1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 15, Number 24

[ Page 11255 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would like members of the Legislature to express a very warm welcome to some very special guests that we have in the members' gallery today. We have His Excellency James Blanchard, who is the Ambassador of the United States of America to Canada. He is accompanied by his wife, Janet, and by the excellent consul general, who is seated with them, Michael Gallagher. I'm sure you're aware that the ambassador comes with a very finely tuned interest in politics, as the ex-Governor of the state of Michigan -- a very successful Governor in the state of Michigan.

I have met with the ambassador, had a very good meeting with him and look forward to meeting with our special guests later on today. Would you give a very warm welcome to the United States Ambassador.

I have also the pleasure of introducing a visitor from the Prairies -- from Manitoba -- Marianne Cerilli, who is the New Democrat Environment critic from the Manitoba legislature. She is not looking for a job at all. Possibly she is here to prepare for her new job as the Environment minister in Manitoba in the upcoming election. Actually -- to make that very explicit, because I don't want the opposition to misunderstand why Ms. Cerilli is here -- she is here in British Columbia attending the Women and Sustainable Development conference in Vancouver. Would you please welcome her.

V. Anderson: I would ask the House to join me in making welcome Yoseph Thomson, who is visiting with us. Yoseph has a strong interest in politics. He's director of development for Lubavitch, the central organization for Jewish education in British Columbia. Would the House help me make him welcome.

D. Lovick: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make two introductions. The first is two groups of students visiting us today from the state of Washington -- or "Warshington," as it's pronounced in parts of eastern Washington. The first group is from Sequim -- or "Squim" -- Middle School, and the second is from Chimacum Elementary School, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Chin and Mr. Putaansuu, respectively. I would ask my colleagues to please join me in making them welcome.

The second introduction, Mr. Speaker, again on your behalf, is of two gentlemen: Mr. Cliff Stright, the managing director of SHL Systemhouse Inc.; and Mr. Gordon Oppen, the branch manager for SHL Computer Innovations. I would ask my colleagues to make them welcome, please.

W. Hartley: We have some visitors in the gallery today whom I am introducing on behalf of my colleague from Mission-Kent. Sixty students from Albert McMahon Elementary School in Mission are here with their teachers, Mr. Kore and Ms. Rossdeutscher. Please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

PETROLEUM CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

Hon. A. Edwards presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Petroleum Corporation Repeal Act.

Hon. A. Edwards: I am pleased to introduce Bill 42, which deals with the windup of B.C. Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiary, B.C. Petroleum (Kitimat) Ltd. The winding up of B.C. Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiary is consistent with government's commitment to streamline the public service. The bill ensures that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and its subsidiary will be wound up in a manner which allows administrative functions of B.C. Petroleum Corporation to be transferred to my ministry. Moreover, the bill ensures that any contractual commitments of B.C. Petroleum Corporation or its subsidiary will continue to be honoured.

[2:15]

Bill 42 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.

Oral Questions

APPEAL PROCESS FOR MOTOR CARRIER COMMISSION DECISIONS

G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. On July 12, 1993, the NDP government told the people of British Columbia that they have chosen to follow a course which ensures that never again will decision-making be subject to political whim without due process. The government went on to say that decisions that are made by commissions or administrative decision-makers are made with due process. Within cabinet there is no due process. It's a political decision behind closed doors.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

G. Campbell: My question is to the Premier, hon. Speaker. On May 25, 1994, the Premier signed OIC No. 698, which overturned a recommendation of the Motor Carrier Commission and awarded 18 taxi licences at a value in excess of $1 million. Can the Premier tell this House whether he stands behind the closed-door political decision-making reflected in OIC No. 698?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I am disturbed by a pattern that seems to be emerging from the opposition of making allegations that they do not substantiate. In some cases they are vexatious and malicious. This House should be used very carefully. I say that with some due consideration.

The Leader of the Opposition has talked about a process for appeals from the Motor Carrier Commission. He should be aware that on October 27, 1993, an appeal board of three members of cabinet was established, with the ability of one member to hear appeals from the Motor Carrier Commission. I should let the....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment, hon. Premier.

Members, when questions addressing a complexity of issues are posed with lengthy

preambles, they are allowed for the member to make a point. I think that a reasonable amount of time must also be allowed in response. I hope that members will appreciate the difficulty the Chair has in cutting a member off in the middle of a matter that requires explanation on both sides of the House.

Hon. Premier, please proceed and be as brief as possible.

[ Page 11256 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I'm prepared to give some more detail to the House so that members are aware of this independent process where decisions are not reviewed by cabinet, where decisions that are made by the appeal to the cabinet minister are not able to be reviewed by cabinet and where decisions are signed without comment as an order-in-council without any review by cabinet.

The Speaker: Does the Leader of the Official Opposition have a supplemental question?

G. Campbell: The unfortunate pattern that is emerging is of a government that says one thing out of office and does something that's the exact opposite when they're in office. OIC No. 698 overturns both the Motor Carrier Commission decision and the recommendations of the B.C. Supreme Court. It provides 18 taxi licences at a value of over $1 million over the recommendations of those independent administrative bodies. Can the Premier explain the decision by cabinet to interfere in the Motor Carrier Commission's decision and to grant the licences to a good friend of the NDP?

Hon. M. Harcourt: As I said earlier, not only are the decisions of a single member of cabinet not interfered with, they are not reviewable by cabinet. The member should be aware that when that decision is made, the order-in-council is signed to technically confirm that decision -- without any comment, review or interference by cabinet, either in a collective decision or by any other member of cabinet.

The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member.

G. Campbell: I always understood that the minister was in cabinet, as has been pointed out.

However, the fact of the matter is that the NDP spoke out quite clearly against cabinet officer interference and political interference in the administrative process. Now the NDP seems to be quite comfortable in blatantly overturning official commission decisions to benefit their friends -- like Mr. Paul Gill, a longtime member of the NDP who told people that there would indeed be intervention by cabinet with regard to this decision. Once again, can the Premier explain why he signed the OIC that directly benefits his NDP friends?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government has committed to removing appeals to cabinet from these independent bodies. In the vast majority of instances, that has been done.

In terms of the Motor Carrier Commission, that same ability to appeal to cabinet, which has happened under previous governments, will be removed very soon. In the meantime, as I have stated, an independent appeal process is in place until it can be replaced, where an individual member of cabinet hears the appeal and makes a decision. That decision cannot in any way be varied, interfered with or commented upon by cabinet, either collectively or individually. If members have any allegations, make those allegations -- and make them outside this chamber instead of hiding behind privilege.

W. Hurd: While in opposition, the NDP were rightly appalled by this type of political interference. On March 18, 1988, the now Minister of Employment and Investment complained of a cabinet approval overturning a commission decision. I quote from Hansard: "The potential for kickbacks" -- there's that word again, Mr. Speaker -- "is absolutely enormous and I think calls into question the decision-making we've seen from this government...."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

W. Hurd: Mr Speaker, my question to the Minister of Employment and Investment is this: why is it wrong for the Socred cabinet to overturn a commission ruling for a friend, and perfectly acceptable for this government to do the same thing for an NDP friend?

Hon. G. Clark: Unlike the last 50 years in this province, we are bringing an end to cabinet appeals. In the meantime, there is a process which we are following. I want to be clear about this, because sleazy accusations from the opposition must be challenged. I want to make this challenge to the Leader of the Opposition: if he is saying there is political interference in this particular case, I challenge him to go to the

conflict-of-interest commissioner and lay a charge. If it's against me and I am found innocent, he resigns his seat; if I am found guilty, I'll resign my seat.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental?

W. Hurd: Mr. Speaker, the minister...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

W. Hurd: ...had it right, back in 1988. There was lots of sleaze in the pages of Hansard in those days, let me tell you.

I have a photograph which identifies Mr. Paul Gill as a key fundraiser for the Minister of Employment and Investment. What confidence can the people of the province have in this government when an NDP fundraiser appears to be getting a million-dollar sweetheart deal from this cabinet behind closed doors?

Hon. G. Clark: I have been extremely clear on this question, hon. Speaker. The members of the opposition have stood in this House making one allegation after another this session, and every time they have been wrong -- every single time. They are standing in the House and trying to muckrake by saying that somehow there was some improper influence paid in this case. There was absolutely none. Ministers who hear appeals hear them in good faith, and decisions are made with no political interference. Dozens of decisions of the Motor Carrier Commission have been overturned.

We believe it's more appropriate to remove this from cabinet ministers and move it into an independent tribunal. We are in the process of doing that.

In the meantime, if they have any evidence, other than sleaze and innuendo, that improper influence was used in this or any other case, I ask them to make it outside the House. I ask them to make it before the conflict-of-interest commissioner, because they know it's untrue. They know it's untrue because it is untrue.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member?

W. Hurd: My final question is to the Premier, and it's about ethics and accountability. Will the Premier assure...

Interjections.

[ Page 11257 ]

The Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members.

W. Hurd: ...the people of this province that not a dime will flow from Kimber Cabs or Mr. Gill to the governing party as a result of his cabinet's backroom end run on the Motor Carrier Commission in this province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is about ethics and accountability -- the ethics and accountability of this irresponsible opposition. That's what this is all about. They don't have the courage to make these statements outside, where they're not covered by privilege. They don't have the courage to go to the conflicts commissioner and accept the consequences of this untruth, this malicious, vexatious information, and the misuse of this House. That's what this is all about.

PUBLIC INFORMATION ABOUT FILING OF LAND CLAIMS

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. In filing land claims with the Treaty Commission, native bands are required to file a statement of claim which includes either a map or a legal description of the land being claimed. Can the minister confirm that to date there doesn't exist, either in the commission or in the ministry, a map which outlines all of the territory currently under claim through the Treaty Commission?

Hon. J. Cashore: The statements of claim that have been filed are next subject to the meetings that take place within 45 days. Following that, the chief negotiator on behalf of the province will be reporting to cabinet. Following the reporting to cabinet, information will be made available.

J. Weisgerber: Again to the minister: can the minister confirm that the claims filed and the statement of intent and the description of land claimed are indeed public

information available to British Columbians who are interested? Can the minister further confirm that two bands have requested that their claims be kept confidential? Will the minister assure this House that in keeping with the intent of the Treaty Commission and the land claims process, all claim information will be made public?

Hon. J. Cashore: All information in keeping with the Treaty Commission process will be made available, in keeping with the decisions that were made and given the affirmation of the task force report. I have outlined the process in my previous answer. We are next awaiting the report of the chief negotiator to cabinet. Following that will be the following steps.

J. Weisgerber: For clarification, I have a question to the minister. Is the minister saying that land claims filed with the commission are going to be made available to the public, in keeping with the intent of the Treaty Commission office?

[2:30]

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply in

Section A, the Ministry of Finance estimates. In the main House, I call second reading of Bill 43.

An Hon. Member: Why is it 43?

Hon. G. Clark: Oh, sorry. What is it?

Some Hon. Members: It's 22.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry about that. There's been an agreement, as I understand it, that we start with the same minister, but Bill 22 first.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. D. Miller: Bill 22 contains amendments to the College and Institute Act which will, first of all, give the university colleges and provincial institutes the power to grant baccalaureate degrees designated by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Secondly, it will change the composition of the boards of university colleges and institutes to include faculty, students and support staff, and finally, it will create a new body for institutional governance: the education council.

These amendments are mirrored by those contained in Bill 23, the Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1994, which applies to the B.C. Institute of Technology. Giving university colleges and provincial institutes the power to grant baccalaureate degrees is an important element in accomplishing the goals of Skills Now. Skills Now is the government's plan to prepare more British Columbians with the skills needed for jobs in a changing economy. Under Skills Now, six post-secondary institutions will have a new mandate to grant degrees independently.

These institutions formerly had the ability to grant degrees only in concert with one of our existing universities. The institutions that will now have that independence are Malaspina University College, Okanagan University College, University College of the Cariboo, University College of the Fraser Valley, Emily Carr College of Art and Design and the B.C. Institute of Technology. In speaking to all of these institutions, they are absolutely delighted to have finally been granted this kind of autonomy and independence with respect to degrees.

The focus of the degree programs offered by these institutions will be in applied arts, sciences and technologies. This new focus will provide students with greater skills leading to job opportunities. As I have had the opportunity over the last several weeks to sit down with some of the institutions and talk about their plans, it's very clear that their plans are quite far advanced.

I sat down with some board members in administration in the Cariboo a few weeks ago and was quite intrigued by the work that they are doing in concert with local industry -- in using the facilities at the college to try to do some problem-solving, in one case with the forest products industry in developing technology and making that technology available to others in the industry. There is a real synergy and a growing relationship between these university colleges and local industry and labour in the community.

It bodes very well, not only for these institutions that will now get degree-granting status but for others that might follow.

As I say, the focus of the degree programs will be in applied arts, applied sciences and technologies. When you

[ Page 11258 ]

look at the change that's taking place in our economy.... During question period yesterday I spoke about the difficulties of the structural unemployment that exists and advised that we don't see this as a panacea, but as something that will contribute in a meaningful way to issues of unemployment, particularly to issues of the individuals in our society who currently lack the skills to take advantage of some of the growth opportunities and jobs that are being created in this very tough and challenging economy.

Giving university colleges and institutes the power to grant degrees will also provide students with access to degree programs in various regions of British Columbia, enabling them to earn a degree closer to home. As a member who comes from a rural constituency, I think this is significant for those regions of the province that will be affected by degree-earning status.

Changing the composition of the boards of colleges, university colleges and institutes to include faculty, students and support staff will recognize the importance of their participation in board decision-making. Currently, boards are comprised entirely of community members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Including internal institution members on boards will also result in the implementation of one of the recommendations of the Carter committee on governance in colleges and institutes. This committee was established to review governance models for colleges and institutes.

These amendments also create a new body for institution governance -- the education council. This council will be composed of elected faculty, students and support staff as well as educational administrators appointed by the president of the institution. This body will have an advisory role to the board in the development of educational policy in its own powers in specified matters, and joint authority with the board on articulation and other agreed matters.

The creation of the education council, which was also recommended by the Carter committee on governance, will enable faculty, students and support staff to participate formally and meaningfully in education decision-making in the institutions.

I talked earlier about the move to allow the autonomous right to grant degrees. Clearly we had to move as well in terms of ensuring that the degrees developed at those institutions met the test. In other words, they had to have credibility. We did not want to move to the traditional university governance model. We don't think it's appropriate at the university college level. We're looking at institutions that have much more of a focus in terms of the relevance of the course they are teaching, much more of a focus in terms of -- as we say -- teaching skills for the real world of work.

Nonetheless, there needs to be a structure internal to the institution that would provide the kind of credibility that these degrees will obviously require. In having faculty involved in developing curricula, the education council will allow that kind of credibility to emerge.

The bill also contains several miscellaneous amendments.

I'll close by saying that I want to give particular credit to the Advanced Education Council of B.C. and to the

College-Institute Educators' Association. I've had a very good relationship with both organizations. It has been a bit of a struggle on occasion to get some kind of consensus on the issues of governance. I want to credit both of those organizations with a great deal of maturity and flexibility.

If the kind of maturity and flexibility that I saw displayed in the lead-up to presenting this legislation in the House today is any indication, then it is going to be a very positive and rewarding relationship at these degree-granting institutes, as well at the other community colleges that, while they don't have degree-granting at this point, clearly are entering into a bit of a new era with respect to a cooperative relationship. It's been a very good experience, and I look forward to debate on this and the subsequent bill, and to the remarks of the members opposite.

With that, I move that Bill 22 be now read a second time.

L. Reid: I'm indeed pleased to rise in debate on Bill 22, the College and Institute Amendment Act, 1994. As the minister stated, this act certainly now gives the minister the ability to require that university colleges and institutes grant baccalaureate degrees. This is a position that is supported by the official opposition.

We agree with the objectives of the college as stated in this particular piece of legislation, and I think we have some understanding of an expanded definition of education on this side of the House. We will see colleges and institutes in this province entering into a very different delivery system in the next number of years. We will see educational opportunities being dramatically different than what they are today in the province, in Canada and in many countries in the world.

We see an educational system that has grown and evolved and will continue to do so. I think the ability of colleges and institutes to rise to some of those expectations will indeed receive widespread support in the educational community.

We look beyond what the legislation says today and would take it to the next plane, if you will. We are going to look at an even greater, expanded definition of what it means to be educated, what it is to learn a living into the next decade and into the next century, as opposed to simply earning a living.

The expectation today seems to be that you go to work for someone. I think what you will see laced through both of these bills today, Bills 22 and 23, is the expectation that people will become their own employer. They will become more entrepreneurial in spirit, and they will hopefully take a lot of these issues into the workforce. I am trusting they will acquire some of the spirit of what it is to be educated in an expanded structural format, which I believe they will find at some of these colleges and institutes, now that they can give people something tangible when they leave.

I think that has always been an issue for educational opportunities in this province. We have often taken the hierarchical approach to education. Somehow we have always seen a university degree as having more value than a college diploma or certificate from an institute. I think we must understand, if we are truly to be educated, that all of those merits, if you will, have their place and have their framework well mapped out. For any society to be successful, it's going to have to be successful across the continuum, as opposed to being successful with the old approach to education, which was very hierarchical.

I think that is a solid approach in terms of this piece of legislation and is something the opposition can support.

I would like to spend a few moments, if I might, adding to the official record the discussion from the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia on the role of boards and education councils and on where they see those parameters and where they see differences in terms of the minister's comments. For the Advanced Education Council of B.C., there are four basic principles on governance, as agreed to at the joint council meeting of December 1, 1993:

"1. Boards are responsible for representing the ownership of an institution. This responsibility must be held intact and, therefore, not shared. The boards are the ones that will be held accountable.

[ Page 11259 ]

"2. Boards have a responsibility to include consultative mechanisms in their decision-making processes; in particular, consultation with faculty on educational matters. In some institutions, this could be on an education council. However, education councils should not be legislated as a requirement for all institutions.

"3. Boards also have the responsibility to include the external community in the consultative process. Institutions should be free to develop their own mechanisms for doing so.

"4. Constituent representation on boards is acceptable as long as it constitutes a minority of the total board membership."

Again, that was agreed to at a joint council meeting on behalf of the Advanced Education Council. So they do have some issues surrounding this piece of legislation. They do have some concerns that I believe should be brought to the table in debate today.

[2:45]

To reiterate that point, a resolution from the Advanced Education Council's council of governors' meeting held Tuesday, February 9, 1994, states:

"Whereas the council of governors of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia strongly endorses the ministry's goal of meeting community needs through increasing the flexibility and responsiveness of our institutions;

"And

whereas each individual institution has a responsibility to reflect regional and cultural identity;

"And

whereas the council of governors supports the inclusion of internal constituency representatives on boards of governors at each college, university college and provincial institute, except the Justice Institute;

"Be it resolved that the council of governors supports the concept of consultation within our institutions, while maintaining the boards' ultimate accountability and

decision-making authority; the council does not support joint authority."

A resolution from the Advanced Education Council's chief executive officers' meeting held the next day, on Wednesday, February 10, 1994, states:

"Moved that the CCEO indicate strong support for constituency membership on the board, consisting of two faculty, two students, one support staff and ten or more members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor. A quorum is to be 50 percent of the overall membership, which must include a majority of those members appointed from the external community.

"Moved that there shall be, for each college, university college and provincial institute, except the Justice Institute, an education council, the purpose of which is to advise the board on educational policy.

"Moved that, taking into account the program and geographical nature of the individual institution, the education council shall, as determined by bylaw, consist of not less than one-third faculty, with the balance to be made up of the students, alumni, administrators and support staff."

I read those recommendations and resolutions into the record because I think they add something that the minister perhaps did not touch on in the debate, in terms of his suggestion that there was some flexibility and responsiveness. Indeed there was, on the part of both organizations. I believe that this organization, the Advanced Education Council of B.C., has been very clear in their cautions around this legislation. I'm hoping their cautions can be debated at some length later on today.

We on the opposition side of the House certainly have some concerns as to whether or not any of these initiatives will result in better decision-making. Are we adding more people to the exercise, more bureaucratic overlay? Will it result in better education and better delivery systems for students in this province? I for one know that there are teachers, instructors, in this province who simply want to teach. They don't wish to be involved in all the other bureaucracies surrounding institutions. They went into the profession because they wanted to instruct students.

Continuing to ask that additional work and time be spent on issues that take them away from their students is a concern for instructors in this province. We have to be cognizant of the fact that as we expand the job description, perhaps it's not always in the best interests of the students. That is a caution that I, as an instructor and as a teacher in this province, would bring forward. At the end of the day, there are some people who simply want to do the job they were hired to do.

If this is indeed the wish of the House, if this will somehow improve instruction and educational opportunities for students, I would ask that those issues come forward in debate. I look forward to the debate. I think the opposition needs to be convinced that this model is going to result in better educational opportunities.

In debate today I have shared the fact that there are some concerns from other institutions. The educational community is not strongly behind this legislation. There are aspects of the community that are supportive, as the minister stated. There are other groups that want to know whether or not it will result in a better education delivery system. That is the issue that we must grapple with in second reading debate, and we will grapple with it more intensely as we move into the committee process.

There has to be some sense that once we leave this debate, we are clear as to who is responsible for educational decisions and that those decisions will be taken with the best interests of the students at heart.

A. Warnke: Rather than just withdraw from the chamber, I want to advise you, hon. Speaker, after seeking advice from different sources, that due to my serving in an administrative capacity, I believe there is a possible conflict of interest -- or certainly there is the prospect of a perception of conflict of interest. Therefore, hon. Speaker, I wish to record in the House that I feel quite compelled to withdraw from the chamber for the vote and the debate so as to avoid any prospect of influencing that vote.

A. Hagen: I want to speak briefly to Bill 22, the College and Institute Amendment Act, 1994.

First of all, I want to commend the minister and his staff for the process that preceded tabling this legislation in the Legislature. The consultation was intense and widespread.

With this bill, along with the legislation in Bill 23, the Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1994, we are moving to add to the galaxy of services that some of our colleges can offer our students. I truly believe that the college system, which is getting close to offering a quarter of a century of service in our province, is still one of the most powerful post-secondary systems that we in British Columbia have developed. Legislation that enhances its responsiveness and its flexibility -- using the words of the member for Richmond East -- is entirely consistent with its mission.

Its mission is one that has been made manifest through a consultative process that has involved communities, faculty, staff, students, boards of governors and the ministry.

The legislation that has come out of that consultation is very carefully designed to recognize that if we are to serve our students, we need to involve in very meaningful ways all of the people who work in those institutions to help in devising and responding to the educational needs of students. The concept of education advisory councils -- and

[ Page 11260 ]

of the powers they will hold, the checks and balances between their advice and powers, and the role of the policy-making body, the board of governors -- has been very carefully designed through a consultation process. In fact, a lot of the issues were thrashed out and dealt with before the legislation actually got to us.

This legislation, I believe, will provide us with tools for the Skills Now initiative and for the expansion of the number of seats for students. And I say to the minister and to the college and institute world that I hope it will, in fact, provide us with an increased panoply of tools to continue with the colleges' mission to regionally serve our post-secondary needs and be very responsive to the changing needs of students for their education, training and aspirations for the world of work.

That's a very large mandate, and no institution fills it better than our community colleges. I believe they are the basis, in fact, for much of the Skills Now initiative that the ministry announced in the last couple of weeks. This broadening of its mandate with respect to the

degree-granting capacity and the setting up of new ways to deal with curriculum, standards, evaluation and service are all consistent with an education goal that has to serve a much larger, more diverse group of students and a much wider array of educational needs. The challenge will be to have a structure that allows for that creative and flexible approach to continue to be available in our community colleges. They form part of a triad of services for post-secondary education that is pivotal.

In my community, I've watched the balancing of academic goals, vocational and technical goals, partnerships with school districts, and working arrangements with the broader community emerge in the college system. That's true wherever I've been throughout the province. This legislation, I believe, provides tools for the community to respond.

We often talk of our fears about legislation, but I think we should see legislation as enabling and empowering people. We should trust people who attend institutions, who teach in them, who are the support staff and who take the policy and budgetary responsibilities of governance.

We should trust those people to work out the tools, programs and services, within the good framework this legislation has provided for us, that will in fact enable us, by the year 2000, to see 50 percent of our population getting the four years of post-secondary education they need in order to be ready for jobs -- and probably by the year 2010, to see the 75 percent who need those post-secondary opportunities getting them.

This legislation is enabling and empowering. It has been developed in a consultative mode. It is a balanced piece of legislation. It puts the onus back on the institutions to work through many of the aspects of the bodies that are described -- the board of governors, the education advisory council and the players who make up that institution.

And because of the basis on which it has evolved, I have a great deal of confidence that those who will work under this legislation will have a tool enabling them to continue with the mission and vision that was established in 1970, when the first of the community colleges was put in place -- one of the very first of which was in my community of New Westminster. Community colleges will continue to be the local and regional base for many people to find the appropriate kinds and lengths of courses they need for their post-secondary education.

I again commend the minister, his staff and the communities who have worked so diligently to bring before the House this session a document that I believe has very strong support.

T. Perry: I hadn't realized the bill would come up today, and if I had, I probably wouldn't have worn such a florid tie. I apologize to members for my unusual dress, but perhaps it will look good on television, anyway.

I think this is a good bill, and I'm going to vote for it. I regret there was some commotion going on in the hall after question period, and I didn't get to listen in full to the minister's speech. I apologize to him if I reiterate some of what he's already said.

[3:00]

I want to make a few comments about the genesis of this bill for several reasons. First of all, some members of the House may still remember that I was once the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. I can still remember the whole term and get it out properly. I was responsible for the establishment of a committee that was chaired by Mr. Ross Carter, a former principal of Vancouver Community College, and that represented students, institutional faculty and other support staff, administrators and board members throughout the province, to review the legislation on colleges and institutes.

I met with that committee a number of times while I had the ministerial responsibility, and I weighed the issues carefully.

I think it's important to say on the public record -- for those people, like the students who have just joined us in the gallery, who wonder whether politicians ever carry out their promises -- that it was longstanding New Democratic Party policy that this reform of the College and Institute Act would be brought in. It goes back years, if not decades. In this case the government is following through on an election commitment that was, if I remember correctly, part of the 48-point plan. It was certainly put before the public. It was well-known policy, and now we're following through.

So for those who care about such things, the government is keeping a promise that it made prior to an election. I think that's important; I think people do care about things like that. I'm glad the young students are with us today to see that, in fact, politicians sometimes do what they say they are going to do.

Much more important than that is to review some of the philosophic basis of these changes. As the minister when this process was begun in 1992, I found that it was almost impossible, even from the record of Hansard, to discern the intentions of the former NDP government in 1973-74, when similar reforms were made to the University Act. I looked through the records at the Legislative Library. I was privileged to have had as one of my professors at university Dr. Walter Young, who chaired a task force in 1973. Some of the other members may have known Walter Young who, tragically, died very early.

His report is available and does not, in my opinion, fully explain why the government of that day made the reforms that it did to the University Act.

The legislative debate -- Hansard having been brought in by the NDP government of Dave Barrett for the first time in B.C. history -- regrettably does not enlighten us on why the government brought in those amendments. The minister of the day, Eileen Dailly, must have been preoccupied with something else, because her second reading speech was only a short paragraph.

The committee stage debate does not really describe much of what was going on, except that it features the former Liberal leader, Dr. Pat McGeer, arguing that it would be a frightening contamination of the boards to have students on them. One may or may not agree with Dr. McGeer. He certainly was clear and logical, and he had coherent ideas. In particular, he felt that you should never let

[ Page 11261 ]

students onto a board of a university because they were transient, they probably didn't know what was good for them anyway, and they wouldn't be around long enough to make much of a contribution. Perhaps there have been such board members occasionally; there certainly have been board members from other groups who fit that description as well. But at least you could tell what Dr. Pat McGeer was thinking.

It wasn't so easy to figure out what the government intended. Although the standard response of a lawyer is to say it doesn't matter what we say in the Legislature, the act tells us what the act is about; it speaks for itself. I see the Minister of Forests has now come into the chamber, and I believe he is one who, as a lawyer, argues that the act speaks for itself.

I note that the new freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner, Mr. Flaherty, as recently as yesterday in a speech before the certified general accountants, which many of us heard, referred to the legislative debate to clarify the intention of the act. That commissioner specifically cited the comments of the Attorney General and others in the legislative debate, last year or the year before, in determining how he ought to interpret the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

So it is important for the record -- just in case anyone looks back on it in the future -- that we describe what we're trying to achieve here. I think it's important, because I wrestled with a lot myself as a legislator. Is the University Act itself perfect? Were the reforms of the 1970s to the University Act, bringing elected faculty, staff and students onto the board, necessarily good? I asked that question of many veteran board members of the universities and found a mixed response. Some of them saw conflict of interest.

That principle of conflict of interest has arisen in the issue of who ought to belong to community health councils and regional health boards and who ought to be eligible for election to municipal councils or school boards. In the case of the universities, the Legislature deliberately decided to bring people onto the board who might be perceived to have a conflict of interest.

The usual answer of the experienced board member -- such as Mr. Ian Stewart, a prominent Liberal who was chair of the University of Victoria board for many years and who served and was reappointed under this government -- was that on balance those members elected from the faculty, students and staff contributed significantly to the deliberations of the boards. They were able to divorce themselves from their own conflicts of interest, exempt themselves from the discussion and absent themselves from the room, and yet contribute to the understanding of other board members by their intimate knowledge of the institution.

On balance, I accept that argument. Although, in these amendments to the College and Institute Act, one now brings onto the board people who might be perceived to have and certainly will have conflict from time to time -- be it over wage issues or their conception of education; and sometimes it's a narrower conception of training and education than the minister, members of the Legislature, people in the community or employers might wish to see -- I think they can segregate themselves from that conflict and step back when necessary. If they don't, the majority of the board will remain to dismiss them where necessary.

But they will be heard, right in the heart of the board. Occasionally they'll be able to point out, "Just a minute; what you're saying doesn't make sense from commonsense experience," just as the minister who is a journeyman millwright might occasionally be able to say: "Just a minute. Your proposal to put methanol into a diesel engine will not work; the engine will probably break down." Sometimes having that practical experience right inside the board is useful.

On balance, I think that's what we're trying to achieve. We want it to be clearly seen that members elected from students, staff and faculty ought to consider themselves not simply as the designated representatives of that interest group but as representatives who are responsible, just like other board members, to the whole of society and not exclusively to their local community -- be it Cariboo College, the College of New Caledonia or wherever. We want them to be responsible to all the people of British Columbia, every bit as much as the other board members.

Students have a very valuable role to contribute, and I think it is difficult for them sometimes because of the transient nature of their life, the demands on them and the fact that they are normally not as economically privileged as most of the other people. They're struggling to get by sometimes. It's very hard for them to contribute, but they can contribute an insight that nobody else can, which is sometimes invaluable. That's going to be constructive, and I think the Carter commission recognized that.

What about the education council? Is this a senate, and is the senate of the university the optimum solution to society's needs? Some of the leading educational minds in British Columbia participated in the Fraser Valley Committee on Post-Secondary Education, chaired by Margaret Neylan. It produced a very thoughtful report last year in July which said that in designing a model for governance for an institution -- such as, in this case, a new university proposed for the Fraser Valley -- one ought to consider the function and decide what one is trying to achieve before designing the governance model.

That was a revolutionary idea for universities and colleges and not something that was ever sufficiently asked in the past. That report pointed out that one wants the institution to be increasingly responsive to the community.

Implicit in that report is the notion that the academic senates have failed us in some ways. They have been very important bulwarks against interference by the state in matters that are properly academic and within the purview of a university. They have guaranteed the credibility of a curriculum free from political and sectarian interference and from the interference of ideas like Nazism, fascism or frightening and dangerous political ideologies around the world. Unfortunately, that kind of senate was not effective in pre-Nazi Germany; it was not effective in communist Soviet Union.

It's probably not effective in China these days, and it is one of the great traditions of our western universities.

However, there is also an isolationism within university senates, which are sometimes divorced from the realities of the outside world. Sometimes there is a notion that they are not accountable to the rest of the world, which is divorced from the fact of common-day reality that the rest of the world pays for the university. The money does not simply drop from heaven like manna inside the ivory gates of the university. I don't see the senate as an unmixed blessing. I see senates as sometimes having been insufficiently responsive to the community.

The beauty of community colleges and institutes in our history in B.C. is that they were sometimes -- in fact, usually -- much more responsive than universities, although they were more subject to political interference at times. Sometimes a minister could interfere and perhaps suppress free dialogue more easily than one could in a university. Even they aren't immune from that.

[ Page 11262 ]

That leads us to the question: is the educational council a senate? I think not. There are important distinctions. Some very important and valid questions have been raised by board members -- those appointed by the previous government and by this government -- of varying political stripes, if any. Some of them don't have any stripes; they have spots or markings that are not discernable at all. They've raised good questions.

To me, the answers to the questions are that this educational council has the right balance of power: the ability to raise tough questions and to advocate on behalf of students and academic and technical excellence, yet the board retains the central power to overrule it where necessary in the interests of society. I think it's important that that be said on the record, and I hope it will be debated at length in committee stage.

What about the degree-granting issue? To me, credentialism is the one question that arises. I think it's wonderful and long overdue that BCIT is granting degrees. The university colleges have shown in their own right over the last few years that they have the capability to do that, and the Emily Carr College of Art and Design -- happily, located in the great riding of

Vancouver-Little Mountain -- is going to make a wonderful new contribution.

But I think we do have to ask: is this simply credentialism, making sure that a two-year or three-year program isn't good enough? Do they now have to have degrees, costing the public an additional $6,000 or $8,000 or $10,000 per year to churn out more students who have higher training, when in fact they would have been perfectly well trained or educated at the level they had already achieved? I don't think so.

I think BCIT has led the way in this respect, in the technical area, by designing its degree programs specifically to encourage students who had already taken technical training, proven their ability to work in the employment world, and who knew what they wanted from their further education, to then come back to complete a degree. I think it's going to be efficient, useful to students and highly student-oriented -- a major advance.

[3:15]

So for all of those reasons, I think this is an excellent, very well-thought-out bill. There remain interesting questions to debate during committee stage. For the reasons I said at the beginning, I think it will be very healthy to have some of that debate on the record. Then board members, faculty, students, civil servants and even ministers will be able, five or ten years from now, to go back and look at what the House was trying to achieve and ask if they are achieving it. I really look forward to listening to part of that debate and to voting for this bill.

[N. Lortie in the chair.]

J. Dalton: I thought, as a veteran of both the oldest and newest college in the system -- that is, Langara -- that I should get to my feet and make a few comments and observations about Bill 22. I should tell the House that my perspective, of course, is somewhat tainted -- if that's the right term -- because I was at Langara since 1974. I should also tell the House that when I arrived at Langara, there was a strike, with a picket line around the campus. It was an interesting way to start, caused in part by bad labour relations.

I can also tell the House that in the next year the president of Vancouver Community College -- as it then was; of course, it has shrunk since those days -- was canned.

I say these things because the faculty at Langara -- and it is still true today -- really was the guiding force behind the institution. I am not saying that there wasn't any management as such at Langara; obviously there was a principal. Now there's a president and a new board appointed to Langara. But the faculty has always had a history.... Quite frankly, that's why Langara is now an independent college; it was really faculty initiative that created that. As far as Langara was concerned, Vancouver Community College really didn't function very well over the years. The board never visited the campus.

So when we see an education council in this Bill 22, that's really in effect what Langara had since my days in '74, and long before that. The education council -- we actually called it an advisory council -- was made up primarily of faculty, and it worked. I'm not suggesting, however, that that is necessarily going to work for all models and all institutions, so I'm just going to give the minister a word of caution. My colleague from Richmond East read into the record the same caution that the Advanced Education Council has voiced.

The board of a college, whether it be Langara or any other institution, is charged with the responsibility of management, and the board is accountable for management. The education council created in Bill 22 is primarily advisory in its capacity. Some decision-making processes can come out of the education council, but I would like this House to understand that ultimately it's the board's responsibility to manage and ensure that a college functions properly, and that when any issue comes up, whether it be good or bad, the board will be held accountable.

I caution the minister that the shared responsibility set out in Bill 22 between the education council.... To support this, I would point out that the council must advise the board and the board must seek the advice of the council. That's fine in print, but I'm not totally convinced that in every institution in this province, of which there are 18, it's necessarily going to work. It will work at Langara, because it has worked there for over 20 years. So when the Advanced Education Council sends out a caution on what's set out in this bill, I'm hoping that those words of caution will be heeded.

I have no trouble with the consultation process set out in Bill 22. It's long overdue that students should have more voice in the initiatives surrounding curriculum. Students should also have some opportunity to comment on tuition increases, for example. At the end of the day, it's the college board....

Interjection.

J. Dalton: Of course we know that they do. The former minister who spoke before me on this subject will fondly remember our visit from the Langara students a year or so ago.

Now the students have a more formal voice, and that's good. It's particularly good because we are moving more and more into four-year degree-granting institutions, not just the traditional two-year programs. So we don't have the same transient students that people would have considered traditionally within the college or even the university system. That's just a word of caution about the education council. I'm hoping that it will prove to be successful.

I would add one other thing with regard to the joint responsibility of the council and the board. We don't want to create institutions that are top-heavy with administration, decision-making bodies and committees, because that is not necessarily going to help the delivery process within the classroom and within the programs. We need administration, but we want it to be, relatively speaking, a lean and mean administration, not an overly cumbersome one. I'm not

[ Page 11263 ]

totally convinced that this process will not become too cumbersome in its nature.

I wanted to add to the record one other thing about the degree-granting process, which is certainly welcome. In large measure it's going to help the problem of access to our

post-secondary institutions. It is also going to help many students from around the province who are almost compelled, in many cases, to come to the lower mainland for their education,

whereas they should have the opportunity to remain in their own communities. This is going to help in that regard.

I want to point out that the minister and I have had some correspondence over the Capilano College situation. I thank the minister for his response to my letter with regard to Capilano College, which has put forward a very

well-reasoned and well-intended proposal for degree-granting status within some of its programs. But Capilano College doesn't necessarily want to take on university college status. It certainly doesn't wish to have degree-granting status for all of its various programs and offerings on campus. What Capilano College does have in mind, as the minister knows -- and I'm hoping we'll be able to advance this concept one step further in subsequent legislation -- is being granted degree-granting status within its areas of expertise and specialty.

I'm just hoping we'll be able to seize upon that initiative, and not just for Capilano College. I know my colleagues at Langara would be very supportive of a similar concept, and I'm sure every other institution in the province would be as well.

Those are my comments. They are not intended to discredit the concepts of Bill 22 or the initiative that is taken through it, but are words of caution from a wily old veteran of the system -- even though my experience is of only one college.

D. Lovick: I'm delighted to say a few words in this debate on second reading of Bill 22, the College and Institute Amendment Act, 1994.

I note my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano referred to himself as a wily old veteran. If he is a wily old veteran, I suspect I must be a hoary old one, because my history goes back even further. It's rather like a Bryan Adams song. It was all about "the summer of '69," in the very early days of the college movement. I am feeling like a character from Margaret Laurence: I'm feeling pregnant with memory -- and of course that's all men can be pregnant with.

There is so much I would love to say, but I will restrain myself and talk about what I think are the two fundamental principles of this bill. The first one is what this bill demonstrates by conferring degree-granting ability to university colleges in the province. It demonstrates very clearly that the college as a concept, as an idea, has come of age. It's something that a lot of us who have been involved over the years knew was inevitable. It was only a matter of when that time would come -- and of when government would find the courage to introduce the enabling legislation, frankly.

I'm delighted that this minister, his predecessor the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain -- who spoke earlier -- and this government have found that courage.

The second principle in the bill that I want to touch on very briefly is the whole area of shared decision-making. Let me deal with each of those, albeit briefly. When the college movement began, it was, to be quite blunt about it, a radical idea in this province. Indeed, many of us fell into the trap, for a short while at least, of saying that it was an American invention, and we were typically xenophobic and thereby apprehensive Canadians. We wondered whether this was a good thing. In fact, at the time I was one of those who was very concerned about Canada's future -- whether we would indeed have one, given the depredations by our neighbour to the south.

When we hired our first president, a man by the name of Dr. Carl Opgaard -- for whom I eventually came to have absolute, unaffected and complete respect and admiration -- I was one of those who wondered out loud about the advisability of that, saying: "Surely we in Canada can find somebody else to manage our institutions. After all, can't we grow our own?" The reality at the time, 1969, was that we in British Columbia and in Canada were simply unaware of the concept of community colleges; therefore we had to go looking for expertise and ability outside our borders.

I am going to make a point in saying this; this isn't just indulgence in memory and nostalgia. I think that community colleges, almost by definition, have always been -- dare I say? -- somewhat more adventurous, exciting and stimulating in certain respects than their brother and sister institutions, the universities. Universities, because of their very size, tend to have to fight within, in a regular battle, the impulse to stultify and to become stodgy and small-c conservative. Colleges, as the new kid on the block, represented an ongoing and constant challenge to do it differently and to do it better.

I would like to say, now that I am not part of the college system.... I should perhaps have said that more emphatically in the beginning, because under standing order 18, of course, if one has any direct pecuniary interest in the college, one must declare it. I no longer have that direct pecuniary interest; I severed my connection with the college after my first five years as an MLA. Therefore I am free to speak -- and I will.

As I say, the college -- Malaspina in particular, although I'd be willing to make the same claim for others -- has a marvellous record of success. Quite frankly, we were producing students who were in many ways better equipped to go on to do good work at university and in their chosen careers than their counterparts at the universities. That happened because there was a sociological phenomenon going on in the late sixties and early seventies, when the colleges took off in this province.

That phenomenon, as we all know, was the challenging of institutions: the suggestion that maybe institutions had become hidebound and restrictive and were too willing to become the defenders of the status quo rather than the challenge to the status quo.

Many of us who came from graduate school and went into the college movement -- perhaps it's a little inflated to put it in these terms -- truly believed that we were building the New Jerusalem. We were going to go out and change the world and make it better and happier. I suspect that the only difference in those of us who still believe that that's our mission is that we were a bit more naive and a little more bright-eyed and

bushy-tailed, and willing to say so. Today I think we're all a little tentative about talking about that kind of

[ Page 11264 ]

idealism. But that's what kicked off the college movement in this province. It was wonderful; it was exciting. It was incredibly hard work in those early days.

[3:30]

It has grown and developed, and it has evolved. It has responded to changing circumstances and demands, and has done it wonderfully -- for two reasons. The first is that it has never forgotten its basic roots in community, and we owe this to our American friends who gave us the model. It has always been closely connected to community and has responded to the perceived needs of community. That's one of the exciting things about colleges. The other is that the college has always been a comprehensive model for education.

In this province, it has always been a mixture of academic, technical and vocational, or what we in the trade refer to as career education. That mixture, that cross-fertilization, has also made it exciting and significant. That's certainly the case at Malaspina in Nanaimo, where I am from.

What has happened, though, is that we have acquired that stature, status and credibility to the point where becoming a degree-granting institution (

a) was inevitable and (

b) will be universally accepted and applauded. I don't think anybody is going to challenge the right of the colleges to confer degrees. They have earned that prerogative. They have earned that ability, and I for one am pleased to congratulate them on having done so.

The other point I want to make about the community college has to do with what I referred to earlier as the second principle enunciated in this bill -- namely, the idea of shared

decision-making. We used to use a word at the college many years ago -- "collegiality." One of my colleagues, who is now an assistant dean or something at Malaspina, used to get more or less teased and laughed at every time he said: "Well, that's not very collegial; we should be doing this with more collegiality." Nobody, of course, knew what that meant. It essentially meant that you all had a chance to sit down and discuss the issues -- a fancy word for a nice concept. We laughed at the time when the word was used, because the college was anything but collegial in those days.

Rather, we tended to be a hierarchical structure where some at the top told the rest of us at the bottom what was going on. Happily, this legislation changes that, and I for one think that is a wonderful idea.

What we're talking about is recognizing that the face of education has changed. It is no longer -- if it has ever been -- the case for a community college or a university college to deal with only a particular age group fresh out of high school. The changing demographics of the college population in the past 20 years or so has been to become a progressively older student body.

In my experience, the best students in the college have inevitably been those who have been out doing something else -- whether that's raising children, working at other jobs or getting some other kind of education -- and then decided that they wanted to go to the college. They came there motivated and interested and, above all, with some life experience against which they could measure the theoretical stuff that people like me in the classrooms were talking about. It was a wonderful opportunity to teach people like that.

You didn't have to worry -- as is so often the case in so much of what is called teaching today -- about whether your students really wanted to be there. You didn't have to worry very much about motivation, as the phrase goes.

Rather, it was a simple matter for the instructor to say: "Look, students, I am prepared to give you all my time, energy and whatever expertise and ability I have, but you've got to want it, and you've got to be prepared to do your part." It was, if you like, an unstated contract between teacher and student, and that is the absolute best model -- the best possible environment -- for real education to occur.

I don't think that this bill has any kind of radical dimensions. Rather, it is truly an idea whose time has come -- echoing the phrase of Victor Hugo. But it's also a bill that people are understandably going to put some pressure on. I was pleased to hear my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano make the point that there are no easy solutions in terms of college governance. It's not a matter of simply saying: "We'll let everybody have a part of the

decision-making, and all our problems will be solved." The negotiations will still go on. I for one am looking forward to listening to committee-stage debate, because there may well be some legitimate questions about the governance model that's set out here.

I want to emphasize that this is good legislation. I hope that all members in this chamber are going to give it their enthusiastic support. I know that my colleagues in Nanaimo and at Malaspina College, as well the citizens of the community who have offered their support for Malaspina College for many years, are going to respond enthusiastically.

G. Wilson: Let me first get out of the way a concern with respect to matters of conflict of interest, certainly under standing order 18, because I'm currently on leave from a community college and there would be ample opportunity for me to speak if not to vote. Even under

section 9 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, given that I would have or gain no pecuniary interest by the passage of this bill, it is clear that a conflict of interest does not occur for faculty members who may be on leave from community colleges. I've had an opportunity to briefly discuss this with both the Clerk and the commissioner. I just want that to be on the record. I don't believe a conflict exists. And I believe that's been decided by the member for West Vancouver-Capilano, who I know is out of the college system, as is the member for Nanaimo.

Let me start my discussion of Bill 22. The main question that needs to be asked of this is: why do we need this legislation? Secondly, what is this legislation going to accomplish that could not be done more effectively through providing greater autonomy to the colleges to sort themselves out and allow themselves to find the best way they can to manage the issues provided for under this bill?

To talk a bit about conflict of interest, if we can.... In the board composition -- with respect to faculty members, staff members or even students who are now going to sit on a board that is going to make decisions on things like faculty salaries, staff salaries and student fees -- by virtue of this bill you've got members sitting on that board who will have a right to vote on those three issues, which will clearly put them in conflict. Furthermore, if there is to be adequate and proper discussion of those issues, faculty are clearly going to have to absent themselves from that discussion.

So would staff, because they are sister/brother unions at most colleges and usually are in direct support of each other with respect to the collective bargaining process. And the Canadian Federation of Students clearly is going to want to allow themselves to remain independent.

So this is really problematic, from a purely philosophical point of view and a point of principle. If you allow faculty members to sit on a board and give the faculty member, staff member or student the right to vote on the board, then presumably they must have a complete and equal opportunity to participate in all matters of deliberation that

[ Page 11265 ]

the board undertakes. And that puts them in a conflict of interest.

Save and except for this new creation, this educational council -- where they're now going to sit down and decide on their own what constitutes a conflict of interest for themselves, which in itself is unusual and unacceptable -- there's no provision in this legislation, with any degree of clarity in the language, as to how you're going to get around that conflict of interest. Clearly, you're going to end up with a board composed of members appointed by the council -- and I'm going to come to that.

You're also going to have faculty members, staff and students who are going to have to be excluded from much of the deliberation of a board with respect to matters that are pecuniary and therefore have influence over faculty or staff collective agreements and student fees. That in itself is unworkable.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

I've spent a long time in the college system myself. While the member for Nanaimo has me beat -- I didn't start there until the early 1970s -- I've also had the opportunity to act in a subadministrative capacity over the years. I had an opportunity to serve as president of the union, was involved in establishing the first collective agreement, have been involved as chief negotiator, and have been involved in the CIEA and in activities around provincial bargaining on a lot of matters.

I have also had an opportunity, on the management side, to act in the establishment of a new college facility in Sechelt and in the setting-up of administrative structures to administer that facility. So I think I have a lot of knowledge about the inner workings of the college system. I'll tell you that this, in my judgment, is both unworkable and unnecessary.

It strikes me as passing strange, when there isn't enough money to put students in a classroom, that we're creating a middle-level bureaucracy in the college system that is going to cost more money. Faculty are not going to sit on this board if this education advisory council is going to be worth its salt unless they're released from some form of teaching. It will become the subject of collective bargaining negotiations as sure as we're all in this House speaking to this bill.

In a similar manner, if somebody is going to be released to coordinate a discipline, if faculty are elected to sit on an educational council, they're going to be released from their instructional duties to do that -- and rightly so. The powers that you're granting to this educational council are fairly substantive. Therefore replacement faculty who will be brought in, albeit at a temporary level and therefore lower on a faculty wage scale, are going to increase, not decrease, the cost of delivery of education.

Furthermore, it sets up a middle-level bureaucracy that, if left unchecked and allowed to flourish and grow as bureaucracies tend to do, is going to become enormously problematic from a disciplinary point of view. I remember only too well years back, in the late seventies and early 1980s, when we moved to concepts called instructional boards within college systems, where we were funnelling curriculum materials and questions with respect to standards, grading, student appeals and curriculum variances as we moved into community educational programs.

We developed a community development component of the community college. Those instructional boards were an enormous frustration to faculty who wanted to have the autonomy to set standards required for a degree that would eventually be granted in their discipline. For the life of me, I don't understand what we should be doing with four educational administrators appointed by the president, and four students or four support staff sitting there talking about the establishment of curricula criteria for a degree granted in the discipline of physics.

The people who should be deciding those standards, and the people who do decide those standards in reality -- and I don't know who drafted this bill, but they clearly have not taken this into account -- are provincewide bodies of physicists. They sit there and determine on a provincewide basis what's necessary for introductory students and how those students are developed in terms of the curriculum that is established, so that transferability between colleges and universities is allowed and standards and grading are consistent.

What we don't need is a middle-level bureaucracy that's going to further complicate this issue at a time when the dollars allocated for colleges are extremely scarce.

We've got individuals appointed to a board who are going to immediately put themselves in a conflict position on pecuniary matters when collective agreements are being discussed. There's no provision to deal with that. That original board is really going to be dealing with the mechanics of the operation of the college under the act that governs the colleges, and is therefore going to be in charge of distributing what limited funds may be available from the provincial government. Eight of those board members will be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I guess this government has forgotten that when they ran for office, they promised they would move to elected boards; I guess they forgot that there was a commitment to the people who elected them to office to establish elected boards in this province. It didn't happen in the hospital board system and it hasn't happened in the college board system; we are now going to maintain appointed boards. We would argue that what we ought to be doing in principle is moving toward boards that are elected from within the community in which the community college is established and for which it provides.

We would also say that the magnitude of the powers or the duties underneath this advisory role of the educational council is such that it is going to provide a middle level of bureaucracy that ultimately is going to be more frustrating than productive.

[3:45]

Let me tell you, the problem is that when you get into a downscaling, a downsizing of colleges, this is when the real conflict happens. In a period of growth, when many dollars are available to the colleges, and various disciplines are able to expand and introduce new courses and are able to put on courses that may not be part of a core curriculum, but in fact may be desirable additions to that curriculum, everybody seems to be happy.

When dollars become scarce and dollars to the colleges diminish, we have to make hard educational decisions with respect to how we reduce the courses delivered, how we reduce the number of sections, and how we decide whether we're going with five first-year courses and only three second-year courses, or expanding to include an equal number of first- and second-year courses, and so on.

It's at a time when you're in that situation that the cancellation of courses and programs offered by the institute, the length of hours the institute will sit and the number of contact hours that a faculty member may have to be before a class are all matters that are clearly subject to collective agreements. They're matters that are governed by individual collective agreements with individual colleges. Clearly, the education council has a limited advisory capacity in the delivery of that, because it is something generally in the purview of the faculty associations and the duly nominated bargaining agent for that faculty association. So one has to wonder what we're trying to create

[ Page 11266 ]

here. My guess is that it's going to be a complex bureaucracy that is not necessarily effective.

Decisions concerning library and resource centres -- well, an advisory aspect can be provided. I remember sitting on just such an advisory review council at the college in which I served, where we were very concerned because there was a lack of resources to enable us to continue to expand the library facilities and library services that were necessary for the delivery of what we believed were adequate program support services to the faculty in those areas.

The point is that we could provide all the best advice in the world -- we had an enormously supportive administration and a reasonably supportive board -- but we couldn't act on that advice because we didn't have the money. Somebody had to make the decisions as to how that money was going to be applied. It couldn't be an educational advisory council, because the key component to how the money was delivered was the collective agreement. It was how much money, by law, the college had to put into faculty and staff salaries, and what costs there were in terms of the administration of the programs.

All the advice in the world didn't do anything but frustrate those people who sat for hours and hours, deliberating on those necessary

pedagogical issues and providing advice to a board that had its hands tied because it didn't have any money.

So let's not fool ourselves into thinking, when we set up this middle bureaucracy, that somehow we've created anything other than a middle bureaucracy. When you talk about powers with respect to the bylaws that you're going to provide for this education council, then I become really quite concerned. It says it's going to set criteria for academic standing, academic standards and the grading system by bylaw.

Curriculum, grading and standards should be set in a disciplinary way among members in a discipline on a provincewide basis so that there is a consistent standard provincewide. That's traditionally the way it's been done, through a provincewide process of articulation of new courses, which I'm sure, hon. Speaker -- and I welcome you back -- you're familiar with. Only when you have an accepted provincewide articulation standard and the flexibility for disciplines to alter and change curriculum as the demand requires and as the pedagogical questions demand they do are you going to have students properly served.

Many students come into the college system with a view to moving out of the system through transferring into other institutions, and the transferability of those programs is critical. So we have to consider what's meant when you talk about these bylaws and how they are going to be set. In committee stage we're going to have explore that in some detail, because that becomes quite problematic, in my judgment. I'm not sure that we want to remove the right of individuals within the disciplines to be able to make the kinds of changes that are necessary.

Within this proposition, we are moving to a joint approval process, and that is something else that we want to get into. It talks about curriculum evaluation with respect to a joint approval process. I think that begs the big question here: what are we going to do about the designation of institutions with respect to the kinds of degrees they are able to provide?

The member for West Vancouver-Capilano made reference to Capilano College, an institution that I have a great deal of familiarity with and understand well, as I do some others, because of my involvement with CIEA over the years. He said correctly that Capilano College may wish to give degrees only in specific programs. They may not wish to be a full degree-granting university, because they may decide as a university college that their resources will not be properly or wisely allocated,

whereas certain specialized programs should be allowed to develop into a degree-granting process.

When they instituted an outstanding program on Southeast Asian studies, which was a postgraduate study program, it led the field not only in British Columbia but right across Canada with respect to cooperative education programming involving Southeast Asia and companies that worked in a co-op system. That was allowed and provided for because there was enormous flexibility in negotiations on funding to each of the community colleges in order to advance their strengths.

They were able to make sure that their strengths were adequately and properly financed, and that they weren't going to be somehow in a detrimental position by virtue of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council granting certificates, diplomas, and baccalaureate and honorary degrees to a college, and giving it a particular classification that does not take into account that flexibility.

When we look at this legislation, it's not clear whether that flexibility is going to be there. We are concerned that that flexibility will indeed not be there. We are concerned that a great deal of pressure will be brought to bear by some institutions that get the ear of the government, and that by whatever process the government deems to be fair -- which may or may not appear fair within the community colleges themselves -- those degrees are going to be granted through a political and governmental decision rather than through a broader academic consideration of the regions within which those degrees are provided.

This becomes really problematic at a time when there are scarce funds going to the colleges. This government has patted itself on the back many times for setting up the University of Northern B.C. in Prince George. What a great idea it was! I, for one, think it's wonderful to have a university in the central part of British Columbia. As a geographer, I reject the notion that Prince George is north; it's just about geographic centre. Nevertheless, it's nice to have a university up there. But what was the cost, over the system, of implementing that? I don't believe we've ever seen hard data on that question.

If we start to establish these various degree-granting institutions, that means that from a limited pot of money we're going to have to designate certain percentages of those dollars on the basis of the classifications granted to those colleges. We may find ourselves in a situation where we have created many more institutions empowered to grant degrees than we can finance adequately. As a result, we will have created a problem with respect to escalating financing demands when there just isn't the money to supply that service.

So the provision of certificates, diplomas, baccalaureate and honorary degrees, and how those are going to be established, is a serious issue. With the modification of powers to the board that are outlined in this bill, we have to be extremely careful that we do not build in a bias or prejudice to the long-term survivability of some colleges by virtue of the fact that we have given greater discretionary powers to one group over another because of their classification or designation. Some colleges may not choose to go the full university degree-granting route. As Capilano College has, they might decide to go toward a very specific degree-granting program.

We have some serious problems with this bill. In his opening remarks the minister waxed eloquent about how the community college system is a wonderful system; how it

[ Page 11267 ]

provides education for British Columbians; and how we ought to protect, maintain and enhance it, and so on. There is no disagreement from this member or from any members of the Alliance that we need to do that. But the government could have made some very sound amendments to the act. As it is amended under Bill 23, the Institute and Technology Amendment Act, 1994.... In our judgment the act creates a middle bureaucracy within the college system that I'm not certain is going to be effective at delivering what it is intended to deliver.

Rather than this structure being established, we would like to have seen a board that was fully elected from the community -- elect the college boards. We then need to recognize that the formula funding system that finances community colleges does not work. The real issue is not whether you've got some kind of educational council that allows faculty, staff, students and so on to be involved, because this middle level of bureaucracy isn't going to address the real problem. The real problem is that we need a more equitable system of financing, and the formula funding system needs to go. It doesn't work.

We have been saying it for the last little while as Alliance members, and before that for many years.

It's hard to believe that this government doesn't understand that formula funding doesn't work. It doesn't work in the college system, and the creation of an educational council isn't going to solve that. It doesn't work in K-to-12 in the primary and secondary educational system. The elimination of bargaining rights and the movement to provincewide bargaining is a complete breach of trust that this government has shown to the people of this province, because they campaigned against provincewide bargaining. That isn't going to solve that problem either. The problem is that bureaucracies don't solve bureaucratic problems; they create them.

If there is a problem in adequate and proper financing of education, then go to the problem -- that is, the formula funding that provides that educational financing. I see the minister is feeling a little uncomfortable about this, and so he should. This minister knows that the removal of bargaining rights of duly constituted bargaining agents in this province is not the way to go. It's amazing that in the case of this bill, this government, which prides itself on looking after the interests of unionized workers, doesn't have any problem designating a bargaining agent, removing local bargaining rights and moving toward a bureaucracy.

An Hon. Member: Hot air.

G. Wilson: We'll see, because this bill will create a new bureaucracy that is going to further move educational dollars out of delivery in the classroom, where they're needed, and toward more and more talkers, thinkers, writers and producers, who are going to give us a lot of advice. The colleges don't need advice. They need more money to the classroom. They need more research and development dollars. They need more money to the libraries and support services. They need better financing of classroom services so that they can put students who are turned away every year into the classroom.

They don't need some educational council pontificating about why they can't get into class. They need the dollars to put them in class.

As much as this is lip service to a modification and change to the college system, it isn't going to do a darned thing to help the students of this province. It isn't going to do a darned thing to help the faculty who are trying to provide the best advanced education possible to those students. It isn't going to do a darn thing to help those colleges and institutions who are trying their best to work towards the advancement of sound educational development in this province so they can maximize the things they do best, provide degrees for those things and concentrate scarce moneys into them.

They don't need Bill 23. They need the formula funding system to be tossed out, four-year financing to be put in place, community-elected college boards to put back community control over the community college system, and adequate and proper financing for the classrooms so that students will have access to the education they need. Bill 23 speaks to none of it. In our judgement, while this may have some cosmetic effect, that's all it's going to provide. The college system is not going to be advanced, improved or better financed by it, and it is not going to provide for students.

I think it's customary that the Speaker, a neutral party, does not engage in a personal conversation when a member has the floor, is recognized in this chamber and is speaking on a bill. I think it is entirely out of order. Let me say that in terms of decorum....

When a bill being presented in this chamber tells us we need to look toward the proposition of providing better educational service to the people of this province, we would have liked to have seen a streamlining of funding into the educational system, greater degrees of community control and an opportunity for that money to find its way into the classroom and not into a middle level of bureaucracy. This is disappointing legislation, because we believed this was going to do something really tangible to support the delivery of that education. It's cosmetic, it's going to be unproductive, and in our judgement it will do nothing but further complicate the issues at the local level.

[4:00]

Put back into the disciplines the right for those disciplines to decide on curriculum and development. Provide the instructors with the level of funding that is required for them to put in place the kind of education that students will be able to access and develop with. Bill 23 doesn't do it, and to suggest that it does, I think, is to mislead the people of British Columbia, who are ultimately going to end up paying more for less.

L. Hanson: After listening to the various ex-faculty members speaking on the merits of the bill, I'm almost convinced it is a document that would be very difficult for anyone not to support.

Seriously, the bill does some very good things. The formalization or entrenchment of the degree-granting status of our various colleges is a very positive move. I think the ability for our colleges -- our community colleges, at least -- to now grant honorary degrees will give them an opportunity to recognize people in their communities who have contributed exceptionally to the community college. I think we all accept that the community college itself, as an entity or organization, has been a good addition to British Columbia.

When we see the various communities and the pride they take in their local campuses, that in itself is good, as well as the results of having the opportunity of obtaining an education -- although in some cases the fields are a bit limited -- right within your own community. That is all absolutely excellent.

I know that during the committee stage the minister will convince us that this is not true, but the bill does create some concerns for us. It would appear, as the member for Powell

River-Sunshine Coast mentioned, that there is going to be a considerable increase in the bureaucratic administration of

[ Page 11268 ]

community colleges. After the government made a number of promises during the election process, it would seem that they should be looking for ways to give students a break in their tuition and help students as much as possible. It would seem that this bill is going to increase the cost of administration, which naturally has to be passed on to the students in the form of tuition fees.

The conflict that might develop -- the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast also mentioned it -- is that with faculty, support staff and students sitting on the board actually administering the business of the college, it could at times require them to absent themselves from the board. I suspect that quite often that may not be good for colleges. I think we would all defend the need for student input, the views of students, concerning their college and its management, as well as the views of the faculty and support staff.

People on the receiving end of the education system, administrative staff and education providers have insights that may not be readily available to board members. I think that's good.

I'm waiting for the committee process, so the minister will be able to answer some questions on the relationship between various boards and the various representatives on those boards as it relates to possible conflicts of interest. It would seem in some cases that there is a joint responsibility for the education advisory council and the board that might lead to a little competition between the two, as opposed to going in the direction that they are both interested in going: toward the best management and the best education system that can be provided.

With those few remarks.... I don't want to prolong this debate. I hope there will be some consideration by members of the House that Bill 23 parallels Bill 22, and that most of the things that are said in general on second reading about one bill apply to the other one. We probably don't need to have that repeated. I'm sure the members will use their own good judgment. I look forward to the item-by-item analysis of the bill when we come to committee stage.

We support the bill in second reading now, but we may not support every item during committee stage, because there are some real concerns. As I said, it's mainly the appearance that there is a huge increase in bureaucracy and a huge increase in the complication of the system that we have in place to run our colleges. If anything, we've had that demonstrated in our health care system. To put a huge change in without really having it well planned and well tried out before we put it in place could create so much confusion that you harm the system. I know that is not the intention of the minister or what is intended with this act.

With that, I look forward to committee stage.

J. Tyabji: Obviously my comments will be a little shorter because my colleague has spoken to this, and he has had a broad wealth of experience in the college system. I'd like to get some comments on record, being one of the members here who has a university college in their riding. After reading Bills 22 and 23 -- particularly Bill 22 -- a number of things can come up in committee stage about all the provisions and about some of the concerns that have been raised by instructors regarding the discretionary powers that will be given to cabinet to start to direct advanced education.

The biggest problem I have is in terms of the education council, which I see as both unnecessary and expensive. Having gone through the college and university system in British Columbia, I see two parts of the advanced education system in the province that are prohibitive to students: the inability to get into classes, because there's such a high demand for them; and the costs once you get there. Those include student fees and the costs you pay toward tuition, which is your contribution to financing the classes.

When I see the way the education council is constructed, very little thought has been given to how much this is going to cost and how effective it's going to be in meeting the two most prohibitive barriers to students.

As a member of this House, I would assume that the objective of our colleges and universities is to invest in the education of the next generation, who will be contributing to our communities, economy and social structure through their employment and payment of taxes, and in that way helping to finance the social safety net. We must recognize that the most important part of our advanced education system is to ensure that as many individuals as possible who choose to receive advanced education have the opportunity to do so.

If that opportunity will be restricted by their ability to get into classes or by the costs associated with those classes, then that should clearly be the first thing that we as members of this assembly address in trying to promote advanced education for our young people.

I'm not even sure which problems this was meant to address, because it doesn't seem to me that there is anything the education council does that a properly constructed board can't do. In addition to having the board as constructed in this bill -- not elected by general election and by a membership -- we have a closed board and an education council. In addition to the education council being unnecessary, the way it's constructed, there will be 20 voting members and probably two non-voting members; and then, under

section 11.4(3), the number of voting members may be increased for a one-year period, and those

one-year periods could be concurrent. So you could actually have an unlimited number of voting members added for one year -- provided the majority of the council agrees -- with the one-year terms running concurrently. I don't see anything in the bill to prohibit the one-year terms running concurrently. So you really have 20 to 22 people, to an unlimited number, on a council empowered with the most incredibly large mandate for advising the board, and there's no specification as to how that advice is going to be given. Is it going to be through written memos? If it's a written memo, who is empowered to do that?

That's not specified. Is it going to be advice in the form of joint meetings between the board and the council? That's not specified either.

It seems to me to be a very cumbersome and unnecessary body to have. Under the powers and duties of the boards, we see that the minister has greater power to establish committees, or at least takes precedence, under

section 12, to establish committees and have powers in addition to the powers of the board in order to direct education, even to the extent of directing the curriculum of classes at colleges and universities. I don't understand how this council -- which is composed of administrators elected by administrators, in addition to the faculty members and students -- can possibly be expert enough to be directing the curriculum of the professors teaching classes. To me, that is unnecessary. It's going to be expensive and it's going to be unwieldy. It's an unfortunate addition to the

post-secondary structures of the province.

Rather than having something like this diverting funds that should be going directly into increasing opportunities for our young people, we should have that money available for classes and allow the people who are experts in their fields to direct the curriculum, obviously with the approval of the board and in consultation with the ministry. As the Alliance leader said, with provincial guidelines, provincial

[ Page 11269 ]

standards and students having greater opportunity to access their classrooms, the most constructive recommendations to the minister would be to leave aside the education council and, instead, put the money that would have been allocated for that into tuition reductions.

[4:15]

If this government wants to be re-elected, they would have every post-secondary student in the province willing to vote for them if they could bring tuition fees down. In fact, if we graph the increase in tuition fees over the last ten years, it's startling how the increase prohibits students and young people from entering our post-secondary institutions. This bill puts into place in these very institutions a very expensive talk shop, to obfuscate and provide memos and advice to a board that could probably get the job down without them.

With that, I would like to say that I'm strongly in opposition to this bill and to Bill 23. I'm sure the minister will entertain us with his closing remarks, but the bottom line is that students need more opportunities; and this council, although maybe well-intentioned, is totally against the objectives of what I would hope this government would have for the post-secondary institutions of the province.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I call upon the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, whose remarks will close debate.

Hon. D. Miller: I've sat and listened to most of the remarks made by members with respect to the bill. I appreciate what I think I hear is some level of support. Clearly there are some questions, which hopefully we can address at committee stage. I am somewhat concerned about the propensity for nitpicking. Let's talk about what this bill and the subsequent bill aim to do. I hope the comments of the Reform critic can be taken with respect to subsequent debate, but it's immaterial to me. It is very interesting to sit here and listen to people pontificate and nitpick, particularly people who are employed in the college system.

Let's talk about the state of the province. Let's talk about the 20 percent to 30 percent dropout rate in our high schools and the 70 percent of our high school graduates who don't go on to any post-secondary education whatsoever. From those people who have been in that system, we hear that they would just like to talk and that they're not interested in change. I wrote down what I determined were the criticisms of the member for Powell

River-Sunshine Coast: no need, no money, no conflict, no change. Let's not change anything; let's just keep talking.

We are not content to just keep talking. We have allocated $200 million in new funding. We will increase the number of spaces in our universities and colleges by about 8,000 this fall. That isn't just talk; that is action. I listen to these members nitpick and pontificate; they talk about degrees, academic considerations, universities, senates and how long the education system.... If it were up to them, we would talk and talk, and we would never do a darn thing. That is not the objective of this government. We are not going to sit here and listen to fancy speeches from academics.

We are going to take action to give real opportunity to young people in this province because, quite frankly, they haven't had it.

If the members had listened to my remarks.... We're moving to encourage educational institutes to give degrees and diplomas in areas where students can actually go out and find a job. Believe it or not, some people consider that to be heresy or interference with academic freedom. The very shame, the very thought, that we would actually educate someone so they could actually go out and find a job, it seems to me, is anathema to some people, particularly some people -- and you can see where my finger is pointing, hon. Speaker -- who come out of the education system.

I am just a working person who comes from a small town in this province. I don't have a degree. I'm very proud to be a certified tradesperson -- I'm a millwright by trade. I think I understand the value of saying to young people in our high schools that we want to try to help them and give them the right skills so they can actually find work.

J. Tyabji: Yes, at McDonald's.

Hon. D. Miller: The member says: "McDonald's." That's the very thing we're trying to avoid. Why do you think we put $200 million into training? Why do you think we have targeted the revitalization of the apprenticeship system? Why do you think we're not satisfied that an apprenticeship system that used to carry 20,000 people a year now carries only 14,000? We're determined to get that number up and reform some of these systems. We're not going to sit around here and debate endlessly in this kind of airy-fairy academic debate. We intend to move forward.

I can tell you that there is not -- nor will there ever be, in my experience -- universal acceptance or understanding of any notion of change. It's remarkable. In fact, one of the observations that has struck me most acutely in terms of being a member of government is that whenever you talk about change, there are lots of people who like to sit and talk; but the minute you actually propose to do something, they say: "Just a minute; this won't work." "Somebody might have to write memos," I hear the member from Kelowna say. "How is it going to work?

Are people going to write memos, or are they going to telephone?" God, we could debate that for probably two or three weeks. In the meantime, nothing would happen. How many angels can dance on the head of the pin? Should we debate that for two or three weeks and do nothing? It has been my experience that whenever you attempt to make change, quite often those very people who like to sit and talk about change all of a sudden become the people who say: "Just a minute." They want to throw up the barricades and put up the roadblocks: "You can't do that. Heaven forbid, you're interfering with academic freedom."

My remarks in opening debate were that we consulted widely, and we didn't get absolute commitment to every word in this bill. I can bring the clippings to this House of what the presidents and board chairs of the university colleges and colleges in this province are saying. I read the clippings from Nanaimo, where President Rich Johnston was glowing and effusive in his praise of this government finally moving forward and dealing with these issues. Not every member of the AECBC was fully supportive of this, but we sat down together.

When I sit in rooms with people like the AECBC, it's amazing that we can come to understandings. It's not as though we embrace everything that each other says, but we do come to understandings. And I'm very pleased that we've come to that understanding. There may be some who have some mild criticisms. But what's life without a little criticism?

I'm a bit disappointed in the Liberal critic. I'm somewhat puzzled, because one of the lessons you need to learn in making change is that you can't be one-sided. Yet when the member stood to speak about the bill she could quite clearly quote the Advanced Education Council, but not once did she mention CIEA -- the faculty members in this province. It's as though they are invisible. She can talk to six people who represent one side and be quite prepared to enter their comments into the record, but she's not prepared to go to the

[ Page 11270 ]

group that represents thousands of college faculty in this province, who are eager to get on with the challenge. She won't even mention them. If I had sent her to try to get a deal, we wouldn't have one. We wouldn't make any progress. There wouldn't be a bill, a skills package, new applied degrees at the college level or degree-granting status. In fact we wouldn't have apprentices in this province, because my hon. critic is on record as saying apprenticeships are outdated.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: She corrects me, and I apologize. She didn't say they were outdated; she said apprenticeships are old thinking. I am glad she has clarified that. As I travel around the province I spend a lot of my time pondering with large groups of people about where the Liberals are coming from. I'm sure there's a rational explanation for their opposition to apprenticeships.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: As disappointed as I am to have to relay that news to the House today, I have to advise you that it is true.

The notion of an education council -- the notion of people who have not been represented on the board -- does represent some challenge for those participants.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll be quite happy in my estimates to deal with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast when he wants to talk about money, because in fact there is money. We won't do it across the floor; we will try to do that in estimates. But there is money, regardless of what the member might say. I don't know where he thinks we're going to get our 8,100 new spaces from, but it's because we're supplying new money to the institutions. They are quite happy about that, and they are quite up to the challenge.

But the challenge also exists.... As I look at the colleges and institutes around the province, clearly there is a degree of difference among them. There are some that in fact have almost fulfilled some of the requirements of the legislation and don't see it as any challenge whatsoever. Their advice to me is: "We're doing that already. We don't fear and have no concern about this legislation. Let's go forward." Others are a little more hesitant.

All I can say is that I intend to work with the parties -- with the Advanced Education Council, the boards, the presidents and the faculty. My relationship with them has been very good, and we'll make this work. I'll tell you why: people are excited about the challenge. We're finally going to deal with....

Hon. Speaker, I've got to tell you I was astounded. I read in the newspaper last week or two weeks ago that a group of students who'd completed their academic liberal arts degrees at a university in British Columbia couldn't find work. They couldn't find a job. Not only that, I believe the federal government came in with a program -- with some of our tax dollars.... These students -- and I've all the respect in the world for them -- had spent four years at university. And the federal government had to come in with a program and spend some of your tax dollars to counsel these students on: (1) how to go out and find a job; and (2) where to look for a job.

I say to myself that if we can reform our system -- if we can talk to our community colleges in terms of the kinds of applied programs I'm talking about that meet the demands of industry -- and give opportunity to our young people, particularly those 70 percent who now don't go on to

post-secondary, then I say that's a challenge all of us have to take up and that I am eager to get on with.

[4:30]

So I look forward to committee stage. I hope we don't do the academic dance -- you know, the pontificating and the endless debate -- because we want to get on with the job. People out there want us to get on with the job, and I hope we can do that quickly.

I think I've already moved second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 52

Petter

Marzari

Pement

Priddy

Edwards

Cashore

Charbonneau

O'Neill

Garden

Perry

Hagen

Dosanjh

Hammell

B. Jones

Lortie

Giesbrecht

Miller

Cull

Gabelmann

Clark

MacPhail

Ramsey

Blencoe

Janssen

Evans

Randall

Beattie

Simpson

Jackson

Kasper

Krog

Brewin

Copping

Schreck

Lali

Hartley

Boone

Neufeld

Fox

Symons

K. Jones

Anderson

Jarvis

Tanner

Chisholm

Dalton

Reid

Farrell-Collins

Hurd

Stephens

Weisgerber

Hanson

NAYS -- 2

Tyabji

Wilson

Bill 22, College and Institute Amendment Act, 1994, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 23.

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, mindful of your comments and the comments of my hon. critic in the Reform Party, this bill really is a piece of mirror legislation to the previous piece of legislation. It's only that it impacts on the B.C. Institute of Technology. I'm quite prepared to test whether the members want to get into a substantive debate -- given that the issues are precisely the same as in the previous debate -- or let this bill proceed. But I won't bother to make lengthy opening remarks on this bill.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate on Bill 23, the Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1994. With reference to the minister's comments about my ability to meet and deal effectively with the College-Institute Educators' Association in this province, yes indeed, we have

[ Page 11271 ]

had a number of meetings surrounding both pieces of legislation, and yes indeed, the minister did present a serious case. But I do not believe he presented the Advanced Education Council of B.C.'s case fairly and adequately. That is the reason that I chose to enter their comments into debate, and I would do exactly the same for Bill 23.

I think the issues surrounding this particular piece of legislation need to be understood clearly. There are differing points of view on the governance of colleges and universities, particularly as they pertain to Bill 23 and the B.C. Institute of Technology. The ability of that institution to grant a four-year bachelor's degree is one that the official opposition supports. We believe strongly in diversifying educational opportunities in this province, and we will stand firmly behind the notion that not just universities should have the ability to provide a student with a degree after three to four years of instruction.

We have some concerns similar to ones raised earlier in debate on Bill 22: the governance structure of college boards, and the ability of the advisory council to enter into meaningful, substantive debate. Certainly it has always been understood that an advisory council has some powers, some ability to come together and mediate. This legislation is very prescriptive in that they must advise, and in that the other groups, if you will, must seek their advice. That's somewhat more prescriptive, and so much more directive, than a typical advisory group. It's simply not advisory in nature.

It does not allow for advice to be sought and received; it demands that advice be sought and received. That's a very different entity for the delivery of educational advice, and instantly that causes some concern among members of the official opposition.

We don't have any issue, as I stated, with degree-granting status. We do have some issue with whether or not the Advanced Education Council of B.C. has been presented fairly in debate. Certainly Bill 23 speaks to joint authority. That is not the position of the Advanced Education Council of B.C. They speak specifically to the principles of governance.

Again, for the record, I would enter their statement into debate, because I believe it is incumbent upon members of the official opposition to present the side of the debate that has not been adequately represented today by the minister.

I'm referring specifically to the minutes of the joint council meeting of December 1, 1993, which states:

"1. Boards are responsible for representing the ownership of an institution. This responsibility must be held intact and, therefore, not shared. The boards are the ones that will be held accountable."

The official opposition understands and believes that statement.

"2. Boards have a responsibility to include consultative mechanisms in their decision-making processes; in particular, consultation with faculty on educational matters. In some institutions this could be on an education council...."

I draw members' attention back to

section 3.5 of the bill, which states that it will be an entity that must seek and receive advice. That is not an option, which is certainly what the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia was asking for: the ability to choose whether or not to seek that advice. They make the case very plainly that an education council should not be legislated as a requirement for all institutions. The official opposition believes in some choices around these. If there are more prudent or effective decision-making mechanisms in place, legislating to overlay something on what may be a useful model currently in place is somewhat nonsensical.

"3. Boards also have a responsibility to include the external community in the consultative process. Institutions should be free to develop their own mechanisms for doing so. The official opposition stands behind that statement. We believe strongly that choice will yield the best educational opportunities for students in this province. Legislation is not necessarily the route to proceed with. "Constituent representation on boards is acceptable as long as it constitutes a minority of total board membership." They make some excellent points.

The resolutions passed by the board of governors of the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia on Tuesday, February 9, 1994, state:

"Whereas the council of governors of the AECBC strongly endorses the ministry's goal of meeting community needs through increasing the flexibility and responsiveness of our institutions; and

"Whereas each individual institution has a responsibility to reflect regional and cultural identity; and

"Whereas the council of governors supports the inclusion of internal constituency representatives on boards of governors at each college, university college and provincial institute...;

"Be it resolved that the council of governors supports the concept of consultation within our institutions while maintaining the boards' ultimate accountability and decision-making authority; the council does not support joint authority."

I make those points very clearly and quote them directly from the documents because Bill 23, the Institute of Technology Amendment Act, 1994, spends a great deal of time talking about joint authority and how those decisions are reached.

I come back to a point I made earlier in terms of whether or not changing the governance structure is going to have a positive impact on the education students will receive in this province. Will we be making a positive difference to students? If it's simply more bodies, or if the answer is simply to strike another committee to increase the bureaucratic overlay, it may not be in the best interests of students.

[4:45]

I would challenge the minister to convince the official opposition that this is a useful direction to take. It is not always the most feasible thing to simply add more bodies to a decision-making process. Sometimes that is not the route to go. Based on the consultations I've had, both with CIEA and with AECBC, there seems to be some necessity to improve

decision-making. The official opposition is interested to know if this is the best approach. Is this the most prudent direction for this minister and this government to be taking colleges and institutes into the next decade and into the next century?

We on this side of the House have some understanding of the need for a diversified educational opportunity and the need to expand the definition of an education into the next century. Whether or not this bill adds to that or detracts from that has yet to be determined. I'm not clear as to the necessity for all the overlay that's allowed in this bill or whether or not we're streamlining the process and will be able to deliver a finer product as a result of this legislation.

Unless this minister can convince not just the Members of the Legislative Assembly but students in British Columbia that this is indeed in their best interests.... We will be examining this particular bill in tremendous detail as we move into committee stage. As it stands, if it is not going to be part of a solution, it is simply going to enlarge the current problem around college and university governance. We are not prepared to see the problem expanded. We are hopefully going to see some improvement; we are hopefully

[ Page 11272 ]

going to see some streamlining of an educational delivery system in this province. We're not convinced today that either of these two bills moves us as far down the road as we would like to go.

In conclusion, we will support the ability of those institutions to grant degrees. We firmly support the need to diversify educational opportunity in this province. Whether or not the other aspects of the bill add to the exercise is yet to be determined. I await the minister's comments in his closing remarks.

G. Wilson: As the minister correctly says, Bill 23 is like Bill 22 -- more bureaucracy and an opportunity to burn the books and condemn the academics.