election, 69,552 votes were cast under

section 80.

That number had more than doubled in 1986 to 157,098. I also want to

commend to the House the fact that this extensive use of election-day

registration caused long lineups at polling places, resulting in

congestion. This interfered with the voting procedures of voters who

were already registered, and delayed election-night ballot-counting.

The congestion also caused confusion on the part of all involved,

leading to misdirection and errors.

The member indicated

federal as well as provincial figures, but neglected one comment that

the House should be aware of. I'll cite some numbers that we have

gathered with the Ministry of Provincial Secretary. In the 1988 federal

election, approximately 93 percent of the estimated eligible population

were enumerated. The voter list for the 1986 provincial election

totalled 92 percent of the estimated eligible population. This is a

very favourable comparison, and I'll tell you why.

The

federal list, of course, includes people who are 18, so there is a

larger percentage of the population eligible for a federal election

than would be for a provincial election. The member neglects to mention

that. Also, there is no residency requirement for federal registration,

and the federal system also lacks the provincial requirement we have

for voters' signatures. That accounts for the slight difference in

eligible people who were enumerated. But reaching 92 to 93 percent in a

voluntary system, I would submit, is a very good record.

I'd

also like to compare the voter registration period that we have now

with other provinces'. We have a ten-day registration period following

the issue of the writ and an additional six days of voter registration

under

section 80, so there are now a total of 16 days during an

election period when qualified unregistered voters may register as

provincial voters. Since the entire election period is only 29 days,

voter registration is now possible 55 percent of that time.

Finally,

I'll conclude with the registration periods in other provinces during

an election and compare them as well with the federal system. The other

Canadian jurisdictions fall considerably short of the

[ Page

10359 ]

mark of 16 days in British Columbia. For example,

outside of an enumeration, Alberta has only ten days of voter

registration during an election; Quebec, six days; Prince Edward

Island, four; the federal system, three; Nova Scotia, Manitoba and

Yukon have only two; New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Northwest

Territories have only one day of voter registration during an election

period.

I would argue, and I think the facts would

demonstrate clearly, that British Columbia has by far one of the

better, fairer election processes, certainly allowing for the widest

general franchise that one could ask for without in fact anticipating

all the problems that we had in 1986 with duplicate voting, which was

indeed not a very fair way of treating the ultimate democratic process.

When we had that type of abuse going on it was clear to government that

we had to make our change.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit in closing that it's a fair process in B.C.

MR. G. HANSON :

I think we're seeing, as a result of debates on other issues in the

country, that process is as important as policy in this country. People

are becoming aware that they want processes to be fair and just.

There's no more important process than being on the voter list.

think the card was a move forward. But at the motor vehicle branches in

the province, as people renew their motor vehicle licences, there

should be a voter list so that people can ascertain whether they're on

the list. By simply filling out a card and leaving it there and having

those cards go over to the elections branch, a person's residency could

be brought up to date. That would not be a major administrative

problem. The master voter list should be made available at every motor

vehicle branch in the province, and people should be asked. There could

be a sign at the counter: "Check if you're on the list. Get ready to

make your choice for the nineties." That's a fair process, and I don't

think it would cost any money.

I was going to mention

election expenses. We're at the point now when we see the range of

funds expended for elections in British Columbia.... It's time we had a

fair evaluation of each electoral district to see what is required,

given the geography and population and so on — what would be an

appropriate amount of money. The last thing we want is big money

purchasing elections and purchasing seats in this House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It doesn't work.

MR. G. HANSON :

I believe it does work, and it's part of a fair process. You may not

like who finally gets elected, but big money should not control who

sits in this legislature.

We want disclosure of every contribution over $100 in this House.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON : I don't think any member, including the member for Surrey-White Rock, should be afraid of that.

MR. REID : I'm not afraid of it.

MR. G. HANSON :

Very good. Then you'll endorse that? I'll look forward to you taking

that to your colleagues and convincing them that we want full

disclosure, fair election expenses legislation, fair voter

registration, a reduction of the voting age and a chief electoral

officer appointed by an all-party committee of this House, who is to

have the same status as the ombudsman and the auditor-general so that

we can lead the world in fair processes.

When we turn on

the television and find people fighting for the right to their

franchise in other parts of the world, we won't have to turn it off in

shame, knowing that there are 500,000 British Columbians who are not on

the list, and that there are likely to be 20 percent who will turn up

at the polling stations and be turned away for the first time in

British Columbia's history, because there's no

section 80 right for

them to register and vote under.

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

EMERGENCY RESPONSE

MR. PETERSON :

Today I wish to speak about how our provincial government is responding

to the flood emergency which now exists in much of our province and how

we're preparing for other natural emergencies and disasters. I stand to

make these remarks not in a partisan way, but in the interests of

informing the members of this chamber about the excellent work

performed by the staff of several ministries.

The flood

response procedures now in effect across the province have been worked

out well in advance through interministerial protocols coordinated by

the provincial emergency program under the Solicitor-General's ministry.

Basically,

the response works like this: the water management branch of the

Ministry of Environment continually monitors and forecasts water levels

in rivers and lakes throughout the province. This branch is in constant

contact with PEP coordinators in different regions and headquarters

here in Victoria.

When water approaches the warning level,

the public is alerted, and a decision is made to open an emergency

operations centre in the community involved. An emergency information

centre is set up adjacent to the operations centre, and a special

number for news media calls is established. It is an important

principle of our emergency response plan that the news media play a

vital role in getting important and, I may add, accurate information to

the public.

The various ministries involved in responding

to the emergency are included in the emergency operations centre. It is

through them that the resources of government are accessed to assist in

flood response. The Forest Service has provided manpower in the

Okanagan to help stack sandbags. The Ministry of

[ Page 10360 ]

Social

Services and Housing helps find emergency accommodation, and in one

instance, I am told, was even able to provide a distraught and

exhausted women with a homemaker. Transportation and Highway crews are

pulling out all stops to repair damage and keep our transportation

lines open. Staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have

assisted farmers whose livestock is stranded by the floods, and the

Environment Youth Corps has been ready to assist as required.

Much

of the work is undertaken by volunteers. I cannot say enough about the

dedication and courage of British Columbians who volunteer their time

and energies to help their fellow British Columbians in times of

emergency. Much of the success of the provincial emergency program can

be attributed to their work with volunteers from one end of this

province to the other. I feel very proud to stand in this House and

salute British Columbia's volunteers.

The provincial

emergency response plan is coordinated with and supports the plans of

municipalities, which give top priority to the safety of residents and

the protection of property. On Wednesday, our Premier and the

Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) traveled to the areas worst

affected by flooding, to view the problem firsthand and to talk to the

local people who have suffered hardships as a result of the severe

flooding. They brought back with them a deep sympathy for those who are

suffering and a sense of urgency.

[10:45]

The very next day — yesterday — the matter of compensation

was discussed by the Cabinet Committee on Planning and Priorities, and

a decision was made to offer interim compensation under the Flood

Relief Act forthwith. Further assessments of damage will be conducted

continually until this situation has passed. The general concept of

operation of this flood response plan is the same as that which forms

the core of the province's overall emergency and seismic preparedness

plans, the latter of which is in final draft stages and has been

discussed extensively with emergency planners at the municipal level

and with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, emergency

planning is unlike other forms of planning, in that a great deal of

effort goes into preparing for an event that may or may not happen in

one's lifetime. Yet it is essential that we prepare even for the

unthinkable, such as a catastrophic earthquake. We all saw coverage of

the San Francisco earthquake and what it did to people's lives; yet

that was not considered a catastrophic earthquake.

The goal

of the provincial emergency preparedness plan is to have the people and

the governments of British Columbia prepared to deal with the worst

possible crisis, because if we are prepared to deal with the worst,

which we hope will never happen, then we most certainly will be able to

deal with lesser emergencies which inevitably will occur. This is the

basic principle behind PEP, and I think their response to the current

flood crisis demonstrates beyond doubt that they are living proof of

the value of that principle.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I'm

pleased to be able to respond to the statements, Mr. Speaker. We on

this side of the House also treat this in a non-partisan way, of

course. We would like to extend our sympathy to those who have lost

family members in the recent disasters throughout the province, and

also to say that we are in deep sympathy with those who have extensive

property damage.

I would like to commend the provincial

emergency program people. In my riding of Cariboo they have reacted

extremely quickly and have dealt with all the emergencies that have

come up.

There are some areas of follow-up that could be

improved. I know the Solicitor-General would like to hear some of these

comments before he has to receive them in letter form.

had floods in early June in the southern part of the Cariboo, in the

Loon Lake area near Cache Creek. I visited the area the day after the

flood and was able to monitor what was being done there. I'm pleased to

report that the provincial emergency program has left me with very few

phone calls, other than routine and follow-up and feedback for me to be

able to know what's going on. I have identified a few holes in the

system, but nothing that I would consider to be of an emergency nature.

believe that's happening as the floods develop in other parts of the

province: the quick response is going in. The provincial emergency

program people, especially in our area, deserve incredible support from

the public. The job they have done is nothing short of outstanding. I

think that's consistent with their response to minor emergencies. They

appear to be extremely well organized and can get support for people in

very quick order.

I would also have to commend the utilities — the Hydro and telephone people — for restoring service and dealing with dangerous situations that have resulted from flooding.

It's

really important also to recognize that the Ministry of Highways and

some of their contractors have moved quickly to restore access to

people, so if any other health emergencies crop up, communication lines

are open and people can travel. In the monitoring that I have done, I

have nothing but commendation for the people in the ministry and the

contractors involved. The people in the area are quick to tell us about

it.

I would like to point out an area of improvement that

could be made. People should know their rights for compensation under

the emergency programs. Here we are, two weeks later, in the case of

the southern Cariboo, and people have had a person travel through and

inform them basically of their rights, but he didn't have even a

handout, for example, to tell them what compensation is possible.

People have been left a bit in the dark that way. I've been trying to

pass on that information, but I'm finding it difficult to provide the

service that might be provided by an official of the government. I would

[ Page

10361 ]

encourage the government agents to be involved in

distributing information quickly to people who are affected. I realize

that sometimes the small areas that are affected earlier on are going

to get less service, because of the large areas that are affected where

there's loss of life and huge losses to property. I think that local

officials who are not necessarily part of the Solicitor-General's

department — for example, the government agents — could perform a much larger role and could subsume some of those services.

Again,

on this side of the House, we offer our sympathies to those people who

have been affected, and who have had a loss of life in their family and

damage to their property.

MR. PETERSON : I want to

thank the second member for Cariboo for his remarks. I would like to

inform him, in terms of his critique, that he should tell his

constituents to phone the PEP hotline. I'll give the number to him. It

is 1-800-663-3456. The forms are available right now at their local

government agent's office.

Although I do appreciate his

remarks, I just want to indicate that our Solicitor-General, in view of

very trying circumstances, most certainly has proven that this

government is ready to assist immediately. No, it's not a perfect

world. Let me assure the second member for Cariboo that our

Solicitor-General will be continually improving the PEP plan, because

we as a government will always be attempting to improve what we are

doing in terms of helping British Columbians when they face some

disaster that must be met.

All in all, I want to compliment

the second member for Cariboo on his remarks with regard to this issue,

because when people are facing disaster we should most certainly be

pulling together to do what we can to help them. I know that members

from the opposite side of this House, as well as ourselves, feel that

way also.

If I talk about my own constituency in Langley,

you'll read in the history books about the 1948 flood and what we had

available to us at that time relative to what we have in the 1990s. The

difference is like day and night. All I can do is compliment all the

levels of government, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal,

for learning from those disaster experiences so that should such a

disaster occur again, we will be ready to respond as soon as possible.

I really want to reiterate my congratulations — this government's congratulations —

to all the volunteers, the ministry staff of all the ministers

involved, the contractors and everybody who has pulled together for

showing the real, true stuff that British Columbians are made of when

it comes to helping each other when we face some sort of disaster in

this province.

HONEST, OPEN AND FAIR GOVERNMENT

MR. SIHOTA : I'd like to talk about open, fair and honest government

for the time that's allocated for this statement. Mr. Speaker, the current

administration in this province has gained a reputation among the population

for being out of touch with the views of most British Columbians, for imposing

its moral values on British Columbians and for favouring its friends and insiders.

We've seen a number of incidents over the past few years that have served

to reinforce that reality and those perceptions of this government.

Remarkably,

as we sit here in a legislative session that is on the eve of the next

provincial election, one would have thought that the government would

have taken steps to address those failures that I've just enumerated.

In fact, in the time that I've been observing politics, I can't think

of another legislative session where, quite frankly, the government has

functioned so poorly in terms of its ability to deal with the problems

and scandals that have historically plagued this government. It has

been remarkable what we've seen during the course of this legislative

session and the criticism that has come to government as a consequence

of the various scandals and examples of ineptitude that have been

brought to public attention during this session. I am sure that as a

consequence any election plans the government had in place in March for

this summer have now gone, as we've seen the administration stumble

from one issue to another — REAL Women, the auditor-general's report or some of the other issues this week.

Mr. Speaker, this week has in many ways been a remarkable reflection of the

difficulties faced by this government and has remarkably reinforced the realities

I referred to earlier that have plagued this government: being out of touch,

imposing its moral values and favouring its friends and insiders. One only has

to go through the events of the past week to reflect on what's happened

with this government. We witnessed at the beginning of this week revelations

that a cabinet minister was using government jets for trips to her constituency

and then, when questioned about that, not agreeing to release, as of that date,

the logs of ministerial travel and flights throughout the province. That is

hardly either open or honest government.

have witnessed in this past week the revelation that lottery grants

have been approved by a secret committee of ministers - and until

recently, the names of those ministers weren't even provided to the

members of this House -and that lottery funds in British Columbia are

being approved by this secret committee without enacting a legislative

provision that allows for and calls for an independent committee to

advise the government with respect to the provision of lottery funds.

Those are hardly the attributes of a government that is open and honest

with its citizens.

We've witnessed in this past week

revelations with respect to hospital equipment being purchased without

tender, and this at a significant cost to the coffers of government at

the very time that we have people in British Columbia waiting

desperately to get onto hospital waiting-lists to receive much-needed

surgery. Again, that revelation of avoiding the public

[ Page 10362 ]

tendering process is hardly the quality of an open government.

[11:00]

We also this week witnessed, on Tuesday, the commencement of

litigation dealing with a former cabinet minister and the matter of

funds that he had some discretion over during his tenure as a minister.

Mr.

Speaker, in light of these events, British Columbians are saying that

they want open, fair and honest government. It is, of course, one thing

for the opposition to point out the weaknesses and ineptitude of this

administration, but it is also an obligation of the opposition to say

what it would do, what its alternatives are and how it would bring

open, fair and honest government to British Columbia.

I see

that the first portion of my time has virtually expired. Therefore, in

the second portion of my comments, I will be indicating to the

government what the alternatives are: how we can build a regime of

open, fair and honest government; how we can ensure that these types of

scandals are put behind us and that they're not repeated; and how we

can build a legislative and policy practice framework here in this

Legislature to make sure that these things are not done again.

Mr.

Speaker, I'll conclude the first half of my comments and allow the

Minister of Environment to comment with respect to the events that have

transpired during this remarkable legislative session Then I will

outline what the alternatives are.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Mr. Speaker, I just want to start off by quoting something out of the Vancouver Sun

of March 6 of this year, where it says: "The NDP justice critic, a

lawyer, considered to be the most likely candidate for Attorney-General

should his party win the next election, is keen to limit the

mudslinging speeches that serve as government policy debate in the

House." I find it amazing that he talks about open government, and then

says that he's keen to limit the mudslinging in this House.

But

let's talk about an open and honest, fair opposition. Let's look at

some of the things that the Leader of the Opposition says. The mayor of

Vancouver says in the Province: "I'm promising swift and tough action

against any alderman or staff who leaks confidential council materials

to the press. If I discover a staff person doing this, he will be

disciplined or fired." This is what the mayor said — the Leader of

the Opposition now. He also added: "If an alderman was involved, he or she is not worthy of office."

If we're going to talk about open and honest opposition, and the Leader of

the Opposition feels that strongly.... I remember in the House the

member for Vancouver East, or one of their other members, stood up and

asked our Minister of Social Services and Housing if he'd received a

meal paid for while he was on an expense trip and if he'd claimed a per

diem. I would ask all the members on that side a question: on the day

that they had dinner with the Vancouver Stock Exchange — probably

a $40 or $50 dinner — did they forgive the per diems they're

getting paid here? Did they do that? I doubt it very much. It hurts a

little, doesn't it, when you try and compare things?

heard the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) talk about

jets. I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition if he thinks it's

still correct that he, as mayor of Vancouver, took corporate jets down

to California when he was looking for a baseball team. It was paid for

by the large corporations these people talk about. This is the open and

honest opposition we have.

I want to ask those members of

the opposition about when their member, who used to be leader of their

party in this House, stood up in the House in Ottawa and said: "The

convention in British Columbia was held in a facility owned by a close

friend of the front-running leadership candidate, a man who paid off

other candidates to drop out of the race." This story was an absolute

lie, and he admitted later he may have made a mistake. Did they stand

up in this House and ask the government if we were going to make sure

that story was corrected? No. When one of their own tells a lie

somewhere, they don't complain about it. This is the open opposition.

When

Vancouver MP John Brewin decided not to resign after declaring

bankruptcy, the Leader of the Opposition says: "That's business.

Business is business." If he was in this House, he would have had to

resign his seat. And he should have done the honourable thing and

resigned his seat when he declared bankruptcy in this province. The

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew knows that — the one that wants

to talk about honesty and integrity. Yet were they even phoning him

privately and telling him what to do? I doubt it. They want open and

honest government when they're in opposition, but they don't do it

while they're in opposition. That same Mr. Brewin took a trip to New

Zealand on the taxpayer, while owing the federal government $85,000 in

back taxes. They talk about open and honest government.

want to quote one of the statements from one of their members, quoted

in the Alberni Valley Times of May 9, 1990: "The Socred government

plans on applying the current 6 percent provincial sales tax on top of

the 7 percent GST. By piggybacking their tax on top of the GST, the

Socreds will take an extra $100 million out of your pockets." This was

the Leader of the Opposition quoted on May 9. A month earlier in the

budget it was quoted that we will not piggyback on the sales tax. It

was stated here by the Minister of Finance, right in this House on one

of the few days that Leader of the Opposition was sitting in his seat.

Yet he can go somewhere else in this province and say something that

his party knows is not true. This is open and honest government by the

NDP?

I could go on and on. He goes on the "Rafe Mair Show"

as Leader of the Opposition, puts it in his ad and gets chastised by

the radio station. This is open and honest government? They talk about

sleaze. This government, when people are sentenced in courts, takes the

respect of the courts and lives with it. This party, when one of your

former members was charged with a very serious offence — Charlie Barber — we didn't ask the Attorney-General....

[ Page

10363 ]

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Fortunately the time has expired.

MR. SIHOTA :

Nothing that the minister says excuses or explains why this government

has not taken any action to remedy its failing. Nothing that the

minister says excuses the favoritism shown by this administration to

its friends and insiders. Nothing, more importantly, in what the

minister says paves the way towards an end to this kind of stuff by the

introduction of legislation and reform that would take action against

ministers who engage in indiscretions. If anything, what the minister

ought to have said is that he would support a regime that would have

the following elements to it.

First of all, it is essential

that we have, as New Democrats have proposed, conflict-of-interest

legislation in British Columbia. Conflict-of-interest legislation is

absolutely vital to ensure that ministers do not engage in activities

that benefit them. The purpose of a ministerial office and ministerial

service is to engage in activities that serve the public, not the

interests of various ministers. We ought to have conflict-of-interest

legislation in this House to make sure that family members — or ministers directly — do not benefit from any of the decisions that they make.

We've

introduced legislation in this House that says very simply that if

ministers are engaged in matters that amount to conflict of interest,

they're gone — no pay, no pension, no seat. That's what the law should be in this province.

HON. MRS. GRAN : You're so self-righteous.

MR. SIHOTA : It is not self-righteous. It is the practice in other jurisdictions in Canada, and we should have it in British Columbia.

There

should be freedom-of-information legislation in British Columbia so

that the public has open access to airplane logs, violations of

pollution permits and details of various government loans and

contracts, such as the Expo lands agreement.

There should

be legislation in place in this province that allows for televising of

the Legislature. The courts in Nova Scotia have held that it is a

fundamental right, and this government should fulfil its promise of the

last election and ensure that the proceedings of this House are

televised, so that people can have open access to what happens in the

House and can see for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, there should

be a system of review of the activities of Crown corporations in

British Columbia. Right now I believe that approximately 40 percent of

this province's debt is attached to Crown corporations, but there is no

review mechanism for Crown corporations.

Legislative committees should be playing a larger role in the operation of

this Legislature, so that there can be more open scrutiny of the activities

of ministers, and their officials can be subpoenaed to give evidence on various

matters. That amounts to open, fair and honest government.

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN :

In the gallery today are 28 grade 5 students from Sardis Elementary

School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Knutson. Would you please make

them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I rise

on a point of order. As you so duly noted this morning when the first

member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) rose, he was speaking on an issue

that was considered and could be considered at another time. The member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew — we know he is new and inexperienced and does not understand the standing orders —

has violated the same standing order by devoting most of his discussion

to an item which is on the order paper which could be discussed later.

I think the House should have that brought to its attention, because

private members' statements clearly have a purpose. However, if there's

a bill or another anticipated manner which will serve this same

purpose, then the use of private members' statements to discuss that

issue is clearly out of order.

MR. SPEAKER : The

Chair recognizes the point raised by the member. However, as the

session winds on, private members' statements become more and more

restrictive in what we can discuss if we apply the rules absolutely,

because virtually everything can be done under some other business. For

example, with today's four private members' statements, the estimates

of the Ministry of Solicitor-General are yet to come, which would deal

with the third one, and the first one could be dealt with under the

estimates of the Ministry of Health.

The original concept

of private members' statements was so that members who did not have an

opportunity at another time to bring matters forward could do so on

Friday. As you well know, sir, as a member of the committee that

drafted the regulations, it gets more and more difficult for the Chair

to enforce them. Today we had a particularly difficult situation when

both the title and a bill were worded exactly the same. However, the

matter was dealt with by asking leave. Perhaps the committee of the

House would like to address the whole issue of private members'

statements. It is virtually unenforceable.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 40.

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take my place today to move second reading

of the University of Northern British Columbia Act. As I indicated

during my comments at first

[ Page 10364 ]

reading,

and as I'm going to be saying again, there's a long and very good

history to the genesis of this legislation we're preparing today. I'm

going to spend some time discussing the history of how this legislation

came to be. I'll advise you that I will be designated speaker, because

there's a very good chance that I'm going to go over my time-limit.

begin, we have to give credit to a dedicated group of businessmen and

businesswomen in Prince George who began in early 1987.... I'll name

them now: Murray Sadler, QC, currently chairman of the interim

governing council, Roy Stewart, another Prince George lawyer; Elsie

Gerdes from the Northern Interior Health Unit; Tom Steadman, a Prince

George businessman, Charles McCaffray, who at the time was the

principal of the College of New Caledonia; Dr. McKenzie, and many

others. The list goes on and on, but those are people who clearly have

to be pointed out as being the critical people and really the genesis

of finally putting this idea together.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Coincidentally

in 1987, as that Interior University Society was formed, some of us on

the executive council were given a responsibility and a budget, as

ministers of state. In a while I'll describe how those two coincidental

issues came together in a first-class fashion.

[11:15]

The Interior University Society, under the direction of the people

I've just mentioned, went first with their Idea to the regional

district and the economic development corporation of the regional

district and asked for some small amount of funding so that they could

print stationery and begin a membership and subscription list. I

believe the request was for $1, 500 and the economic development

corporation granted it. It was from that point that the Interior

University Society began their very good work. With that bit of

assistance, and with the stationery budget and other things in place,

they began to gather memberships and assert their influence and spread

their message throughout the north.

They came to me as

minister of state. I then had a budget for this type of funding. I

worked with my colleagues the Speaker (Hon. Mr. Rogers), former

Minister of State for Nechako; the current Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. Brummet), who was a minister of state at the time; and the current

Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker). We were able to fund a

$100,000 study conducted by a Dr. Urban Dahllof, a professor from

Sweden whose field of expertise is rural education.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Yes, it's suffering from it, too, from the highest unemployment. The

Prime Minister had to resign. It's not a very good example Did I tell

you I just bought a Volvo last night?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The one I have is assembled in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. How did we get on to this?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I do. As a matter of fact, I'm soon to have two of them.

AN HON. MEMBER : What model?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I have a 740 and a 544. Back to the bill.

Dr.

Dahllof is an international scholar dealing in rural education. He has

done work for the governments of Australia, Finland, Sweden and Norway,

and he was instructive. His work was extremely good, and it pointed

out, first of all, that the population base was there to seriously

consider a fourth university in the central Interior of the province.

Certainly the employer demand was there to consider a fourth university

in the interior of the province, and all the factors that we had to

have put in place were in place.

Dr. Dahllof also suggested

a method of teaching delivery that was not typical of what we would

normally expect in North America, but it was instructive, it was unique

and innovative, and it gave us a lot of food for thought.

any event, it was on the basis of that study that I went to the former

Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, the member for Comox

(Hon. S. Hagen), and took that work to cabinet and to his ministry. As

part of his Access for All program of 1988 and 1989, he struck an

implementation planning group, chaired by Horst Sander, a Prince George

businessman and significant industry leader. They spent some

considerable time with some ministry staff, clearly identifying

demographics and the population base and the necessity and the need and

how a university would look and what it would be if we were to have a

fourth university in northern or central British Columbia.

The

mandate given to the implementation planning group, the group chaired

by Horst Sander, was that any degree-granting post-secondary

institution should be autonomous. That was clearly indicated by all the

people who live in the central interior and northern part of the

province. There's a reason for that. I guess they sensed that anything

else was a branch-plant mode and would not be acceptable.

course, as a community we have looked at the university college models

that were being advanced and being put in place at Malaspina, Cariboo

and Okanagan. But again, that was a model we didn't want to embrace.

Clearly it was, as I said, branch plant in terms of its design.

Although we have no argument with what is being done at Kelowna,

Kamloops or Nanaimo, we clearly saw that we would want any institution

in the north to be autonomous. We would want it to have its own board

of governors, its own governorship and in many ways be unique to the

central interior. Features of that come out in this

[ Page

10365 ]

bill, and I'll describe that as I further discuss the university.

The

implementation planning group began in March 1989. They did

considerably good work and reported to me. By that time I had become

minister in the late part of December. They made significant

recommendations, most of which are reflected in this legislation that

we're discussing today. The recommendations were, first of all, that

the answer is yes, there should be a university in northern British

Columbia. That was good to finally get that answer — yes — and get it with some authority, considerable background, investigation and documentation behind it.

Secondly,

if there was to be a fourth university in British Columbia, it would be

similar to the North American model of a university in that it would

have the general range of undergraduate programs, it would anticipate

having professional schools and it would certainly anticipate having

graduate programs as they developed. In other words, there is to be no

limitation in any fashion of the function, ability, design, methodology

and appearance of this fourth university.

We looked at some

models. Lethbridge was a good example. Lethbridge went in place some

years ago as a university that would offer four-years-only degree

completion at the bachelor level and not go further The argument there,

of course, is that it didn't attract the best faculty, because they

wouldn't have the chance of working with graduate students. Also they

didn't attract as many students as they had anticipated, only because

students saw that as a second-rate institution. That has since changed

at Lethbridge, and they have better enrolment figures now.

Nevertheless, we learned from the experience at Lethbridge that there's

no way you can short-cut the institution, nor is there any way you can

second-rate it without having it suffering the consequences of that

government action.

Clearly we had to put in place a

recommendation to government that established a university that would

be a full university in the North American sense of the word and would

not be diminished or in any way different from what we know as

universities.

During January 1989 as minister of state with

a sincere interest in establishing a university, and then in January

1990 as Minister of Advanced Education, I spent considerable time

touring Canada. I visited some very good institutions, most notably the

ones I speak of now and the ones I want to have on the record. They

were institutions that resembled what we would like to see in Prince

George and for the north and were already in place in northern Ontario.

Specifically I'm speaking of Lakehead University at Thunder Bay and

Laurentian University at Sudbury.

Both those communities, as members of the House will know, resemble Prince

George, with the city and peripheral population of around 100, 000 or thereabouts.

They are both resource communities: Sudbury being mining, Thunder Bay being

forest industry-pulp and paper. They resemble Prince George in terms of their

population makeup and their resource industry base. They had universities, so

they were interesting communities for me to see.

might add that in the trip of 1989, 1 had with me our mayor, John

Backhouse, from Prince George, and also the executive director of the

Prince George Region Development Corporation, Dale McMann. We spent

considerable time looking at Sudbury, how it had developed and, for our

interests, the university. It was an instructive trip.

The

reception I had in both the communities and both those universities was

very good. They pointed out that in many cases, a smaller university

has advantages over a larger university. First of all, although you

don't enjoy economy of scale in terms of budgets and that type of

feature in a smaller university, you certainly have some economies when

it comes to getting through the red tape. You have the economy of a

smaller bureaucracy where things happen with much more flexibility,

much more ease and in a far more expeditious manner.

They

pointed out that because of this flexibility and this ability to be

quickly innovative, and because there aren't layers of bureaucratic

administration or red tape, faculty were attracted in many cases to the

smaller universities — particularly your good graduate faculty who

could sense the ability to do something well, do something quickly and

really be a leader at a small university. I guess it's the

big-frog-in-the-small-pond syndrome, if I can characterize it that way.

did establish in my mind that you don't have to be big to be good; you

can be a smaller school and be good. I think that was important. It

really solved a lot of the questions that I had when I looked at this.

Not having had the advantage of attending a university, it was

difficult for me to make that assessment at the time. But after

visiting those institutions, it became clear to me that this was a very

good way to go, and that in fact you could have excellence in spite of

a small size.

I wanted to put. on the record how cordial,

informative and genuinely interested the faculty, the students, the

administration and the board of directors were both at Laurentian and

Lakehead, and how supportive they've been of this initiative. As a

matter of fact, there's a staff person we're now considering seconding

from Lakehead University to come to Prince George to assist the board;

that decision may be made within the week. But there is good, genuine

interest in both those communities for Prince George, for the north and

for what we want to do.

Following my return to British

Columbia in January of '89, the work I had done and the other

universities I'd looked at across Canada, we began putting this

legislation in place. There are some interesting features of this

legislation that are different from the University Act, and they're

contained in the bill for obvious reasons, and I'd like to speak to

them.

The implementation planning group, when it reported

to government, had spent considerable time in the north. It recognized

that if this was truly to be an

[ Page 10366 ]

autonomous

university, it had to have special features in its legislation. It had

to have advantages that couldn't be contained in the normal University

Act. The other dilemma we faced, as we looked at the legislation before

us, was that although the University Act of British Columbia is a good

act, tells you how to run a university in an appropriate manner and is

a good statute to follow for the operation of a university, it's silent

on how you begin one. That was a dilemma we were faced with. We knew

that we couldn't simply include a fourth name in the University Act; we

had to draft genesis or beginning legislation for the University of

Northern British Columbia to get it going.

Just to give you

some examples from the act, Mr. Speaker, the University Act says that a

board of governors shall be composed of the faculty, the students, the

alumni, the staff and the senate. Well, if you don't have any of those

when you're beginning a university, then how do you begin? So we had to

look at a governance situation that was unique to a beginning

university, and we had to put in legislation. This bill describes how

we've done that: the ability to begin a university. And that's what we

did.

The other thing we found out as we went through the

implementation planning group report and as I toured the north.... I

spent some two months — from 100 Mile House to Prince Rupert to Fort St John, Dawson Creek, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Terrace —

meeting with people; I was out to the Chilcotin, Anahim Lake and that

area talking to people about a northern university. I found out there

was a genuine fear of Prince George in the same way that northerners,

people from the Kootenays I'm sure, and people from other than the

lower mainland have a fear of Vancouver being dominant and getting

everything. Well, that same stigma was there with people who lived

outside of the Prince George area.

Being a Prince George

MLA, I was actually at a disadvantage in some cases. I'm sure the

member from Cranbrook can understand that. I was seen as someone who

wanted it all for Prince George and wouldn't consider anticipating what

we had to do for the rural regions. So my appointment to this

portfolio, although it was pleasant for me and I think a clear signal

from government that we were going to do something, was viewed with

some suspicion by people outside the Prince George area. In January and

February I had to spend some time ensuring that I was going to produce

an institution on behalf of everyone in the north and gather their

support. For that reason you'll see certain features in the legislation

that recognize that.

[11:30]

The message I heard immediately was, "Well, if you're going to have

a board of governors regulate this university, the majority of them

must come from an area other than Prince George, " which I agreed to if

it's going to be a university that is developed on a regional basis,

which satisfies the needs of the north — I mean the northern half of the province — you're

going to have to ensure that your governance is regional. On the basis

of that, you'll note that the legislation reads that governance shall

be composed of members who are resident in the Northern Lights College

region, the Northwest Community College region and the College of New

Caledonia region. You'll also note that it says there shall be

representation from the Cariboo Regional District. Essentially that

includes the area south of Quesnel, so there will be membership from

that area further south of the CNC region, actually going into the

Cariboo College region.

It also indicated, because we had

tremendous support from the aboriginal community, that there be a

representative of the aboriginal community on the interim governing

council, the board of governors and the senate. That was one of the

things that I noted was absent in the NDP bill put forward. There was

no recognition of regional or aboriginal representation on the board of

governors. I find that a serious flaw, and I wonder why the NDP would

draft a bill which does not recognize the aboriginal community or

regional interests. It's curious, but I guess you had your own reasons

for drafting it that way.

Clearly, as a responsible

government, we knew that when we drafted our legislation, we had to

ensure that there was regional and aboriginal representation guaranteed

by statute. That's in the bill.

The bill begins by putting

in place the governance body that's going to ensure there is

appropriate representation in building the university, giving it a good

start and ensuring that all factors and all members of the northern

community are a part of its building, shaping, design, curriculum and

of what it's going to be, and that it serves as wide and diversified a

population base as it can.

The implementation planning

group was quite good in that. As it surveyed'the needs of employers and

those who live in the north, it made some substantial recommendations.

It said that a University of Northern British Columbia should seriously

consider a faculty of education, because clearly there is a need for

teachers to be trained in the north to stay in the north. There is a

need for business administration and for trained and degreed people in

the computing sciences. Again the employer need had spoken. There is a

need for social workers and for those who are trained in resource

management.

A very good brief was put forward by a group

calling themselves the Faculty of Forestry Committee. They are

essentially a group of registered professional foresters from the

interior whose excellent brief to the implementation and planning group

argued — and I think quite convincingly — for a forestry

program to be in place at the University of Northern British Columbia.

That is something that I'm sure will be done by the board as they study

curriculums and understand the needs of the area, the employer group

and the students who want to continue in that discipline.

course, it's known to all that Prince George would be a very good place

to have that type of forestry school, in that it is representative of

the topography and species of the area.

[ Page

10367 ]

Resource management is a prime consideration. Of course, that's not

just forestry but will probably include environmental studies that you

can do in the north far better than you could at Point Grey, Burnaby

Mountain or Oak Bay; the study of water resources, which have been a

critical thing for the past couple of weeks; and the whole environment.

The

mining industry has a sincere interest in finding out more. B.C. Hydro,

for example, has indicated that they have a significant budget to spend

on water studies. What better institution to spend that budget at than

a University of Northern British Columbia — to do the research

they are going to need as they continue to develop or plan their

operations? So there's a lot of industrial interest in the University

of Northern British Columbia. As I anticipate the matching grant

system, which is another item that will come in next year's budget and

is being considered now at treasury — not in this bill — I

can see that being subscribed to by industry in a first-class fashion.

The businessmen in industry that I've spoken to in the last couple of

months have indicated that there is considerable interest out there in

this university, a considerable amount of money that they would like to

see spent on research in the north, and considerable research that they

would like to have done in the north. There's a real advantage to us,

to industry and to the province in general in having that university

there.

That brings into play another interesting feature.

It's another advantage Prince George has over other areas of the

province. This is something I was advised of when I was at Thunder Bay.

I nonchalantly asked the president: "How many of your students are from

the Toronto area?" The answer was close to 50 percent, which I thought

was interesting. They gave me the reasons why. Of course, the same will

apply in Prince George.

First of all, there's always the

greener pastures syndrome. I think people, when they go to university,

like to go off to university; they don't want to stay in their hometown

with their mom and dad. They're at the age of 18 or 19 when they're

about to spread their wings and go on to do their things. They do want

to go away.

MR. MILLER : They do it at 13 or 14 now.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : They can't get into university at that age, though. But you're right, they do leave early.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Is that right? That's remarkable. That was a young lady in New York; I remember reading about that.

Anyway, as to why Lakehead had that high percentage of Toronto students, there

was also the affordability of accommodation. That is a clear advantage that

the north offers over the lower mainland. The cost of accommodation in Prince

George is a third of that in Burnaby or Point Grey. That is a large advantage.

Victoria is not quite as expensive, but nevertheless Prince George is far less

in terms of rental accommodation. Thunder Bay has that same relationship and

advantage over Toronto.

The

other reason there were so many Toronto students at Lakehead University

was the courses offered. For example, outdoor recreation is becoming a

very popular field, not only for students in the phys ed stream but for

people who want to be in that field of studies. As you know, at Thunder

Bay and equally at Prince George, you could do far better than you

could in the lower mainland with programs like cross-country skiing,

downhill skiing, orienteering and wilderness tourism studies. All of

that could be done in a far better fashion in a northern university

where you have that great outdoor laboratory for many things, as

opposed to Point Grey or Burnaby Mountain, where it is just impossible

to do that type of study unless you go on a major and rather expensive

field trip.

No doubt we will find that the possibility

exists for a university in the north to attract students from the lower

mainland, and I would suspect from other parts of Canada as well as it

begins to be put in place. You need courses, and courses which can be

delivered better in a community such as ours as opposed to the lower

mainland, and I think for many of the obvious reasons.

drafting the legislation, we knew that we had to have what I referred

to earlier: a genesis element. It had to kick-start a university, to

put it in place, and to put it in place in a correct manner. It had to

recognize that there are cost disadvantages to beginning a university.

You don't have the economy of scale that you'll enjoy with a large

school like UBC, which has 25,000 students. You have to build in a cost

advantage and a kick-start preferential funding factor. You'll note,

Mr. Speaker, that the legislation includes reference to that.

While

there is a certain enrolment pattern at the University of Northern

British Columbia, there will be a funding mechanism which allows

funding of up to 135 percent of the normal university average. That

does give preference to the beginning costs of the University of

Northern British Columbia, which is a recommendation that came out of

the implementation planning group— as a matter of fact, out of the

ministry, through the mandate given to the group as to how it could

assess the government contribution to such a beginning school, how

effective and important that would be and how it would recognize that

you have to give this university a head start and a preferential start.

That's in the bill. I will point out that the NDP bill for a northern

university does not mention that preferential funding formula, which is

another criticism I would offer of it.

We also recognized

that you cannot continue this preference forever. There must be a point

where you recognize that the university can continue on its own, so it

will become part of the University Act after some time. For that

reason, we have put in place a feature which says that after two

consecutive years of enrolment of 2,500 full-time equivalent students,

this

[ Page 10368 ]

act

will sunset, and the University of Northern British Columbia will

simply become a fourth name in the University Act. I think that's

appropriate as well.

MR. JONES : What year is that — 2010?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Again, you're being very pessimistic, but that's the nature of your party, I guess.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

They're pessimistic too. I'm being far more optimistic, and I'll tell

you why. There's a pent-up demand for third- and fourth-year graduate

programs in the north. I'm an example, as a matter of fact, of those

who have completed two years of university transfer work but are not

able to continue for a variety of reasons.

[11:45]

MR. JONES : After the election.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, after the election I'll be busier than ever.

One

of the things we learned at Thunder Bay was that you should

recognize.... This university has had this recommended to it. It's not

in the bill, but I think in the debate on the principle I'll mention

this. Thunder Bay said: "One thing you can do in a resource community

like you have and like we have is give university transfer credit to

those students who have diplomas in various technical programs We have

done that, and the interesting thing about that is that the highest

percentage of diploma people attending here for professional status are

graduates of BCIT. They are forestry techs, business techs and

engineering techs." At Thunder Bay, where they offer a bridging program

and then put diploma students into third-year university, the largest

take-up is from BCIT. That's not done anywhere in British Columbia by

any of the current universities, so it's recommended that this

university do that.

In response to the critic's concern about enrolment, I know we have pent-up

demand out there from College of New Caledonia graduates for sure, Northwest College

graduates and Northern Lights College graduates who have diplomas in a variety

of disciplines. If they were given university transfer credit for those diplomas,

they would do an exceptional job of finishing their program.

What

we found at Thunder Bay was that, for example, engineering technicians

have taken a wide variety of courses during the two years of their

diploma program. They generally aren't of the depth of those you take

in engineering at a university; nevertheless they have studied the

field of the discipline they are interested in.

It was found at Thunder Bay that what was required was a bridging summer — taking

those students and giving them some of the things they had missed at the diploma

level or the institute level: more pure math; calculus at the 100 level, which

would allow them to do third-year university work, and many other courses that

broaden and deepen their education requirements to allow them to become full-fledged

students taking third-year studies and well-trained for the classroom.

They

have been largely successful in doing that, and I am advised that it

takes one summer of bridging teaching to allow those students to enter

into a full-fledged, third-year professional program. I would imagine

there's an awful lot of determination too, as most of those students

would be mature students. They would have learned a lot on the job and

would be dedicated and really enthusiastic about achieving their

professional degree.

In any event, that's one feature that

I'm sure will be put in place by the University of Northern British

Columbia board, and I think it'll serve that community well. I think

the pent-up demand of diploma people out there will really swell the

enrolment at the University of Northern British Columbia. It will be a

very productive way of really assisting all those people who have those

diploma credentials. That's why I feel a lot better about the enrolment

pattern than others would.

As well, a university builds

itself. We've already seen a real interest in Prince George. We've seen

housing prices increase and the housing market develop again. We're

seeing more and more industry become interested in our community as we

seriously consider a university in northern British Columbia.

was phoned a couple of months ago by the personnel officer of the

school district, who said that he had received many applications from

teachers — people currently teaching — who would like to move

to Prince George to teach. The reason they were doing that was

because they knew a university was going to be in Prince George soon.

You

have to ask yourself why they did that, since of course a teacher

already has a degree. Clearly what they were thinking was that a

community which has a university is, first of all, a better place to

live for a lot of reasons. A university offers a lot more than just

straight classroom education. It has many other features to it as well.

But

these people, in particular these teachers applying to School District

57, were also thinking of their children. That's clearly what makes for

that type of interest. I think it's one of the reasons we and all of

the community really became interested and Involved in this. It's a

large community, from 100 Mile House to Prince Rupert to Fort Nelson;

and McBride and Valemount, to round out the other part.

They

saw that if a university would do anything, it would improve the

quality of life and make the area a far more attractive place to live.

That was the basis, the genesis, the urging and the gut feeling that we

all felt back in 1987 when we put this project forward. It was just the

ability to attract more people to our community.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page

10369 ]

I'll share with you a feeling I had at an American parliamentary

conference that I went to in 1986. The speaker there was T. Boone

Pickens, who was at that time known for his reputation in greenmail and

the hostile corporate takeover. He was a speaker at the state

legislators' conference. He was told to come and asked to explain why,

when he was doing his hostile takeovers, he was siting the firm that

he'd bought from one place to another place — what made him make his siting decisions. He said:

"Well,

I'll tell you. First of all, you have to understand my corporate

philosophy. I look at a company, and I analyze it, and I see if a

company is undervalued. And when I see that, that immediately becomes

attractive to me. Then I have to assess why is this company

undervalued. Normally a company is undervalued — their book value is below what it ought to be —

because they have poor management. At that point I move; and sometimes

I'm successful, sometimes I'm not. But remember that factor: poor

management.

"Then after I've assumed control

of that company, I'm looking at a number of things, one of them being:

where am I going to site the operation? Maybe I want to move it, and

what do I look at when I want to move an industry or corporation? Well,

first of all, there's all the technical infrastructure that has to be

in place, depending on what type of factory or industry you're

interested in. There are the obvious things that you have to think of.

Do you need to be on tidewater, natural gas, railroad? Do you need a

skilled labour market in some specialty — tool and dye makers, for example? That's technical infrastructure that has to be in place. But that's 50 percent — 50 percent only — of the reason that I will consider moving to one town as opposed to another.

"The other 50 percent — an equal weighting to the technical infrastructure —

is the social infrastructure. Does that community have churches,

schools, a nice setting, a low crime rate, good weather, good social

amenities, culture, a university? Is it going to be attractive to

employees? Because don't forget the reason I've taken over this company

in the first place is because they had bad management, and that's why

in my opinion they were undervalued.

"So if I

want the company to run properly, I need good management; I have to

attract the best. Therefore I always look at the social side of the

community and I give it equal weighting to the technical side of the

community when making those decisions."

Hearing that in 1986 — and it was a great conference with your former member

for Mackenzie and your current member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) at the

state legislators' conference in New Orleans — it occurred to me that this

is what we need to do for economic development. Economic development in the

north is not just more pulp mills, chopstick mills, sawmills or hydrogen peroxide

mills. Economic development is the social side of the community as well. Without

question, the most important thing we need to sell the north, to make it attractive

to investment, is to make it socially attractive.

have many good things in Prince George. I would say on a per capita

basis we have the best library in the province. I don't think anyone

would deny that. Far better, my Vancouver friends, than you will have

on a per capita basis. We have two of the most outstanding children's

choirs in the world, believe it or not, in Prince George. They win

international competitions. One of them was here just a few weeks ago.

We have culture — a great little theatre group, a very good French

immersion program, a very good Christian school, a very good Roman

Catholic school system, excellent outdoor recreation and extremely

successful sports clubs and recreation groups. We have just about

everything a young family would want. We have four very lively

seasons — and, boy, there are four of them and they're all

different, but we have them. We have everything someone would want with

a growing family, but we're missing one ingredient: that university.

have a son who turned 17 yesterday. Then you really have to start

thinking about your plans. I'm not as mobile as some. I'm kind of

locked into my job, at least for the moment. Many people in industry

have to consider that when their children reach that age they're going

to have to move on, because they do want to see their son or daughter

attend a post-secondary institution. And no matter where they go, they

want just to be a little bit closer to them.

Clearly that

was the one ingredient missing from making Prince George almost a

perfect place to live. It was on that basis that a lot of us fought so

hard for this university and for its beginning. It's been a long, good

fight, I can tell you. I've had some incredible tussles, with my

colleague the former minister, with the implementation planning group

in terms of what they wanted to do. The arguments they had with each

other about what fashion the university should take were lively,

exciting and sometimes wrenching in terms of trying to put all this

together. It finally came together and it's been exciting.

We're

now at the point where we have legislation and, as the members will

know, a budget, an interim board in place, one staff member already and

another one soon to come. It has been exciting. It really does round

out the one element that was missing in our northern area, and that was

the ability to have your children attend school a little closer to

home. No matter how you slice it, unless you've got a lot a money for

air fares, you're always going to be nine hours away from the lower

mainland in Prince George and, of course, further away if you're in

Prince Rupert, Terrace, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John or Fort Nelson.

Clearly this is seen as really the jewel that finally rounds out that

crown of our northern British Columbia destiny.

I wanted to

add that economic development note in my comments this morning because

I think it is critical. I think all members should always realize that

you can build all the technical infrastructure, factories, sawmills and

what have you into your community, but unless you have that good,

attractive, social side, you really don't have a complete and total

city or community to live in. You will not be able to

[ Page 10370 ]

attract some of the industry you want. It's clear that this social side will pull economic development to it.

think that's one of the reasons Vancouver has been so successful. First

of all, it does have good culture. It is a very attractive city to live

in. It's pretty. It's got a great lifestyle. From that followed many

people who built considerable industry there. I think John MacDonald is

one of them. John MacDonald and I were talking one day about siting a

place. He said: "Vern Dettwiler and I decided to start our business

here not because of any government grant, not because of the railroad

or anything else" — they've got a high-tech business that could go anywhere and John MacDonald was lecturing at NUT at the time —

"but we decided to start MacDonald Dettwiler in Vancouver because we're

both from Vancouver and we liked to live there." It was just that

simple. That's how you bring economic development to a community. You

ensure that it's a nice place to live. That's what we're doing under

this legislation: to ensure that the north is a far more attractive and

far better place to live. As I said, from that basis and strategy, you

will ensure that you have industry come. I think a lot of industry is

going to follow the development of our university, and I think it's

going to make Prince George and the north a really attractive place to

live.

[12:00]

It's about noon now, and I know some other members wish to speak, so

I am going to take my place. But I really have to thank an awful lot of

people who have worked so hard on this: the former minister, the

members of the implementation planning group and the 15,000 people who

not just signed a petition, but paid $5 to sign a petition. I recall

once a comment in cabinet: "Is there enough interest?" And I said:

"Yes, we have 15,000 names." "Well, what do 15,000 names mean?" I said:

"Well, they've paid $5 to sign that name." That made an incredible

impression on my colleagues when they knew that there was some

incredible determination in the north for this university to proceed.

So those are the people who have to be thanked.

Again a

comment to Murray Sadler, who is now the chairman of the interim

governing council. He is doing a remarkable job and giving up a

substantial income. Murray is with a very successful law firm, and as

those of you who have been practising lawyers know, you get paid only

when you produce. Murray is giving up considerable time for not a heck

of a lot of revenue to ensure that this proceeds.

But there

are an awful lot of other good people. As I said, 15,000 people have

worked so hard to see this legislation that we've brought to the House

today.

So with that said, Mr. Speaker, I commend second

reading to the members of the Legislative Assembly. I thank them for

their forbearance in my hour of speaking today, but I wanted to fully

discuss the bill, its germination and its genesis with the assembly

There's an awful lot of good thought in here.

I commend the

legislative counsel who put this legislation together, because as I

said, we were dealing with a clean sheet of paper. We were dealing with

a current University Act that didn't do us any good, because it didn't

tell us how to begin one. The innovative touches in this legislation

are good and are going to ensure that we have a first-class

institution, and that we have it started in the best possible fashion.

with that said, my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker and to the members of the

Legislative Assembly. I now move second reading of Bill 40, the

University of Northern British Columbia Act.

MR. HARCOURT :

I was listening to what the minister had to say about Bill 40, the

University of Northern British Columbia Act. I was thinking back over

the last three and a half years as this university has gone from a

concept that a lot of people hoped would happen to actually be

happening. I am pleased to be standing here in the Legislature to say

that this bill will receive the unanimous support of the Legislature.

It is endorsed enthusiastically by the New Democrats in the Legislature

and more particularly by the New Democrats in northern British Columbia.

expressed that support after I became leader of the New Democratic

Party in 1987. 1 remember speaking to the Prince George Chamber of

Commerce right after becoming leader and saying that what we need to do

as a province is to have the growth of British Columbia far more

equitably distributed throughout this great province of ours, and that

one of the essential ways to do that is to improve the quality of life

of the many communities outside southwestern British Columbia. One of

the keys to that is the extension of post-secondary education and

degree-granting universities in the north, the interior, the Kootenays

and northern Vancouver Island. That is one of the many ways you could

bring about a more equitable growth pattern in British Columbia as this

province grows from three million to six million people over the next

30 or 40 years.

I expressed strong support in 1987 for the

concept of the University of Northern British Columbia when I attended

that chamber of commerce luncheon along with my colleague the member

for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). I said that there were a number

of reasons for our support. First of all, it offers opportunities to

people in northern British Columbia, particularly to young people who

find that in terms of education, aside from the two years that are

offered at the college, they have to come to Victoria or Vancouver to

receive their technological — in a lot of cases trades — and

university education and training. This institution would offer access

to young northerners or workers looking for a change of career or of

activities. Not only would it offer opportunity; it would offer a more

equitable cost for post-secondary education.

A lot of

northerners, as you know, find it very expensive to come down to

Victoria or Vancouver. They don't have the good fortune that we have of

a ten-minute drive from our homes to the University of British

Columbia. It is a very intimidating and expensive burden for a lot of

northerners to have to pay the high cost of rent and transportation and

all the other

[ Page

10371 ]

costs of being away from home and not having the

support of your friends, community and family as you go through the

difficult adjustment from being a big frog in a small pond to starting

again at the bottom of the totem-pole and being just a rookie in your

freshman year at a post-secondary institution. To do that away from

home and not to be among your friends and family can be intimidating. I

think, for a series of reasons relating to young northerners in

particular, that the increase in access, the decrease in costs and the

more friendly environs of your home community make sense.

the minister has outlined, this is also part of the vision for the

north and part of making sure that the next three million people who

come to British Columbia do go north, to the Kootenays, to the interior

and to northern Vancouver Island. It's that use of post-secondary

education as an economic development initiative resource that is

equally important, aside from the opportunities it offers northerners.

expressed all of those reasons for my support and for the support of

the member for Prince George North, our caucus and our party for a

university of the north in 1987. Through all of the deliberations, I

have not flagged in that support. The committee, ably led by Murray

Sadler, as the minister has outlined, with the support of that very

skilled educator from Sweden, Dr. Dahllof, who came up with a report

that recommended a unique institution for the north with autonomy, so

there isn't a feeling of being tied to UBC, the University of Victoria

or Simon Fraser.... I supported those concepts, as did our member for

Prince George North.

We have been quite supportive all

through this process. As a matter of fact, because of its importance to

northerners, we've been impatient for the university to get underway

with due diligence and as quickly as possible. Its importance was

reinforced to me as I travelled throughout the north, whether in the

Charlottes, Valemount, Fort St. John, Cassiar or Telegraph Creek, or

along the Yellowhead Highway. All through the north, many people I

spoke to, from a young hitchhiker I picked up outside of Burns Lake,

who felt a lack of job opportunities for himself, to the aboriginal

leaders I met at the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, who felt that as we

address their concerns of aboriginal self-government and land claims,

it would lead to more opportunities if a university were in the north,

if it had some representation and a focus on aboriginal issues and on

the results of a settlement that could come out of our sitting down and

negotiating with aboriginal people.... Many northerners, including

young people who would like to become teachers, nurses and

entrepreneurs and who want to stay in their own community and be part

of the north, not to have to go south, reinforced our very strong

support of this bill and of this concept all the way along.

I would like to say from an economic development viewpoint that we regard the

university of the north as essential. It is as important as the railways, the

highways, the hydroelectric development and the Macdonald report, which established

colleges throughout this province, were in helping to create the range of resources

and services you need if you are going to encourage diversification of the economy,

more value-added activities and the high-tech and medium-tech industries that

are flocking to areas around San Francisco, San Jose, the Silicon Valley, the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard, and around Boston, or in

Toronto or Vancouver, where you have the synergy of a whole series of qualities

that add up to people either wanting to stay and diversify the economy, or to

come in the mobile, new-economy areas of biotechnology, of microelectronics,

of the sophisticated communications, telecommunications and computer technology

now growing by leaps and bounds in this rapidly changing world.

The

minister mentioned that the quality of life of a community is as

important as access to market, transportation, skilled workers, access

to basic raw materials — all of those economic-location-financial

decisions you have to make. The issue of quality of life is at least 50

percent, as the minister pointed out. I can tell you, as the former

mayor of Vancouver, that that is something we stressed over and over

again: you're moving into a high-quality community with low crime, with

great neighbourhoods, with good educational institutions, with one of

the best medical systems in the world, with recreational and cultural

facilities to rival any in the world, and when you bring your industry

into the Vancouver area, you are bringing that industry into a very

high-quality place to live for you and your families and employees.

lot of businesses now have the choice of going to many different

communities in North America or throughout Europe or Asia. They choose,

finally, the place where people want to live — where the owners and employees want to raise their families and to live and to retire.

believe that this university will help the north become that kind of

centre of excellence. Of the new-economy industries that are coming

into this province, far too many are coming into Victoria and

Vancouver. I want to see many of them looking at Prince George,

Smithers, Fort St. John and other communities in this great province of

ours that could handle a lot of the industries.

I think,

quite frankly, this educational institution is going to reinforce the

capability of industries moving into Prince George and the other

communities of the north. When you combine its unique features with the

other initiatives that need to take place in Prince George - like

Discovery Place; development of a trade and conference and cultural

facility; the new courthouse that should be going forward shortly,

which will reinforce the redevelopment and the renewal of the downtown

of Prince George; the northern forests institute I announced a few

months ago that would deal with the unique challenges of northern

forests, of replanting those forests, of reforestation, of getting more

value out of those forests.... There's a whole series of initiatives

that could come out of that northern forests institute. The

[ Page 10372 ]

aboriginal

languages centre and the other activities that would take place around

the settlement of land claims that we, as New Democrats, are committed

to carrying out....

[12:15]

Those kinds of investments in Prince George are going to create a

city, an urban place, that people want to move to. As the minister has

pointed out and from my experience and the economic development work I

did as mayor of Vancouver and the economic development commission that

I established, quality of life is absolutely essential. This university

will make sure that Prince George has the range of resources that will

attract new industries to come there. Then Prince George and other

northern communities will be able to say: not only do we have a place

that has one of the best medical services anywhere in the world.... We

hope to expand the health care facilities so more northerners can get

hospital operations, heart operations and other more sophisticated

operations in Prince George and throughout the north. They have the

educational, the health, all the other resources I've just talked

about, but they have other advantages over Vancouver.

think, as the minister pointed out, there are very good advantages in

terms of the housing, costing $80,000 to $120,000 for a good house

compared with $400,000 or $500,000 in the Vancouver area. You live only

ten minutes from your job, rather than commuting two hours a day from

your house in the lower mainland to your job in Vancouver or Burnaby.

You have the advantage of mobility. You have the advantage, as the

minister said, in field trips — not even when you're on a field

trip; when you're just going out to enjoy the wilderness. It's 15

minutes away, rather than having to go two or three hours outside the

lower mainland.

There are a whole series of other

competitive advantages, such as the lower cost of industrial land where

you can get industrial land for $2,000 to $10,000 or $15,000 an acre,

instead of $300,000 to $400,000 an acre. We can start to make that a

part of the economic development partnership in British Columbia,

having much more growth outside Vancouver and Victoria. The more that

happens, the better.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Move industry out to the regions.

MR. HARCOURT : Absolutely. I think more decentralization could take place.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I was mayor of Vancouver — and I got elected on this pledge — I

said that what my job was and what we needed to do was to help

Vancouver go from being the third-largest city in Canada to the

tenth-largest. And the way to do that is to have far more of the growth

outside Vancouver. The more that happens, the better.

I believe that this university, along with a number of the other investments I've just talked about — Discovery

Place, the new courthouse, the northern forest institute, the

aboriginal language centre and other resources, and the programs with

aboriginal people — will allow Prince George to eventually grow from

the current 65,000 people into a community of 150,000 to 200,000. It

will indeed be our jewel of the north.

It will lead the

development in the top half of this province. People think that Prince

George is way up in the north. Well, it's just starting to get into the

north. I think that this University of Northern British Columbia, along

with the other investments that British Columbians should make, are

going to be well worth the investment that all British Columbia

taxpayers will make.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the

Legislature enthusiastically supports Bill 40, the University of

Northern British Columbia Act. We may have some comments about some

improvements that we think could take place in this institute and some

linkages to other investments that need to take place in the north. But

aside from that, this is a pleasant occasion for the Legislature, with

us all positive and enthusiastic about the new institution that we are

giving birth to here with Bill 40, the University of Northern British

Columbia Act.

MR. JONES : I think this is an

important day in the Legislature. It's an important celebration of our

fourth university of this province. I am absolutely amazed that when

the minister spoke and when he made the motion for second reading,

there were only four members of the government side in the House. The

only people applauding the minister moving that motion were members on

the New Democrat side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am going

to be quite brief, because I made some notes in preparation for second

reading some time back. In fact, I've been waiting so long for this day

that I've lost my notes. So I will be briefer than I might have been

otherwise.

One of the things that the minister talked about

was the history of the university of the north, and his recollection

only goes back to 1987. But the history of degree-granting status

outside the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island goes way back,

far before 1987; it goes back to 1962, in my understanding. The former

president of the University of British Columbia, John B. Macdonald,

produced a report in 1962 calling for degree-granting status in the

Interior. I know my colleague from Prince George North has been calling

for a university of the north since 1983. We jokingly even came up with

a name sometime back for the university, and we were calling it "Boonie

U" — jokingly only.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things

that I've learned in my tenure as a member of this Legislature has been

the diversity throughout the province. Nobody has brought that message

home to me more than the member for Prince George North. In fact, in

our caucus meetings she is constantly raising the concerns of

northerners. She's beating up on us people from the lower mainland to

the point where I have gotten quite tired of the repetitious speech:

"You guys down on the lower mainland, you don't under-

[ Page

10373 ]

stand." In fact, I didn't. Even though I taught in

northern British Columbia for two years, I really didn't understand the

north.

I think that second reading of this bill today is

not just a celebration for northern British Columbia; it's a

celebration for all of British Columbia. We are adding to our family of

universities by the creation of the University of Northern British

Columbia, as we added Simon Fraser in 1965, which has been such an

important part of my constituency. So we had John Macdonald in '62, the

member for Prince George North in 1983 and our leader, as he pointed

out, in 1987 calling for a university of the north, and that was

something that took me a little time to get behind.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We also had my predecessor,

Lorne Nicolson, the former member for Nelson-Creston, who was calling

for degree-granting status in the regions of this province in 1985. So

the history does not begin in 1987. But I quite agree with the minister

that we have to compliment all those northern British Columbians who

got behind the Interior University Society and brought about the kind

of movement that produced the legislation we see today. I know the

minister was a major

part in that, and I want to commend him for his

role in bringing about the creation of this today. I think it's

something we can all celebrate.

I've been trying to point

out, Mr. Speaker, that it's clearly a non-partisan issue, although I

must confess I was partisan in one of my remarks earlier. I think we

all celebrate second reading of this bill, and we want to give it

speedy passage. We want to support the principle of this bill, and that

we are going to see, finally, degree-granting status in northern

British Columbia. I guess I've learned a lot through this process.

The

minister and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Dahllof report.

I know the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) will be interested

in this, because while I criticized some parts of the Dahllof report,

what I got out of that report was an understanding of the economics of

post-secondary education. The illustration used in that report was the

University of Victoria. The Dahllof report clearly pointed out the

tremendous economic, social, cultural and intellectual benefits of

having a university located in a particular region. It was the economic

development benefits that the Dahllof report stressed, and that was

something I hadn't really understood prior to that. So while I was

critical of aspects of the Dahllof report, I must commend that report

for educating me as to the economic benefits that can accrue.

That was further illustrated in the report of the implementation planning group,

who pointed out that even just in the development of facilities there will be

some $169 million over 12 years creating 3, 000 person-years of employment in

construction and related activity. There will be expenditures of something like

$12.3 million per year just on goods and services associated with the university.

There will be an increase in the gross domestic product of some $200 million

over a ten-year period. All of those economic development factors are critical

to seeing the northern part of British Columbia, and particularly Prince George,

develop a northern vision for this province, a vision that is going to add substantially

to the economy of the region and also provide opportunities that were denied

to northern British Columbians in the past.

must confess I'm probably more interested in human development than I

am in economic development. I am pleased to see that young northern

British Columbians.... In the past, if they were motivated to take

advantage of post-secondary opportunities, they were not able to stay

at home and be trained to provide the skills needed in the region. They

weren't able to train to be the nurses, teachers, foresters and

librarians and to provide all the services that are needed in that

region. The region desperately needs social workers, physiotherapists,

degreed nurses and foresters. It's an accomplishment we can all be

proud of that those opportunities will now be available that were not

there before.

The sad fact about participation in northern

British Columbia is.... I guess this is the kind of thing that partly

prompts that anti-lower mainland attitude that I mentioned with my

colleague. Something like 7 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds from Prince

George participate in post-secondary opportunities,

whereas it is

roughly three times that in Vancouver. Clearly that's not good enough.

I think the government has a responsibility to improve those

participation rates. We're all very hopeful that the implementation of

the University of Northern British Columbia is going to be able to do

that. It's going to broaden the economic base; it's going to enhance

the cultural, social and intellectual opportunities; it's going to

allow for opportunities for human development that were not there

before; and it's going to give those young people chances that I hope

they will take advantage of in droves, and not only in northern British

Columbia.

I echo the minister's hope that we are going to

see British Columbians from all over the province, some of whom are

denied opportunities in other regions of the province, flock to Prince

George and swell the enrolment in that facility, so that the prediction

of the implementation planning group of something in the order of

achieving that 2,500-student level in the year 2010 will be surpassed

at a much earlier date.

[12:30]

I am most pleased that at this time university transfer enrolment in

Prince George at the College of New Caledonia is up 17 percent, and I

think that's a sign of the desire for post-secondary opportunities in

that region. But I'm incredibly saddened that the budget of the College

of New Caledonia is insufficient to enrol those 100 students. There's

apparently something in the order of a million-dollar shortfall in

order to expand the opportunities that are required in that part of

British Columbia. It's similarly true at Northwest Community College,

which is some

[ Page 10374 ]

$600,000

short, so the desired expansion of opportunity for post-secondary

education that I think we all so deeply care about in this chamber

doesn't seem to be there.

There isn't funding for those

colleges, although when I look at the budget it appears that the

funding is there. Then we see that the budgets of those colleges are

not sufficient to accommodate the expanded desire of northern British

Columbians to take university transfer courses in college, so I put on

my opposition hat again. I have to be somewhat skeptical about the

commitment of this government when I see these kinds of things

happening at the College of New Caledonia and at Northwest Community

College.

Mr. Speaker, we want to get behind this bill; we

want speedy passage of this bill; we want that university to be one of

academic quality, one that has credibility and standing among the

universities of this province. We want it to take its rightful place as

the fourth university. We want its programs and degrees held in high

esteem by all British Columbians, by this country and around the world.

also hope that this post-secondary institution will operate on a sound

financial basis. There are safeguards built into the legislation, I

hope, to ensure that. I think that's an important feature, because this

government, as we've seen, is the only government in North America ever

to close a post-secondary institution.

We are very happy to

see second reading of this bill today. We are happy to see the

University of Northern British Columbia join the family of the other

three universities in this province. We are supportive of the principle

of this bill, which establishes opportunities and economic development

in the north. We are very happy to give our support to second reading

of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Before we proceed, the Minister of Government Management Services seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today, I believe, is the second half

of the students from Alice Brown Elementary School in Langley. I'd like

the House to welcome them on this beautiful sunny day in Victoria.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Speaker, as has already been stated, we'll be supporting

this bill. In fact, we're pretty active in trying to promote the whole concept

of having a university established in northern British Columbia. We think it's

long overdue.

want to comment, from the point of view of an MLA who represents part

of northwestern British Columbia, on some of the constraints that we

see, both in terms of the existing situation and in terms of the

development of an Interior university in Prince George. I think it's

fairly well known, but in case it's not, the participation rates for

students from remote parts of the province are about half of what they

are for students from the more heavily populated areas. In other words,

if you happen to grow up in Vancouver or Victoria, your chances of

going to university are 50 percent better than they are if you happen

to grow up in Dawson Creek, Prince Rupert, Pouce Coupe or a lot of

those very attractive northern communities in our province. I don't

want to suggest that it's just the north at all, because I'm constantly

impressed — and I think anybody who travels this province is —

with the vastness of the geography. This is an amazingly large province

with geographical differences that run the full range and with immense

distances that people have to travel in order to come to the lower

mainland. So it's not just the north; it's also people in the remote

areas of southern British Columbia, who happen to be living near the

Alberta border, as well as people in some places in the interior.

They

have one thing in common: the participation rates are lower for

students in those situations. Anything we can do to improve that

access.... I've spoken out fairly strongly in the House in terms of

improved. support services and improved grants and loans to students

from remote locations, so that they can attend universities in the

south. There has been some improvement in that; there can always be

more.

We also have a problem with just the distance

involved. I had the assistance of the minister's staff in resolving an

issue where a student from Port Edward had to actually travel down to a

community college on Vancouver Island in order to register. It was

going to cost her $1,000, prior to my intercession and the minister's

staff's intercession, simply to come down and register. That gives you

an idea of the constraints that students outside of the lower mainland

areas face. I would point out in that regard that northwestern British

Columbia is just as far away from Prince George as it is from Vancouver

or Victoria. So the constraints on those students, I think, will be

relatively the same.

Now I'm going to move into some other

areas which I think will tend to moderate that. But it Is clear that,

in terms of the basic difficulty and the cost of travel, it's almost as

difficult to travel from Prince Rupert to Prince George as it is to

travel from Prince George to Vancouver. I want to be sure that the

University of Northern British Columbia — and I appreciate the minister's interest — will

have an understanding of that. I would expect that they'll have an

understanding of that. I would hope that that would be part of their

philosophy, since they are, in part, dealing with access.

Our

transportation links are north-south. I see the m