1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 22, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9721 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Fuel Tax Validation Act (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 9721

Oral Questions

Foreign lottery sales. Mr. Sihota –– 9721

Doctor's refusal to refer heart patient to Seattle. Mr. Davidson –– 9722

Foreign lottery sales. Mr. Sihota –– 9722

Use of credit cards at PNE racetrack. Mr. Williams –– 9722

Tree-spiking under Crirninal Code. Mr. G. Jansen –– 9723

Payment to former NDP employee. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9723

Ministerial Statement

Ministry of Environment reorganization. Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 9724

Mr. Miller

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and

Technology estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 9724

Mr. Lovick

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Perry

Mr. Miller

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Cull

Mr. Jones

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 9747

Mr. Jones –– 9747

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to have in the gallery today guests — with whom I also had the good fortune to have lunch this afternoon — who

are representing the Victoria branch of IPAC, the Institute of Public

Administration of Canada, which is a very important discussion group

and resource group for our dedicated public servants. I would like the

House to welcome especially Heather Dickson, who is the secretary of

the Victoria branch of the Institute of Public Administration of

Canada, and Dr. Tim Padmore, who is a director of IPAC. Will the House

please welcome these two distinguished civil servants.

MR. LOVICK :

I note in the gallery today a constituent of mine, a young man who

serves with distinction on the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons

with Disabilities. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming

Mr. Murray Charleson.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : In the

gallery this afternoon is Mr. Ron Wood, past president of the West

Vancouver-Howe Sound constituency and also a businessman of West

Vancouver. Let's make him welcome.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to pay tribute today to

a former senior official of government who gave great service to the

province. Richard Lawrie Colby, better known to his friends and

colleagues as "Dick" Colby, passed away last week at age 79. He began

working for the provincial government in 1929 as an office boy and

during his 47-year career, which ended with retirement in 1976, rose to

become the Deputy Minister of Travel. His career of almost five decades

had many highlights, including some major achievements in raising

British Columbia's profile as a tourist destination. He founded Beautiful British Columbia

magazine, which today enjoys a worldwide reputation for its superb

coverage of our province over the years. He oversaw the production of

many fine promotional films that were distributed through the National

Film Board.

Dick's hobbies and interests were many and

diverse. He had a lifelong interest in astronomy, was an accomplished

model railroader and was active in a number of community organizations.

His record of service was long and honourable, and I ask the House to

join me in extending our sympathy to his family.

MR. SPEAKER : If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will send the appropriate messages. Is that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Aye.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, as Premier and first member for Richmond, on behalf of

myself and the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), it is a

pleasure for me to introduce to the House today a group of grade 7

students and several adults from the Garden City Elementary School of

beautiful, sunny Richmond. I would ask the House to extend them all a

good welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FUEL TAX VALIDATION ACT

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

a bill intituled Fuel Tax Validation Act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, Bill 30 retroactively validates the tax which was

collected from all taxpayers under the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act and

the Motive-fuel Use Tax Act between '74 and '76. These acts, which were

two of the three predecessor statutes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act, were

held to be constitutionally invalid by the courts because they imposed

an indirect tax. The third of the predecessor statutes to the Motor

Fuel Tax Act was also held to be constitutionally invalid, but was

amended retroactively in 1981 to protect the revenues collected during

the 1974-76 period.

Bill 30 amends the Coloured Gasoline

Tax Act and the Motive-fuel Use Tax Act retroactively to impose

constitutionally correct taxes during the 1974-76 period to ensure the

consistent application of all three predecessor statutes to the Motor

Fuel Tax Act and to protect revenues which were collected and spent on

essential government programs during this period.

Bill 30

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

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

Oral Questions

FOREIGN LOTTERY SALES

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. The Provincial Secretary

is reported to have said on Saturday that there is no indication of any

links with organized crime and no connection between the Ginnetti death

and offshore lottery sales. Could the minister advise this House what

evidence he has to substantiate the statement he made?

HON. MR. DIRKS : I believe that in this great land called Canada, the onus of evidence is on the other side.

MR. SIHOTA :

The minister didn't answer the question, so let me rephrase it. The

minister has indicated that there is no linkage between crime and

offshore lottery sales and the death of Mr. Ginnetti. That's what the

minister said. I wonder if he could advise the House what he based that

statement on.

[ Page 9722 ]

DOCTOR'S REFUSAL TO REFER

HEART PATIENT TO SEATTLE

MR. DAVIDSON :

My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week a heart specialist

refused to refer a patient to Seattle until the government paid for his

telephone call. In light of this outrageous act, what steps has the

minister taken to deny any such doctors access to the B.C. Medical

Services Plan?

HON. J. JANSEN : It is of a lot of

concern, I am sure, to both sides of this House when we see such

actions as we witnessed last week with a doctor refusing medical

service to a patient as a result of what was, in his opinion,

additional costs. This doctor had billed the system last year some half

a million dollars, in addition to his payments received under WCB and

ICBC, and disputed the cost of an additional burden of referring a

patient to Seattle as opposed to Vancouver. What that additional cost

might be I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, save and except a few pennies in

terms of postage and other small incidental costs.

I am

deeply concerned about this action, as I am concerned about other

initiatives of the BCMA. I am sure the health critic opposite also

shares my concern about this. I intend to ask the doctor in question to

explain his actions. I further intend to ask the BCMA for their

position on this matter and to ask the college for action in regard to

this act.

FOREIGN LOTTERY SALES

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, a new question. The Provincial Secretary, responsible for

lotteries, knows full well that there's an interprovincial lottery

commission, of which B.C. is a member. It is my understanding that we

now have a third study done by that commission into the matter of

offshore sales of lottery tickets. The report indicates that they are

also concerned about the possibility of this jurisdiction of British

Columbia becoming a haven for organized crime, should the province not

cease the offshore sale of lottery tickets. Can the minister advise the

House what the lottery commission has done with the recommendations of

that study?

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr. Speaker, if the

member opposite would refer to the recommendations in the report that

was submitted I must admit it is a report to the ILC. If he refers to

the recommendations on page 59, he will see that: "...as a first

priority, legislation be immediately enacted at the provincial level."

But to be effective, it must be uniform in all essential aspects, and

it must be introduced by every province at approximately the same time.

That's part of the recommendation that has to occur. That hasn't

occurred. There has not been cooperation between the provinces to bring

in legislation such as that.

MR. SIHOTA : My

information from the interprovincial people is that B.C. is the

reluctant partner; that British Columbia is not prepared to introduce

the legislation, largely because, according to them, British Columbia

is soft on crime. Will the minister show leadership today and make a

commitment that British Columbia and he as minister will bring forward

the appropriate legislation?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Obviously the member opposite is talking about future policy. But I can

tell the member that this government did make the statement at that

time that if there was cooperation from the other provinces, we would

certainly go along with that. Indeed, Bill 115, which was brought in in

the Ontario Legislature, died on the order paper, and that was the

extent of the legislation.

USE OF CREDIT CARDS

AT PNE RACETRACK

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the hon. Premier. Exhibition Park racetrack now allows you to bet on

your VISA card. Is it the policy of this administration to allow

betting on the tab — or plastic?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, such questions should be directed to the Solicitor-General.

HON. MR. FRASER :

I was pleased to see that on page B5 there was an

article on racetrack

betting, as opposed to 121 pages from the front of the Sun, where we

had the severance pay for that friend of your former leader. It was

interesting that the report on severance pay came right near "Career

Opportunities, " which I thought was quite good for a guy who just lost

his job.

The issue at hand is one that should concern us

all. But the fact of the matter is that there are bank machines all

over the city where you can get cash. I am advised, as you are, that

the bank will be putting a cash machine at Exhibition Park. It does

worry me that people would bet on credit, and I think that would be

everybody's opinion in this House.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS :

I am pleased on a personal level that that is the minister's opinion,

but this could go right up to the maximum on your credit card in a day.

That could be $5,000. Is the Solicitor-General advising the House that

he's asking the Racing Commission to revisit this question in view of

the concerns expressed today?

HON. MR. FRASER : The use of credit cards, which puts people into debt

on any material good or whatever else you want to buy and which puts you into

serious credit problems, concerns us all. The fact is that it's not illegal

to use a credit card to get money out of a cash machine. There will be a cash

machine at the racetrack, as I understand and you do as well.

You

also know that in Canada you are allowed to have a betting account at a

racetrack, provided that you have an account with the racetrack and you

make a deposit of a minimum of $100. While I would agree with the

member and all of you here that there could

[ Page

9723 ]

be a potential problem The limit on this particular

issue is $200. There's no question that people could spend thousands of

dollars in a month if they cared to; the question is that it's not

illegal. It does concern me. If it's of concern to you, I will let you

all know that we intend to monitor this particular situation very

carefully.

MR. WILLIAMS : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

At the moment, the limit is $200 per phone call, any number of phone

calls per day, which could get you to the maximum on your credit card

in the same day — $5,000, $10,000 or whatever your maximum is. Is that acceptable with this administration?

HON. MR. FRASER :

There are banks and credit institutions, such as Surrey, VanCity and

others, that have credit application machines and bank machines in

their banks. I know it's a problem for some people. It is a question

that has to be monitored carefully; we will do that. We don't want

people to bet themselves into trouble. We don't want people spending

their food money on horses. As I've said, we will monitor this very

carefully to make sure that it is not extended.

You must

remember, of course, that the issuing of credit is a question for the

bank. They will know daily what the account is, as many people have

found out when they went to buy something at the store. Indeed, the

bank will be monitoring the bank risk, apparently, on that one. But is

there possibly a conflict here with you and your credit union and the

bank? Or what is the problem?

MR. SPEAKER : It's inappropriate to ask a question of a member. This is the final supplementary I'll allow on this question.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The gratuitous comments in terms of financial institutions don't

deserve a response. What the minister does not seem to understand....

He confuses cash machines with credit. Let's understand here and now

that you could spend $5,000, $10,000 or whatever your credit card

allows at the track in any single day. Is that acceptable, Mr. Minister — to go betting on the ponies to the tune of ten grand on credit?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, the limit, I understand, in this particular account is not

$5,000 a day; it's $200 a day. And that is serious, I agree with you.

TREE-SPIKING UNDER CRIMINAL CODE

MR. G. JANSSEN : A question to the Attorney-General. Last week the lives

of workers at the Somass sawmill in Port Alberni were placed in danger by the

processing of trees spiked with nails. What representation have you made to

the federal government to have this offence declared under the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, there have been three matters that play on this issue. One

is that I have advised the IWA, as well as the mayors of the

municipalities in the area who were concerned about this issue, that

the provisions under the Criminal Code today in the area of public

mischief are available to us. And indeed, they will be used without

hesitation where there is evidence pointing to the bringing forward of

charges involving an individual who can be shown to have put people's

lives at risk.

Secondly, last year, following or at the

conference of Attorneys-General, representations were put to Canada to

go beyond the public mischief sections of the Criminal Code and make a

specific charge in the Criminal Code for tree-spiking. The Justice

department in Ottawa declined that request and some time ago stated

publicly that it would not be making that amendment.

Subsequent

to that, British Columbia announced that we would make an amendment to

the Forest Act, which will be introduced later on this spring. It will — to the extent that we are able to and not impinge upon the criminal jurisdiction or power — make it a specific offence under the Forest Act of British Columbia.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I raised this matter with the Deputy

Attorney-General almost a year ago, when an ad advocating tree-spiking

first appeared and came to my attention. He promised to inform me of

the results of the investigation. Now it's been almost a year. Those

trees are showing up in the mills — two in the last two weeks — and

lives are being placed in danger. Can the minister explain his

government's failure to take action to end this threat in the last 11

months?

HON. MR. SMITH : I am not sure what more I

can add. I know the member has a prepared script of questions and so

on. I can only repeat what has been done since last year. I can tell

him as well that if information and circumstances are presented to

Crown counsel, that will enable us to put before the court — on the test that we use of substantial likelihood of conviction — a

charge against individuals who are reprehensible in the extreme,

individuals who would put in jeopardy people's lives by trying to

advance their own political propaganda by driving spikes into trees.

Then without hesitation will the full weight of the Criminal Code,

using the public mischief provisions, be used. In addition to that,

because Canada has declined the indication to make it a specific

charge, we will make amendments to the Forest Act to do so where they

have failed.

PAYMENT TO FORMER NDP EMPLOYEE

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. We've just

been made aware that the former provincial secretary to the Leader of

the Opposition has just received an $89,200 settlement for wrongful

dismissal after seven months' employment with the Leader of the

Opposition. It is

[ Page 9724 ]

reported

that one-half of this expenditure will come out of the opposition NDP

global budget. Is this a legitimate government expenditure?

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question on notice. It is a very serious matter.

Ministerial Statement

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

REORGANIZATION

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce a major change in the

organization of my ministry. Effective immediately, my ministry will be

establishing a new division of fish, wildlife and integrated resource

management. This new division will be headed up by an assistant deputy

minister and will consolidate the activities of the existing wildlife

and recreational fisheries branches, a water quality unit and planning

staff.

British Columbia's fish and wildlife are unequalled

anywhere in Canada for their abundance and variety. Their conservation

is a challenge with global implications. Our province has a unique

opportunity to maintain the quality of life associated with all our

living resources, including these exceptional fish and wildlife

populations. Using the resources being made available for integrated

management through the sustainable environment fund, combined with

other environmental protection initiatives, this government will ensure

that our fish and wildlife remain healthy and abundant throughout the

province.

The creation of the new fish and wildlife

division is a further indication of our government's commitment to

strengthen and reorganize the Ministry of Environment to meet its

challenging mandate for the 1990s.

MR. MILLER : Mr.

Speaker, in response to the statement by the minister, there is, I

suppose, a degree of cynicism with regard to announcements about

reorganization. I particularly cast back to the third, fourth, fifth or

sixth — whatever number — reorganization we've gone through in some

other ministries, particularly regional development, where now you've

got a minister, now you don't; now it exists, now it doesn't.

We're

dealing with a very serious issue in terms of integrated resource

management. There has recently been some further information, or

further testimony, in the province which describes some of the

difficulties we're facing. I think they go beyond the simple

announcement that a ministry, or a branch of a ministry, is going to be

reorganized.

There is confusion within ministries of government over whose turf it is, who's

supposed to be doing what. There clearly is uncertainty with regard to the sustainable

environment fund. It has not yet been debated in this House. There is uncertainty

whether or not the government is prepared to designate all of the funds that

they've taken from the Ministry of Forests for silviculture, to designate

those funds for that express purpose. The minister was wrong in his statements

last week, and we'll explore that further with the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Richmond).

The

leaked memo last year from top officials in your ministry expressing

their frustration For example, there were only 14 individuals in the

ministry to vet, I believe, more than 4,000 logging plans right around

this province. That's clearly a problem that requires more than a

simple reorganization.

Currently there is confusion

regarding the whole area of integrated resource management. A senior

official in the Ministry of Forests testified last week at the Forest

Resources Commission that timber comes first; we don't consider those

other values, those fish and wildlife values; they're secondary. He had

to hurry back to the commission later that day to correct himself,

obviously on some kind of instruction.

We have an interview

with the chairman of the commission, who has indicated that if the

government accepts integrated resource management as their mandate — and there's some confusion about that — the inventories are simply not available for them to carry out that logical function.

Mr.

Speaker, this is an important area, and it deserves a cohesive answer.

In fact, there was an attempt to try a truly integrated resource

management approach in this province a number of years ago through the

secretariat to the Cabinet Committee on Environment and Land Use. There

are a number of models in the province that you can look to, where that

committee actually started to impose integrated resource management.

It's going to take more than announcements in order to cure the deep malaise that we have in this province in this area.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Before calling committee, I would ask leave for the Select Standing

Committee on Forests and Lands to meet at 4 p.m. today in the Douglas

Fir Room.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

On vote 5: minister's office, $270,100 (continued).

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Chairman, I know that a considerable amount of time has already

been spent on these estimates, and I don't propose to take up a great

deal more time. However, I have a couple of

[ Page 9725 ]

questions I would like to pose to the minister if I may.

[2:30]

The minister and I go back some time in shared experience, as far as

the community college system of this province is concerned. I therefore

noted with interest his reference in his opening remarks introducing

these estimates to the fact that the principal defining feature of a

community college system has been its transferability and that we have

had that rather good relationship with the universities. Indeed, both

of us have probably been on those committees that have gone back and

forth between colleges and universities over the years.

I'm concerned, however, that many years later — when

the community college system is well and truly established, when its

functions are clearly understood by all and when we've even gone beyond

the community college framework to give three colleges the capacity to

offer third- and fourth-year courses — we might have got in a bit of a

problem in the process. In fact, things have got muddled, and perhaps

we are making errors that we thought we had overcome years ago.

would refer the minister specifically to the problem that Malaspina had

in dealing with the University of Victoria regarding transferability. I

see the minister nodding, Mr. Chairman, so I suspect he's familiar with

the case. Let me just very quickly, for the record, establish it. My

understanding is that the third- and fourth-year program at Malaspina

College in Nanaimo, the multi-disciplinary studies program that they

are introducing there, is having some difficulty insofar as they have

not been able to work out transfer arrangements with the University of

Victoria philosophy department. I'm wondering if the minister can shed

any light on that particular question for me. Given the great amount of

attention and effort that has been paid to the whole area of

is it that a well recognized and well established college, which has

had about 15 years of experience dealing directly with the University

of Victoria, has been unable to effect any kind of system whereby they

can transfer students from one institution to the other?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I thank the member for his reference to the previous movie we were in. Those were very exciting days.

On the specific question you're dealing with now, Mr. Member, I regret

I don't have details for you. I met with the Malaspina board early in my

mandate — I would say in December. Of course, our colleague, Gary Bauslaugh,

whom I worked for in Prince George and whom you later on worked for in Nanaimo,

was in charge of the program. Gary explained to me that there were some difficulties

but that he was proceeding slowly and surely in a measured way. He thought he

would have some success. Until I get more details, there's not much more

I can say. But I can tell you that if any mind is going to prevail on this issue,

it's going to be that of Gary Bauslaugh, because I have a lot of faith in

him and his determination. He makes things work, and his life's work essentially

in B.C. has been dealing with these articulation committees and establishing

transferability. So if anyone can pull it off, Gary can. I have a lot of faith

in him.

MR. LOVICK :

I am sure that our mutual friend Gary Bauslaugh is going to quite enjoy

reading those laudatory comments. I'll try to refrain, of course, from

offering similar things, because I, too, have a number of friends

there, many of whom admire and respect Gary a great deal. But, as we

know, there is the other side too. Gary, I'm sure, will enjoy reading

the transcript of this debate and recognizing that I've decided to play

coy and not offer any praise at this point.

However, the

question I wanted to get to.... The minister effectively took this on

notice and said that he doesn't know enough about this issue at this

point and therefore would get back. What I want to read into the

record, though, is what I think is a more serious problem. My

information is that the University of Victoria has effectively said:

"We will not grant you transferability." It has nothing to do with the

fact that it's Malaspina College proposing the courses. Rather it's

because of their lack of faith in the entire Access for All program.

What the philosophy department of the University of Victoria refer to

is the less than competent, less than well-organized and less than

well-planned initiatives on the part of government.

Let me

quote to the minister from a letter written to Gary Bauslaugh,

vice-president of instruction at Malaspina College, by the head of the

philosophy department at the University of Victoria:

"We

believe that the government's initiative is poorly conceived and that

there is little promise of it being a satisfactory way to increase

access to university study in the province. As far as I am able to

tell, on the basis of my discussion with various administrators here" — that is, at the University of Victoria — "our

reservations have already been proved well founded. The problems that

are being encountered now are not surprising, and the scheme of it did

not have at the outset either a clearly thought-out goal or clearly

articulated procedures."

That, I'm sure you will agree with

me, Mr. Minister, sounds on the face of it to be a pretty damning

commentary on the Access for All initiative. I'm wondering if the

minister would like to respond to those comments.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The head of the philosophy department may have his opinion about how

things have been managed in the Access for All program. I can tell the

member and the committee that I understand that the articulation

committee dealing with this is of the opinion that it will resolve the

question.

I also find the letter you have read to be

curious, not from your point of view but from the author's point of

view, particularly with respect to UVic, because one of the strongest

proponents and support-

[ Page 9726 ]

ers

of the university-college model is Dr. Howard Petch, the president of

the University of Victoria. In his meetings with officials in the

Okanagan for sure and the Cariboo as well, he felt generally very good

about the UVic presence at those two campuses.

I don't know

what's gone astray at Malaspina. I do find that letter difficult to

understand. Maybe the philosophy department has a different opinion of

how things are going, but I can assure you that really doesn't square

with what Dr. Petch has said about the Access for All program and the

UVic presence at the other community colleges.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm wondering if the minister could tell me if there are any other

colleges, programs, courses or universities which have recorded similar

problems, or are there similar problems that have been brought to his

attention?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Nothing that comes to

mind or nothing overt. I would imagine, in fairness to the committee,

that there are always going to be questions asked by faculties at

universities of faculties, departments, staff and personnel at

colleges. I think that's just part of the game, and I think the

university people have the responsibility to continue to question what

is being taught under their name at another institution.

I don't have any problem with that. I think that's healthy and really what universities are all about, as a matter of fact — to

explore critical thought, to look at a program, at a thought, at what

people have said about one thing or the other and be critical of it in

a constructive and informative way. I will accept that there are going

to be difficulties, but I would accept that that's part of the process,

and it's probably a very healthy and beneficial part of the process.

MR. LOVICK :

I'm always pleased to hear a Minister of Advanced Education invoking

the spirit of Cardinal Newman or Matthew Arnold, or some such thing.

That's nice to hear.

I'm wondering, though, whether the

minister would agree with me that the existing situation vis--vis the

University of Victoria philosophy department and Malaspina College's

multidisciplinary studies is untenable and that some action ought to be

taken, and if the minister would be willing to give me and this House

his assurances that he will at least instruct his staff to see whether

they might do something to assist those two parties in resolving their

differences, for the simple reason that the program's integrity and

legitimacy is obviously going to be called into question, insofar as

there is one whole area of academic discipline that is apparently

excluded at the moment. Could the minister respond to that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

My opinion at this point would be that we, as government, should

maintain an arm's-length relationship with this committee chaired by

Dr. Grant Fisher, for whom all of us have a lot of respect. I'm sure

the university community as well as the community college constituency

has that feeling for Grant Fisher.

At this point, Mr.

Member, I would say that it would be my position to stay at arm's

length. If things become very difficult with UVic and Malaspina, I

would be prepared to certainly look at the concerns you wish to express — or Rich Johnston, the president of Malaspina, or Gary Bauslaugh, or Grant Fisher.

gosh, I can't forget this: Rendina Hamilton is also on that committee,

so I must mention her name. Two very sound thinkers.... Rendina

Hamilton, in particular, is one who doesn't suffer fools gladly at all.

I'm sure if there's a way of resolving this concern, it can be done by

Rendina Hamilton and Grant Fisher.

I can give this

committee my assurances that if it does come to my desk or the desk of

the ministry, we will be prepared to assist in any way we can.

MR. LOVICK :

I shan't belabour that point. I would just remind the minister that the

abstract principle of maintaining an arm's-length relationship surely

must be called into question when we recognize that the principal point

made by the philosophy department at the University of Victoria was

that it was the government's initiative that was poorly conceived, etc.

Nothing to do with the players; rather it's the government's

initiative. In short, the problem would seem to sit rather squarely and

securely on the desk of the minister.

Therefore I would

suggest that maybe to suggest an arm's-length relationship ought to be

invoked and used as the explanation. It probably doesn't hold up;

however, I've made the point. The minister has heard the case. Perhaps

he will look at it somewhat more closely. I hope he will.

want to turn briefly to another area, Mr. Minister. I notice that the

budget for Advanced Education has gone up significantly, and of course

we're all delighted by that. We're happy that we have managed to

weather our way through ten years of turbulent and stormy weather, in

which the community colleges and provincial institutes of this province

were endangered species. I say that as one who had some hands-on and

very particular experience with that system — and I think my words aren't overstated.

any event, we are happy about the new funding. That's good news for

all, of course. I understand that some $68 million of the Advanced

Education budget has been directly allocated for the Access for All

program. I assume I'm correct in that. I'm sorry, I haven't pulled out

my estimates book with me to look closely, because I found out only a

few minutes ago that I was going to do this now. But am I correct that

just $68 million is for the Access for All program?

Okay, then I'll just pursue from there.

I'm

wondering if the minister could give me some more specific, regional

breakdown. We're looking at three different institutions — are we not? — or

colleges that are now part of the college-university program, as well

as a fourth factor in there: namely, the university of the north at

Prince George. I am

[ Page 9727 ]

wondering if the minister could give us a more discrete and specific breakdown of how that $68 million is being allocated.

[2:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Just to catch up on a few things.... With respect to the department of

philosophy, let me put on the record that I will have a look at that to

response to them and to the member.

With respect to the

years of turmoil and the critical times you went through, Mr. Member, I

guess a lot of people like you are lucky to have their job, because

those were pretty tough times. I don't necessarily agree that

government made the right decision with respect to those colleges.

Although I was an MLA by that time, I still had an awful lot of friends

in the system, and I wasn't particularly happy with the way the system

was being treated. So I will agree with you to that extent.

With respect to the access programs and enrolment, I'll put on the record with more than just a nod — which I indicated earlier — that

our estimate for 1990-91 is $68,393,600, and that's almost a 100

percent increase. It provides for the continuation of the 3,000

full-time academic spaces in the university, college and institute

system that was begun in fiscal 1989-90, and it provides for an

additional 3,846 full-time student spaces broken down into 2,641

academic and 1,205 non-academic in the system for the 1990-91 academic

year.

The colleges and institutes will receive a lift for

inflationary pressures related to the '89 enrolment growth portion of

the Access initiative, and 1,170 new full-time student spaces will be

added to the three universities in order to meet new program and

enrolment demands. One thousand four hundred and seventy-one new

academic FTE student spaces will be added to the regular college system

and to the three university-college programs, and 1,205 new full-time

student spaces will be added for employment-oriented training programs:

apprenticeship, adult basic education, career tech and vocational.

Then,

as you know, $2.5 million is allotted to the University of Northern

British Columbia for the beginning of their interim board of governors.

That is not educating anybody for this year, but it is certainly doing

all the other things one has to do when one begins a university, such

as seeking a president, convening the board meetings, doing the site

selection process and that type of thing.

In terms of a

particular college or site-specific question, I don't have that

information, but I am sure we can find it here with all this material

we have available to us. So if that's not enough, and you have a

specific question about access and how it impacts on one particular

college or institute, ask me and I will be more than happy to find out

for you.

MR. LOVICK : Yes, indeed, I would like to get a more regional, specific sense of where those funds have gone.

Let

me pursue another part of the funding question not about how many

dollars specifically went to what specific place, but rather this: I

understand that the system of payment or the grant system to the

institution that is going to be used at the university is going to be

different from the one used for the university-colleges. Is that the

case? In other words, the system of paying for FTE — full-time equivalent — will be different. Is that the case?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

That's an interesting question. The process is different, but the

outcome is the same. The process of the university indicating to us the

funding required is different than what the college-university has in

terms of process, but the outcome is the same: the money is advanced.

MR. LOVICK : I don't customarily think of myself as obtuse, but I think that one went by.

am asking whether, in fact, the formula for payment to the institutions

differs from the university to the university-college system. In other

words, does the amount paid to the institution per full-time-equivalent

student differ from one system to the other? That's the specific

question as directly and simply as I can put it. Can the minister

answer that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : There's very little difference per FTE between the university system and the university-college system.

MR. LOVICK :

Then there is no difference arising from the fact that college faculty

traditionally will teach something like 15 or 16 hours a week, and

their university counterparts will teach traditionally some nine hours

a week and will therefore....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK : That's right. I see the Minister of Education shaking his head. You clearly weren't aware of the system, I can tell.

But

that's the way it has worked traditionally. The question, then, is

whether in fact we set up a different funding mechanism in order to

accommodate those different kinds of teaching loads.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The difference is in the system itself. We know that a college

instructor will have a different teaching load than a university

professor, who will be required to do research and will not have the

student contact hours. Nine would be more appropriate in a university

setting, as opposed to 15 in a college setting. But in terms of

funding, there is still an expense per student, and that is still

provided to the institution. Whether it's a university-college or a

university, that expense is there.

MR. LOVICK : A

very direct question now: what happens to the College of New Caledonia?

Given the existence of the university of the north in Prince George,

what happens to that institution, which has a

[ Page 9728 ]

pretty

good track record? Would the minister be good enough to describe for us

the relationship between those two? Are they partners in enterprise, or

what?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I described that last week,

but I'll do it again. As you know, the implementation planning group

had some recommendations about which institution in Prince George would

do first year and second year. We have agreed since that probably the

best way to resolve this concern is to have the two presidents, when

they are in place, resolve and manage that concern. I have indicated to

the president of the faculty association, Kathy Conroy, that I am aware

of the CNC Faculty Association concern. We are going to present to the

two presidents, when they are hired, some thoughts we have on faculty

protection at CNC, of grandfathering of contracts, of a hiring process

that the University of Northern British Columbia may consider to look

after the CNC instructors.

We are considering many ways of

alleviating any potential problems between those two institutes and the

faculty they're going to have. So we have said at this point that we

recognize there is a concern. We recognize that it must be fairly dealt

with. And we recognize that we are going to leave that management

problem with the senior officials, the chief executive officers, but we

as a ministry will assist them in every way we can. It's not in our

best interest — and you can appreciate that, Mr. Member — to have any

deficit in terms of educational programing at CNC or to have any sort

of cloud hanging over that faculty there. It will not serve education

if we have that concern in place.

I have said publicly, as I said to the faculty association — and I've discussed this with staff — that

there is going to have to be a way of managing this. The chairman of

the interim governing board, Murray Sadler, is aware of this as well.

He sees this as an acute concern, but one that can be managed if people

of fairness and good reason come together to manage it.

I've

got a lot of faith in CNC and what they can do and do very well. I

don't see it being second-rate at all, just as I don't see Camosun

being in any sense second-rate to UVic. In spite of the fact they're

within a stone's throw distance of each other, they are still very good

institutions. It really is in my best interests personally, politically

and from an educational point of view to maintain first-rate faculty

and first-rate relationships at the College of New Caledonia.

MRS. BOONE : Last week we discussed this same issue, and I brought up

the fact that faculty members were looking elsewhere for employment and the

difficulties that this was going to have at CNC because of the unsureness around

there. The minister gave a response similar to the one he just gave, that he

had been in contact with the faculty and Kathy Conroy and that he had no knowledge

of this type of thing happening. I'd like to quote to the minister an

article

from the newsletter of the College-Institute Educators' Association, written

by Kathy Conroy. The subheading is "Uncertainty." It says:

"University transfer faculty at CNC have not been reassured by these developments" —

meaning, what's going to happen with them. "They still do not know what

courses might be transferred to UNBC, they still do not know what

chances they have of working at UNBC, and they still do not know what

choices they may be forced to make. Unfortunately for CNC, those

faculty who wish some certainty in their careers are using this time to

seek positions elsewhere. Many are looking to the three

universitycolleges, which are actively recruiting faculty for their

third- and fourth-year university programs."

I think this

is a very serious problem, and I don't think any of us want to see the

College of New Caledonia depleted of its very highly qualified staff — and I don't think you would question that at all —

giving first and second year courses at the college. Obviously there's

a problem. There are faculty members looking elsewhere for employment,

and I know of some long-term employees who have actually received

offers elsewhere. I am very worried about what this is going to mean

for education in our college.

It will be at least another

two years before we see any light with UNBC. It's not even a matter now

of ensuring that we have third and fourth years, which we discussed

last year; it's making sure that we are going to have first and second

years available to our students, if our faculty are looking elsewhere

for employment because of the unsureness there.

I would

like to know what the minister is going to do. Well, surely he can

acknowledge that there is a problem. What does he intend to do to

ensure that our staff at the college will stay there, to ensure that

they have some guarantee of employment at the college?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'll repeat what I said earlier — I guess this is the third time now — that

it is not in anyone's best interest to have CNC faculty leave or to

have any feelings of discontent at that institution. What the member

read is a correct assessment of how faculty feel now, which is

understandable. Whenever you have change, you're going to have people

who are resistant to change and concerned about it. That is a fact of

life. However, I will say it again: it is my opinion and that of the

interim board at UNBC — and we have shared this opinion with Marion Nielsen, the new chairman of the board at CNC — that

we can manage this problem. We have instructed both chairmen that the

ministry will assist. We have instructed both chairmen that when both

presidents are in place — the committee should be aware that a

president has not yet been selected for UNBC; neither is there a

president at CNC, that position being vacant at the moment — they will manage their way out of this concern to the best advantage of all.

don't think there is much more I can say at this point except to assure

the committee that in order to ensure the good management of that

concern, all our resources that can be made available to them, in

[ Page 9729 ]

terms

of both staff and funding, will be made available to ensure that we

serve the Prince George community in a first-class fashion from the

point of view of both the student and the educator.

[3:00]

MRS. BOONE : just one final question to the minister. When the Premier

was in Prince George last week — I was there for his speech — I noticed that

he also referred to it as the university of the north, so your leader as well

as my leader have referred to it by its wrong name, Mr. Minister. It is the

University of Northern B.C. He indicated that we would see the legislation presented

early last week. To date we haven't seen that legislation come forth in

the Legislature, and I would like to know if the minister can give us, please,

a status report on when that legislation will be forthcoming.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Committee of Supply doesn't allow for one to discuss the necessity for

legislation, but let me say just briefly that the legislation is at the

cabinet level now, there was a good discussion, and it will be coming

in the fullness of time as quickly as possible.

Let me also say — I guess you want to get it right — that

it's a very different type of bill we're putting forward, because there

is no model for legislation to create a university in British Columbia.

So the creation or the genesis aspect of this legislation is

interesting and exciting but quite a new process to us

MR. LOVICK :

I want to move away now from the specifics of Prince George and ask a

couple of very brief questions regarding the overall operation of the

system. I understand that as part of the Access for All initiative

happening at what are now called the university colleges — is that the right terniinology? — in

order to get the process underway, we are dealing with what are called

"non-recurring funds." I assume that it's some kind of start-up or seed

money to get them over the hurdle for the first year. I am wondering if

the minister could explain to me exactly what those non-recurring funds

are, what their purpose or function is and whether the withdrawal of

those funds the following year would have a significant negative impact

on those institutions.

The basic question is: tell me,

please, about nonrecurring funds. What are they? How widespread are

they? What are they used for?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Both staff here, Mr. Member — by the way, I'll introduce Jim Crone and Har Singh, our financial staff — would like the term "non-recurring funds" further defined; we don't quite understand it.

MR. LOVICK : My understanding is that part of the Access for All initiative — in other words, the introduction of third- and fourth-year courses at Kamioops, Kelowna and Nanaimo — or

part of the process of effecting that changeover is to make use of what

are referred to as "non-recurring funds, " which are clearly enough

defined in terms of their intention.

However, I am

wondering if we can get something more specific on that. I think the

minister made reference a few moments ago to what I'm talking about

when he talked about lift-off funds or some such thing. Perhaps that's

what he means. Could you give me any elaboration or explanation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The member, in his own erudite way, has answered his own question — as

he always does. I'm not saying that glibly; it's just that he's a very

articulate person, and I thank him for his description of non-recurring

funds, which is exactly what they are.

I didn't refer to

them as lift-off, but they are an expense that you incur for the first

time: library acquisition, lab acquisition, the hiring of new faculty

and that type of beginning. I'll use the other term I used earlier:

genesis costs — the creation costs. They don't occur again, because once you have them in place — the library acquisitions, the equipment or whatever it might be — then they are there.

guess they become part of an operating expense later on down the road.

But the initial kick-start is expensive; then those costs diminish.

That's what I referred to as non-recurring.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would be willing to share with me — not necessarily here, but at some point — some

more elaborate and detailed description of precisely what is covered by

those funds. Is that possible, if I could have that assurance?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Yes, by all means. If the member wants to go on to something else,

that's fine by me. I will, by instruction to the staff now, ensure that

the member is made aware of these types of funding, what they have

covered and how they've been applied.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Chairman, I have one other quick question regarding the three

specific institutions I referred to a moment ago. I'm wondering if the

ministry has any information yet in terms of projected enrolments for

next year for first- and second-year programs.

As you know,

for at least a couple of years in the last four or five years, there

have been problems at those institutions with overenrolment, the

creation of waiting-lists and therefore, in fact, having to turn

students away in some cases.

It would seem to me a painful

and sad irony if we get more demand for programs at those institutions

because of the creation of third- and fourth-year courses and then we

discover we're not able to finance the first- and second-year courses.

I'm wondering if the minister has any response to the potential

catch-22 situation that I can see happening already.

[ Page 9730 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Good question, Mr. Chairman. We're working now with the institutes at

this time of year, with respect to their September enrolment. We also

have a three-year planning process in place. Although I can't provide

details to the committee of what's expected in September, I will

certainly endeavour, by instruction to the staff now, to provide that

information to the member so he can be better informed of, first of

all, the process of how we establish this, what dialogue exists between

the ministry and the institutes, and then, what those numbers are from

that process.

MR. LOVICK : This will be my last question. It concerns another area entirely.

AN HON. MEMBER : Don't provoke him.

MR. LOVICK : How wonderful it is to be appreciated, Mr. Chairman.

This is a question that cuts a little closer to my own personal feelings and commitments to the community college system — and dare I say convictions about that system.

noted that the minister began his comments about the college system by

pointing with pride to what it had accomplished and the fact that it

was somewhat unique in this province. Certainly I share those views.

referred specifically to the fact of transferability as one of the

great features of the college system, What I would refer to as one of

the great features — and I suspect the minister would share this view — is

community college system achieved in a relatively short space of time

in this province was to make post-secondary education available to

people who prior to that time would never have had that opportunity.

It's a tremendous accomplishment.

All the time I taught in

the college system, I felt that in many cases we were dealing with

individuals who, simply by bad luck, would never have had the

opportunity to be in the system to get a post-secondary education if it

weren't for the college system. I think that's a key feature, and I'm

sure the minister would agree with me.

You can probably

guess, Mr. Minister, where I want to go with that premise. It has to do

with the concern I have that post-secondary education is becoming more

accessible in a geographical way, but in economic terms and financial

terms, it is perhaps becoming sadly more and more the preserve of

comfortable, middle-class young people.

I think that would be a tragedy — I really do — because

one of the great achievements of the college system is that by taking

it into the communities that didn't have it before, we suddenly found

people involved in the system who would never otherwise have dreamed of

going on to post-secondary education. It was a wonderful model and a

wonderful construct then.

My fear is that that dream is

perhaps becoming a little tarnished. Perhaps we are losing that battle.

As the costs of education go up and especially as the economy

constricts and the kinds of well-paying jobs for students that used to

abound are no longer so evident, I'm wondering if fewer and fewer of

the kinds of students the college was designed for will be able to take

advantage of it.

In the last two or three years, for

instance, I have met with at least two or three delegations of

students: the Canadian Federation of Students plus two incarnations of

the Malaspina College Student Society. All of them of course enunciated

the same theme: that we seem to be caught in a constant upward curve

with tuition fees, and therefore it is highly unlikely that students

who ought to be attending will indeed be able to attend.

That's

the concern I have, and I would like to invite the minister's comment,

I am aware, Mr. Minister, I haven't been in the House for much of the

debate, but I have certainly done a little of the reading of what's

gone on, and I am aware of the Standing Committee on Student Financial

Assistance that's been established. We seem to be going through the

motions of addressing the problems, but I'm wondering if the minister

can give any comfort to students about to enter the system or currently

in the system that they will in fact be able to afford the system. Will

the minister be good enough to respond to that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I thank the member for his concern, but let's examine what the member

led with. The member admitted that we are expanding access

geographically, and I think it's axiomatic that as you expand

geographic access, you in fact expand all access. And as you present a

program in a community where you had not presented that program before,

you have alleviated to a large degree the costs for a student to attend

that program. Therefore I will conclude on that basis that as you open

up more and more classroom spaces in more and more and smaller

communities, you in fact are really cutting back. You're cutting down

on the costs that the students are going to have to consider as they

take those programs.

We've had some debate, as the member

said, on this ministry with respect to the costs and whether there are

students being disfranchised or potential students being impeded from

attending a university. I generally concluded that the answer to that

was no, because we have these remarkably increasing enrolment rates.

But I did agree that there may be a class of students.... I mentioned

last week single parents and other people who because of their economic

circumstance do not have the financial resources to attend a

university, college or institute program.

To that end, Dr.

Singh, who is with me today, has expanded the database. We're going to

attempt to put real resources and some real effort into identifying

those whom we don't hear about. Now that's difficult. We know whom we

do hear about: they attend, they seek student financial aid, they show

up at the registrar's office — they are real numbers that we can

[ Page 9731 ]

look at. We can examine and find out how they're doing, and by and large they are doing well.

But

what about the people we don't know about? That's what I've asked the

staff to identify, and I've discussed this with the CFS — that there

are people who aren't coming to the registrar's door. There are people

who aren't asking us for student financial aid. They have just said to

themselves: "There's no way I can attend." That to me is unacceptable,

and that's why I want to put some of the resources to work In this

ministry to identify those people who are not knocking on the door,

whom we must have a look at. That's a bit more difficult, because if

they're not there, how do you identify them? But I'm sure, with the

good resources of this ministry and some very dedicated and

hard-working people working on the expansion of that database, we can

have some real and measurable results.

[3:15]

MR. PERRY :

This has suddenly become a tremendously popular debate. I'll try to be

fairly brief. I think my colleague for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has

covered probably most of the major issues, and other colleagues have

gone over them fairly exhaustively.

I'll just raise a few

particular concerns that have arisen recently from UBC and from

President Saywell of Simon Fraser University. I recall listening to him

at a meeting of the New Democrat caucus with the Business Council of

B.C. last fall, at which he spoke with concern, if not alarm, about the

impending flip of the faculty applicant from a present ratio in the

range — if I remember his figures — of approximately 1.2 applicants per

position to an expected ratio in the range of 0.8 applicants per

position in universities throughout North America in the mid 1990s. I

realize the minister can't answer this question. I'm interested to know

how he and the ministry look in the long term at this issue.

I'd

like to give one concrete example. It happens to be from Vancouver

Community College, from the president of the Langara Faculty

Association, of whom I asked some fairly pointed questions recently

when they met with members of our caucus during their recent labour

dispute. I asked him quite pointedly what was the evidence that higher

wages were necessary to recruit people. The president of their faculty

association, Prof. Keith Gilley, wrote me a very interesting article.

I'd just like to quote a couple of examples from it to frame the

question, and then I'll listen with interest to the minister's

response. Mr. Gilley says that at Langara, for example, the computer

science department has had numerous applicants elect to go elsewhere:

into industry, where starting annual salaries are typically $20,000 to

$25,000 higher, and to other institutions, in particular to BCIT, where

salaries on average are $8,000 to $9,000 higher and job security is

more certain. He then lists about ten examples of recruitment problems

To bring it back to the University of British Columbia, I'll give a relevant example from Professor Klawe, the director of — as the minister knows — a

very exciting computer science department and someone in whom the

university has invested a lot of optimism and confidence and who has

taken the fairly bold move of leaving IBM Corp. to come to British

Columbia. Professor Klawe describes her recruiting problems: for

example, her ability to pay a top-flight PhD computer science professor

at the starting level of assistant professor a salary in the range of

$45,000,

whereas the same professor can command at a more modest

American university a starting salary of $65,000 U.S. and can acquire a

house for a small fraction of the price in Vancouver.

HON. MR. FRASER : Where would you rather work?

MR. PERRY :

The Solicitor-General asks where I would rather work. I would much

rather work at UBC. That's why I still attempt to hang on to my job

there, even though it's an unpaid one.

The real question

is: how do we face this into the 1990s, competing in an international

market, when we are told by authorities such as President Saywell that

there will be fewer applicants than there will be positions? I'm

interested to hear how the minister and the ministry see that in the

long term in this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It's

a good question. It's a concern that has been expressed to me not only

by Dr. Saywell but also by Dr. Petch and Dr. Strangway, respectively

the other B.C. presidents. As I toured Canadian universities last

January, I heard the concern expressed by other university presidents,

senior administration and also board chairmen.

My response

to the presidents, as this concern was expressed to me, was this: 'What

have you done in terms of your ability to recruit and your ability to

tell your good graduate students that there is a good career here in

staying at the university?" They admitted that that was something they

had to look at.

I am advised, though — and this just came recently — that

we are seeing a significant increase of students taking graduate

programs. I think that's good. As we see an increase of graduate school

students, you're going to see an increase in those wanting to stay on

and teach at a university.

In terms of the funding to the

university.... I've got to be reasonably careful here, because we are

discussing an issue that could end up on the bargaining table, and the

minister said this, that and the other thing; I don't want that to

happen. But they have been given a lift which is over inflation this

year in the budget. They received a reasonably good lift last year. I

suspect they can negotiate as well as anyone in terms of attracting new

people. As a matter of fact, the example the member gives of Dr. Maria

Klawe is a good one. UBC was able to attract her from IBM in the United

States. As a matter of fact, I think you were at the breakfast as well — yes, we

[ Page 9732 ]

were there. She was delighted to be coming back to Vancouver. So that kind of recruiting can go on and be quite successful.

I'm

aware that there are selected areas of problems in some of the

disciplines. The member has pointed out computer science, and I

understand that as well.

One of the problems, or I guess

one of the features, of university faculty bargaining, or discussions

at least, is that they bargain as a block. That may or may not be a

good thing; I'm not going to be judgmental on that. But I'm going to

say that it could be seen, when you're trying to attract people to your

university, that this block bargaining is not going to make it

attractive for those people who are in demand. Computing science

clearly is one of the disciplines where we have that problen. Maybe if

the faculty association wished to address their negotiating stance,

there could be some remedy there.

I can tell you one thing.

I know from visiting across Canada this year and speaking to other

presidents, and in some cases to other ministers, that the B.C. system

is going to be by far the best funded this year across Canada. Other

provinces — notably Ontario — will receive about a 2 percent lift,

whereas in B.C. It's 6.53 or something like that. We've been quite

generous. It's going to continue to put B.C. universities, at least at

the middle, to a little better ground in terms of what they're paying

faculty, and will I think allow them to be more attractive as

recruiters.

The other thing that I have found — the member,

who is a faculty member, could expand on this more than I can, because

I didn't have the opportunity to attend that level of education — is

that it's not always a matter of money that makes a faculty or a

university more attractive to a good scholar or researcher. Sometimes

it's administrative flexibility that makes a place more attractive.

Sometimes it's the ability to do some specific research that just

wasn't available to you in another place. Sometimes in a large

institution you might be following — as they say — the dead man's

shoes. In other words, you're in a position where you're going to be

for the rest of your days; the guy ahead of you is only a year older

than you, and he's not going to die. You do have that concern. There

are many ways by which, if a university wants to be innovative and

flexible, it can do some very good attracting.

The evening

I arrived in Sudbury to meet with the acting president and senior staff

of Laurentian University, it was a delightful evening; it was cold.

There was a wonderful cocktail party going on at the president's house,

and they were welcoming a brand-new faculty member who they had stolen

from the University of Alberta in Edmonton. As you can imagine, with

the mining activity Laurentian has a certain appeal to geosclentists,

and they had stolen this particular Canadian scholar in geoscience — rock mathematics, actually — from

the University of Alberta. I don't know if they paid him more money; I

doubt it. I think they just gave him an area of research that he wanted

to do, and they made life very exciting for him. It was on the basis of

that that they were able to recruit successfully against a major and

really well-funded western university.

I'll agree that

there is a concern out there that there may be a declining number of

people who want to be university faculty and undergo that very rigid

pursuit of their discipline. But I understand that graduate school

enrolment is increasing. I know that if a university is flexible and

smart, it can be an attractive recruiter. I'll close by saying to the

member that I appreciate his concern, but I think you can always manage

your way out of those problems.

MR. PERRY : I have

known for about a year now that the minister was an excellent pianist.

I've enjoyed singing while he played. But I suspected we agreed on more

things than might first meet the eye, so I was glad to hear him allude

to the importance of factors other than salary in faculty recruitment.

Because my next point was to ask him about an issue that has troubled

me a lot around my own university and troubled people within my

constituency. Again, I'd like to describe it very briefly and ask the

minister to comment on how he sees this fitting into his answer a few

moments ago about the importance of factors other than salary in

faculty recruitment.

My university has recently embarked on

a housing project called Hampton Place, which has been quite

controversial in its own community. The basic motive for the

development is to provide the university with some independent source

of funding to resist the vicissitudes of government funding.

might point out that while there may be a reasonable budgetary increase

for B.C.'s universities this year, I don't think it would be correct to

say that they are among the best funded in the country. They have long

been underfunded compared to other provinces. A correction is most

welcome, but let's not pretend that our universities are sitting in a

very rich position. Otherwise, perhaps the present board of governors

wouldn't be pushing so vigorously a proposal to raise what they hope

will be $3 million from the Hampton Place development.

[3:30]

This project has come under a certain amount of criticism not only

because of the process that was followed in the development but also

because it appears in many ways to fly in the opposite direction of

trends within the city of Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Regional

District — and even arguments put forward by the minister, in his

recent capacity as Minister of Environment, towards environmental

planning and protection.

One of the single most

compelling reasons not to accept a new faculty appointment at a

university like UBC is the difficulty for a junior faculty member — or even a senior one — to

afford a house anywhere within a reasonable geographic range of the

university. I see the minister nodding; this isn't news to anyone. But

I think it should be disturbing to all of us not only in terms of the

air pollution burden but in terms of the waste of intellectual

resources in faculty and students commuting as long as an hour and a

half in each direction to get to work.

[ Page 9733 ]

One

of my strong criticisms of the Hampton Place project has been that it

utilized land, originally set aside for the benefit of the university,

for housing for people who are likely not to work at the university. By

the nature of the prices that will be charged, the majority of the new

occupants are likely to be either retired people who are independently

wealthy now, or who work in downtown Vancouver. And the university is

thereby forgoing an opportunity to provide housing at an affordable

cost to faculty, students and staff who could live within walking or

cycling distance of their work.

Although I find the

argument persuasively rational, and I think it fits with the recent

"Clouds of Change" task force report on Vancouver and the changing

atmosphere and the philosophy embodied in that report that we need to

site people closer to where they work, the argument has fallen on very

deaf ears within the university board of governors. I have said this

publicly before. I don't think there is anything new about commenting

that when I raised that issue at a board of governors meeting last

December, even the chancellor of the university really thought it was a

humorous argument that it would be a good idea for people to live

closer to where they work.

Fortunately, ideas change;

people's perceptions change, and six months later I don't think it

sounds quite as ludicrous as it apparently sounded to Mr. Peterson at

that time.

Does the minister view the housing problem for faculty in a university like UBC — or perhaps even Simon Fraser — in

the near future as a problem? And has he considered whether he might be

able to exert any constructive influence over the university to review

such plans?

I emphasize this is not a question of

interfering in academic freedom; this is a question of the university's

real estate development and whether they might be encouraged to perhaps — even at this late date, when the site is laid out but not tendered — utilize

more of that site for some creative housing project for new faculty or

students or staff or some combination of those three.

think there is room for improvement there. I admit, frankly, I have not

been very successful in my attempts to modify the policy, and perhaps

the minister could have more influence.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'd like to quote a few things on the record here. First of all, I

guess I can't help but agree with the member that yes, we should have

good affordable housing close to any workplace if you are going to be a

responsible employer and want to be as attractive as possible as an

employer and if you want to recruit the best people. There's no

question that that part of Vancouver is probably one of the highest

real estate markets in the western world, and therefore they have their

problems.

I understand that the Hampton Place development

is not going to be as expensive as the member indicates. I also

understand that the profits or revenue from that are going to be rolled

into further development of student housing. That's my understanding.

So in fact, we could see this development as a benefit to bringing more

affordable housing to Point Grey.

The last thing I want to

put on the record is that I am also of the understanding that the first

member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) was invited some two

years ago to meet with Dr. Strangway to discuss this issue, and that

member declined. So I wonder about the real concern of the NDP caucus

on this issue.

MR. PERRY : Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I

can't let the last remark pass without some comment, in the absence of

the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey. I can't comment in specifics

on the minister's last statement, but it should be noted for the record — in case anyone ever reads such things — that

both the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I have gone to great

lengths, against considerable resistance from the UBC administration,

to raise the kinds of issues I just raised. We succeeded, at our own

request, in meeting with the board of governors. There has been an

attempt by that administration to portray a record of cooperation and

consultation with the local community which did not in fact exist. The

spokesmen for the local ratepayers' group and the homeowners' groups in

the surrounding community have made that clear on a number of occasions.

But

the real question is not what was in the past; I think it's what's in

the future. The minister reminded me that perhaps we have had more

success than we realized in encouraging the university to make a

stronger commitment to turn proceeds from that project toward the

provision of student housing in the future. Yes, there was some

commitment when the project was announced, but it was very vague, and

it has progressively become firmer.

Because the minister is

the former Minister of Environment, what I am really asking is: while

the ground is now turned, the forest clearcut and the buildings not yet

committed, would it not be appropriate to show some leadership — and encourage the university to show some leadership — toward

the development of innovative housing, perhaps even at higher density

than what is proposed presently? I repeat: perhaps it could be at even

higher density but in more innovative design, which could accommodate

this severe problem of the inversion of the ratio of would-be faculty

to positions.

If, as Professor Saywell warns us, we face

this severe recruiting problem, will we not be grateful to have

opportunities for junior faculty to acquire housing — even on a

temporary leasehold basis for the first few years of their appointment

or some flexible structure which makes it easier to recruit people?

Might that not be in the long-term interests of the province? Might

that also not be a good example for other employers, or for the

province in general, to reverse the trend which has governed us for the

last 20 or 30 years: that people will live further and further away

from their place of employment, will commute longer and longer

distances, consume more

[ Page 9734 ]

and more non-renewable fossil fuels and pollute more and more of the atmosphere-just to get to work?

we take those environmental issues seriously.... Many of us are very

regretful that today we have lost a federal Environment minister who

seemed to show some serious understanding of such issues at the

national level. If we take issues such as he raised seriously,

shouldn't the university be showing leadership on these issues? Perhaps

the minister has some role in encouraging that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Chairman, what the member is saying is valid. As I said earlier, I

agree with any initiative that is going to make the university more

attractive as an employer and, of course, with any issue that's going

to alleviate the carbon dioxide assault on the environment, which can

come from driving your car too far and too often.

But I'm

not so sure that the University of British Columbia is not, in fact,

attempting to achieve that. The discussions I've had indicate that from

Hampton Place there will be returns to allow for the construction of

closer and more affordable student housing and maybe junior faculty

housing. I have no argument with that. Maybe the member has more

details. But in my discussions with Dr. Strangway and in public

statements he has made, I believe that to be the case.

I'm going to presume that UBC, with the excellent resource of their

board of governors and their senior administration, is making the right

decision in terms of what to do with this property. I'll leave it at

that.

I believe there's probably a limit as to what you can

do, and we're going to have to consider student spaces other than at

Point Grey, Burnaby Mountain or Oak Bay. That's why we have spent these

times and resources on the Access program, and why we're considering

the University of Northern British Columbia, and why we have spent

extensive time looking at the Fraser Valley concern where we know we're

going to have to respond with student spaces in a very major fashion

soon.

I'll be making an announcement June 4 with respect to that — as

to how we're going to develop a plan for Fraser Valley access. That

will certainly alleviate some of the pressures on UBC and also Simon

Fraser in the Vancouver area. That's the type of initiative we have to

look at if we're going to provide access for students, more affordable

locations for faculty and a decrease in miles driven by

gasoline-burning automobiles.

MR. PERRY : Mr.

Chairman, I feel slightly encouraged. Maybe the first member for

Vancouver-Point Grey and I have been more successful than we realized

in our representations on the last issue.

Let me just raise two other issues briefly. Last year, I believe in the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education — or perhaps under Health — I

raised an issue which lies somewhere between the two ministries, and

I'd just like to raise it again for the attention of the minister.

One

of the more difficult areas of funding within the University of B.C.,

paradoxically, is the faculty of medicine. I spoke last year of the

problem of junior faculty members, often with many years of training in

advanced research, for whom the faculty of medicine does not have the

resources to offer salaries.

Therefore such faculty are

typically on short-term, so-called scholarships or grants from either

the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation, the Medical Research Council

or a similar granting agency. Parenthetically, people in that position

are actually in one of the least advantageous employment situations

that exist, because they receive no benefits such as Medical Service

Plan payments.

They're also unable to contribute to a

registered retirement savings plan, even though they have no retirement

pension contributions made by the employer. They're in a strange

loophole in the federal Income Tax Act which has put them into a very

awkward box financially.

It becomes increasingly difficult

to retain such people in the system. Last year I gave examples in the

debates of some very accomplished young scientists in that position. It

is particularly difficult to retain them in competition with either of

two alternative employers: universities which are better endowed in the

medical sciences, such as the University of Alberta, the University of

Toronto or McGill University, or the private sector, namely practice

under the Medical Services Plan, which is far more remunerative for the

same hours of work.

One of the difficulties that has been identified to me by administrators within the system — such as the leadership of the B.C. Children's Hospital — is

that in contrast to some other provinces, such positions in B.C. are

funded only through the university's budget, and therefore through the

Ministry of Advanced Education. In provinces such as Ontario, some such

positions are funded directly by the Ministry of Health.

I guess what I'm looking for today is....

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. FRASER : You want to take away the university's autonomy.

MR. PERRY :

The Solicitor-General suggests I want to take away the university's

autonomy. Far from it. I don't think he knows what he's talking about,

with all due respect.

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. PERRY : He says he knows more than I suspect.

won't take the bait, Mr. Chairman. I'm simply asking the minister if

perhaps he could make a commitment to review this issue with his

colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen).

[ Page 9735 ]

I did bring it up in the estimates debate last year, having talked recently with people — for

example, the administration of the B.C. Children's Hospital. These are

not actually the academic administrators; these are even the hospital

administrators who make the same point.

There are a number

of needs which are extremely difficult to meet without salaried

university personnel, such as an adult cystic fibrosis clinic in the

Children's Hospital and Shaughnessy Hospital complex, a pediatric

rheurnatologist and an infectious disease consulting service for

children. The nature of the work is so difficult and time-consuming

that fee-for-service medicine is not a reasonable or viable option.

Salaried positions in the university system is really the only

reasonable way to provide these services.

Perhaps I could

ask the minister for a commitment that he would be willing to review

this issue with his colleague the Minister of Health over the next few

months to a year, and look at the evidence of how well that system is

working.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, it's an

excellent suggestion. I wasn't aware of the arrangements in other

provinces, but I will take the member's comments under advisement,

investigate what is happening in other jurisdictions and see if there

is a British Columbia application of that principle.

MR. PERRY :

Thank you for that assurance. One final question. In the budget debate

I raised the issue of the nursing school at the University of Northern

British Columbia, or the nurses' training program The former minister

indicated that he could answer the question on the spot, but he didn't.

Perhaps the minister could advise us where the issue now stands.

know that the Registered Nurses' Association advocated in a brief last

September the fairly urgent introduction of a nursing curriculum in

Prince George, not only to meet the problem of supply of nurses in B.C.

in general, but in the hope that training nurses in the north would

lead to better retention of nurses in that geographic area.

Can

the minister tell us where that stands and give us some encouragement

that we may see a nursing school there in the near future?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

There is a nursing school now. The College of New Caledonia graduates,

I think, 25 RNs a year. Now that's RNs. If the member is speaking of

BScN, then we don't have that, because we don't have a university. But

I think that's a reasonable observation.

Coincidentally, I

was with the director of our government Northern Interior Health Unit

last week, Elsie Gerdes. Elsie is a degreed nurse and has a master's

degree as well. She pointed out that government now does not hire

nurses unless they have a bachelor's degree. As an employer ourselves,

we have a lot of interest in ensuring that there is a university

program for nursing at UNBC.

That's about all I can say at

this point, except that it's a good suggestion. I can assure you that

I've had an awful lot of mail on this item, all of which has been

referred to the interim board of governors, and they are responding in

their own way. I recognize the member's concern and would see that, no

doubt, as one of the priorities that the board of governors and the

senior administration of UNBC should consider.

MR. MILLER :

just a couple of issues I didn't quite get finished the last time I was

up in these estimates. They didn't come up when I thought they would,

so I just wanted to quickly.... I've got a meeting at 4 o'clock. One of

my own colleagues said: "Good."

First of all, I'd like to

thank the minister for the activities of his staff. I had an issue the

other day regarding a young student trying to get into a college on the

lower Island who was advised that he had to fly down to register, and

your staff very ably handled it. Mr. Minister, I won't name names, but

you can pass on my thanks.

With that, I'll ask you about the difficulty that students from remote parts of the province — or more remote; I don't like to use the term "absolutely remote, " because they are not in and of themselves — have

had accessing the universities. I note that there was some improvement

in the types of assistance available, but I'm wondering if the ministry

has looked at that to see whether people are really taking advantage of

the assistance programs that are available.

I've had some

complaints about and have advised or tried to assist people with the

application forms themselves. They seem to be confusing; they are very

difficult to figure out. It is very difficult to look at those forms

and go through the whole process, and then try and figure out exactly

what you're going to get in terms of your own budgeting. Have you

looked at that? Do you have any specific targets to try to bring up the

relatively low percentage of students from outside the three major

university areas? Has it been successful?

I'll try and put

it all in one for the minister. There's the question of mature students

and the problems they face in acquiring student loans. I spoke the last

time I was up about what I thought was a good program — in fact, one we should expand — which

is for mature students, who would agree to serve in some remote

location, to receive some assistance over and above what would normally

be available. I think there's an opportunity, a potential, to fill the

gaps that we face in many of the professional fields, particularly

health care, where getting a speech pathologist or audiologist or

people with those kinds of qualifications is very difficult. Pharmacy

is a little more, but we've had to shut a pharmacy in Masset. There's

now no pharmacy available, because they can't recruit anybody. These

mature students, when it comes to accessing loans, may have acquired

assets throughout their life. If they have a car that's too new, they

have to sell it. They're disqualified on a number of levels. Have you

looked at that program specifically to try to liaise with the

[ Page 9736 ]

other ministries, such as Health — which can identify those shortfalls — and to put some program together that would plug in those holes?

I'm

wondering about this: is there a $500 allowance for northern students?

I'm not certain about this. Is the additional allowance being accessed?

Are people aware of it?

Finally — it's really all on the same relatively general topic — I

note that other ministries have toll-free lines. I'm quite happy in my

constituency office to do whatever I can to help people having trouble

with these forms, but quite often we're not available or people don't

think of coming to my office for assistance. Has any thought been given

to having a toll-free line for students having difficulty interpreting

these forms? Perhaps there could be someone designated in the community — a counsellor at the high school, for example, or someone in the school district office — who

had some expertise in the forms and could guide people through the

pitfalls so they really do obtain the maximum assistance they are

entitled to.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I thank the member

for his comments, Mr. Chairman. Of course, he and I share a concern as

members of the Legislative Assembly for students who, for whatever

reason, are having trouble attending university because they live in a

remote area. Just for the benefit of the committee, you're aware that

the member represents the Prince Rupert area, and I represent Prince

George east to the Alberta border — very remote country in there. So I share the member's concern.

Just

to give the committee some background on financial assistance, I'll

read some numbers into the record. This is for university students.

There is a good financial assistance program available. The maximum

assistance for a student with no dependents is $210 per week for each

week of study. Then we also have an equalization formula that takes

into account some other factors. It's funded to the tune of $25 million

for this year.

The member asked about an additional $500

grant. It's for students required to relocate more than 50 kilometres

to attend a post-secondary institution. They are eligible for up to an

additional $500. So we are recognizing that.

The

member is absolutely correct in terms of the forms being complicated.

Although it was not my task to do financial aid when I worked at the

College of New Caledonia, occasionally I attempted to do it when the

financial aid officer was on vacation or ill, and I couldn't do them

either. It does take someone trained in financial aid to handle these

properly and to ensure that there are no glitches. But all institutes

have a financial aid officer. You have one in Prince Rupert at

your college office. If you have a student who has a question, they can

see the financial aid officer at the Prince Rupert office of Northwest

College and assistance will be given. We also have an 800 number to the

ministry to answer those types of questions.

I don't think

anything is ever perfect, but clearly the ministry has identified all

of the problems that can arise with a student seeking student financial

assistance or other information about programs. We've attempted in a

variety of ways to identify a very good information system, including

the establishment of financial aid officers and also the establishment

of the 800 line.

MR. MILLER : I thank the minister

for his response. Could I simply ask the minister whether he would be

prepared to put on the form, at the bottom or wherever it might be

appropriate, a little sidebar to say that if you're having difficulty,

contact the financial aid officer of the college nearest you or

telephone the advertised number? Sometimes information that we think is

available the public are uninformed about. It may be a matter of

drawing their attention to it. But if that kind of information could be

included on the form, I'm sure it would improve the situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It's on the form now, I'm advised.

MR. BARNES :

I just want to see if I can get the minister to respond to a question I

gave to, I believe, one of his assistants last week. We didn't get an

opportunity to canvass the question with respect to student assistance

programs and the remission policy.

I had a recent graduate

from the Technical University of Nova Scotia who is now an architect.

The issue that she wanted to raise is really one of policy. I am trying

to get some information on this in terms of whether the minister is

satisfied that the spirit of this policy is effective and fair in all

cases. Her concern was initially that she would be getting a remission

after she completed her degree, which is a professional degree in

architecture. However, she changed her mind and did not attend the

University of B.C. school of architecture, which grants a professional

degree after four years of study, but chose to attend the Technical

University of Nova Scotia in Halifax, where she was given an interim

degree, an environmental design studies diploma, which is not really a

professional degree; it's just a way of granting a sort of interim

level of achievement at that university which is somewhat unique in

terms of architectural degrees across the country. She was quite

disappointed to find that because of the policy for student assistance

in this province, that diploma was being counted as one of the steps

with which she would be charged as having achieved another level,

although it's not a professional level. It was not her objective to

pursue the diploma; it is just an administrative procedure at that

university.

[4:00]

Does the minister have any comments with respect to the fairness of

this? If a student applies for assistance to pursue a professional

degree at UBC, changes her mind and attends another university where

that same degree can be pursued but the university provides an interim

diploma halfway

[ Page 9737 ]

through

that program, should that student be penalized any more than if she had

attended UBC? She ends up with the same professional degree in the end.

I'm just wondering if it's the intent of that program to penalize these

students.

In this particular case, I should add, this is a

female student. We were talking just last week about encouraging

females to get into non-traditional careers, etc. This student

graduated in 1988 with a degree in architecture. We were just talking

loans. Some of them don't realize they can get them. Here is a student

who has been very successful but who was surprised to find that she had

been assessed something in the neighbourhood of $6,000 above what she

had anticipated having to remit to the student loan program.

would like the minister to assist us so that we can at least have a

policy where people know in advance what they are liable to have in the

way of a financial obligation after they've graduated.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

To the second member for Vancouver Centre, I read his correspondence

and I have responded back to him. The letter left my desk Thursday, so

he should have it now. It was a regrettable situation and I don't know

what I can say about it

First of all, generally, let me say

that I have referred to the Technical University of Nova Scotia before

in this debate, because it is an interesting school. Perhaps the member

wasn't here. It's a technical school that has a higher participation

rate of women for a school that is architecture and engineering, which

is basically what it does. As you know, there is not a high

participation rate of women in those sciences, but at times there is a

higher-than-the-Canadian-average participation rate. Maybe the young

lady went there because she knew of this. It's also a very good school,

I would imagine.

However, back to her particular financial

aid dilemma. The argument you present is correct. For that reason, on

two occasions the information has gone to an independent body that

looks at appeals On both occasions they have held firm and indicated

there are three degrees there and they are going to stay with that

decision. That's not my decision; it's not a ministry decision; it's

the decision made by an appeal body we have that is independent, has

students on it, and has guidelines to follow. I would like to be more

helpful to you and to your constituents, but at this point it's very

difficult to do, and I would certainly not rule against a decision that

has been made twice by an independent body.

MR. BARNES :

I accept the minister's explanation and response, with perhaps this

inquiry. As far as the future policy is concerned, would he not feel it

good practice to inform any student pursuing a professional degree, who

is under the impression that that is the only assessment that will be

made against him, of these regulations which talk about the various

levels, certificates, diplomas and any documentation that they receive

and is going to be counted? Because I am under the impression this

student was totally unaware that this was going to be the consequence

when she made that decision not to go to UBC and to go to the Technical

University of Nova Scotia.

It's a matter of clarification, I think, in the future.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The member makes a very good point. And inasmuch as TUNS is a bit

different than other universities, I guess that's something we should

make students aware of — particularly B.C. students going to Nova

Scotia for that type of training. Just us talking about it today in

this debate will alert the student financial aid people in my ministry,

and I'm sure we will alert every architect and engineering and science

faculty in B.C. that if students are considering the Technical

University of Nova Scotia, there are some other factors they have to

consider, this financial aid wrinkle being one of them.

It's a good point and I thank the member for his observation.

MS. CULL :

I want to start off on a positive note and add my congratulations, I

guess, to the increased funding that has been made available for

Advanced Education this year. It is certainly very much appreciated by

the two institutions that are within the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head — that's the University of Victoria and Camosun College.

want to go on and talk specifically about the University of Victoria,

though. And I want to speak a little bit about the operating grant

increase they have had and then review a number of issues of concern to

the University of Victoria that all tie together into this one issue of

the amount of funding available.

I'm sure the minister is

fully aware of this, but for the record the University of Victoria has

received a 6.5 percent operating grant increase this year, which, once

inflation is taken into consideration, means approximately a 1.5 to 2

percent increase. Herein lies the problem, because there are many

demands on the University of Victoria and not a terrific amount of

increase actually available to the university to meet all the demands.

And I want to talk about the various pressures that are therefore

placed on the university and on the students who either are attending

that university or who would like to attend it.

I'm going

to start off with an issue of housing, which was raised by the second

member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry). As we are aware, the

availability of affordable housing in greater Victoria is very tight.

There is a very low vacancy rate and of course this affects many

different groups within our community, and students are one of the

groups affected by the shortage of affordable rental housing.

Last September there were — as of Labour Day — about

2,000 students who were still looking for suitable accommodation. Many

of those students eventually found a place to live one way or another,

but quite a number of those students also gave up and returned to their

home communities — wherever they were — and were unable to participate in a university education at the University of Victoria.

[ Page 9738 ]

When

we look at the question of access to increase our participation

rates.... I know that already in this debate we visited the fact that

British Columbia has the lowest participation rate for universities.

Once we include all other post-secondary institutions in that figure,

it then rises to the fourth-lowest in Canada. But if we're going to

look at the question of participation rates, then one of the things we

have to look at for the University of Victoria is the cost of getting a

university education, which includes housing.

A few minutes

ago the minister said that one of the ways the ministry was addressing

access was to provide more spaces for post-secondary education in other

parts of the province. Presumably this will assist, because students

won't have to come to Victoria or to greater Vancouver — where the housing market is very tight — and compete with other lower income families looking for the few units that are available at rents they can afford.

But

if we look for a minute at the cost of a university education in

greater Victoria, we're looking at almost $1,600 for tuition. When we

add books and other fees on top, that will come to over $2,000. Once

we've put in living expenses, I think it's not unreasonable to say that

the cost of a university education is approaching $8,000 a year in

greater Victoria.

Returning to the issue of housing, the

University of Victoria, last year when the student society approached

the university with respect to the housing issue, said that providing

student housing wasn't the responsibility of the University of

Victoria. The local municipalities have said the same thing: that it is

not their responsibility to provide housing for out-of-town students

wanting to attend the University of Victoria.

So the

question I want to ask the minister is: if it's not the university's

responsibility and it's not the municipality's responsibility, then

whose responsibility is it? Are we going to ignore the fact that

housing is a significant cost of providing a university education

through the University of Victoria? Are we going to say that only those

who can afford that considerable amount of money are able to come to

the University of Victoria?

I think we have to look at that

question. There is going to be more housing built as a result of the

Commonwealth Games, but I don't think it's fair for university students

to have to wait until we hold an international sporting event in their

community before they get the kind of housing they need.

we take another look at the impact of the 6.5 percent operating grant

increase, which, as I said earlier, translates to about 1.5 percent to

2 percent, once inflation is taken in.... If we look at the impact of

that increase on the university, another thing that we find it affects

rather negatively is the whole question of salaries. As the minister is

aware, approximately 80 percent of the operating costs of the

university, like many educational institutions, is tied up in salaries.

Because we are dealing with a situation — if we look long-term, back to 1980 — where

we're repairing the damage that was done to our educational

institutions during the restraint years of the eighties. We're in a

catch-up situation.

So while it is comfortable for us to

look at increases this year and feel good about it, we have to

recognize that these are being built on top of zero percent increases

in some years and even rollbacks in other years, and that the

university is in fact having to catch up, to repair things that were

left undone and to make good advances that did not occur during the

eighties.

With respect to the whole question of salaries,

I'm quite concerned about the position of university salaries at the

University of Victoria relative to the rest of the country — for two

reasons. We know that we're going into a period of time when we're

going to be competing for the top-notch university personnel that we

want to have at our universities. One of the ways that we compete is to

offer them a competitive salary.

The second issue relates

to the number of women on faculty at the University of Victoria, which

is currently about 17 percent and has been inching upwards incredibly

slowly, as has been female participation in professional fields — both in the public and the private sector — over

the last number of years. Again, when various departments of the

faculty are asked why there are not more women being hired, they are

saying that women are not applying. Now we know that women are now a

larger and larger proportion of graduates, so again I wonder: is it the

lack of a competitive salary at the University of Victoria that is

hampering the university in dealing with its own goals with respect to

increasing female participation in the faculty?

[4:15]

I mentioned a few minutes ago that the university has to come to

terms with a funding history that was inadequate during the earlier

part of the decade. As a result, not only are they now trying to meet

current needs as they grow from year to year and also to accommodate

the overall provincial program of increasing university participation

to the average in Canada, but they're having to catch up from past

years. When I met with the current president, Dr. Howard Petch, earlier

this year, he pointed out to me that the University of Victoria, in

terms of its current needs, is 20 percent behind the allocation of

space that it requires just for its current needs today. So it has to

catch up that 20 percent, even if another student doesn't walk through

the door next September and the population remains static.

It's

worthwhile to consider this when we look at the funding increase at

just a little beyond inflation. Not only does it have to pay for

enrolment growth, but it also has to pay for this 20 percent catch-up.

One

of the things that has happened in the last number of years to the

University of Victoria, and also, I assume, to the other two

universities, is that funding has become more and more targeted. This

year the University of Victoria is fortunate to be receiving grants to

deal with the business school, and there have been other specific

grants given to engineering and other faculties over the last number of

[ Page 9739 ]

years.

I am pleased to see this. The University of Victoria very much wanted

that business school. It will make a significant contribution to

business education in the province through the plans that they are

going to put in place.

Again, one of the things that

concerns me, as we move to targeted funds such as this, is the neglect

of the social science faculties. What I see happening at the University

of Victoria over a period of time is funds being tied more and more to

the provincial objectives and less and less to the university's

objectives. The university is forced to cut and to somehow accommodate

the overall goals of its institution within the framework of provincial

objectives.

I think the neglect of the social sciences is

of particular concern because of the problems that are facing our

society over the next decade. To resolve the crisis we have in resource

management in this province and to resolve some of the crises with

respect to national unity, we are going to require the kinds of

thinkers and the kinds of skills that come from the social science

faculties. It disturbs me to see the social science faculties neglected

as other particular areas are targeted for funding.

Earlier

in the debate, just to turn to another aspect related to funding, I

believe it was the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) who commented

on the fact that universities have always been the preserve of the

upper-income groups and that we are not having terrific success in

changing that.

There was a study done last year by the

student society at the University of Victoria which showed that the

participation rate of students is proportional to the parents'

salaries. Students with low-income parents had a very low participation

rate in the university. The same thing obviously occurred with the

parents' ability to assist students. The higher the income, the more

likely the student was to receive help from his parents, and the lower

the parental income, the more likely the student was to experience

financial problems.

I won't dwell on this very much, but we

did earlier in this debate talk about the whole question of the role of

tuition as a barrier to post-secondary education. I think that has got

to be looked at again. The student society's call for a tuition freeze

deserves further attention, and the role of financial barriers in

keeping students from even considering post-secondary education,

particularly university education, has not had the thorough

investigation that many of us would like to see in this province.

want to close with just two final remarks. One, there has been a lot of

discussion in the last six weeks on various subjects about multi-year

funding. Particularly from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

we have heard that it's very important to have funding be predictable

over a number of years so that whatever the organization is, it can

plan and know what's going to be happening, not only this year but for

the next number of years. This is certainly something that's been

missing from the university system in the past, and I ask the minister

what changes are being made so that universities can look more than one

or two years down the line and can have the kind of predictable

multi-year funding that the Minister of Finance was suggesting is

necessary for public institutions.

Finally, the minister

sometime earlier in this debate talked about students who don't even

bother to think about attending a post-secondary institution. He said:

"I wonder how we reach out to these people who have assumed that

they're not going to be able to do it because of financial reasons. How

do we tell them what is available and what kinds of assistance could be

made available to them; how they could be assisted to complete their

education over a period of time?"

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, under standing orders I must advise you that your time has expired.

MR. JONES :

Mr. Chairman, I was fascinated by the remarks of my colleague the

member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. Very clearly she was providing

important information that the minister should be aware of, and I would

ask that she continue.

MS. CULL : I'm almost

finished. I just wanted to mention that Dr. Petch told me, when I met

with him in January, about a booklet that the Ministry of Colleges and

Universities in Ontario produces and puts into the hands of every

high-school student and parent so that the student is aware of the

opportunities available to him or her. I was wondering, again, whether

such a booklet has been considered by the ministry here — something

that would not only tell prospective university students about what

their options are with respect to the universities and programs, but

would also explain to them all of the information about financial

assistance and their options. I think this should be a very broad

document that would go to grade 12 students, or perhaps even earlier.

Perhaps grade 10 is the level where it should be addressed, so that

students can start preparing themselves for post-secondary education,

and so their families are also aware of what is involved in terms of

financial commitment and other opportunities.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued to hear what the member had to say. I

would like to comment on a few things, particularly with respect to the

University of Victoria. As the member has alluded, but only briefly,

they have had a remarkable increase and additional funds for the

University of Victoria school of business. I think that's important.

the way, if you include the school of business initiative this year,

their general lift in the UVic budget is 10 percent, not 6, and I want

to put that on the record.

Also, in terms of space, we have

estimate of $16.6 million. I think government is being quite

responsible with the University of Victoria in terms of recognizing

their capital construction

[ Page 9740 ]

program and the fact that they may be at a deficit in terms of space.

couldn't let it go unsaid, though, that in terms of catch-up, you must

realize that the NDP government of '72-75 cut back capital funding to

post-secondary institutions by about 25 percent. So there's a lot of

catching up that has to be done, and a lot of it's not totally the

responsibility of the restraint funding. The budget, Madam Member, went

from $14 million to $11 million — small numbers now, but reasonably big during those days.

With

regard to student housing, the member is absolutely correct. Student

housing is always a concern. But the problem is less here, of course,

than it is in the Vancouver area. For that reason, I see many Prince

George students who attend the University of Victoria because they like

to live here: it's less money; it's a smaller community and a smaller

campus. They find UVic very attractive for a lot of reasons.

Also,

Madam Member, don't lose sight of the fact that I too rent in Victoria,

and I'm aware of what the rents are. They're far less than what one

would face in Vancouver.

Although it's always a problem, I

really haven't seen much of an impediment yet in terms of financial

concern from students coming here from the north and the more remote

areas. Once they've made up their minds to come to Victoria, they

always seem to find a place to live, and a place within reason. The

Prince George students that I talk to would certainly indicate that.

would be really repeating a lot of comments that I made earlier about

student financial aid. As I've admitted to the committee, Mr. Chairman,

we believe we have a good program in place. We know that with

increasing enrolments, students are being made aware and taking

advantage of student financial aid programs.

We have

identified that there are maybe people who are not finding the system

totally open to them, and there are some students who are not

participating. We have committed time and resources to better identify

those students who are not being treated as well as they should be in

terms of this ministry. I don't know what more I can say about that at

this point, except to ask the member to refer to comments I made

earlier.

In terms of the planning, we have a five-year

planning cycle, Madam Member. We also spend some considerable time with

the three university presidents, and they give valuable input to us. I

think it's a very good system.

As I've indicated before,

Dr. Howard Petch is now the dean of university presidents in British

Columbia. He tells us that the climate has changed considerably since

he first arrived here some years ago.

He now gets along

very well with the other presidents and as well with government. In his

own words: "It's a remarkable change in terms of the political and

academic environment and university environment in British Columbia."

The

awareness the member speaks of is a concern that I have, being a member

who represents a large rural area. I'm allocating and I'm asking staff

now, particularly in the case of the University of Northern British

Columbia, to consider awareness programs. Students have to be made

aware of what post-secondary education is all about and what financial

and academic resources are available to them if they're going to

consider carrying on in school. I will be announcing spending funds to

that end as the year progresses. I agree with the member that more and

more high school students have to be made aware and counselled for what

is available for them to attend the university programs.

With

that said, I will take my place. I acknowledge that what the member has

brought to the attention of the comndttee is generally correct. I

acknowledge that in many cases we are working as quickly as we can to

ensure that UVic and also Camosun provide a first-class educational

opportunity to students in the lower Vancouver Island area.

MR. JONES :

Let me, first of all, ask a couple of questions relative to the

minister's budget. If we look at the budget with respect to

administration and support services under vote 6 last year and vote 6

again this year, what was approved in the estimates in this Legislature

for the line item "Administration and Support Services" under the

previous minister was $22,342,549. That was what was voted on last

year. I appreciate these things are not going to be held accountable to

the penny; however, it was a substantial increase from $19 million the

previous year, so it was up between 10 and 15 percent last year.

Then

when we received the estimates this year, we see that rather than

recording for that line item under the very first heading "Total

1989-90 voted expenditures" we don't see the $22 million. We see a new

figure of some $26,415,554. In other words, what happened between the

approval in this Legislature last spring and the preparation of the

budget last fall was an increase in that line item of some $4.1 million.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It's $4.2 million.

MR. JONES :

Even $4.2 million; it's a substantial change in the line item of the

budget talking about the same figure in the same year. The ministry

underestimated. Even though the

section of the ministry's operation

received something in the nature of a 15 percent increase in that year,

they found that even with the 15 percent increase, the amount was some

$4.2 million short — in other words, about 18 percent short. The

ministry, even with a 15 percent increase, guessed 18 percent wrong on

the low side. What we really see from the previous year is a 30 to 33

percent increase in the one line item.

[4:30]

First of all, I would like the minister to comment on the change.

Why was such a large change necessary in that particular figure from

the same year? In other words, why was the prediction of that area so

poor — predicting a 15 percent increase was adequate when actually a 33

percent increase was adequate? Secondly, in addition to a question

about the

[ Page 9741 ]

predictability of expenditures in that area, where would the money have gone?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Good technical questions, and I'll provide the committee with the answer.

Just

briefly, a bit of history. This ministry was formed as individual

programs transferred from other ministries. It's been referred to by

the senior staff sometimes as "a confederation of orphans." This

collection did not allow the development of a proper central

administration budget, and it traditionally required transfers of

program funds to cover shortfalls in administrative budgets.

For

'90-91, the administrative requirements were properly identified, and

the administration budget for '89-90 was then restated to more

accurately reflect expenditure trends. The '89-90 budget was restated

to include Treasury Board — approved transfers from program subvotes

which were required to address funding shortfalls in administration for

the '89-90 year.

The increase in funds — and there has been a 10 percent administration and support services budget increase over '89-90 in the restated budget — is

largely due to BCGEU salary increases, reclassification of ministry

employees, increased communication requirements relating to the

expanded mandate of the ministry and higher operating costs associated

with the expansion of the student financial assistance computer systent

continue to recognize the flexibility of utilizing professionals, and

there has been an increase of $1.6 million in the professional services

budget over the '89-90 year. We continue to recognize the flexibility

of using professionals to conduct financial organizational reviews and

to participate in planning and advisory committees to help articulate

program requirements and direction.

I hope that does

explain, briefly, a realization of the proper administrative

infrastructure that we had to put in place, and funding which

recognized the read ministration or organization of the administration

part of that budget.

MR. JONES : I think when the

minister was r