1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2965 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Assessment Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 67). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 2965

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 69). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 2966

Private Members' Statements

Forest policy changes. Mr. Miller –– 2966

Mr. Bruce

Kaon factory. Ms. Campbell –– 2968

Mr. Lovick

Privatization and "human capital." Mr. Williams –– 2970

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Rose

Non-traditional health care. Mr. Crandall –– 2971

Mrs. Boone

Open Learning Agency Act (Bill 58). Committee stage. (Hon. S. Hagen) –– 2974

Ms. Marzari

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Miller

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Rose

Insurance Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 48). Third reading. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier') –– 2982

Mr. Stupich

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 60). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 2983

Cooperative Association Amendment Act (Bill 65). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 2983

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987 (Bill 68). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 2984

The House met at 10: 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's a pleasure for me today to introduce

a young gentleman from the Ministry of Social Services and Housing who

is in the members' gallery, Mr. Keith Baldwin. Keith has received his

second award for suggestions that he has put forward to streamline the

system and save the taxpayers of British Columbia an awful lot of

money. I was pleased this morning to congratulate Keith and give him a

cheque for $1,500 on behalf of all the people of British Columbia. As I

said, it's his second such award, and I think he sets an excellent

example for our public servants.

I would like the House to congratulate Keith and make him welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I notice with some pleasure an old friend

in the gallery this morning, Dr. Wee Tan, who was on the faculty of the

Pearson College of the Pacific and who has very successfully opened a

private sector school in greater Victoria for the purposes of liaising

more effectively with the People's Republic of China, in the sense that

our lifestyles and customs. Dr. Tan is here as an observer, and I ask

the House to welcome him.

MR. G. HANSON: I wonder if we on this side of the House could

join with the Minister of Finance in welcoming Dr. Tan and the eight

economics students from Beijing. He is a good friend of ours as well.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: From time to time, this chamber

recognizes unique events in the lives of some of those who are

associated with the chambers. I am pleased to stand this morning and

ask that the House recognize the unique achievement of one of the close

observers of our perambulations.

I understand that the Vaughn Palmer family had a birth — a daughter.

Insofar as Mr. Palmer, by virtue of his intelligent comments about our

deliberations, serves the purpose of elevating our profile and clearly

is useful in the area of public debates around the province, I would

ask the House to join me in congratulating the Palmer family for this

great event.

MR. BLENCOE: I rise to introduce a question of privilege. Mr.

Speaker, this is the first opportunity we have had to bring this matter

to the attention of the Legislature vis--vis the $8 million granted by

special warrant and the admission by the Premier in the last day that

no details or plans exist and that no emergency or urgency exists for

the special warrant. The Premier has admitted that he has no details

for the spending of the $8 million and that everybody is groping and

guessing what to do with the program, that there are no plans and

therefore no emergency and no urgency. In our estimation it is a

flagrant abuse of the Financial Administration Act of this Legislature

and this province.

I would remind the government side of the recommendations in 1981

changing the Financial Administration Act to be extremely careful on

the use of special warrants. Indeed, it had to be — and I look at the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) — an urgent and immediate need.

Mr. Speaker, there is an offence to our parliamentary traditions going back

to the very beginnings: the rights of parliament to oversee the spending of

the Crown. We have a clear abuse of this House and the privileges of all members:

our basic traditional right to control, debate and examine the expenditures

of the Crown. If we undermine that fundamental pillar of parliament, we destroy

the entire fabric of our parliamentary democracy. British Columbians believe

in those traditions. They believe and uphold the law, and when the very....

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Could I ask the hon. member to

take his seat for a moment. If I could read you the procedure on

raising a matter of privilege, it says: "a brief written statement of

the matter which the member reads to the House." We shouldn't be

getting into debate on the matter of privilege. If the member could

raise his points on the matter of privilege to the Chair, the Chair

will make his decision.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we believe that the privileges of

all members of this House have been breached and the public trust has

been violated. If you find that I have a prima facie case, I have a

motion prepared to appoint a select committee on privilege. The motion

is to appoint a special committee on privilege to examine whether the

privileges and traditions of this House were breached by the issuance

through order-in-council of $8 million in special warrants for

ministers of state before such ministers were approved by the House and

when no emergency existed.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his notice, and I will make a statement later.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order. first of all, I

believe this is not the first opportunity that this member has had to

raise this subject. In fact, he has raised it on numerous occasions

during question period in the last few days. I believe that Standing Orders state that it must be raised at the earliest opportunity, so I would respectfully point that out to Mr. Speaker.

Secondly, I — and, I'm sure, some of my colleagues on this side of

the House — find the member's statements to be incorrect, to say the

least: most exaggerative; and offensive to this side of the House. I

believe that most of what he said in his mini-debate in the last few

moments is incorrect, highly irregular and, to repeat. offensive to

this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the minister for his comments.

Introduction of Bills

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Assessment Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am pleased to introduce this bill. It

legislates a method for the assessment of industrial property based on

cost less depreciation in order to stabilize the municipal tax base; it

arrests further erosion of industrial property tax; it restructures the

Assessment Appeal Board;

[ Page 2966 ]

and it alters some aspects of the Assessment Appeal Board procedure. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 67 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.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES

AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

On behalf of Hon. Mr. Veitch, Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message

from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legislative

Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This bill clarifies the authority of the

Board of Internal Economy, which, as the members know, is a statute

that was passed last spring. It also makes reference to salaries of the

executive council. I move the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

Bill 69 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

FOREST POLICY CHANGES

MR. MILLER: My topic for today, and not one that can be done

justice to in the brief time we have, but one that's nonetheless

important, is the announced change in the forest policy — changes

announced in September by the minister called "New Directions for

Forest Policy" — which would increase or expand the TFLs from their

current level of 29 percent of the AAC in this province to 67 percent.

It is my view that this is every bit a privatization of the forest land

in this province.

It is as well a major policy change in forestry, and I'll just cite

the minister's news release in that regard: "The minister said the

changes are the result of several ministry reviews and input from

numerous individuals and groups over the past few months." So in a

couple of months the ministry is bringing about a fundamental and major

change in forest policy in British Columbia. I of course have some

argument with that, because if you look back in history to see how we

have addressed changes in forest policy, it hasn't been through this

kind of cursory review over a few months. It has been through the

method of royal commission: the Fulton report of 1910, the Sloan report

of 1945, Sloan again in 1956, and 20 years later, in 1976, the Pearse

report. So we do have some concern about the manner and the method in

which these changes are being introduced without having the benefit of

that kind of study, and in a sense it's characteristic of some of the

moves that the government is making. They seem to be going with great

speed, sometimes without really having the benefit of adequate study.

The release also claims that the move is strongly supported by industry, and

I can imagine that some elements of industry do indeed strongly support the

change. However, I don't think that all elements of industry support the

change.

Specifically, I refer to a document presented by Mr. Mahood at the

truck loggers' convention in May 1987. I'm going to read a quote. If

I'm not mistaken, I think this one has been read in the House before.

It's from H.R. MacMillan, and he talks about the problems as he

perceives them in terms of monopoly control and corporate

concentration, which I believe these moves will further exacerbate:

"A few companies would acquire control and form a

monopoly. It will be managed by bureaucrats, fixers with a penthouse

viewpoint, who, never having had rain in their lunch-buckets, would

abuse the forests. Public interest would be victimized because the

vigorous citizen business needed to provide the efficiency of

competition would be denied logs and thereby prevented from penetration

of the market."

I think the government would be wise to heed the words uttered quite some years ago.

In a general sense, the policy is an attempt to satisfy everybody

and in the process hope that everybody will benefit, including the

province. By increasing the TFL level from 29 to 67 percent we'll

satisfy the large operators, and presumably out of that the public will

get improved administration of the forest land and more investment in

new plant and technology.

Yet if you look at the history of TFLs, although some might argue

that they were necessary in terms of spurring the investment that was

required in the pulp side particularly, there has been a downside as

well. Certainly, if we look at the forest land base in British Columbia

and the state that it's in and the fact that we have recently had to

provide some $300 million of taxpayers' money to deal with just one

problem, which is the NSR problem, we can conclude that there have been

some major failings in terms of the policy of granting huge tracts of

Crown land to major forest companies.

I'll make a prediction here and now, in somewhat of an aside, that

$300 million will not do the job; that much more money is needed and

there will be major infusions of tax dollars to deal with the very

serious problem we have in our forest industry in terms of NSR.

So there have been some major failings in the policy of giving the

big boys the land, using that as their security so they will make these

major investments.

On the other hand, I think the policy purports to satisfy the small

business operators. By giving them the expropriated portions of TFL

lands, you in a sense will get them off your back because there is a

growing mood in the forest industry from the small operators that

they've been shortchanged, that they haven't got access to timber.

Also, I think you're hoping that by giving the 5 percent of the TFLs to

the small operators you'll gain more revenue, because it's clear, if

you look at the kinds of revenues we're getting from the small business

end of it as opposed to the TFL end of it, that there are substantial

revenues to be gained.

Although the policy seems to be simple, it may be just a little bit

too simple. I've already talked about the problems associated with the

TFLs, and I have no reason to believe, despite the glowing words in the

minister's news release, that we are going to fundamentally change that

problem. We will still be dealing with that problem down the road.

I think we're at an ideal time to take a new direction, to take a

different look at the forest industry in British Columbia. To repeat

the policies of the sixties and fifties by further increasing the

amount of Crown land given to large companies is not appropriate at

this time. It's clear to me that the

[ Page 2967 ]

resource has become, to some extent, a dwindling

resource, and the only way that we can extract further value out of

that resource is by value added. Although some would argue that in the

short term there will be a spurt in investment through this policy,

over the long term we simply could be repeating the problems that I

have just talked about.

Additionally, I want to talk about the problem of corporate

concentration. Increasingly in British Columbia — most recently the

Fletcher Challenge, and there was another acquisition outlined in the

financial pages the other day — we're seeing that we are developing an

oligopoly in the control of the forest industry in British Columbia.

That is not healthy; it is not competitive and will not lead to the

diversity and value added that we really require, the competition we

really require in British Columbia if we're finally going to get some

true value out of our forest industry, out of our forest land base, and

to provide the jobs that have been lost over the period since the

recession.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the member for

Prince Rupert has raised this subject. Certainly near and dear to my

heart is the issue of forestry, and any debate that we can have within

the legislative chamber dealing with forestry is a good one, not only

for all of us to hear and talk more about the forestry issues, but of

course in raising the issue, the consciousness throughout the province,

the awareness of forestry issues as a whole. I think it's important.

The new policy that has been presented by the government is, I

believe, a good policy. It's somewhat interesting to hear the member

speak about the fact that he feels the government's policy is again

going to give the big companies more control, a stronger hold on the

forestry base, and then in the same instance also claim that we're

going to require a greater infusion of tax dollars. Of course, by the

process that has been taking place with the new policy changes....

Albeit that there will be an increase of the AAC to 67 percent through

the TFL process, at the same time some of the things that major

operations have been enjoying — such as

section 88 — will no longer be

there, with of course greater responsibility upon them to do some of

the very major things that are needed within the forestry sector.

[10:30]

As the members note, throughout the last few years we've had a

tremendous increase in the planting process throughout British

Columbia. I believe some five years ago we were looking at planting

some 65 million to 75 million seedlings. This year I believe we're

around 185 million to 190 million, and hopefully in the next few years

we'll be up over the 200 million mark. That, of course, is extremely

important. But it's interesting to note that not all of it results

completely in acreage. As the member has mentioned, there's the aspect

of value-added and the aspect of greater utilization of the fibre

that's already being grown in the crops today. That is probably more

important than any other aspect of forestry policy. By the increases —

by the changes of this forest policy act — you will find a greater

utilization of the fibre that's grown today within the resource through

better utilization by the major companies, but also because of the

changes that will allow greater competition, more involvement by the

smaller groups — the truck logger association groups and so on: greater

involvement in that respect. You will find, I believe — and I think

this will be borne out — greater utilization of that fibre by those

particular companies and operators.

A situation that we are faced with today is that there has been

increasing public awareness, which is a good thing within the forestry

sector. This government has taken steps called for by the opposition in

the past to improve the forestry management, which is occurring: to

improve the number of seedlings being planted in a year, which is

occurring; to provide greater access to that forest resource through

the small business program, which is occurring: and to provide a

greater overall forestry management of the resource throughout the

province, which is occurring.

I find it somewhat difficult to understand where the opposition is

coming from when they say on the one hand that they think this policy

will result in less control by the people of British Columbia. Through

this policy the people will have as much control if not more control in

the forestry sector than in the past. It will result in greater and

more efficient planting, in greater and more efficient silviculture

applications within the forestry sector, and in greater access to the

people of the province. In fact, going back to the words that were

quoted by H.R. MacMillan, this is the type of action that H.R.

MacMillan would have endorsed wholeheartedly, and the fact that the

government is now taking very direct and strong action in forestry

policy.

It's interesting. as we look at what's going on in the forestry

sector, that all of what has taken place in the last little while has

been good for the forestry sector. I think the most important point to

make is that it's good that the opposition say what they say, because

we know in the final analysis, with them coming out with the different

comments that they make, that we are on the right direction. We have

heard from some of the big industries that they don't like what we're

doing; we've heard from the opposition that they don't like what we're

doing; so we know we are doing the right thing.

MR. MILLER: The member has revealed the basis for the

development of the Social Credit forest policy: anything we suggest,

they oppose, and they're going to put it in legislation and think

they've done the right thing. It's pretty simplistic.

I'm amazed that that member would sing the same old song. I can hear

the violins. I'm amazed that he would have so much faith, because that

member knows the devastation in his region. That member tried to put

together a municipal program to take care of the devastation caused by

the forest industry. So he should be a little more cautious in terms of

defending the interests of his region.

I really am amazed that the party opposite, which purports to speak

for small business and competition, is so anti-small business and

anti-competition and in favour of monopolies. You're sending the most

confused signals out that could possibly be.

Let's listen to Peter Pearse. TFLs are

issued without competition for long terms. They are renewed

periodically without competition, and the timber is sold to the licence

at non-competitive stumpage rates. Let's see what the real agenda is in

terms of the large companies. The latest Westar

magazine. You say that the policy will lead to the small business guys

getting more of a piece of the action. Let's listen to Mr. Ken Voight,

the senior vice-president of Westar, when he talks about tenure and

what he has to say.

He said: "With regard to the government's intention to create more

TFLs, we're delighted." That's what they wanted, he said. He has some

concern about the transfer of 5 percent, but he sees a way around it.

"The resource is not

[ Page 2968 ]

being reapportioned to other operators. It will still be available to us through the small business enterprise program."

So there's the rub, Mr. Member. The big boys can still belly up to

the small business enterprise program, and you should be aware of the

abuses that have taken place with regard to that, where people are

coming in and bidding on behalf of the large companies. The end result,

really, is that the province of British Columbia, the workers in the

forest industry, are the losers.

What I'm suggesting, and it's not a negative statement, is that

there is room for some real innovation in the forest industry in

British Columbia. I don't see that the announced policy, the simple

transference of a significant portion of the forest land base to an

industry that has become increasingly concentrated to the point where

it's an oligopoly, is going to do anything fundamental in terms of what

we really need, in terms of finding that diversity, getting more value

added and getting more competition. Because I fundamentally believe

that competition produces a better product for society.

KAON FACTORY

MS. CAMPBELL: I rise today to address the House on the

subject of the proposal to build a kaon factory at the site of the

TRIUMF research centre at the University of British Columbia. I address

this topic because I think it is an extremely important one for all

British Columbians, and the decision made by the federal government

with respect to the support of this project will have implications for

the future economic development of this province in the coming decades.

When I made my maiden speech in the House, I made reference to the

TRIUMF facility: the remarkable spinoffs from that facility and what it

has represented in terms of the development of the province. I would

remind the members of this House that the TRIUMF facility is unique in

Canada — it is Canada's meson-producing facility — and that the kaon

factory, which will involve an upgrading of TRIUMF, or an upgrading of

the meson-producing capacity, will be unique. Only one such facility

will be built in the world. Therefore only one area of the world will

have the opportunity to enjoy the technological spinoffs from such a

facility.

An evaluation by the National Research Council of the proposal to

build a kaon factory was extremely positive in terms of the quality of

physics and physics research that would result from the construction of

such a facility. The only reservation which the National Research

Council expressed was the concern that the funding of a kaon factory

should not monopolize the federal government's support of pure

scientific research and that the money spent on a kaon factory should

not result in the impoverishment of other scientific research in the

country.

I should point out that the National Research Council is not immune

from regional and political considerations in its evaluation of

projects, but I think it's important that the kaon factory should not

become an object of contention and that it should not be part of a

beggar-thy-neighbour philosophy in terms of scientific research in

Canada. I believe that the construction of the kaon factory is an

essential component of the economic development of British Columbia,

the west and, in fact. Canada.

We have already established in this province, in all parties and in

all political outlooks, the need to diversify our economy, We've

discussed the importance of high technology. I have before me a report

of a task force on economic regional development, the

Federal-Provincial Task Force on Regional Development Assessment. They

make the very important point:

"A range of measures to promote innovation and technology

pursued in a proactive way to encourage existing and new areas of regional specialization

needs to be awarded high priority on the regional development agenda. This means

a much closer interaction in developing regional strategies among traditional

development agencies and national and regional research institutions, universities

and the private sector."

They go on to say in their conclusion about the future of our economy in Canada

that, first:

"Over all, the resource sectors will account for a declining

rather than expanding share of the contribution to earned income and employment

growth in Canada's regions." Second: "The critical factor in international

competitiveness will be the application of technology to product and process."

And third: "The most pervasive trends in the structure of output and employment

are the emergence of a dynamic and expanding service sector and of a vibrant

small business economy."

High technology, in order to develop as a sound aspect of an

economy, must have a natural base. In British Columbia the high

technology developed out of the forest industry has put us in the

forefront of the world in forest applications of technology in the same

way as in Saskatchewan, where a similar dynamic has been created by the

application of high technology to agriculture. In British Columbia we

are faced with the question of how we can create a new natural base or

generator for high technology. By that I mean a base which grows

naturally out of existing economic capabilities and market needs.

As I speak against a constant barrage of heckling from the

opposition, I am reminded of how often in this House we sacrifice

quality for quantity.

Mr. Speaker, in seeking a new natural generator for high technology

development in British Columbia, we already have such a source in the

TRIUMF facility. The industrial and practical applications of the

TRIUMF research results were unpredictable when the facility was built.

It was originally built as a facility to do research in pure physics,

but while it was being constructed the decision was made to do applied

experiments with the pion beams. The results have been extraordinary.

Very briefly, they have included advanced cardiac diagnostic

techniques, new medical radioisotopes to enhance diagnosis and therapy,

new methods of imaging, pion beams to kill cancer tumours, robotic

devices to aid the handicapped — which were developed initially to

handle radioactive materials — information-processing techniques to

handle vast bursts of data arriving in tiny fractions of a second, and

enhanced abilities of Canadian companies to compete effectively in high

technology manufacturing.

Many of the other key research directions at the University of

British Columbia and other British Columbia universities are also

linked to TRIUMF. I look in particular at the research in

superconductivity and advanced materials. These have incredible

potential for industrial application.

There is perhaps no single area of pure research with as much

potential for industrial development and economic spinoff as particle

physics. It is particle physics research that is being done at TRIUMF.

A recent conference at Bristol

[ Page 2969 ]

University which reviewed the high-energy physics

industrial link and the spinoffs from such facilities in Europe had a

catalogue of small business, high technology applications which have

resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity in

Europe.

It's been suggested that instead of building kaon, we should

participate in the American supercollider facility. If we do that, we

will have no control over the economic spinoffs of that research. For

the same financial investment, we would seriously reduce the long-term

economic opportunities for Canada.

[10:45]

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Nanaimo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now the learned one.

MR. LOVICK: I'm intrigued to hear the member opposite say that now the learned one is about to speak. I had no idea he was so perceptive.

This is a kind of swan song for me as science and technology critic,

and I'm delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the comments of

my learned colleague opposite — in only five minutes. Which reminds me

of the point she made about quality versus quantity, and I think she

made the point rather well when we bear in mind that she had seven

minutes, while the rest of us on the quantity side only have five.

However, I don't want to belabour that point.

Instead, I want to put just a little pressure on some of the claims

that were made. For example, to argue that particle physics is going to

generate some spinoff activity and be the economic saviour of the

universe or some such twaddle is a leap of faith that makes Kierkegaard

look like a piker. I'm sorry, but that is simply going too far, and I

suspect that any self-respecting scientist would also be embarrassed by

that kind of claim.

When we hear claims about spinoffs, we must recognize that it's a

rather after-the-fact kind of reasoning. Remember, that's how we

justified military expenditure in the United States. If you'll recall,

they said that without that military expenditure we would never have

got Corning Ware. That was the argument, and I'm afraid that what we're

hearing here is rather analogous.

I have difficulty arguing against pure research. As an academic and

one who has spent a considerable part of his life pursuing academic

matters for their own sake, it's difficult for me to speak against pure

research. However, the magnitude of this particular project is

mind-boggling. We're talking about $600 million. We're talking about

something in excess of $25 for every man, woman and child in this

country. We're talking about a period of time when the scarcity of

resources, we are told, is with us and will be for a long time. For

heaven's sake then, surely we ought to pose the question whether it's

responsible to be talking about doing this much in one project. That's

why the National Research Council stated very clearly.... Let me read

into the record a statement made on December 2, 1986, by Dr. Kerwin,

president of the NRC: "Projects of the magnitude of the kaon factory

cannot proceed without major and widespread disruption of excellent

ongoing research." That's the problem. Would that we had sufficient

money to undertake all of these wonderful projects, but we don't. It

seems to me that to leap directly into something of the magnitude of

kaon is inevitably going to squeeze out some other very worthwhile

projects.

Let me in the few moments I have list some of those things. First, we should

recognize that we are confronted with two major crises in the western world

— for that matter, the whole world. One, of course, is the possibility of an

AIDS epidemic that could effectively decimate the human population. We are spending

almost nothing on that so far. That's one area. The other is this: every

demographic study done points to Canada's predicament with an increasingly

older population. Coupled with that demographic trend, we have the predicament

of Alzheimer's. We have not done the research. Alzheimer's has the capacity

to bankrupt this society. We should be putting money into that kind of project.

So I'm concerned about those things.

Some other areas. Let me quote to you from an eminent scientist in

British Columbia, Dr. Jasper Mardon, who suggests a couple of others.

I'm sure my colleague for Point Grey knows Dr. Mardon. And he simply,

for the record, offers another few suggestions of the kinds of

worthwhile things we might do if we don't crowd out all other science

because of kaon. He suggests, for example, that we could be planting

trees. We don't have to give up on the resource-based economy. We could

be using some money to plant trees, and we could be exploring, of

course, new developments — improved tree species. Secondly, we could be

doing something to restore the cuts to the National Research Council

that have gone on for the last few years. Thirdly, we could recommence

an energy program that we've had to shelve.

I see I'm out of time, and I thank you for your patience.

MS. CAMPBELL: I'm relieved to hear that the hon. member for

Nanaimo is retiring as the critic for science and technology, because

he's clearly over his head in that portfolio.

I agree with the hon. member that there is a great deal of work to

be done in this society in applied research and in the area of

Alzheimer's disease. He may be interested to know that positron

emission tomography, also known as the PET scanner, was developed at

TRIUMF as one of the most important tools for brain imagery, and is one

of the reasons why UBC is a leader in neurological research, including

research on Alzheimer's disease.

It's of great regret to me that my seatmate in Vancouver–Point Grey

has not stood up to defend this particular project, and that the

opposition is so blind and so ill-informed as to the potential of the

research coming out of that facility. It is really shocking.

I should also point, notwithstanding the hon. member's quotation

from the president of the National Research Council, that the National

Research Council did support the expansion of TRIUMF to build the kaon

factory, but it was on the condition that it did not beggar the other

scientific research in Canada. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that

our government and the federal government and the TRIUMF facility are

scanning the world for foreign investment in the kaon factory. There

are other countries that wish to participate financially in this

project, and I believe that they are in fact getting excellent

response, and that Germany has already committed $35 million in order

to participate in that project.

Mr. Speaker, we have the first step of a kaon factory in Canada at

TRIUMF; only one will be built in the world. We have the physicists. We

have the need and the desire to use the

[ Page 2970 ]

applications of this particle physics research as a

major generator of economic diversification. The greatest folly that we

can commit as a country is to see the kaon factory as simply an issue

of the priorities of scientific research. High technology must have a

natural base. We have this in TRIUMF. TRIUMF provides us with that

base. Kaon will keep us in the mainstream of the most important

technological developments of the coming decades and give us a

proprietary interest and control over the results of those efforts.

The expansion of TRIUMF into a kaon factory does present serious

challenges to us. If we build kaon, we must be prepared to meet the

challenge, to develop and promote the spinoffs that come from it, just

as we must be prepared to develop and promote the full economic and

social benefit of the research spinoffs from TRIUMF. But if we fail to

build kaon, that is a profligate waste of an investment of the people

of Canada. I urge all of the members of this House to inform themselves

on this issue and to use whatever influence they have to support this

most significant aspects of Canadian economic development, and an

opportunity that will not come twice.

PRIVATIZATION AND "HUMAN CAPITAL"

MR. WILLIAMS: The most incredible vote-buying in the modern

history of Canada — $25 for every man, woman and child to build a kaon

factory at UBC. That has to be in Point Grey the most expensive

vote-buying in the history of mankind or womankind.

You talk, Madam Member from Point Grey, about profligate waste.

There is profligate waste of human resources day in, day out under

Social Credit. In the small interior towns of British Columbia, we

waste the human capital, the potential, of young people, because they

don't go to university. We have the most abysmal dropout rate in the

nation, in terms of going on to university in the small towns of B.C.

That's profligate waste. That is a waste of human capital.

It is indicative that your brains trust, those that would aspire for

cabinet, would give the kind of speech they give today, Mr. Premier,

because I want to talk about the waste of human capital, and the fact

that you don't seem to understand what human capital is all about, you

people over there.

What we have under this Premier — the most radical Premier in the

modern history of British Columbia, bar none — is a person who wants to

rebuild British Columbia in his image, mixed up as it is. He is

determined to rebuild the provincial economy. He doesn't really

understand our roots in this province. He doesn't really understand our

history. I say that as one whose grandparents and great-grandparents

were here and worked in the Dunsmuir coalfields on this Island, and who

worked to establish working conditions that should become the envy of

the modern western world. I have those kinds of roots. I suggest there

are not strong roots over there on the other side of the House.

There has been a tradition in the west and in this province of

building toward human dignity, so that there are decent wages and

working conditions, and that we can build up our human capital and the

ability of our young people to do more important and worthwhile things.

I tell you, if there is one twisted thread in the activity of this Premier,

it is to destroy wage levels in British Columbia. We saw that with Bill 19.

That is the real goal: to lower wages in British Columbia. You check the wage

structure in his operations. You just think about it. There has been a consistent

pattern in terms of driving down wages. That's what Bill 19 was about, and

I suggest that in the end that's what privatization is all about too, Mr.

Speaker.

The roots of privatization and attacking the public sector are not

consistent with the real history of this province or this nation. The

building of the CPR across this nation was a joint effort and to a very

great extent involved government.

I get excited when I think about what the small western Canadian

provinces have achieved, Saskatchewan in particular. At an earlier

stage in my development, Saskatchewan puzzled me, in terms of how this

small province, with limited resources and a limited number of people,

could achieve what they have. They achieved it through a cooperative

system and through public enterprise and the development of human

capital in a sparse region. They did that because the regular economic

capital was not interested in this so-called marginal region. In this

area that was at one time a dustbowl, they have evolved as one of the

most modern local administrations in North America: an incredible

achievement against great odds. But they did it with the development of

human capital, because they were ignored by Upper Canada and the

central capital people that controlled the funds and insurance money

and banks in this country. They did it themselves, but they did it

collectively, in a way that set a standard for the rest of this nation

in countless fields.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: My friend, the people in this country, who have

medicare and are not destroyed by the cost of health that scares the

Americans, would not say what you are saying today.

But they were entrepreneurial as well in the public sector, and you

people don't understand that. You are not entrepreneurial at all, you

so-called businessmen. It is ironic and twisted that you don't believe

in entrepreneurship in government. That is a kind of madness.

This radical Premier does not understand this whole idea of the

building up of human capital. That's why we've seen what's happening in

the Highways department. You read a letter like the letter from Mr.

Zapf, who was 35 years in the Highways ministry, who talks about human

capital and the building up of expertise, and who is proud of what he

and his colleagues achieved in Highways in British Columbia.

[11:00]

The civil servants who have served understand well the idea of human

capital, and they know that this Premier is heading the wrecking crew.

You are the front-line radicals, the wrecking crew, the advance league

for the Fraser Institute. That's who you are.

You think of the people who are going to be dropped out of the civil

service in the next couple of months with your golden handshake.

Thirty-five hundred people will qualify — 10 percent of the public

service. And you people have no idea where they will come from, those

that will go. Will it be 60 percent of an expert group in one sector?

Will it be 40 percent of the expertise in the Highways department in

some region? You simply don't know. You dismiss it.

The attitude of this Premier is that they're all equal in a sense.

All of these people are just lackeys in a way, and we can hire more of

them anywhere, in any style. It doesn't matter. He doesn't understand

the whole idea of building up a

[ Page 2971 ]

group expertise. That's why you can throw away the

R and D group at B.C. Hydro, which is a whole group that has evolved

with some considerable skills. Sure, your voting people in Surrey, my

friend — you can dismiss them, and I hope you pay the price. And so

with the Highways department and other skills — all of these ignored.

It's appropriate that this Premier should be attacking the Highways

department, because he's a detour in the modern history of this

province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, Mr. Speaker, we hear the

arguments of public versus private and the public sector carrying on

with the various activities in the province, as opposed to seeing it

turned over to the private sector. In all of these arguments,

continually as we heard it now, statements are made such as that these

people presently employed in the public sector will somehow become a

part of public waste or human waste, in that they'll be shoved aside,

pushed aside and forgotten. I'm sure that most of the people in this

province — and I guess it's so throughout the country — have worked in

some private sector company, and from time to time they've gone from

one company to another, or to another job within that same company. But

somehow the members opposite are of the opinion that once persons are

employed in the public sector, they somehow can't be employed similarly

doing the same thing in the private sector; that because they've been a

part of that public sector activity, because they've been a part of

government and government control, they can't then perform equally as

well and do the same job in the private sector. How sad to realize that

we have those who are of a philosophy that once locked into government,

people must somehow always continue with government; that they can't

perform equally well — perhaps even better — in the private sector;

that people might be considered human waste if they're not involved

with that public sector activity; and those who choose, as a part of

the process, to take early retirement from the government sector, from

the public sector, to find some time for themselves or to be involved

in some other activity — that this too is somehow a waste.

The argument obviously will continue, because we are philosophically

opposed in this whole debate. The NDP, the opposition, wants to see the

growth of government forevermore, continuing on with all things — and

other things — being done by government; that what was many years ago

and what still exists in many other countries.... Countries like

Britain, New Zealand, the U.S.A, and others are going back to doing

things in the private sector, but that this can't be done in British

Columbia. I think it's sad, but the debate will continue. I'm sure that

at the next session — or in another year — we will look back and

realize that people are well able to perform in a competitive private

sector and provide services to the people of this province in a very

effective and competitive but productive manner.

MR. ROSE: I thought the Premier wasn't going to get up. I'm always glad to have him involved.

I'm sorry, Mr. Premier, but you come across sounding just a little bit

like the Herbert Hoover of British Columbia: if we cut everywhere, contract

out, beat down wages, somehow we're going to have prosperity. It doesn't

work that way. The costs will probably be no less; they just won't be paid

to a public service that gets decent wages and can spend money in the small

businesses of the community. Instead of having a flag person on the road at

maybe $10 or $11 an hour, it will be $3 or $4 or $5. What you're going to

get are McDonald's hamburger jobs instead of good jobs.

MR. WILLIAMS: I do wish the Premier was more a genuine

student of modern history, because we are paying the price in British

Columbia for the fact that he is not. I don't think he really

understands the tradition of western Canada. I don't think he really

understands the idea of a pool of human capital, and that once you

break it up and drop these people and push them out the door, you've

lost something; that the sum of the parts is worth more than the pieces

individually; that collectively they mean something special. I think

Saskatchewan has proved that again and again, and that's why I used the

example.

I think there are elements of it here. In Vancouver city hall we

have probably one of the finest collections of public service talent in

the west. They make this administration and — I'm sorry to say — the

public service of the province look frail in comparison. That shouldn't

be the case. So the city of Vancouver has great benefits as a result of

that pool of human capital in the building at 12th and Cambie.

What we have here is a radical restructuring of British Columbia in

the eyes of this Premier who is not a good student of history, and that

is very disturbing. You know, we have it with the free trade, as well —

the readiness to leap. We might agree on that in common areas, but

there are others that are devastating, and I don't think the Premier

has done the homework or the reading, or has the understanding. We've

seen it in our fishing industry, in terms of what it's going to mean

there. Just in that specific tight area, there hasn't been that kind of

homework done.

There is a real need for homework; it has not occurred. That's why

the people of this province are worried and concerned that you don't

really understand the nature of British Columbia. You are determined to

make it into something like south of the 49th. We are a free and

independent nation. We have a different view of our role in the world.

We do not see it as the fifty-first American state, Mr. Premier. We

stand for Canada.

NON-TRADITIONAL HEALTH CARE

MR. CRANDALL: Mr. Speaker, my topic this morning is

non-traditional opportunities for improved health care. I can't help

but think that the topic I'm going to speak about is also along the

lines of the previous speaker's, when he talked about the issue of

human capital.

I want to say that I fully support the comments that our Premier has

made about human capital. I know that in my riding, as we took at the

issue of privatization and what advantages it might hold out for human

capital within this province and within the public service.... I

support the issue of privatization and I was enthused in the last

couple of days at how a constituent of mine who is an employee of the

Ministry of Forests has come to Victoria — not at our invitation, but

on his own initiative — to present to the government a proposal for

privatization of part of the Ministry of Forests which we in Victoria

had never even thought about. He has come down here to present a

proposal which will save the government a million dollars a month,

involving a group of about 200 employees. This is the kind of thing

that this government is encouraging. It is encouraging the human

capital that's out there within our public service to look

[ Page 2972 ]

constructively at government operations, to put

some initiative into their occupations, to put some initiative into the

daily tasks that they work with, and to try to find better ways of

doing things. So I'm sure that as we proceed with privatization, we're

going to find that the human capital that we have is going to rise up

and productively contribute to this province in a way that they never

have before. They will be more efficient and more enthusiastic than

they've ever been before. So, despite what the opposition says, the

public service longs to be a more enthusiastic and more productive part

of the human capital of this province, and they will contribute in a

greater way.

I want to talk this morning, though, about another issue: health

care. We all know that health care is a major component of the budget

of this province. It's an issue that will grow to be even greater in

the 1990s. I am concerned that while we are spending a third of our

budget on health care now, we may spend half of it in the 1990s and

even more as we turn the century.

Most of the solutions that we have to health care problems in this

province are what I would call the traditional solutions. Most people

that have health care problems go to the medical doctors, they are

treated by the nurses in our hospitals, and most of that service that's

rendered by the doctors and nurses is extremely good and extremely

competent. I think we can hold our heads high when we think of the

service that the doctors and nurses in this province provide. However,

while we have fought wars and economic battles through the thirties and

through other times, we have a problem in this province, and throughout

the country and the world, and I think we may need to enlist a greater

degree of non-traditional solutions.

I especially want to focus on the drug and alcohol abuses that are

happening here and abroad. I'm very encouraged to see that this

government is taking an active

part in non-traditional health programs

to treat those difficulties we are now facing with health care in this

province. One thing that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) has

encouraged is an inventory of the drug and alcohol problems that we

have in this province. This just recently came to my attention, with

the publication of the adolescent survey in November. I'd just like to

mention a few things from it, because I think it has brought some

things to my attention, in that we can see that we have a very definite

drug and alcohol problem.

The survey that's highlighted in this publication goes right across

the province. When I see things like 74.4 percent of adolescents having

used alcohol in the last 12 months, I know that we've got a significant

problem. I also see in this report that 55.5 percent of those in grade

8 consumed alcohol in the past year. The report also talks about the

use of tobacco: 28.5 percent of adolescents used tobacco in the last 12

months. I might be impressed that that number is as low as it is, when

we compare it with the 74 percent for alcohol.

[11:15]

I see similar high percentages using drugs, and I think it's of

interest to note that there is no great variation by gender. It's also

interesting to note that the use of drugs and alcohol increases by

grade, so that while we have a high percentage of grade 8s and 9s using

drugs and alcohol, it gets worse as they grow up and go into grades 10,

11 and 12. When we think about the problem increasing, it's likely to

assume — and I'm sure it's true — that this use increases as they get

out of high school and into college or the workforce.

We also find in this report that drugs, alcohol and tobacco are, of

course, very easy to obtain; that's true right across the province in

the small towns as well as the large towns. I'm glad to see that our

government is taking inventory, as we're doing, in order to know how

big the problem is.

The next thing that we're doing — and I'm encouraged to see this as well — is taking....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time under standing orders is up.

MRS. BOONE: I'm very happy to see that the member from the

Kootenays actually read that report. I read it too, and the adolescent

survey, and I was as appalled, although not surprised, by the results,

because I've known about these results for some time and the fact that

we do have a tremendous alcohol problem in this country and in

particular in this province. If you get into the northern half of the

province, it gets even worse.

One of the things that was mentioned in that report is that

adolescents found that alcohol was easily accessible. Yet this

government, as you say, in doing something to stop this, is actually

going against the Jansen report, which was touted as being a very good

report. They are going against that and actually selling off some of

their liquor stores. They're doing exactly the opposite of what that

report indicated. In fact, if you talk to the alcohol and drug

education society here, they will tell you that they are very worried

about the possible selling off of liquor stores and the implications

for the people of this province and the young people, because alcohol

is going to be more accessible.

We are concerned about some of the moves that we see happening right

now. The Logan Lake youth drug dependency program has not received any

funding. How is that attacking this problem? The government is not

funding the very agencies that are out there attacking these problems

and giving support. I heard from a gentleman from Cassiar, who says

that they have been encouraged to promote employee assistance programs,

yet they have no place to refer people to. They have no alcohol and

drug program.

We have an alcohol and drug program system in Prince George. It

services the entire north, from 100 Mile House up to the Yukon border.

How can that one small group of people adequately serve an area that

large? How can they give those people the support they want? There is

not the support out there for these people; there is definitely not the

support out there for the young people of this province. If you go to

Kamloops or Cranbrook or any of those places — and you've been to

Cranbrook, I'm sure — and talk to the people, they'll tell you that

young people are falling through the cracks out there. There is nothing

out there to assist them. There is no help in this society, with this

government, for young people.

The government is saying that they are doing things, but nothing is

out there right now. The government program down on Dallas Road is in

jeopardy. They may not get any funding there for the residential

program. Instead, they have to move into a day program.

What is this province doing? They're doing nothing. They're giving

lip-service to things; they're talking about things they're going to

do, but we are not seeing any action out there. We're not seeing

anything to help the people of this province. The people out there need

it; they need that help right now, as that survey indicated.

[ Page 2973 ]

You talk in terms of alternative forms of medicine which you say

you're going to need. We agree. Yet this government has put user fees

on the alternative forms of medicine. They put user fees on the very

things that are keeping down our drug costs, the areas that are going

to keep people at home, keep them out of hospitals. You have user fees

on chiropractors, physiotherapists, massage practitioners, and there is

talk now that you may even eliminate naturopaths, massage practitioners

and some of these from the Medical Services Plan. What sort of support

is that for the alternative forms of medicine? Once again you give

lip-service to these things, and yet you do not in any way help to

promote any of these forms of medicine in this province.

We need to review some of these things. We need to take a look at

what we have in our medical services. We need to approach things from a

different angle. We need to put our money into the prevention end of

things, and we're not doing that. We are constantly putting band-aids

on it. We have the Premier out there sticking his thumb into the dam,

constantly stopping flow so that it won't overflow, but we don't have

any long-term program. We don't have anything to save this province

from the disaster that's going to come about. And there are going to be

disasters in this province if we don't take a look at some other

alternatives.

The alcohol program and the drug program.... The drug abuse problems

in this province are massive, and they haven't come about overnight; it

has been there for a long time. Yet this government has constantly

ignored the problems of these people and the problems of the youth.

MR. CRANDALL: I can't help but be reminded of the comment of

the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell) when she

talked about the quality versus quantity issue this morning. The member

for Prince George North talked about Cranbrook. I would like to know if

she could give me an inventory of Cranbrook's liquor outlets, because

if she would add up the private liquor outlets — the restaurants, pubs,

wine and beer stores and, indeed, the private liquor stores that are

operating there now — she would probably find it's already very well

privatized. In Golden, the area I'm most familiar with, we have two

private liquor stores already operating. So when we talk about quality

versus quantity, we've heard a lot of quantity. I'm not too sure we've

had too much quality from the other side, but so be it.

Let me talk about something else that I'm concerned about on this issue,

and that's that I'm proud of the work we are doing in the schools of

this province. I'm encouraged by the employee programs that we have with

Workers' Compensation. I want to talk about one other aspect, and it's

the aspect we're going to need if we're to be successful in dealing

with the drug and alcohol problem in this province: that is, an even greater

involvement of the citizens. We've seen some recent involvement with the

commercial side of this province in the airlines, where they're doing some

very good work keeping tobacco off the airlines. We know that the best work

that has ever happened in alcohol treatment is with the Alcoholics Anonymous

program. I've been encouraged as I've seen a program enter B.C. in the

last month with treatment of drug abuse. An organization called PRIDE Canada,

which is based in our sister province of Saskatchewan, has come into Powell

River and put on a program there working with the young people, the high schools

and other interested people in the community, such as the parents.

What I want to say is that if we are going to be successful in

dealing with this drug and alcohol abuse problem in our province, we

are going to have to mobilize the people that we mobilized in times of

war, the people that we mobilize in times of economic recession: the

citizens across this province, the parents, the students. If they will

take a real active part — and I encourage them to do so — in struggling

with this drug and alcohol abuse problem, we will be successful. We've

seen a start already in Powell River, in a different, non-traditional

way, and as that moves across the province we possibly will become

successful in dealing with this drug and alcohol problem.

MR. ROSE: At the beginning of the last session, before the

summer break, the House Leader and I agreed that he would give an

indication of House business for the coming week. That was to take

place usually after question period on Thursday. I don't think it was

done this time.

The reason I ask the question is that this side needs an indication

of what might be coming forward in the coming week, especially relating

to the business of the bilateral free trade negotiations; because I

understand it's to be signed on January 2, and if this House doesn't

address it before that time, it would mean there would be no debate on

this extremely important subject.

Now there are two resolutions standing on the order paper. They tend

to contradict one another, but they are number 69 and number 70. I

wondered if either of those motions was contemplated as a possible

target of debate for the next week.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With respect to the business of next week,

I have in private conversation with the opposition Whip and, to a

lesser degree, with the opposition House Leader, who was away.... It

was on very important business; I'm not criticizing that. But I have

communicated the progress of next week, the two bills which have been

tabled today, and the official opposition is aware of two more bills

that are coming.

With respect to Resolutions 69 and 70, I cannot at this point give

any commitment to that debate. I will perhaps editorially advise the

House that as we know, the free trade agreement and ratification is

clearly a federal matter and totally within the power of that

government.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could just clarify. One of

these motions stands in the name of a cabinet minister, one of the most

experienced, venerated and venerable ministers in the House. Since it

was clearly not put on the order paper because it was federal, and in

view of the fact that this House would have no other opportunity to

debate it before it's signed if we don't do it next week, I wonder if

the government might reconsider. Clearly this is a massive change in

our relationships with our neighbour, and has profound implications for

us provincially, in terms of provincial powers and rights. So I would

ask the indulgence of the House Leader to at least give this very

urgent and earnest consideration.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to go to orders of the day, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2974 ]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 58.

OPEN LEARNING AGENCY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. MARZARI: I rise to begin my discussion and my questioning

of the minister around the area of the purposes of the new agency that

is going to replace the Open Learning Institute and the Knowledge

Network of British Columbia; in fact, it actually removes one of them

from

section 82 of the University Act and gives it a new definition

altogether.

[11:30]

I will begin by saying that here we are in a sea of privatization in

this province, with our human capital being sold off and the fabric of

our society and our civil service being ripped apart, and here, in this

last moment before the House prorogues, we have a new public agency

being introduced onto the scene — a new public agency which, if I can

read my figures correctly from the estimates, is costing the taxpayers

this year $9 million. The opposition looks at this act and says: "All

power to the Open Learning Institute, Knowledge Network and distance

learning." But we have to say at this point that, were we living under

normal circumstances, where our post-secondary institutions were living

without fear and outside a blanket of restraint; were we in this

province experiencing fewer pressures on post-secondary education; were

we in this province not having to face a continuing restriction of

resources expended on post-secondary education, the opposition — this

side of the House — would feel a lot less concerned.

We would say wholeheartedly that the negotiation and development of

distance education in this province should go on, and we would help you

develop it. We would be there. We have discussed and spent many years

discussing with OLI, with distance-learning people and with Knowledge

Network their structures, how they're going and how it's coming along.

But we have to come back to the fact that we're not living in normal

times in British Columbia. Your government has made sure of that. Your

government for the last five years has cut back our community college

budgets by one-third. We have witnessed a severe tightening of

budgeting around our universities. We have seen minimum increases in

seen the kind of opening on the part of the government as a whole

towards what post-secondary education can mean for the province. We

haven't seen a human capital plan for this province. We're not living

in normal circumstances in British Columbia today.

Were we to see universities functioning autonomously, with a good contract

with the government properly established, with a stable civil service — which

had a five-year plan, for example, for capital and core budgeting; were we to

north, for people in rural areas, for women; were we to see those standards;

were we to see a standard for financial investment in universities and post-secondary

education and a plan for capital expansion on the campuses that exist now, this

opposition and I would feel a lot more comfortable with the bill before us today.

Were we to see a human capital plan, we would feel more comfortable

with what's before us today. If a plan was put in front of us that

showed that the department had worked closely with the universities and

colleges, their administrations and their faculties, to talk about the

real dilemmas facing faculties and administrations today — that dilemma

being, of course, the fact of an ageing faculty, which by 1995 is going

to have to be replaced.... I think the numbers range up towards 50

percent facing retirement of faculty by 1995, in such numbers that a

plan must be instituted now.

Let me go on from that particular concern to the concern that the

opposition has: is this bill — the new Open Learning Agency — your

answer? Is this your plan? Is this the way your government wishes to

deal with the fact that so many faculty are going to be retiring within

the next ten years? Is this your government's way of dealing with the

need for capital expansion for the universities and colleges in this

province? We know that UBC alone needs $60 million over the next few

years to replace old post-Second-World-War huts. We know that at UVic

the arts school is operating out of Quonset huts, poorly ventilated,

poorly handled, which could be considered firetraps. We know that at

UVic the library operating budget has been cut back considerably in the

last year.

Is this our way, this government's way, of dealing with those very

real problems — financial problems, economic problems — that face

post-secondary education? Because if the Open Learning Agency is to be

used to answer those kinds of questions.... My colleague from Burnaby

North put these questions forward yesterday, using different language,

phrasing them slightly differently, but you can see from both his

questions and my questions that our concern is that this new agency,

which should be born with praise from both sides of the House, is not.

It's being born with suspicion, and not just from this side of the

House. I must say, from my contacts throughout the province with both

administrations and with faculty and with students, that their

suspicion is that this new agency, as small as it is, with a budget of

$9 million, could threaten them, could threaten our notion of what an

education is — that is, teaching people to think — could threaten that

capacity inside our existing system and could replace future expansion,

both capital expansion and operating expansion. If that is the case, or

if there is any hint of that, I would suggest to your side of the House

that you have a long way to go in terms of consulting with all facets

of the postsecondary community, and pulling them into some kind of

consultation with the proponents and the founders of this new movement.

Turning to

section 3, the purposes of the agency are, in

collaboration with universities, institutions, boards of school

trustees and other agencies concerned with education, to provide a

credit bank, to coordinate development, to use open-learning methods,

to carry out research and to operate one or more broadcasting

undertakings. Excellent! Where is the collaboration? Where is the

consultation to this point? Because this is an agency which is partly

there to develop these collaborative tools, to develop cooperative

education. And yet the B.C. faculty association for community colleges

[ Page 2975 ]

has not been approached about this bill, it has not

seen a copy of this bill. In fact, although many of us were aware that

a new agency was being created, nobody.... This side of the House

certainly did not see the provisions of this bill until it was put on

the floor the other day.

So you can see that the questions remain, and aren't going to be

easily answered, especially since, I should add, in my reading of the

Blues yesterday I noticed that the member from North Vancouver, who

took over when the minister left, made some suggestion that 1,000 to

2,000 students could be properly educated with a television set. I

know; the minister is flinching. I can see him wince. I can hear the

wince across the floor. He's not speaking for his colleagues at this

point, obviously. But I caution the minister that this is further

indication, if this in fact is the attitude of your side of the House,

that we have reason to be very concerned that the new agency will not

be ushered in with praise from both sides of the House.

section 3, can you talk to me, then, a little about the

collaboration that has gone on? Who is talking to whom about this new

agency right now?

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the comments made by the hon.

member from the other side. I'm sorry that she wasn't here yesterday to

hear my response to a couple of the issues that she raised, but I'm

pleased to go through them again.

In answer to some of her first comments, I'm pleased — and I know

that she's pleased also — that we were able to address the budgets of

the universities and colleges and all aspects of post-secondary

education in this year's budget, much to the happiness of people

involved in the system. One of the areas that we addressed was the

student financial assistance program. She made reference to

participation rates, and I'm sure she's happy to see that our

participation rates and first-year registrations are up substantially

this year, particularly at the universities. I think the University of

Victoria is up something like 16.5 percent, which shows that we're

carrying out our commitment to post-secondary education.

With regard to consultation and meetings with people in the system,

I think that I can stand here and say quite honestly that there

probably hasn't been another minister — at least for a number of years

— who has consulted as much with people in the system as this minister

has. I have met constantly with the university presidents, with the

faculty associations whenever they have asked, and with the students

when I am on the campuses.

She made reference to the need for a five-year plan perhaps. I have

in fact asked the three university presidents for a ten-year plan for

capital requirements, for their growth estimates, and for their

requirements with regard to the ageing faculty question. They have been

very positive with regard to that request, and I know that I'll be

receiving that information very shortly.

With regard to capital, of course we're continually addressing the

need for capital at the campuses. We just announced, as you know, a

$16.5 million chem-physics building at UBC, which is presently under

construction.

Her main question was relative to

section 3, with regard to what

consultation had taken place, who we were talking to and who was

talking to people. This Open Learning Agency Act has certainly not been

a secret. The people in the system have been asking when I was going to

bring it forward, both last session and this session. I didn't bring it

forward last session because our consultation process was not

completed. In fact, we did an extensive process with one of my

assistant deputies starting last February. As a result of that process

we arrived at the description under

section 3 of this act, and it was

done through a consultative process. The consultation has in fact gone

on over a year and a half.

[11:45]

I can assure the hon. member that the Open Learning Agency Act is

not here to replace other delivery methods in education but in fact to

work together with other delivery methods to provide what we on this

side of the House want to provide, and that is the best quality

education system in this country. I think that we're well on the way to

doing that.

So I would say that there has been considerable discussion,

considerable involvement in developing this act. The people in the

system look forward to the act, look forward to the chance to work

together with the colleges and the universities, the training

institutes, the Knowledge Network, and the Open Learning Agency.

MS. A. HAGEN: First of all, I just want to comment on the

matter of consultation. I certainly accept the minister's comments

about the fact that consultation has occurred, but I do regret the

speed with which this bill is possibly going through the House. The

community of universities, colleges and institutes will not have had, I

think, an opportunity to see a final copy of this bill before

deliberations on it in the House have been concluded. I think that that

is unfortunate, even if the bill reflects the results of the

consultation and all the parties are happy with it. I just think that a

bill of this importance in setting up another institution in the

province deserves to have an amount of time that allows the academic

community an opportunity to peruse it and to review it before it passes

the House.

I'm not necessarily presuming what the result of today will be, but

if it should complete committee stage today, then it will, except for

third reading, have gone through the due process of the House.

I have but one relatively brief question on

section 3. Since the

minister has noted that this agency is really a new institution in the

province, what kinds of articulation does he anticipate will occur and

by what processes will that articulation take place, particularly with

the colleges but also with the universities in terms of the educational

credit banks for students and the kind of coordination that will exist

between the colleges and the Open Learning Agency?

It seems to me we have a potential here for some change in the roles

of colleges, particularly in the interior and northern parts of the

province and the northern part of Vancouver Island, and the role that

they fill. It seems to me that the working relationships between the

Open Learning Agency and those colleges is going to be critical for the

educational future of the students who will be using either or both of

these means of educational opportunity in their regions. So could the

minister talk about articulation?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be pleased to do that, but I just want to

get back to the consultative process and this constant referral to the

speed at which this bill is proceeding. I'm just having a little

difficulty with that. The consulting has gone on for a year and a half

to two years, which means it started before I became the minister.

During my tenure as minister

[ Page 2976 ]

we've spent nine months developing this bill,

together with the colleges, universities and institutes out there. The

other thing is that the Knowledge Network and the Open Learning

Institute have been operating in this province for many years. What

this bill does is coordinate their roles. So it's not as if.... I did

not say that this was a brand-new agency. It's coordinating something

that has already been taking place.

Before I get into the credit bank, the planning councils talked

about in the bill are going to play a very major role. I said yesterday

that not only will the board members be appointed from various regions

of the province, but the planning councils will also be appointed from

various regions, because it's very important to me that the information

that comes in from the planning councils be representative of the needs

in the various areas of the province.

The colleges in particular in this province have for many, many

years been playing a major role in the delivery of distance education,

as I'm sure the other side of the House knows. Colleges that I

mentioned yesterday, particularly North Island College and Northwest

Community College, have played a major role in developing the distance

education delivery system that we have in this province, which is

recognized around the world as one of the best, and it's one we are

very proud of.

I just want to make some comments on the credit bank, which is a

very important aspect of this bill. The credit bank will enable

students to accumulate credits gained from courses taken at various

times in various institutions, and complete program requirements

leading to degrees, diplomas or certificates. Through the cooperation

of the universities, colleges and institutes, the Open Learning Agency

will enable students to receive recognition for course completion and

provide students the option of formal certification from the

institution of their choice. For example, a student may complete a

bachelor of arts degree at the University of British Columbia with

several credits gained from prerequisite courses taken at the Open

Learning Institute, Simon Fraser University and several colleges. Each

institution awarding the appropriate certification — degree, diploma,

etc. — must be satisfied that the respective student has met the

academic performance criteria and the requirements determined by its

governing board.

I think this act will enable people to take programs where they can

take them at the time, and be assured that they are going to get full

accreditation for these programs. I think that's very important, and

I'm sure that members opposite will agree with that.

The bill is a good bill. It will assist in the coordination of

delivering education to the various areas of the province, which we as

a government see as very, very important for the future of the province.

MR. MILLER: I will divert my mind from the Pearse report, which I was trying to educate myself with, and talk about....

AN HON. MEMBER: Distance education.

MR. MILLER: Thank you. My colleague says I'm going to talk about distance education — from the distance across the way here in the House.

You mentioned Northwest Community College. Perhaps to preface, I

have some concerns about the introduction of this kind of technology as

it applies to education, because I have a very strong belief that

education is not simply a matter of imparting facts or figures. In that

regard, I guess we can all remember, or should remember, teachers who

had particular influences on us as human beings in terms of their

character.

I recall that the Chairman got me during debate on Bill 19, when I tried to close my remarks with a quote from the Bible ,

and he very cleverly finished the quote for me when my time was up. The

reason I recalled that and was able to apply it to debate, whether

other members think it was good or bad, was that a teacher in grade 8

happened to chastise me for always being talkative and disrupting the

recalled some 30 years later — or however many years — this little

exercise where I had to write out the quotes from the Bible .

I think that's very important in education. Although I've never been

to university, I would think that it might be even more true there that

professors represent ways of thinking, and that direct contact and

things that rub off.... That has certainly been true throughout

history, going way back to Aristotle and some of the people of that

time.

I do have a concern. One of the things that did come up with respect

to Northwest Community College was the move to replace live instructors

with television screens or telephone hookups. Although from a budget

point of view it may be more efficient, I'm not certain that it's a

better education. In fact, I'm not certain that anything you learn from

a television screen is all that good; you're better off reading, I

think. I just have a caution, I suppose, that if there is some attempt

in terms of moving into the Open Learning Institute concept that could

be justified in terms of budget cutbacks and the replacement of live

instructors....

I just want to voice some concerns that I think I've raised with the

minister before, that in those small communities in British Columbia,

the access definitely.... I don't care what programs the minister has

brought in to improve it; there is definitely a barrier to access to

post-secondary education. I think that that's of great concern, because

having lived up there for a good part of my life, I know the kinds of

deficiencies we have in terms of professionals and others. I know that

lots of the people, if they grow up in that community and are able to

get educations, come back to the community. They put something back

into the community and we're all the richer for it.

So I would like some assurance — and I know of other members who

have canvassed the point — that we won't see this used to further

justify budget cuts at the community college level and replace

instructors with television screens. Over the long term I don't think

it's a saving, and I don't think it's real education.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to address this for the fifth time

during this debate. I appreciate what you've said, because I have

visited Northwest Community College. I've spoken to the instructors,

and they indicated the concern that they had about five years ago with

regard to being replaced by television. But they haven't had that

concern for a long time, because they understand now how the process

works.

With regard to budget cuts, I guess I have to reiterate that we were

able to put more money into the system this year — in both community

colleges and universities.

I guess I could say again that the Knowledge Network and Open

Learning have been operating for many years. What we're doing is

bringing them together in a coordinated role.

[ Page 2977 ]

We expect that this will improve the interactions between the colleges, universities and technical institutes.

MR. LOVICK: Clearly, when I discover that the issue is

post-secondary education, I can't take a vow of silence or some such

thing. I have to offer a few observations. I'm going to be relatively

brief in my comments.

What I want to do apropos of

section 3 is to deal particularly with

one subsection in there, namely 3(c): "The purposes of the agency are,

in collaboration with universities, institutions, boards of school

trustees and other agencies concerned with education, to.... use open

learning methods to provide educational programs and services...."

Fine; no problem. The difficulty I have with this particular

section —

and indeed with the concept of distance education — is a legitimate

concern, I think, given the history of post-secondary education for the

past decade or so. The minister can, in all honesty and sincerity, say

that suddenly, apparently, money has been found and we are now able to

provide services; we've been able to improve the system somewhat. The

predicament, however, is that some of us have a longer memory. We

recognize how fragile indeed is the health of the educational

community. We are therefore prone to be perhaps overly suspicious of

ways of approaching education that are, by all calculations, cheaper

ways of approaching the delivery of post-secondary educational services.

[12:00]

As one who taught in the college system for a number of years, I can

tell you that most of my colleagues and I recognize the value of, and

indeed the need for, distance education. We welcome the advent of the

Open Learning Institute and of the Knowledge Network; but we do so with

a couple of reservations and a couple of conditions. The primary one is

that we never lose sight of the fact that education means a great deal

more that simply assimilating X amount of information: what we in the

field — and I am sure the minister is now familiar with the

nomenclature and terminology — like to refer to as something called an

education experience. An education experience is, as I say, not just a

simple matter of ingesting X amount of information; rather it's a

process of being subjected and exposed to influences that come not

merely from a book or a television screen but from an environment.

My contention, to put it as succinctly as I am able, is that we are

doing a disservice if we in any way encourage a system of

post-secondary education that makes it possible for people to acquire

university degrees without having the benefit and the advantage of a

university setting.

I would just like to suggest, Mr. Minister, that what we ought to do

is guarantee that every student who has the requisite qualifications

and the desire and the ability ought to be guaranteed an opportunity to

spend at least one year in his or her academic career at a university.

If that means a loans program or a grants program or travel vouchers or

whatever, so be it.

I don't think that that is a luxury. I don't think it's a question

of saying, well, here's the chance for the kid from down on the farm to

see the sights of gay Paree — to allude to a line from an old song, as the minister

did the other day; rather it's an opportunity to go and experience something,

whatever the other blessings and attractions of small-town British Columbia

might be, that small-town British Columbia does not have.

I'm talking about the concentration of resources and people with

expertise that one simply can't find anywhere but at a major university.

MR. WILLIAMS: Human capital.

MR. LOVICK: Human capital, my colleague from Vancouver East

says, and he's absolutely right. It's a variation on a theme that we

discussed earlier this morning. Let me, if I can, try again, albeit

briefly, to sketch out what that means.

I recall, for example, when I attended university my first year in

1963, after having taken a year out doing the European voyage.... Of

course I thought that I was incredibly sophisticated, very

knowledgeable. I came from east Vancouver, so clearly I had all the

benefits of a cosmopolitan upbringing. I had all of those things, but

what happened was that I went to university and suddenly was exposed to

influences and ideas that, frankly, had never crossed my mind before.

I was literate at the time: I had read some books, I had travelled,

I had some experience. It sounds horribly egotistical, but I think I

was reasonably worldly-wise for 19 years old. I think I had that, but

the fact is I went to the university and suddenly the world exploded.

la Milton: "The world was all before me; where to choose...., and

Providence my guide." It was marvellous, a tremendous opportunity.

I recall, for example — allow me to be just a little bit anecdotal,

Mr. Chairman — vividly the first day of going to the university and

sitting down in the cafeteria to have a cup of coffee. The guy sitting

across from the table looked rather stern and a little bit imposing and

intimidating, and I mustered my courage and said,"Well, hi, how are you

doing?" or some such witty question.

The comment, of course, came back, slightly disapproving, that my

question was really rather silly, given the context of where we were.

Now the guy, as it happened, was a little bit pretentious, a little bit

pompous. But I discovered this was a man who had spent the last three

years doing a postdoctorate on nuclear physics. I had never met a

nuclear physicist in my life.

I spent the next hour talking with that individual and learning

something about the subject — an opportunity, to be quite blunt, I

would not otherwise have had, because I was not in a science

curriculum. It was a marvellous opportunity, and I'm suggesting to you

that what happens is that that university environment produces and

generates just those kinds of things. What we do, it seems to me, if we

fall into the trap of suggesting even for a moment that education

equals nothing more than passing X number of courses and writing X

number of exams, is effectively to deprive people of real education.

That's the problem.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that individuals who go and do the

requisite number of courses, and get the appropriate nods and ticks and

so forth that one needs for a degree or a certificate or some such

thing, are necessarily ill-educated. I'm tempted to say that, but I

won't conclude that; I recognize that there can be exceptions. What I

am arguing, however, is that we have invested considerable dollars in

the physical and intellectual capital of our institutions of learning.

If, for the sake of a relatively few dollars, we allow people to get

degrees without taking advantage of those marvellous facilities, we are

really missing the point, it seems to me.

[ Page 2978 ]

I therefore want to suggest, to conclude this rather rambling

discourse.... I see that the Chairman is looking at me, saying: "Where

does this lead, Mr. Lovick?" He always asks me for that guidance — that

was meant to be a subtle witticism, I hasten to point out. Where I'm

leading with all this is just to offer an admonition, a caution that we

do not become fixated and hung up on the notion of distance learning or

alternative delivery systems to the point that we lose sight of what is

clearly the most exciting and significant aspect of post-secondary

education; namely, the interaction of human beings in a setting

designed to promote and foster that kind of interaction.

MR. ROSE: I will try not to be an equally rambling rose. But

I do have some thoughts about education, since I spent considerable

time doing one thing or other in schools and colleges, and I've been

through a considerable number of periods where we felt we had something

revolutionary in education that was going to change the world.

We were going to knock down all the walls in the classroom, and

everybody got mixed up together; we lusted after that for quite a while

until we had to put all the walls back up again. We went through the

period where we thought that it would be just wonderful if we had

teaching machines and everybody could proceed at his or her own pace.

And we went through all the philosophy of Skinner, instant

reinforcement: if you were a pigeon and you pecked in the right

pattern, you'd get a reward of some grain, and you could learn to do

all sorts of things. That was to be transferred to children.

Then we went through this whole business of television in the

schools, and what a wonderful thing that was going to be. But nobody

could see the small screens, so that didn't work very well, and we had

to have the teacher standing at the back of the room with a lash to

make sure that discipline and proper decorum was observed at all times.

I hope this is not another trap. If we think we can take distance

learning or open learning, as it's envisioned — and it works very well

in the unitary state, in a small country, in Britain — and transfer it

holus-bolus to this country, I think we'll be disillusioned and

disappointed. I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea. I think we have

to address the fact that a rural student has half the opportunity to go

to university of one, say, from Point Grey or the lower mainland or

Victoria. I think that's the thing we have to grapple with.

I'm not sure, though, that this is the answer; it may be partly the

answer. Although my colleague spoke eloquently about how his intellect

and understanding were broadened and improved by a chance acquaintance

with a nuclear physicist in the coffee lounge, that doesn't necessarily

mean bringing every rural student down and putting him in a university.

It is possible, though, to take a university and put it in the rural

community. That's possible, and I think that should be the case,

because I think it is important for students to rub shoulders with

ideas other than the ones they hold. Frankly, many of them come into

schools and higher education indoctrinated, not educated at all.

I watch the Knowledge Network — that and CBC and Channel 9, which is

PBS, are about all I do watch — and I think it's amazingly good.

HON. S. HAGEN: Amazingly good?

MR. ROSE: Yes. Is that not right? It's an adverb modifying an

adjective. That's permissible if you're not too pedantic; I prefer to

leave the phrase, and I intend to.

One of the problems, though, is what Skinner pointed out with the

pigeons. In distance learning there's a lack of feedback. The lack of

feedback is due to the fact that the student doesn't often enough have

an opportunity to check with his or her tutor. I've been up in the

interior, out of Smithers and Prince George, and have learned from

students that often the tutor in a particular area is not even versed

in the area; that he's supposed to be a generalist. That isn't what you

get at a university, and quite frankly it's not good enough. There are

all kinds of transportation problems associated with even getting to a

tutor, and babysitters and all the rest of it. I'm not saying you

shouldn't be doing what you're doing. Never give somebody the dickens

for doing what you wanted them to do in the first place. I think that's

a reasonably good maxim.

We don't want a diploma mill. We want to move more of the

universities to the students if we can't move students to the

universities. The pure, dry, teaching-machine approach — the television

approach — is, I think, somewhat less than what we need. We know

there's a problem in rural education, but we also know there's a

problem in education per se. If you've demeaned and battered

education.... You've undervalued the work of teachers now for the last

five years; it's hardly fair to expect students to be enamoured with

learning. If there has been a systematic government policy of demeaning

the work of teachers, cutting back in the universities, then regardless

of the admirable qualities of the minister, I don't think this is going

to change overnight.

My view is that our participation rate rurally is too small. The

minister agrees. Our participation rate in B.C. totally is too small.

It's about half what it should be and half of what it probably is in

our sister province of Ontario. I don't think we're doing enough. We

should be decentralizing through our colleges, if necessary — a real

university experience for these students after they've had the

delightful taste of the Knowledge Network and the Open Learning

Institute. So we like what you're doing, but we want you to do some

more.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like to do a

summary of

section 3, Mr.

Chairman. You have heard from my colleagues basically an expansion of

how I opened this discussion on

section 3. I think you will find that

this side of the House is interested in — it's eager for, it's anxious

for — seeing this new child that is being created here do something

appropriate and fulfill the functions that you claim you want to see

happen.

[12:15]

The comments that you made yesterday and today and that attitude of

"trust me" aren't necessarily instituted in the bill itself. The words

are not terribly clear. They are ambiguous. They do leave a lot of room

for

interpretation. With that proviso, you will see this side of the

House voting for this bill, but you will see this side of the House

challenging and questioning the definition of this agency as it

evolves. So I leave

section 3 where it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been advised that the second member for Richmond would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 2979 ]

MR. LOENEN: It gives me a great deal of delight to welcome to

the House a constituent, a longtime friend and a member of our church

in Richmond, Mr. Geert Vandermeulen. Please, would the House welcome

him.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MS. MARZARI: I rise on

section 4 to ask a question.

Section 4

suggests that an agency is going to be established establishing three

components: the Open University, the Open College and the Knowledge

Network. I'm a little confused here. In

section 17 in the bill you're

basically closing down the Knowledge Network and Open Learning

Institute. You're removing from them their capacity and their

definition under the University Act and creating three separate

components here. How is that structure going to work? How is the board

going to deal with these three components? Are they going to operate in

a coordinated fashion, in a unilateral fashion? Are they going to be

mushed into one? Are they going to be operating out of three separate

physical locations?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, you know what the Knowledge

Network is. It delivers television programming. The Open University

will be responsible for the coordination and delivery of university

credit and non-credit open learning programs in the province. Programs

and courses will be acquired, adapted, developed and delivered on a

systemwide basis and in collaboration with the universities, colleges

and institutes in the province.

The Open University planning council will be established, comprised

of representatives from the universities and colleges in the regions,

and will be responsible for the education policy as it pertains to the

Open University. Through partnership with universities, colleges and

institutes, the Open University will provide greater access to

university courses to all regions of the province.

The Open College will be responsible for the coordination and

delivery of career, technical and vocational open-learning programs in

the province. Programs and courses will be acquired, adapted, developed

and delivered on a system-wide basis and in collaboration with the

colleges and the institutes in the province. The Open College planning

council will be established and comprised of representatives from the

colleges and institutes in the regions, and will be responsible for the

education policy as it pertains to the Open College. By working with

the colleges and the institutes, the Open College will be able to

increase career, technical. vocational and training opportunities to

people in all regions of the province.

MS. MARZARI: Item (b), the establishing of any other component this

agency considers necessary or desirable for carrying out its purpose....

I want to bring in this business of marketing our good stuff overseas. It is

my impression over the last few months that your department and the government

were flirting with the notion of establishing some kind of Knowledge Network

Commonwealth centre here, so that in fact we could be distributing some of the

stuff that we can produce — some of the tapes we can produce and some of the

programs and courses we can put together — around the Pacific Rim. I heartily

endorse that, as a matter of fact. I think that that would be an excellent way

of joint-venturing with our colleges and with our educational community: to

take the courses that we've got overseas on a fee basis. That's what

I would call good public enterprise.

I don't see any mention of this kind of activity in this bill. I had

hoped that from the fanfare that was given — during the Commonwealth

conference, I believe — something like that would have been

incorporated in this bill. It would have given us something to look

forward to, at least in terms of cost retrieval for the expense of the

program overall.

HON. S. HAGEN: The initiative of which the member opposite

spoke is an initiative of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The

British Commonwealth of Nations and the committee that's been working

on this initiative examined the distance education delivery systems

around the world and chose Canada as having the best experience and the

best ability to deal with this subject. We were fortunate — because

British Columbia has the best system in Canada — that British Columbia

was chosen to be the headquarters for this Commonwealth agency.

As I mentioned yesterday, it's the first time in the history of the

Commonwealth that an agency of the Commonwealth has been located

outside of Great Britain. So it certainly will be a benefit to this

province, to the educators who work in this province, to people who

develop programs and also to people who deal in the technical aspects

of the delivery. It not only is and will be an opportunity for us to

have our programs transmitted outside of our province and our country,

but of course it's also an opportunity for us to receive programming

from other Commonwealth countries.

Because it's a Commonwealth initiative, it's not specifically

referred to in here, but of course the purposes of the act give the

Open Learning Agency the ability to participate in the Commonwealth

distance education initiative.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver–Point Grey would like to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MS. MARZART: I'd like to introduce former Judge Tilly Taylor,

who has just taken her retirement from family court in Saskatchewan,

and has come to reside in Victoria for the next few months, just to, I

think, breathe the fresh air and feel some of the rain on the west

coast, after a long and distinguished career as a judge on the Prairies.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MS. MARZARI: Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty of

establishing a board. We've talked many times from this side of the

floor about the nature of appointments of college boards in this

province. It is with some regret that we look at this board and see

that the government is going to be selecting the board from persons

nominated by the minister. It is once again, in our opinion, going to

be a politically appointed board. We have said a lot over the last

number of months about what's happened to the community colleges and

our perceptions since the college boards ceased to be elected,

[ Page 2980 ]

ceased to be representative, we feel, of the broad political spectrum of the communities they represent.

Here we have another situation where the board is going to be

appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor by nomination by the minister. I

am very concerned that this sets a precedent for this agency:

appointment by the minister. It's a post-secondary institution, and

there is no mechanism here for even the minister to structure

appointments or nominations from communities.

Neither does it establish what we have come to expect in

post-secondary institutions across the country: something of an arm's

length between those who run post-secondary institutions and those who

provide core budgeting to them. We've had that discussion around the

abolition of the Universities Council. We have felt and expressed time

and time again that the arm's length between post-secondary

institutions and government should be seen. It should be apparent, so

that when you get involved with a board establishing educational

objectives, guidelines, accreditation procedures, credit courses and

its core budget, it's doing it at arm's length from government.

Would the minister comment on yet another board in the

post-secondary system being directly appointed, being directly the

handmaiden — if you can put it that way — of the provincial government?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be pleased to address that question. With

regard to the community college system, I believe that we in this

province have the best one in Canada. I appoint the board members of

the community colleges. If the member thinks that they are not

representative of the community from a cross-sectional point of view,

from what they do for a living, from how they participate in the

community, then I think she should let me know the particular areas she

has a concern about. I've taken special care to make sure that a broad

cross-section of each community that the college is located in is

represented on the board. I've taken special care to ensure that each

city, town and village, wherever possible, is represented on the

college board. I've looked for representation on the board from various

cultural and ethnic groups. I've been very conscious of that and have

worked very hard to get good cross-sectional representation on these

boards. I think the fact that we have what I consider to be the best

college system in the country supports the way that the appointments

have taken place.

With regard to the appointments on this board, I will ensure that

not only is there a cross-sectional representation from the business

community and other areas of the community — we don't want just

lawyers, for instance, on the board; we want a cross-section of

professions — but that there is good regional representation. I have no

interest in having all these people from Vancouver or Victoria, and as

a matter of fact, under the present boards of the Knowledge Network and

the Open Learning Institute, there is good provincial representation.

MR. WILLIAMS: How many Quebec colleges....?

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, we're talking about British Columbia here. I'm not sure what....

I will ensure that there is good provincial representation on these

boards. The chairman of the board of the Knowledge Network, for

instance, comes from Port Alberni.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Port Alberni. It's in my region, as a matter

of fact. Seven out of eight regions in the province are represented on

the present boards of OLI and Knowledge Network. I will ensure that all

eight regions are represented, and I know that they will be represented

well.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

section 7.

MS. MARZARI: I want to come back, because this relates to the

question I asked previously about the board. Here we have the duties

and powers of the board in subsection 7(

e) saying: "...on the

recommendation of a planning council established for a component,

determine the courses of instruction or programs to be offered...for

credit towards the requirements for a degree, diploma or certificate,

or determine the courses to be cancelled by the component...."

[12:30]

Once again, this board has no arm's length from the department

itself. It is acting directly in concert with the provincial

government's wishes. There is no separate planning arm separated by

legislation or by statute. The planning arm is subsidiary to the board

itself. There is no distance, in this distance education program, for

the planning function. You are basically saying that this new

institution is going to be reflecting the values and educational

priorities of the government itself.

It establishes a precedent, you see, for the university system, for

example, because although right now there is no statutory body that

sits between the universities and the minister, there is something that

people are reasonably comfortable with: the president's committee, the

advisory committee. Here there is no separation, and if the

universities and the colleges sit down and decide what they need out of

distance learning or what they need out of the cassettes and the

instructional programs that you're going to be able to offer, and you,

the government, decide what is going to be available despite what they

request.... Can you understand that the stuff you are producing might

be skewed and might not reflect what they're asking for, might not

respect the autonomy of the existing post-secondary network? The

universities and colleges might be asking for one thing and you might

be providing another and at the same time cutting them back in their

core budgets because your programs are available through Open Learning.

They are asking for other courses, perhaps in arts and sciences; you're

giving them what your priorities happen to indicate for the year, and

you're preventing them from expanding their core budgets.

I put it forward to you because I think it's a real concern, and

it's certainly going to be back on our desks. Well, I'm sure it will be

back on our desks when we're on the government side of the House, and

we'll try to rectify it then. But I'm asking you: do you understand

what that does to a university curriculum — how it can skew a

curriculum?

HON. S. HAGEN: The planning council is going to play a very

real role in this operation. On the recommendation of the planning

council, the board will make certain decisions, but there will be other

areas of input. The distance learning

[ Page 2981 ]

aspect of our education system is represented on

the University Advisory Council, and this is another coordinating arm

of the universities, colleges, institutes and distance education. I

believe that the ideas that come in from the University Advisory

Council and the needs that are addressed by that council, together with

the needs that come in to be addressed through the planning councils,

will then be acted on by the board.

I don't have the concern that the member opposite expresses with

regard to courses. The objective of the entire education system is to

deliver the courses that the students need to get their degrees, or to

upgrade themselves in their job training. I fail to see the problem.

MS. MARZARI: It comes up later in

section 17, but I'll just elaborate on it here.

This board is basically going to be able to do much more than hand

out baccalaureate degrees in arts and science, which the old system

did; that's what it was confined to, as a matter of fact. It was well

understood that baccalaureates in arts and science could be handled.

This new board will be accrediting courses and granting degrees in

anything it chooses to accredit, not just baccalaureate degrees. The

same body that's accrediting is granting. The same body that's

accrediting and granting is directly related to you, and from the

structure I can see here, the planning advisory committee is not

supreme in this setup. It's not a funding agency. It doesn't sit in a

special status to you. It basically is advising the board. It can't

withhold funds. It can only advise, from what I hear. So you've got an

agency that's operating directly for the provincial government and what

you deem to be educationally appropriate this year in our

post-secondary system. This board accredits its own programs and grants

degrees. There is no separation here between an accrediting body and a

granting body, an advisory and a funding body. Am I making my point

about checks and balances inside a post-secondary system that gives

credibility to an agency or to a movement — or to a system?

HON. S. HAGEN: I suppose that you could establish any amount

of bureaucracy you wanted, but the system has in fact been working

under the present operation of the Open Learning Institute. There have

been no problems that I've been made aware of. Therefore I just don't

see problems for the future.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

MS. MARZARI: I would like some guidance on this from the

minister.

Section 11 suggests that to cover a liability or expenditure

under

section 10 you're able to increase the grant for operating

expenses. Does this increased grant come out of your ministry, Mr.

Minister, or is this a contingency reserve grant? Does this come out of

the special contingency fund in Treasury Board? Where do we find the

increase in grants for operating expenses, and what is your estimate of

the budget for the agency? We know it's $9 million in the estimates for

this year. But where do you see it going in the next two or three years?

HON. S. HAGEN: This

section is consistent with a

section in

the College and Institute Act. If there were an instance where I

approved that, it would, of course, come out of my budget, the Ministry

of Advanced Education budget.

Sections 11 to 16 inclusive approved.

section 17.

MS. MARZARI: I'm going to choose

section 17 to do something

of a wrap-up here, Mr. Chairman. We said before that this act

introduces a new agency, a coordination of old agencies. It gives that

agency new strength: the ability to hold land, to grant degrees, to

accredit courses and basically to establish a new level of

post-secondary education in this province, which many of us feel

threatens the core budgets and the stability of existing post-secondary

institutions. In all good will, we must give a blessing to this agency,

but we must make the following comments.

Despite what the minister has said about there being intense

collaboration, I can name at least one group which should have been

consulted and wasn't. Despite the minister's assurances that this

agency is going to be a facilitator, we can see many opportunities in

this bill for it to be abused and used to replace the existing system

of teacher-student learning in this province.

Quite frankly, I would have liked to have seen this bill go through

a committee of the House, perhaps the social services committee or a

special education committee, so that it could have been debated around

a table and we could have hammered out some of the concerns over the

last few months of people from the post-secondary community. It would

have made a difference in how we approached this bill. It would make a

difference in terms of how the faculties of community colleges and

universities would approach this new agency. It would have given them

some assurance that consultation had been there and had been publicly

done.

We don't have such a committee system in this Legislature. It would

be useful. Let me reiterate: it would be more than useful. It would do

the public's business a lot more good to have given us an opportunity

to sit down with the draft of this bill some time ago, to look it over

and take a look at

section 17 and express our concern about the

agencies losing their status under the University Act and their

specific legal abilities, and being thrown into a very general or

embryonic framework for a new agency that's going to take some time to

work out and work through.

I can assure you that there would have been a lot of assistance

throughout this province for this process. It wouldn't have been

negative: it would have been positive. It hasn't happened. I would hope

that post-secondary education is important enough to the members of

this House.... It certainly is to this side of the House. I would have

thought it would have been important enough to your side of the House

to have taken this to a special committee stage. It's at least as

important as anything else that has come across the floor of this

House. This is a major investment we're about to make here, even though

it's an embryonic agency.

I would like to end the debate on this bill, Mr. Chairman, and say

that we have a lot of problems with the bill because of its

ambiguities, and because the possibility for abuse exists. We also

understand, though, that open learning can provide a lot of opportunity

— if we use it properly — and that it can be used as a venture tool

that we can actually take to the market around the Pacific Rim, turning

it into something that will reap a benefit and real profit, if I may

put it crassly, for this

[ Page 2982 ]

province. I leave it there, and I encourage the

minister to incorporate more people into his list of advisers and

helpers. I encourage the minister to use the existing structures —

faculty, student and administrative — in his consultations. I advise

the minister, as he develops this board and the structures of the

board, to take a look across the political spectrum for his

appointments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm very pleased to learn this morning of the

agreement that has been reached between UBC Health Sciences Centre

Hospital and Shaughnessy Hospital. With us today in the gallery we have

Mr. John MacKay, chairman of the UBC Health Sciences Centre Hospital,

and now the interim chairman of the University Hospital; also Mr.

Charles Nash, trustee and former chairman of Shaughnessy Hospital.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MS. MARZARI: I would like to add to that welcome to the

gentlemen from the university Health Sciences Centre. I know it's been

a long and difficult procedure. The university Health Sciences Centre

has provided such an excellent quality of care for the province as a

diagnostic centre as well as a treatment centre. It has provided such

an excellent quality of treatment care that these gentlemen are to be

congratulated for coming to a good conclusion in the negotiations, and

I hope that the quality of care and the excellence of the diagnostic

treatment facility will not be diluted in any way, shape or form in the

course of amalgamation.

[12:45]

Sections 17 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the minister, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 58, Open Learning Agency Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call report on Bill 48.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

MR. STUPICH: There are a couple of issues I want to raise.

When the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) spoke in this

debate, he raised a concern about the way in which this bill leads

towards consolidation of the four pillars of finance. So I'm talking

simply about what the bill does — at least as it did in his eyes.

The minister said that he would respond during committee stage, and

in all fairness, I didn't ask during committee stage, but since

committee stage was completed, I've had correspondence from individuals

— independent insurance agents — raising these concerns. I expect the

minister is probably getting the same letters and is answering them. I

wonder if he would share with the House at this time, in closing this

motion, how he is dealing with these concerns that are expressed by

independent insurance agents about the increasing concentration of the

four pillars of finance into one, or at least fewer than four.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The other matter I want to raise is one that I've let the minister

know I would be raising. I be