The following are quotes extracted from the draft transcript of the committee-stage debate on Bill 30. The speakers are the Honourable Paul Ramsey, Minister of Education, Skills and Training, and Linda Reid, Liberal MLA for Richmond East.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The term "teaching staff member" was used in this act rather than the term "faculty member" for a couple of reasons. There are some similarities; I want to first make that clear. A teaching staff member means a person who is recognized by the board "as teaching, giving instruction or doing research on behalf of the university." It encompasses those responsibilities. There are some differences. Teaching staff members at this university will not have tenure under the more traditional University Act, and it is the belief of those who were working on the advisory committee around this university that this would enable the university to be more responsive to changing educational priorities.
L. Reid: To advance an issue that the minister just raised, he has indicated that these instructors will not have tenure.
Hon. P. Ramsey: That's correct.
Hon. P. Ramsey: This provision for program advisory committees does not appear in the University Act, nor does it appear in the College and Institute Act, though many college programs do have program advisory committees. The importance that this university will attach to the views of those who actually employ people or who are working in the fields for which this institution is training people is reflected in having program advisory committees established by legislation.
The fact that the majority of the program advisory committees are representatives of business, labour, professional associations and other educational institutions relevant to the program area clearly indicates that it will be those external voices. Voices external to the institution, who employ graduates of the university or who represent professional associations that graduates will belong to, will be heard loudly and clearly in how the university first sets up programs. They have some clear responsibilities, as well, specified later in section 15 -- some quite clear responsibilities.
Second is the fact that it is representatives of program advisory committees, four of them, who sit on the university council. So we are building a governance structure for this university, as I said earlier, that differs significantly from other universities. This has created some consternation in the university community. I'm sure the member has received the same correspondence that I have on the matter. Let me say this, because it is a significant issue, and I want to have it on the record of Hansard: we have designed this governance structure with the advice of those who are involved in the work around the Technical University of British Columbia for this particular institution. We have sought to have a governance structure that reflects the purposes and goals of this university.
My view is that there are a variety of governance structures at post-secondary institutions in British Columbia, and they are appropriate for their institutions. Therefore what I wish to say, through Hansard and this chamber, to the university community concerned about this is that while I believe that this governance structure will work well for this institution, I have no intention of seeking to have other universities adopt this governance structure. They have different governance structures. I believe that has served those universities very well over time.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I need to make one comment, again for the record. As a result of controversy around this act, there has been concern about whether this act will have academic freedom. I want to state very clearly that we have included section 48 of the University Act quite deliberately. That act prohibits the minister from interfering in the establishment of academic policies and standards, standards for admission and graduation, and the appointment of staff. That, I think, is a very secure bulwark against intrusion in academic freedom at this university.
NOTE: On this final point made by the minister, CUFA/BC has clearly explained to him that to be free of governmental interference is not to have academic freedom. A point which he continues to ignore. For more information, consult the letter from CUFA/BC to the Minister dated July 21, 1997.