In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 30.

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

On section 1.

The Chair: Shall section 1 pass?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yeah.

[2:30]

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a good day to be debating the province's newest university here.

The term "assembly" rather than "convocation" was chosen only to choose a word that had fewer traditional connotations. As far as I'm aware, it includes the members who would be members of a convocation.

L. Reid: Seeking further clarification, "teaching staff member" in this act replaces the traditional term -- if that's the minister's analogy of why tradition is in place -- of "faculty member." Could the minister respond as to why?

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.

L. Reid: The concern -- or perhaps the next step, if you will -- is that they will be subject to some kind of seniority rating, as are other colleges in the current scenario. If you're taking away tenure, my question is whether or not that's being replaced with something.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Any employee of this institution, including teaching staff members, would have the right to either negotiate the terms and conditions of employment for himself or herself or form with others to negotiate collectively: either, as some faculty members do in current universities, reach a staff agreement outside of a labour relations act, or seek certification and negotiate a collective agreement under a labour relations act.

L. Reid: Certainly this discusses teaching staff member. Given that this is a technical university and should be on the leading edge of science and technology, is there also a research staff member component?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Researchers are included within this definition. To quote the definition, it says very clearly that a "teaching staff member means a person recognized for the purposes of this act by the board as teaching, giving instruction or doing research" -- and I want to emphasize that research is part of the duties at this university -- "on behalf of the university."

L. Reid: For my clarification, could the minister kindly respond as to whether or not those three roles will be contained within the same individual? Are we going to have an employee of this institution who is solely responsible for research, as an example? Or will every teaching employee be required to teach as part of their curriculum load?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The duties of any particular teaching staff member would be a matter of assignment and/or negotiation between senior administrators and/or the board and the member. My expectation would be that the great majority of teaching staff members would be doing both teaching and research, as is the case at the colleges and universities in British Columbia now.

L. Reid: On a personal note, I would be remiss if I didn't ask the minister to kindly introduce those individuals accompanying him today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for reminding me of my responsibilities and the protocol here. Mr. Jim Soles is the director of universities and institutes within my ministry, and Stella Bailey is the manager of legislation within the ministry.

L. Reid: Welcome to both of you.

The minister is aware, I believe, of the letter written by the College-Institute Educators Association. It has been shared with all members of the Legislature. In that we are in section 1, " 'university' means the Technical University of British Columbia established by this act," I simply want to take a moment to put on record the conclusion reached by CIEA and their concern that they wish expressed: "If the government proceeds in its current direction, British Columbia will end up with an institution which drains resources from existing post-secondary institutions, duplicates their services and fails to meet the needs of local communities. In current economic times it is an expensive mistake." That is the conclusion they are reaching about the debate we are currently engaged in regarding the technical university, and it seems to me that some of these concerns are valid.

We haven't found a university in this province today that will tell you that they are appropriately funded, sufficiently funded or, frankly, even adequately funded. It seems to me that if we are going to share the resources -- divide the pie into, again, another piece -- are there some assurances today that this minister can share with this Legislature as to some level of assurance around future funding? Today we are pushing educational institutions -- K-to-12 and post-secondary -- through the hoops in terms of asking, again and again and again, for them to do more with less. Are we at the stage where we can continue to give that directive? I don't believe we are, and I ask the question: how much more for how much less? If the minister could kindly comment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Chair, I'm unclear about whether I should tell you to rule this out of order because it would have been more proper in estimates or because it would have been more proper at second reading. Let me just respond very, very briefly to some of the points the member raises.

Unlike other provinces in this country, we have not been reducing the budgets of colleges, universities and institutes. In fact, we've made up every dime of $110 million in federal cuts to post-secondary education and have kept the doors of our institutions open to students by freezing tuition and fees. That's the record of this government, and it's a very positive one. At the same time, we've been creating tens of thousands of new spaces for students. The Technical University of British Columbia is another major initiative, both to expand the overall number of seats in our system -- and clearly, additional funding is required to fund additional seats -- and also to provide seats that are in a new and very exciting institution that has a different relationship to business and to the community in which it's operating.

I have one other matter of protocol that I need to do, hon. Chair, so before I sit down I will ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the galleries today is my wife Hazel, who is here with us again, to make sure that we're proceeding expeditiously through this legislation so that we have some opportunity for a vacation this summer.

The Chair: Can the House make her welcome, indeed.

L. Reid: I, too, welcome Mrs. Ramsey. Mrs. Ramsey, if your husband answers the questions, I will do my best to proceed effectively through this legislation.

In terms of Mr. Lavalle's comments -- and he is the president of the College-Institute Educators Association of British Columbia -- and the comments that I have raised in the past with this minister, having canvassed ministry responsibilities with him over the past six years, this government takes great delight in suggesting that they have created new spaces in British Columbia. New spaces that are not well funded place a tremendous burden on students in the system, students who find that their tuition goes up, and all of a sudden things that weren't charged for in the past now have a fee or a cost that they did not anticipate.

So if this is a legitimate discussion this afternoon around the costs of post-secondary education -- and I trust that such is the framework on which both this minister and I are engaged -- then the creation of this institution will admit individuals who have not met educational standards in the past. For the most part, many students in the Fraser Valley have not graduated. We know that; it's a matter of public record that their graduation rates have not been consistent with other parts of the province. If that's the case, is this minister going to put in place any levels of outreach around doing some things with students in grades 11 and 12 so that they might make the choice to attend a university?

Given that the minister is also responsible for the K-to-12 system, and given that this is a new opportunity, it would seem to me that that would make good sense. If we are hoping to attract students who actually reside in the Fraser Valley to attend this new university, which this new section 1 will create, it seems to me that we want to have at least local representation in the student body. The minister is well aware -- with the indulgence of the Chair -- that at the University of Northern British Columbia, the student body is not reflective of the local area.

The Chair: Hon. member, we appreciate your questions and your comments very much, but we're on section 1, which is "Definitions," not second reading. So if the member would proceed to make the queries relate to. . . .

L. Reid: Exactly right, hon. Chair. We are on the definition of "university," which means "the Technical University of British Columbia established by this Act." My question to the minister, given his full responsibility for K-to-12 and post-secondary in this province, is: is this institution going to behave differently from others? This ministry, this minister and this government have taken great delight in suggesting that it will. My question is: will outreach draw in those 16- and 17- and 18-year-old students, so they actually end up attending this university and end up as graduates? I think that's the goal that both of us share.

The Chair: Hon. minister, on the ruling of the Chair, there is no need to reply to that. That question is out of order.

The member might work on other sections of the bill that might respond better to her queries.

L. Reid: This is, in my view, the appropriate section to canvass this issue, because if this act passes, this new university will be created. For us to have listened for many, many months to this government suggesting that they are indeed creating a new entity, that it's going to be a university in a different form and is going to do things differently. . . . If we're in the definitions section -- and we are -- I would ask this minister to define how this new university is going to behave differently than other institutions in the province.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think when we get to section 2, "Purposes," I will have an adequate opportunity to discuss some of the differences of this university from more traditional institutions.

I did want to just say very briefly that I do hope that we do stay on committee stage here. I heard members of the Liberal opposition speak in favour of this bill at second reading, and I assumed that meant, on its face, that they agree with the principle of establishing another post-secondary institution in our province. I hope we're proceeding here to debate the ways in which we put that institution in place, as it is contained within Bill 30. The only expensive mistake that I see, hon. member, would be a missed opportunity were we not to proceed in developing this sort of institution for the future of our province.

[2:45]

On section 2.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I distinguish three ways in which this institution is different from more conventional universities in the province. First, it is focusing on a particular array of programs and research that it is devoted to. Those are: applied technology and skill-based programs that are responsive to the needs of students, employers and the community, and research in those areas. So that's one difference. We've set out in legislation, in a way that other legislation on universities does not, the specific array of programs that this university shall be focused on.

The second way in which it differs is by the specificity of our expectation that this university will form partnerships with industry -- and by that I include both business and labour -- and other educational institutions with respect to education and applied research and development. This is going to be done, first, to ensure relevancy; second, to avoid duplication; and third, for cost-sharing. I'm unaware of any other institution which has this sort of a mandate for partnerships, a mandate for collaboration spelled out in the legislation that establishes it. At least, it's unique in British Columbia. We may well find others around the world. Indeed, I think the people that did some of the research and community consultation which led to this legislation did look at different models for this sort of post-secondary technological institution.

The third way in which this is different from other universities is that -- as I'm sure the member will tell me from correspondence she's received -- its governance structure differs significantly from more conventional universities. So those are three major ways in which it differs significantly. The purposes spelled out in section 2 speak to at least two of those points that I have mentioned.

The member also asked in an earlier question about whether outreach would be part of this university's mandate. My short answer is that I expect outreach from all post-secondary institutions, and I think most of them at least try. Simply by saying that here in the Fraser Valley we are establishing a new technical university with a focus on applied research and jobs in emerging technologies sends a fascinating message to secondary school students and college students in the Fraser Valley. We are establishing a model of an institution with a focus on areas of new and emerging jobs. This is good news and says very clearly to students in the Fraser Valley that there are immense opportunities here for acquiring the skills and training that are needed for good, family-supporting jobs in these emerging sectors of our economy.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his explanations on those three sections. Certainly I know that the minister is aware of some of the concerns that industry has raised in the past regarding the length of university programs and their lack of immediacy. By the time someone moved through a four- or five-year program, the job demand in a particular industry had changed dramatically, and those new graduates were not able to achieve any level of success in the workplace. Given that this is going to be a university, is there some flexibility within this program -- the minister cites applied tech, skill-based programs -- for them to be of a very short duration or for them to be conducted on the worksite and perhaps with ongoing participation by both parties?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Definitely. Given the knowledge that the member has just displayed of the very challenges that this university is being set up to address, I wonder if she wants to submit her résumé for the board?

L. Reid: Don't tempt me, hon. minister.

In terms of your comment about whether or not this will be something that's industry-driven -- and I believe your words were that this institution will form industry partnerships. . . . This minister and I were in debate just this past Friday on Bill 43, which looks at ensuring that decisions taken around worksite and work-based training are relevant. Will the same kind of partnership, if you will, exist if an industry were to come to this board and suggest that they need an employee trained in a particular aspect of aerospace? How quickly does the minister envision this institution gearing up to meet those kinds of very specific needs? Certainly the minister referenced under section 2. . .or rather his second reference was around specificity of expectation. If the expectation is very specific on behalf of industry, how quickly will the institution be able to gear up to meet that need?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I want to talk about three things in response to the member's question. First, the very structure of the board and university council of the Technical University of British Columbia is designed to enhance precisely the sort of rapid response to a training and education need that the member is talking about. We'll talk about more of those later when we get into a discussion of who is on the board and the council and how they relate to industry as well as to the institution.

The other thing I would mention is that, if you notice, section 2(a) says that the purpose of this university is "to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. . . ." So we're casting the net broadly, and it's specifically not focused on post-graduate degrees to clearly say that we ought to seize opportunities where they're available to provide just that quantum of training or education which is required for a person who may be well educated in other fields already but who needs a specific focused bit of training to qualify for work in a particular industry. That is what the purposes of the act and the structure of this university are designed to accomplish.

L. Reid: I certainly appreciate the minister's clarification. My concern rests with "certificate," because typically in the past it's meant at least a year, a minimum of one year's worth of training. If this institution is going to reflect the six-week or the six-month program, which is often what is required. . . . I would be delighted if the minister could kindly confirm.

Hon. P. Ramsey: In both universities and colleges, certificate is a term usually applied to a course of education or training of less than a year's duration. Currently in both universities and colleges there are such programs for a few weeks -- six weeks.

L. Reid: Certainly when the minister referenced in his initial explanation around specificity of expectation. . . . How is that going to be demonstrated? Will there be a business plan that is jointly agreed to by both the institution and, say, a particular sector of industry that wishes to graduate individuals with a particular skill set?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The sort of requirement for a specific outcome in a particular education program could clearly be required by a firm or a group of firms that was working in partnership with the university; that's precisely the sort of initiative that we're looking for from this university. That's clearly understood by the board and the CEO, the president, of the university right now. I expect that as we appoint board members and members of program advisory committees, that's the perspective that they'll bring.

As far as other measures of accountability, while the university offers certificate and diploma programs and decides which ones to offer within its own governance structure, the decision to offer degree programs, either undergraduate or graduate, is a decision which the minister must also approve.

L. Reid: Just to perhaps ask for further clarification around accountability. If indeed an industry representative were to meet with the university and the course content and training site were agreed to, because I would assume -- and if I'm incorrect, certainly let me know. . . . It seems to me that oftentimes individuals are going to be trained at the actual worksite because of the greater sophistication of equipment and expertise, etc. But if all of those things are agreed to, and if the student's new skill set is the deliverable. . . . If that's not delivered in a timely fashion, is there any recourse for industry? For them, they believe that there are. . . .

Many individuals have come to me suggesting that they are going to participate in something that is completely open-ended. I think that's a valid concern. I think that's probably relevant for any new agency or entity, and this one certainly qualifies as being a new institution. Given a tremendous investment of time and resources, say 18 months from now, when the first, new knowledge-based-industry graduate in knowledge base X does not have the skill set, what is the answer, then, for industry?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I would hope that industry would not have the sort of unpleasant surprise that the member describes. For one thing, as we'll discuss later, members of industry are intimately involved in program advisory committees at Tech B.C., which actually do the work of specifying the course requirements and training outcomes. This is clearly to an extent far greater than at any traditional university now. So the very choice of content of programs is industry-driven in a way that is not the case at more conventional universities. That's good news.

Ultimately, of course, if things go so sideways, members of industry that feel they didn't get what they had asked for could work through either the program advisory committee, the council of the university or the board to make sure that their concerns were heard and rectified.

L. Reid: One of the ongoing discussions that this minister and I engage in is around benchmarks, around accountability. Under 2(a), this is going to "contribute to the economic development of British Columbia." How will that be measured?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I want to say that this sort of contribution to the economic development of British Columbia is something that I think all universities make. In the case of this university I would think that the requirements would probably be even more stringent in terms of saying to the university: "What are your measures of how many graduates you've had in what field? What's their employment record? What's the employer satisfaction with the skills that they've gained?" These are some of the measures of participation that now apply to career programs at colleges. They are not typically applied at universities. It is the expectation that the Technical University of British Columbia would look harder at those measures of actual contribution to the ability of industry to acquire trained personnel and to get on with creating wealth in British Columbia.

L. Reid: I want to certainly go on record at this juncture to state that I think that the institution that probably does it the best today is BCIT, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, in terms of. . . . They know exactly how many students have successfully completely their programs, and frankly, they know where they are a number of months down the road from graduation. The other institutions concern me because they don't have that data available. The ability, the capacity, for them to collect that information is certainly at their disposal; they choose not to. In that this institution will have significantly fewer students than in any other institution, could we commit today to put on record that we know what happens to these students six months after graduation and, frankly, five years after graduation? I want to know whether or not the investments that this province will make in terms of educating these students will have any kind of long-term, sustainable economic benefit.

[3:00]

To just count numbers without following through on individual students to know exactly how that program has impacted on their lives, on their economic stability, I think would be missing the mark. If that can be the long-term goal for this brand-new institution -- and knowing full well that provinces very rarely have the opportunity to do something from the ground up, and that this is at ground level. . . . To put in place some decisions that would see us in a year's time, in estimates debate with this minister, knowing exactly how many students began the program, how many completed, and in a year's time. . . . Well, it will be a year and a half, because that's the way annual reports are done here. But in 18 months from now, we'd know whether or not those students were successfully employed.

If, under section 2(a), that's the goal -- secure economic development and long-term economic stability -- for the individual student, I would welcome this minister's commitment that indeed that information will be available to me when I again pose these questions to the minister during the estimates debate.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just let me say a couple of things. First, the way in which the Technical University of British Columbia is delivering courses will differ significantly from more traditional institutions. They expect to be delivering fewer than half of actual hours of instruction on site in a facility, and more than half in an employer's worksite, by distance education, by distributed learning or by a variety of other models.

Second, they expect to be structuring programs so they can be entered into, taken and completed by students in a fashion that's far different from the four years on campus of a more traditional university. It could well look like some of the programs that are being set up right now at Royal Roads, where people come to campus for a five- or six-week session during the summer and do a variety of independent, self-directed distance education studies during the year while they're actually employed, come back again and, over a period of years, complete a degree or advanced degree. That's the focus of this institution's work.

I appreciated the member's words about BCIT. I will inform her and the chamber -- though I think she already knows -- that I have asked this institution to work very closely and, indeed, form some strategic partnerships with BCIT and with Simon Fraser University as it begins its work. I think this will ensure the kind of responsiveness and accountability that we've seen in BCIT, and it also will ensure that it can get up and offering courses more quickly than would be the case if it were hiring its own teaching staff and administrative staff from scratch, rather than working with other institutions that could provide some of those.

Finally, I wanted to address two concerns. On the small number of FTEs, actually, I would expect that within ten years this will not be the smallest university in the province. It could be significantly larger than the University of Northern British Columbia by that time. It will start small, but it will not stay small.

Finally, I share the member's interest in getting the right measures of accountability and quality for institutions. However, I think it's for good reason that it's not specified in legislation. Frankly, putting any particular measure in legislation has, I think, the potential to tie the hands and fetter the development of the institution's own culture.

Hon. Chair, I've been advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts, and therefore I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is indeed in the precincts. With your permission, and to warn our visitors in the gallery, I'm going to ring the bells.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1997

Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Amendment Act, 1997

Police Amendment Act, 1997

Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Fisheries Renewal Act

Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 1997

Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 1997

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Fish Protection Act

Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Offence Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997

Health Authorities Amendment Act, 1997

Park Amendment Act, 1997

Family Relations Amendment Act, 1997

Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1997

BC Benefits Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997

Municipalities Enabling and Validating (No. 2) Amendment Act, 1997

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1997

Tobacco Damages Recovery Act

Building Officials' Association Act

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997

Traffic Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 1997

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997

Local Government Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1997

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1997

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1997

TD Trust Company Act, 1997

The Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company Act, 1997

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 30.

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
(continued)

On section 2 (continued).

L. Reid: The minister's last comment was regarding full-time-equivalent students. He indicated that in ten years' time this university may be of a significant size. Could I ask the minister. . . . It's my understanding -- and could he kindly confirm -- that today's anticipated FTE count is roughly 2,800 students? If that's the case, could he also indicate what he anticipates will be the enrolment in a decade's time?

[3:15]

L. Reid: My interest in asking the minister to confirm the numbers goes back to my original comment -- my concern about accountability and measurement -- that if we're only going to be talking about 2,800 students per year over the next decade and maybe double for the latter part of the decade, if we could track those students much more effectively than has been done in the past, I would welcome that. By the end of the decade, I would love to know whether those students are still employed, whether or not they are seeking additional training, and whether or not the infusion of dollars on behalf of the taxpayer has made a positive impact on their lives. I would like to know if we are able to close the loop in terms of measuring where those students might be in the system as they seek gainful employment.

Under section 2(b) "to conduct applied research and development," under the purposes section of the bill, I would like the minister to spend a moment or two, if he might, on the funding for that research. Is it going to be a public-private partnership scenario? Is it going to be general revenue from the university that funds that research? What possible scenarios might exist?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The sources of funding for research are not dissimilar to other universities. Obviously some from general revenue is given to the university. In addition, there are a variety of research councils that allow faculty or teaching staff to apply for research funds. Then, of course, there are the opportunities for partnerships with industry and of funding of research by industry. Obviously this will be done under a plan formulated by the board and approved by the president. As we'll discuss later, that's one of the requirements of the office of the president at the Technical University of British Columbia.

L. Reid: It's been my experience that a number of university colleges around the province do business with businesses in their communities but purchase research options to explore X for six months. Will this same scenario be reflected under this technical university?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, the Technical University of British Columbia will have that ability.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

L. Reid: Section 3(1) states: "The Technical University of British Columbia is established as a corporation composed of the assembly." We have canvassed the use of the term "assembly." Can the minister indicate for the record whether or not this corporation will differ in any way from other university entities that currently exist?

Hon. P. Ramsey: This same provision is included for other universities in the University Act. I think the only difference is the term "assembly" rather than "convocation."

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

L. Reid: My first question on this section. . . . It seems that the act has omitted the ability of students to structure an association. I don't find it reflected it in the act, which is why I'm bringing it up under "composition." It seems a likely place for it to appear, if indeed it were going to appear. But some of the concerns that have been raised reflect on the exclusion, if you will, of students having the ability to form an association and to engage more effectively, with more impact in university organization.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will respond to that question under this section, though it is a stretch. This talks about the composition of the board of governors, and like others, this board of governors includes students elected by students to serve on the governing board of the university. The member talks specifically about a student association and the ability of students to form such associations at other universities. That is done under the Society Act. The provisions in this legislation on that issue are identical to the provisions under the University Act, which covers the other universities.

I recognize that the member and I -- and, I think, all members of the chamber -- have received correspondence from student associations who wish to see provisions inserted in this act and in the University Act which parallel those in the College Act that require, by legislation, a greater measure of cooperation between student associations and the universities where students are enrolled. I have had those discussions with student representatives myself and have told them I will undertake to discuss that issue with them and with universities in the province with a view to bringing in legislation at future sessions, but not in conjunction with this act.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's clarification. However, the concern is valid. When he indicates that the other universities have the option to bring that information forward under the Society Act, the section we just passed says: "The Company Act and the Society Act do not apply to the university, but the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, direct that. . . ." Certain provisions do apply. So what I'm putting on the record today is simply the omission, which I believe is a serious omission. It's a concern.

My memory harkens back to 1992, when Tom Perry was the minister, and he recommended that all future universities and institutes include the ability of students to form an association. He made that recommendation, and if this minister is discounting that recommendation, that's an interesting discussion to have on the record today.

What the students are saying is that there needs to be an ability for them to collect student fees, to organize, to impact positively on the future of the organization and to make some contributions around accountability -- for them to have the ability to hold their institution accountable. I mean, this is a public service institution designed to serve students.

They need a mechanism to ensure that they are comfortable around mechanisms, around appeal and around recourse. Without the ability to form an association, those avenues are denied them. There's no question about that. I appreciate that the minister is suggesting that it doesn't fit in this section, but my concern is that it needs to fit somewhere in this act. It truly has been omitted today, which I will put on the record as being a very serious concern.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let me deal briefly with some of the concerns the member has raised, because I too take this seriously, and I want to ensure that students in our province have a voice in the running of the institutions in which they are enrolled. First, let me again say that the composition of the board provides for student representation, elected by students, and that is clearly one of the ways in which students at this university will be able to make sure their voices are heard.

Similarly, when we get to section 11, we'll look at student representation on the university council, and I believe we'll also be looking at student representation on program advisory committees. Students will have a voice at all levels of governance of this university. That is important.

The question that the member raises is really a technical one of how students would form a student association to carry out whatever purposes they want to form the association for, whether it's social events, fundraising for athletic facilities or whatever. Student associations that exist in universities are structured under the Society Act. The clause that the member refers to in the third section of this act refers to "the university" not being under the Society Act. That does not apply to a student association. The same provision is in the University Act; student associations form under the Society Act.

In addition, and this is more important here, student societies at British Columbia universities do get their fees collected by the university under section 27 of the University Act. The power to do so -- and to collect fees for the Technical University -- is done by reference to the University Act and to the powers the board has under the University Act. This board will have the power to collect fees on behalf of a student society for students enrolled at the Technical University of British Columbia. Those provisions are in place, and they exactly parallel the provisions in place at our province's five existing universities.

What the member has received correspondence on, as have I, is the desire for students to see further amendments to the University Act, the Technical University of British Columbia Act and, I suspect, the Royal Roads University Act, as well, to incorporate some of the clauses that are now only in the College and Institute Act -- clauses on relations between student associations and their institutions.

That request came forward to my office far too late for inclusion in this piece of legislation. I have told the student associations of the province that I take their requests seriously and will be talking to them, to faculty, to university boards and to administrators at universities to see if we should move forward on legislation on that issue at a subsequent session.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments and for his commitment that, indeed, he will continue to look at that section. The issue was and continues to be the right of students to form an association. I know that all the rest of those issues will evolve, as with any new institution, and the minister is suggesting that that's in place. They will be happily reading this Hansard, because that is not what they believe to be the case today.

I have a couple of short questions regarding the appointment of chancellor and president. Will those two roles in this new institution differ at all from what they are currently in other existing institutions in B.C.?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The chancellor is the same as at other universities. The duties of the president in the Technical University do differ from those in other universities. The president's duties are specified in a subsequent section, and we'll be discussing them when we get there.

L. Reid: Section 4(d) is about eight persons to be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Where will those names be drawn from? Are we looking at individuals who represent industry? Are we looking at individuals who have some vested interest in the future of the organization? Could the minister comment?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The pool will be a broad and deep one, of people in our province who are involved in cutting-edge industries and those in our communities who are interested in developing an institution that serves the needs of the applied technological fields. I think we will have a number of people. I hate to think how high the stack of résumés is going to be from people who are interested in participating in the establishment of this institution, because I think it's going to be a once-in-a-lifetime experience for those on this board in the initial stages of establishing the Technical University of British Columbia.

[3:30]

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

L. Reid: This section reflects terms of office on the board. I appreciate that the term of office, as outlined here, is going to be two years. My concern is that I believe that's not standard. There are university appointments today that are three years. Could the minister clarify the difference?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will point out to the member that the two-year term of office applies only to members of the board of governors selected under section 4(c) -- that is, teaching staff members -- and 4(f) -- that is, an employee who is not a teaching staff member. Obviously a member of the board falling into one of those categories could subsequently run for re-election. These are internal employees of the institution.

For appointments under section 4(d) -- appointments by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- those terms will be set by policy as it is now for boards of universities, colleges and institutes. For the information of the member, terms of appointment currently range from one to three years, with sort of a standard six-year maximum term as a member of the board. That, too, is a guideline rather than an absolute.

L. Reid: My next question: will there be a limit as to the number of terms someone can serve on the Technical University board? If the traditional university is two three-year terms for a maximum of six, are we talking two two-year terms to a maximum of four years?

Hon. P. Ramsey: My staff and I are unaware of any limitation on the number of consecutive terms that a board member selected by teaching staff or by students or by employees could serve on a board of a university. It's not specified in the University Act, nor is it specified in this legislation.

As for the maximum term for a person appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as I indicated earlier, by policy the general guideline is a maximum of six years, though I can think of instances where that has been extended.

L. Reid: Given that this is now a 15-member board, from reading these sections, there doesn't appear to be a quorum established. It simply says that a vacancy on the board does not impair its authority. If this will remain a 15-member board, will there be reference made in the minister's remarks to reflect what the quorum might be?

Hon. P. Ramsey: A quorum is specified in section 7; we'll debate it when we get there.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

L. Reid: Would the minister would be so kind as to answer the question on quorum?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Section 7(2) specifies a majority of the members of the board holding office as constituting a quorum.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

L. Reid: Powers and duties of the board in terms of approving strategic plans, reporting out on research direction and policy. . . . Am I to understand that there will be a business plan shared with this Legislature, with members of the public? Will there be an annual report? And in terms of the discussions we've had on accountability benchmarking and where we might go from here, can the minister indicate when we might expect the first report on this new institution?

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I didn't want to let the general import of this section pass unnoticed by this chamber. This is the heart of some of the changes in governance that are incorporated in this university. The board, under this act, has the same powers and duties granted to and imposed -- you need both parts -- on the board and senate under the University Act. So this is indeed a departure from more traditional universities and how universities are governed.

The member asked whether a strategic program and research directions and policies would be available to the public. The answer is yes. The current board of the university and its president have already submitted to me a draft strategic plan on what programs and research directions and priorities it wishes to pursue. I expect the university to provide annual reports to me, to the public and to members it serves.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his commitment to provide that information. In that, as the minister outlined, this new institution will basically run without a senate, what is the appeal process? What is the mechanism in place for individuals who would find fault with the board for any particular reason? I would reference the most recent case at Simon Fraser University, where there were opportunities for the senate to become involved -- as the chamber of sober second thought, if you will. What kind of opportunities, what kind of mechanisms are in place for this new institution?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Policies and appeal processes will be established by the university itself, as they are at other universities. Depending on the issue, clearly the university could specify one or another of its governing bodies or agencies be charged with a particular issue, or a subset of that level of governance be charged with the issue. For example, it might well be that on areas of academic concern, the university council would be the body charged with overseeing issues concerned with academic credentials and fair marking and things like that, with an appeal process directed elsewhere.

There is, as in any large institution, enough flexibility here for the university itself to set up policies, processes and appeal processes. Clearly principles of natural justice and appeal are expected to be built into processes at universities.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

L. Reid: On section 9. . . . And perhaps we can canvass some of these issues jointly and cover both of these sections. One of the concerns around public institutions always comes up to be salary. Many individuals have indicated that they will have concerns about the funding levels, the salary levels, for this new institution.

Can the minister assure this House that, indeed, there is a grid in place for the payment of chancellor and the payment of president for this new institution?

Hon. P. Ramsey: There's a rigorous grid in place for chancellors in this province, hon. Chair; most of them operate for free. They receive no remuneration other than expenses for carrying out their duties. It is indeed a position of considerable honour and responsibility, and the ones that I know or have known over the years at universities have worked extremely hard to represent their institution well and to advance higher education.

I'll just digress briefly to mention the chancellor of the University of Northern British Columbia, Iona Campagnolo, who is completing her term as chancellor, who has served that institution remarkably well in its initial years and whose departure from that post I think will be missed. So chancellors. . . . The short answer is: to my understanding, they don't receive remuneration.

Presidents of this university, like others, receive remuneration in accordance with PSEC guidelines. So there are some general guidelines in place, and obviously, in setting salary levels, this institution and others will be looking broadly at sort of the industry standard across universities in North America.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

L. Reid: On section 10(2)(a), "to establish educational and research plans in accordance with the board's direction," my question is simply: how are those research plans going to be arrived at? My desire is to see industry being very significant players in that exercise. I would simply ask for the minister's assurance.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Clearly priorities. . . . It must be the responsibility of somebody to actually set them. This section requires the president to consult with the university council, which, as we'll see when we get there, has a high involvement by members of industry and of the program advisory committees that represent industry in particular areas. So I think that voice of the section of our economy that the university is designed to enhance and support will be well represented in formulation of research plans.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

L. Reid: Section 11 refers to "4 teaching staff members elected. . .2 students elected. . . ." Then it goes to two employees appointed. I'm wondering why those employees of the university are not elected by their peers.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Section 11(1)(c) refers specifically to senior administrators of the university. In the University Act, senior administrators are simply listed -- for example, all deans, plus the university librarian, plus some other positions. In this act, on the contrary, the number of senior administrators is relatively limited. Therefore the board has the ability to select those whose prime responsibility is providing administrative services in support of education or training.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

L. Reid: This minister referenced this section many times in terms of indicating that at this juncture he will indeed respond to my questions. So I trust that he will give a detailed, highly specific breakdown of why these committees are different, how they're structured, whether or not agencies in this province have the ability to submit names and how that selection process will be undertaken.

[3:45]

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.

L. Reid: Section 13(1) says: "A program advisory committee exists for each program area." Does the minister have any indication of how many program areas will be reflected, say, in the first year to 18 months of operation? I appreciate that more will probably come on line as the institution evolves, but specifically, the question I raise to the minister is around committee selection once these committees are established.

Let's say there's going to be a committee around aerospace technology. Under subsection (2)(b) it says: ". . .up to 7 representatives of business, labour, professional associations and other educational institutions relevant to the program area." Will those agencies -- i.e., the BCIT aerospace program -- be asked to provide names of individuals who may be appointed to this advisory committee? That is specifically where I'm headed. I want to know how the process works. I appreciate that people will probably submit résumés indicating their interest. But the agencies that rightly are currently engaged in that kind of educational delivery, will they too be asked to submit names?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The short answer to the member is yes, they will be.

The member also asked how many program advisory committees are expected. It is expected that there will be six program areas at the university. This is from the draft strategic plan that the university has submitted to me. It would include information technology, management, health and medical technology, food design and technology, industrial design and engineering, and applied arts.

L. Reid: Given the specificity of expectation that the minister referenced earlier in his comments from the list he just read -- and I'm assuming that he's meaning in the first year of operation -- that's not reflecting some of the very specific knowledge-based industry we have -- i.e., the aerospace industry -- which is doing some wondrous things in the lower mainland. Has no consideration been given to having an advisory committee that would reflect their level of expertise? It seems to me that they are one of the groups that -- I know for a fact -- have approached this government in terms of structuring some training programs around their area. Surely an advisory committee will follow.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I know that when the university was looking at these program areas, they anticipated that the aerospace industry would be falling under the industrial design and engineering section of this. Most of the training needs that I've had expressed to me by that industry would fit well under that general rubric.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

L. Reid: Simply a general reference from the minister if he might, because he said: "When I reach this section, I'll give you all the details." Since we are now at that section, if he could expound on what is currently listed. . . .

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again I want to reference how unique this provision is in legislation governing post-secondary institutions. It's unique both in specifying that program advisory committees should exist and also in specifying what we expect them to do. Given its membership, I anticipate that when it considers courses of study and course content and when it considers research initiatives, projects and plans, those will reflect the concerns of the members of that committee, which, as I've already discussed, will reflect both those with expertise within the institution -- staff and students -- and more importantly, those from outside the institution, who have a broad majority on the program advisory committee. That's important for looking at what is included in those courses of study and curriculum and in the design of programs.

Similarly, I would expect that because it is this sort of body that has responsibility for cooperative education opportunities for students, that sort of opportunity to blend study and real job experience will be enhanced for students at the Technical University of British Columbia.

Finally, touching on a matter that the member and I have indeed shared a lot of common interest in, I would call her attention to 15(2), which requires annual reports of the program advisory committee to the board on its activities -- what it's done, what issues it has addressed -- so that there is accountability to the board from the advisory committees that it has struck.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his clarification. To me, this section is absolutely critical to the success of the organization. We hope and trust that this organization will be responsive -- that it indeed will be able to turn on a dime when it sees a new need in the community or on the worksite that is currently not addressed by any of the other institutions we have in the province. That variability is what this opposition is standing in support of today. This has been presented as an organization that's much more responsive, much more flexible and more ready, if you will, to take on challenges that we've not realized yet -- that this agency will have the kind of relevance and responsiveness to meet the new eventualities that present themselves over the next decade and well into the next millennium.

To me, the selection of who sits on those advisory committees is absolutely critical to the success of that organization. If those people are not the leading-edge thinkers around knowledge-based industry, whether it's aerospace technology or new health instrumentation, this institution will flounder. Given the small number of FTEs, I think that captures much greater flexibility; it allows for much more responsiveness. We are indeed attempting to manage the lives of 2,800 students, whether it be for a six-week period, a six-month period or perhaps a two-year program. That is a much more doable exercise, if you will, than other institutions currently have at their disposal.

I'm expecting wondrous things to happen as a result of a smaller number, a greater sense of community and hopefully some absolutely leading-edge thinkers being involved in how best to deliver that kind of training so that it's relevant for employers in this province -- for small business, for people who might actually wish to make an economic contribution to this province -- and that they've got the building blocks. In this instance, the building blocks are the students.

So I commend the minister on what I believe is his sensitivity around the selection process. The individuals that are chosen will be critical to the future of this organization, and I wish this minister well with his deliberations.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Just very quickly, a point of detail here: it's the board that's going to be selecting members of the program advisory committee. I want to make sure that that is clear for the record. In the general terms that member expressed support for this act, I want to thank her, because I think she's right. We have an opportunity here to expand the way we do training in the higher level of education in our province, and I think we should carry through on it -- in spite of what I heard in the press over the weekend and in the media today about concerns about this institution. I think it will serve the needs of our province well.

L. Reid: If I might make one final comment. I'm personally delighted that this minister is responsible for the K-to-12 system and the post-secondary system, because the points I raised earlier around outreach are valid, I think. Certainly under this section -- funding opportunities for research and student scholarships -- my expectation for this institution is that they will reach out dramatically to students who are 15, 16, 17 years of age so that they will make some appropriate choices in their K-to-12 learning environments so that indeed they're eligible to participate in programs such as this. I trust that this minister will continue to reflect my concerns, as well.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

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 into academic freedom at this university.

Sections 16 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the members opposite for their participation in this debate. I move that the committee rise and report Bill 30 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Technical University of British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[4:00]

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada