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 15, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9637 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Customs preclearance of Alaskan cruise visitors. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9637

Mail-order sale of lottery tickets. Mr. Sihota –– 9637

Forest Resources Commissions. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9638

Nurse retraining program. Mr. Perry –– 9638

Rent review policy. Mr. Blencoe –– 9639

Park Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 25). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Messmer)

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 9639

Mr. Cashore –– 9640

Mr. Gabelmann –– 9641

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 9642

Ms. Edwards –– 9643

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 9643

Mr. Barlee –– 9644

Mr. Williams –– 9644

Mr. Perry –– 9646

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 9646

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 9647

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Rose

Mr. Loenen

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today on behalf of yourself, the

Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and the

Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) to introduce to the House Mr. Miguel de Calheiros Velozo,

consul of Portugal, stationed in Vancouver. Would the House please make

him welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : It is with great

pleasure this afternoon that I introduce some very good friends to the

House. Visiting us from Abbotsford are: Karl and Erna Steyrer; Karolina

Wildeman, Erna's mother; and Mrs. Wildeman's sister, Stefie Hackl,

visiting from Austria. I ask the House to give them a good, warm

welcome.

Oral Questions

CUSTOMS PRECLEARANCE OF

ALASKAN CRUISE VISITORS

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Tourism. Last week I

raised the very serious problem to our tourist industry in British

Columbia of the U.S. Customs' refusal to preclear cruise-ship

passengers destined to British Columbia. Could the minister tell the

House what steps he has taken to solve this problem and what response

he has received to date from the federal administration?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

It's unfortunate that the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) isn't present

today, as this certainly has an effect on him. Let's all hope he's

doing his inaugural visit to his constituency today.

There

is probably nothing more important to tourism than the question of

customs and entries between British Columbia and the United States. I

would like to inform the member that it's not just the Vancouver area

that has the problem with customs; it's a problem in other areas of the

province as well. It's a serious problem in the city of Victoria. I can

assure the member that I have met with the top Customs officials in

Victoria. I have had my staff meet with the senior Customs officials in

Vancouver. We have talked to the United States consulate in Vancouver.

We have sent a very strong letter to the federal Minister of Tourism

asking for his intervention with his counterpart in Ottawa to make

strong representation to the United States. I say, in all sincerity,

that it is probably the greatest problem we have in British Columbia in

the area of tourism. I'm very pleased the member on this side of the

House is addressing the problem on behalf of her constituents.

MR. SPEAKER : I would ask the minister to take the occasion to read page

19 of the Standing Orders in terms of responses to oral questions.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Until such time as members understand the rules are

there.... If the members want to change the rules, that's fine, but

while the rules are there, the Chair is bound to enforce them. There

question period. I will allow one supplementary.

MRS. McCARTHY :

I appreciate the answer given by the Minister of Tourism, but I'm

concerned about the time. We are getting into the peak tourist season

of our province, and this is going to affect very many tourist

industries throughout our province. If the minister does not get an

answer that is positive for this province in the next few days, will he

go back to Ottawa and fight on behalf of our constituents in the

hospitality industry?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : We are

awaiting a response from Ottawa. Once that response is received — we

have already had discussions in Victoria with intergovernmental

affairs — the decision will be made whether the Minister of

Tourism or intergovernmental affairs will follow up with Ottawa when

the response from Hockin is received.

MAIL-ORDER SALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS

MR. SIHOTA :

Approximately $100 million a year is generated by the sale of lottery

tickets offshore through mail-order operations. Could the Provincial

Secretary confirm that his office has received a report from CLEU

dealing with the matter of the mail-order operation and their selling

of lottery tickets offshore?

HON. MR. DIRKS : I definitely am aware of CLEU, but when and how that report was received I will have to take on notice.

MR. SIHOTA :

New question to the minister. The report is entitled "Offshore Sales of

Canadian Lottery Tickets." Will the minister confirm that the report

expressed the concern that these mail-order operations are subject to

fraud and will inevitably be the object of takeover attempts from the

criminal element?

HON. MR. DIRKS : I believe that relates to the first question the member asked, and I took that question on notice.

MR. SIHOTA : New question, again, to the Provincial Secretary.

This is a report that is dated June 1988. One would think that the minister — once he took assumption of his office — would

have had it brought to his attention. In any event, will the minister

confirm that the report concludes that upwards of 50 clearing-houses

which operate in Canada are making a fortune reselling Canadian lottery

tickets? The majority of those operations are in British Columbia. The

report

[ Page 9638 ]

goes on to express the view that these operations are contrary to the Criminal Code and should be shut down.

Could the minister advise the House what steps his ministry is taking to shut down these operations?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : That was a new question.

MR. SPEAKER : Do you have another new question?

MR. SIHOTA : Yes, I have another new question.

MR. SPEAKER : Let's have it.

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Solicitor-General. This report has been

forwarded, as I understand, to his ministry as well and they have had

the report for two years and the opportunity to act on it. Could the

minister explain why British Columbia has not shut down these

operations, as they have in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario?

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, I'm not the minister responsible for the Lottery Corporation.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the report has made its way

from the Ministry of Attorney-General through to the Solicitor-General

to the Provincial Secretary and back again. It's touched the desk of

each one of these ministers. The report expresses the concern— this question is to the Provincial Secretary —

that no action is being taken in British Columbia with respect to this

questionable activity, because British Columbia has no law in place

banning this type of activity. Could the Provincial Secretary tell this

House what steps his ministry is prepared to take to now bring forward

the law that the report recommends and calls for?

MR. SPEAKER : The question calls for future policy.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, obviously the member opposite is having some difficulty

hearing and understanding. He's got a script in front of him, which he

continues to read from. All the questions he has asked have been

subsequent to that first one that I took on notice; therefore I think

they are out of order.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, the silence of this government on this 400-page report is stunning, because the report estimates — as I said earlier on — that about $100 million a year is generated in lottery funds to this province.

MR. SPEAKER :

There is another time in this chamber to debate issues. Question period

is the time for asking questions. If the member has a question, I would

ask him to ask it within the confines of our standing orders.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, the question to the Provincial Secretary is this: is the

reason that your government has chosen to be soft on crime due to the

fact that this type of crime is paying big bucks to the government?

FOREST RESOURCES COMMISSION

MR. RABBITT :

My question is to the Minister of Forests. In recent days, some

individuals have called for the removal of IWA president Jack Munro

from the Forest Resources Commission. Can the minister assure this

House that under this government, the workers in British Columbia's

forest industry will continue to be a part of the decision-making

process regarding the future of British Columbia's forests?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I can assure the member that nobody has approached me regarding Mr.

Munro's position on the Forest Resources Commission. But I do want to

assure him and all the members and all of the workers in British

Columbia that Mr. Munro represents them very well on the Forest

Resources Commission, and I have absolutely no intention of removing

him from that. In fact, he's one of the strongest members on the

commission.

NURSE RETRAINING PROGRAM

MR. PERRY :

The federal government recently suspended their job retraining program,

affecting 100 licensed practical nurses, who were upgrading their

status to that of registered nurse. In light of the critical nursing

shortage in this province, which continues, has the Minister of Health

decided to reconsider his position that this problem is none of his

business?

HON. J. JANSEN : Mr. Speaker, first of all,

health care is very much our business and very much this government's

business. We're committed to the provision of quality health care in

British Columbia. What I said was — and I'll repeat for the

member, and perhaps that member would be so pleased as to take that

message to his federal MPs, who are very quiet about this issue: that's

a federal program, unfortunately, in terms of unemployment insurance

funding. I would hope....

MR. G. HANSON : More GST Tories?

HON. J. JANSEN : If that member wishes to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he could do so.

That

program the member is referring to, Mr. Speaker, is a federal program.

What I said was that I didn't think it was the province's

responsibility to interfere with a federal program. Having said that,

we're very much concerned about the shortage of nurses in British

Columbia. The ratio of licensed practical nurses to registered nurses

is a decision that

[ Page 9639 ]

rests with hospital boards in British Columbia —

how they're to be hired and what numbers. I addressed the Licensed

Practical Nurses' Association, last week, and talked about this issue

with them. I'd be pleased, if the member has a genuine interest, to

discuss those issues with him at another time.

[2:15]

MR. PERRY :

A supplementary. We're not talking about the ratio of licensed

practical nurses to registered nurses. We're talking about a program

which allowed licensed practical nurses, who have families to support,

to retrain through an unemployment insurance payment so that they could

upgrade their skills and help meet a critical nursing shortage. We had

a 25 percent jump in the number of nursing vacancies last year.

Virtually two-thirds of the recently registered nurses in this province

come from outside British Columbia. We have a critical shortage. Has

the minister decided that he has some responsibility to help out these

people — largely women — who are trying to upgrade their training and to help deal with the shortage in British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Unfortunately, many times it seems like members opposite have a number

of questions, and they don't listen to the answer to the first

question. We are very concerned about those issues as they pertain to

health care in British Columbia, and we're very concerned about the

response of the federal government in dealing with these issues. That

is what I said, and that is what I repeat to you now.

RENT REVIEW POLICY

MR. BLENCOE :

A question to the minister responsible for residential tenancy in the

province. We continue to receive evidence that a minority of landlords

continue to gouge their tenants. I have notices of rent increases here

today ranging from $175 to $223 a month. These increases come from

Surrey, Port Coquitlam and Victoria.

The question is: has

the minister decided to review these increases as he did recently with

a Victoria tenant and introduce, as he did, a closed-door policy of

rent review? Will he introduce a decent legal approach to rent review

in British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER : Future policy. The question is out of order, but the minister may wish to answer.

MR. BLENCOE : Has the minister decided to review these increases as I have suggested?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The member who asked the question is a little bit behind time, because

the opposition first talked about rent controls, and then they talked

about rent reviews, and the latest that I see is rent referees. But if

you read the fine print, it's still the unworkable system of rent

control. We are very concerned about the people who are having

difficulty finding rental accommodations or who may be faced with

excessive charges for their accommodation, and we are monitoring that

situation very carefully.

But I want to say that our policy

has been that we would increase the supply of accommodation, and that

would be the one way that problem would be resolved. I'm happy to say

that there is evidence that the situation is beginning to change. The

latest figures that I've been advised of show that the rental vacancy

rate in Vancouver is improving; it's also improving in Victoria. It's

only a small amount, but each month sees an improvement, and we know

that it doesn't have to go very far before we get back to that good,

healthy, competitive situation of free enterprise. That kept the rents

down for the past five or six years, and it will keep them down for the

years to come.

MR. REE : May I have leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER : Introductions were only 15 minutes ago, but if members wish to grant leave....

Leave granted.

MR. REE :

On Saturday evening I attended the Canadian Jewellers' Association

annual meeting in Vancouver, and at my table was a lovely couple from

Providence, Rhode Island, who are now in the gallery. I would ask this

House to give a very warm welcome to Michael and Doris Salvadore.

MR. SPEAKER :

The Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) seeks the same leave. I'll ask

the question carefully and listen for the no. Shall leave be granted? I

hear several noes. Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. MESSMER : Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today

and move second reading of Bill 25.

This

bill demonstrates our government's commitment to protecting provincial

parks by defining the legislation and boundaries of 23 more parks. This

bill provides maximum protection for these parks.

In the

Ministry of Parks we are fond of saying: "B.C. parks put the beautiful

in beautiful British Columbia." We have three of Canada's highest

waterfalls in our parks, and our marine park system is the best in

Canada. We have 36 parks on the coast, and three of our most popular

interior lakes have parks for borders. Mount Robson Provincial Park is

home to the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies.

As I said earlier, our provincial parks put the beautiful into beautiful British Columbia, and that is

[ Page 9640 ]

exactly

why, through legislation and policies, our government has given

provincial parks the greatest protection ever. Our class A parks are

dedicated to the preservation of natural environments for the

inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. No logging or mining are

allowed in any of our class A parks.

As the Speech from the

Throne foreshadowed, I am now coming before the House with a request to

increase the protection. This bill attaches

schedule C to the Park Act.

It adds 23 parks to the list already protected by legislation. These

are parks which receive our greatest protection. With this amendment,

103 parks covering 79 percent of the land area within our parks will be

designated in legislation. This amendment more than doubles the area of

parkland protected by legislated boundaries.

Let me say a

few words about how we chose these parks to be added to

schedule C. It

is all well and good to enshrine park boundaries in legislation, but to

do so without doing the legwork and the necessary planning beforehand

would be an invitation to disaster. So how did we get to the point

today with these 23 parks? Easily. We consulted the public. Each of

these parks, with the exception of Strathcona, has a completed and

approved master plan, a blueprint for the future which was adopted

after full public involvement.

As you know, our government

promised in December 1988 to legislate the boundaries of Strathcona.

After extensive public consultation, we are now keeping our commitment

to legislate its boundaries. We are working towards developing master

plans in each of our 388 parks and recreation areas. I will come before

you in the future with additions to

schedule C once master plans have

been adopted in even more parks.

This bill also undertakes

minor housekeeping matters. For example, the bill repeals improper

references to the Mineral Act and the Mining (Placer) Act and replaces

them with a correct reference to the Mineral Tenure Act.

conclusion, this bill will show the public how serious we are about

protecting our natural heritage. Legislated boundaries are the best

protection any government can give its parks.

I move second reading of Bill 25.

MR. CASHORE :

This has been my first opportunity to face the new Minister of Parks

across the House on a matter such as this. I want to thank the

minister. He has been extremely fair in keeping me posted with regard

to matters that were coming before the House. I very much appreciate

the attitude, which I think has been a very parliamentary one.

We're going to support this bill. I am waiting for government applause.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE : There are a few comments that I and a few of my colleagues would like to make.

The

first is that during the time the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) was the Minister of Lands and Forests in this province, the

principle of establishing park boundaries was firmly put in place, and

that process was entered into. Sadly, it has been the decision of

subsequent Social Credit governments to manipulate and downgrade that

to a process of using OICs.

This bill now before us is

tacit evidence that this government has admitted the historic error of

its ways in having allowed the political decision-making that is

facilitated by that OIC process to be the order of the day to the

detriment of public policy and our provincial parks. Sadly, and at

considerable cost, the people of British Columbia have to pay for those

mistakes.

The fact is that the people of this province, who

have every reason to be very proud of the parks that we have.... I

would remind you again that when the first member for Vancouver East

was the minister, we doubled the amount of parkland in the province.

That is something that has been a legacy for the province. It has

worked very well, has enhanced efforts towards tourism and has been a

most worthwhile thing.

What does this bill do? As well as

doing the things that the minister says it's going to do, it enables

the government once again to take credit for something that it has

already announced, and so we're into that season of trying to get the

greatest number of announcements out of something like this, which

obviously has a positive ring to it.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE :

I would say to my friend from Yale-Lillooet that it shows your

government's desperation to find something to be applauded now in this

province. It really shows desperation. Further evidence of that

desperation is the way that Thumper over there keeps going on and

caterwauling and making all sorts of noises, because he really doesn't

want to hear the appropriate things that we are saying.

It's

an opportunity for yet another "B.C. Government News Update" on TV. I

expect we'll see these ads coming out very soon, at a cost to the

taxpayer — not to the Social Credit Party, I might add, which seeks to

receive the benefit from those ads, but at great cost to the people of

British Columbia. Yet there will be another issue of "B.C. Government

News Update," I'm sure, that's going to cost about another half-million

dollars to try and influence the voters with their own tax dollars.

[2:30]

The fact is that the government has swung back and forth like a

yo-yo when it comes to boundaries. The policy of "a park is a park is a

park" certainly hasn't been followed by this government. All we have to

do is look at the situation of Bedwell Valley in Strathcona Park. So

often we point to the errors of previous Social Credit governments, but

this time we point to an error of the present Social Credit adminis-

[ Page 9641 ]

tration,

an error made in 1987, when mining exploration was allowed in that

park, an error that is going to be very costly to the people of British

Columbia, because the ministry's steering committee has recommended

that claims in that area be handled "in a fair and equitable manner."

That means that because of the shortsighted decision that the

government made to allow mining exploration in that park, the taxpayers

are now going to have to pay compensation if that recommendation is

carried out.

We can see a new category coming up on the

Vancouver Stock Exchange: public policy futures. People will be able to

invest in public policy futures without knowing where the boundaries

are going to be at any given time. It won't have anything to do with

whether there's question of extracting minerals; it will be extracting

a pound of flesh from the public — for which this government seems

to have too much disdain. Is this Socred good management? I think not;

it's not good management.

I would like to ask the minister

to state during this debate how many such claims there will be, given

the other boundaries that the minister is legislating in this act. And

what is the estimated amount of money that the people of British

Columbia will have to pay to bail out this government mismanagement?

Another

thing I want to point out is that again the government has admitted by

virtue of this bill that the people who protested in Strathcona Park

were right. By this bill, the government has admitted that the people

who protested in Strathcona Park had a point. This government has

committed the public disservice of forcing caring people in this

province to go to those extremes, to risk being placed in jail, to do

things they never in their wildest dreams thought they would do,

because they recognized the disastrous impact of government policy in

this area.

I think we should take a moment to recognize the

significance of what those people did and how terrible it was that they

were forced by this government into taking such a stand. This

legislation indicates that this government recognizes that it was very

wrong in the way it handled the issue.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. When we're on second reading of a bill, it is the

principle of the bill that has to be discussed. I've read the bill up

to and including

schedule A, and from there on it appears to be merely

physical

definitions of the different parks being established. In

second reading we should really be discussing just the principle of

those items covered under sections 1 to 16. It's reasonably narrow in

concept. This is not the time to debate items which might be put more

properly during the committee stage or estimates of the Minister of

Parks, so I would ask the member to judge himself accordingly.

MR. CASHORE :

I think the point is well taken that this can be covered during

committee stage or estimates, but it also indicates that in a general

sense we're very interested in finding out just what it is going to

cost the taxpayers of B.C. now that those boundaries have been

established, and at least in having the record set straight with regard

to "a park is a park." I would appreciate the minister's comments on

that.

At this point, the bill also fails to follow through

on a commitment this government made to support the Brundtland

commission, which recommends that 12 percent of the land of any given

area be set aside. Since this government is signatory to that, I am

pleased to hear the minister say that there will be other park

boundaries legislation coming in. But it would be more reassuring to

have an indication that the government is going to keep the commitment

to make available 12 percent of space to be protected, as is

recommended by the Brundtland commission, which this government claims

to support.

I would now say to the minister that I thank him for having introduced this bill.

MR. GABELMANN :

My comments will be brief this afternoon. First of all, I want to ask

the minister, when he sums up the second reading debate — and I recognize the potential conflict in terms of

section 16 —

to answer the question of how many provincial parks in British Columbia

are not included in this legislation by statutory boundaries, so we

have an opportunity later, when we get to committee stage, to deal with

that question with the information.

Mr. Speaker, the minister in his comments included a line which went something

like this: "There will be" — or there is — "no mining in British

Columbia's class A parks." He didn't say it, but presumably he

also means industrial activity. Technically that will be true, but that is true

only when you draw a line around the mining operation and take it out of the

class A park, even though it's entirely within the class A park.

when we talk about how wonderful class A designations are, let's

recognize that the reality is that we do have mining within British

Columbia parks, in at least one case. I'm not advocating that it should

be otherwise. I'm talking about Strathcona Park and Westmin Resources.

There is general agreement that not much can be done about that until

the ore body has run its course. But it should be remembered that the

ore body is right in the heart of Strathcona Park — which is not in a class A park only because it has a line drawn around it.

We'll

get into this in more detail during committee stage, but I think the

minister has an obligation to provide the House with more information

about the mining claims within those areas — in particular in Strathcona, because that really is a central issue here —

that have been staked since 1987, when portions of Strathcona Park were

excluded by cabinet order, made available for exploration and now are

back in. But in the meantime, claims have been made.

have no information. I've gone through all the government press

releases, ministerial statements, committee statements and everything

else, and I can't find any information that sheds some light on the

status of these mining claims and the anticipated costs to the

taxpayers. I appreciate you can't deal with it in precise terms; these

are to be determined.

[ Page 9642 ]

But

we don't have any ballpark understanding of what the implications of

these claims might be. I think that is useful to this whole process.

Let

me just say briefly in general terms that it's really a shame that we

have this bill, because people were prepared to put themselves on the

line and in some cases go to jail to protest government action

which — to put it mildly — in the last four or five years has

been absolutely disgraceful in respect to the constant revision of the

boundaries in Strathcona Park and the attempts to open up that park for

so-called recreation use, which is really another way of describing

industrial use.

A couple of years ago, people were prepared

to leave their work, their homes and their families to go up into

Strathcona Park and put themselves on the line, to camp in the mud and

rain in that particularly bad winter they were in there, and to face

the consequences as they did — full civil disobedience — in order to get this government to come to its senses.

Finally — thankfully —

the government is facing two things, which has led to this bill being

introduced, in my mind. It is facing an election soon, and it is facing

the fact that it's behind....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN : Not soon enough.

It's

facing the fact that it's behind in the polls. Mr. Speaker, I can tell

you that if the government were not behind in the polls and the

election were a few years off, we would not be having this legislation

to enshrine park boundaries.

In 1987, a year after the

election, when there was no fear of political consequences looming

immediately on the horizon, the government was prepared to massacre at

least one of our provincial parks in this province. That needs to be

put on the record, because this kind of cynical politics really is what

undermines people's faith and belief in democracy. I think that this

sorry history in respect to provincial parks, in particular in respect

to Strathcona, needs to be put on the record.

There is much

to talk about in terms of that park, and I intend to take advantage of

that during committee stage. Many, many questions remain unresolved,

and I want to deal with those later on.

But I did want to

put those comments on the record now, because hopefully this is the

beginning of the end of a sorry

chapter in British Columbia history. I

hope, Mr. Speaker, it's not the end of a chapter; I hope it's the end

of the book.

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, I wanted

to say a word in support of this bill because, as the last member who

spoke said, it's very important that we be definite, first as to what

is a park, and second as to what activity is allowed within parks.

When

I had federal responsibility for parks, I could say quite handily, "A

park is a park is a park," and no commercial activity, certainly of the

character of commercial fishing or commercial forestry or mining, would

be allowed in a national park.

We've had different kinds of

parks in this province: class A, B, C. Essentially, we're consolidating

into one class; it's "park." A park is a park, and it's a large area,

generally speaking, in which no commercial activity, other than perhaps

something related to tourism or recreation, will be allowed ever. It'll

be a natural area, and left in its natural state to evolve naturally.

The

mining industry, the forestry industry and industry in general ask one

thing of government: that it be definite and that it lay down the

ground rules with clarity and stick to those rules. The mining

industry, to my knowledge, has no problem with the essential concept

that a park is a park, and that there will be no mining allowed ever in

a park.

While there have been circumstances — Strathcona is

one in which we have had some mining activity within what was generally

defined to be a park — those circumstances will not be repeated.

Westmin Resources will continue to mine out the ore body within the

area of claims that it has in Strathcona Park, but that's the end of

mining activity in Strathcona Park.

As I said, the industry

wants to know what the ground rules are. We still really have to tidy

up the ground rules insofar as they apply to recreation areas. I would

much prefer that they be called "limited use areas," because mining

activity is permitted in recreation areas — certainly exploration

is allowed. And if exploration is allowed, there's an assumption, at

least on the part of those investing in exploration, that they'll be

allowed to mine an ore deposit if they find one which is commercially

viable. So we have to continue to improve the rules, the principal

objective of which is to be very definite.

[2:45]

The

Strathcona situation, as it evolved, is interesting. There was quite a

specific recommendation by the Wilderness Advisory Committee advising

the government that the boundaries be changed, that there be add-ons

and exclusions from the old boundaries of Strathcona Park. The add-ons

and the exclusions were enacted by order-in-council.

Essentially, the add-ons are remaining, and the exclusions — at least the substantial exclusions —

are being put back into the park. There were, because of that

announcement of orders-in-council, a number of claims staked in the

Bedwell basin in 1987 and 1988. Those claims will have to be annulled,

essentially by buying the claimants out. I think in most instances they

don't have a claim that's worth very much.

Secondly, the

amount of money involved will be relatively small, because very little

was actually spent in developing those claims. Nevertheless, that is a

recent series of events which shouldn't occur again.

We need to be definite about a park boundary. Legislating park boundaries is important. We will — I think the minister has said —

be covering park boundaries to at least 80 percent of the total

boundary of parks in the province. The intention, firmly, is to

legislate all of the boundaries essentially for all time.

[ Page 9643 ]

did say, Mr. Speaker, we still need to clarify and improve our use of

language when it comes to recreation areas. But there should be no

doubt, after this legislation is passed, that a park is a park and that

parks will not be subject in future to any degree of commercial

exploitation, especially of the nature of resource industry activity.

have no hesitation in supporting the bill. I think the mining industry

also supports it. Its concern is whether it will be drawn into other

areas or be active in other areas which suddenly are proclaimed to be

parks. We must have a process whereby areas that are desirable from a

park point of view can be clearly identified as such, as early as

possible, and we'll avoid or at least minimize this conflict between

commercial interests and the broader public interest which wants to see

parks remain as parks forever.

MS. EDWARDS : It's

always pleasing to see that the minister has been reading what the

popular will is, and the popular will currently is in favour of more

parks and protected parks and areas that in fact protect the wilderness

that is very precious to the population these days. Obviously the

minister has been reading his polls. Good.

What he has also

recognized, I'm sure, is the increasing resource conflict that is

there. I have to hope that he has done that and recognizes that had he

taken the warnings that were available to him he would have done this

earlier, and would have legislated the boundaries earlier. As we become

more populated, more industrialized and more technical, there is

greater conflict over the use of the resources.

I am going

to repeat what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Davis) said. Frequently the minister and I do agree on some

things. We just sometimes disagree on the

interpretation of it, or how

we should go about doing something about it. I agree with the minister

that we need the certainty that comes with drawing these boundaries,

which is why they should have been legislated in the first place. But

what happens, of course, is that the minister did not say that several

years ago; he didn't say it in 1987; he didn't say it when he

introduced legislation talking about recreation areas and so on. It's

only now that the minister has pointed out how important it is to

resource industries to know where the boundaries are, and to know if

there is a spot where they cannot explore and cannot develop and if

there's a spot where they can.

This is extremely important

to the mining industry, at any rate; it has become what they call their

most important issue, as to where they will have access for exploration

and so on. This bill certainly does give some degree of certainty to

something that wasn't there before.

However, we still have

Strathcona Park sitting there, with the problems that were created from

another time. We have the particular problem of the Bedwell basin that

everyone has mentioned, where the only staking that was done was of the

public purse, because it's the public purse that is going to pay for

the mistake that was made by not making clear earlier that there should

be no claims in that area.

Mr. Minister, you referred to the public process that has gone on with every park —

as you have said, every park that has been designated in this bill

except Strathcona. Well, first of all, even if we lay aside Strathcona

and why it's here with this particular process, we look at the other

parks and the boundaries that you're talking about that are covered by

the bill. Some public process has gone on that has not really been

completed to the expectation of the public. I'd like to make it clear

that that really should not happen. There are some public processes

that have been in the works for a while, but the public still expects

some proposals to come back to them, and that's not complete in every

case, I believe. That being the case, it would have been just as well

to complete a public process, to make the circle complete, before the

minister goes ahead with this kind of thing, because it's very popular

these days to legislate parks, and so we're going to legislate them as

well as having them done by order-in-council.

However, in general I support the idea of legislating the boundaries and therefore will be voting in favour of the bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

This debate is no stranger to you, Mr. Speaker, because in other movies

we had the responsibility for parks, and had the responsibility for

some of the issues that are being discussed today, particularly

Strathcona.

I wanted to rise briefly, though, to speak to

the issue of Strathcona, because there were comments made with respect

to its creation and government's responsibility. I do want to set the

record straight, because I think some errors.... Particularly the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has maybe left a little bit

unsaid.

To give you some brief history, sir, in 1985 the

government of the day, the Ministry of Environment, under the

stewardship of the current Deputy Speaker, established the Wilderness

Advisory Committee. This was a committee that toured the province and

did an awful lot of good work. It was really well balanced in terms of

its constitution and in its membership. It presented about an 80-page

report to government, indicating how parks and other wilderness areas

should be managed. In 1987 the government of the day responded to that

committee. You'll recall, sir, from your previous portfolio, the

orders-in-council that came from the Wilderness Advisory Committee.

There

was some concern with respect to the boundaries at Strathcona and some

of the activities that would take place there. By that time I had

become Minister Responsible for Parks as well as Minister of

Environment and was faced with the public concern.

I want

the record to show that the government listened to that public concern.

We appointed a committee which I called the Peter Larkin committee.

Peter Larkin had been one of the members of the Wilderness Advisory

Committee and was then asked to chair the committee looking into the

boundaries of

[ Page 9644 ]

Strathcona

and to make recommendations to government. Dr. Larkin and his committee

did. The report was first-class. It surveyed the area that was of

interest and concern to the people of central and north Vancouver

Island. It made some strong recommendations to government about what

should happen. It noted that the recommendations came from the entire

central and north Island business community, the chambers of commerce,

the municipal governments, the regional districts and the environment

community.

It was on the basis of that that government

really brought forward the regulations and the boundaries and made some

input into the bill we currently see today. The second member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts), who was Minister Responsible for

Parks at that time, received that report and had cabinet recommend it.

think this has to be on the record, because there have been some

accusations that government has not acted in a responsible fashion with

respect to the creation and maintenance of park boundaries and the

expansion of parks. That is not correct. The record will clearly show

that in all cases this government has, when alerted by the public, been

most forthcoming in putting study groups in place, listening to the

people of the community and indicating to them that it is going to

listen.

MR. WILLIAMS : Come on!

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We've had more public input into the creation of parks in our

government than you ever did in yours. There's no questioning that, and

the record will show it. That's why I wanted to rise, because the

Larkin report was really the genesis of what we're seeing this

afternoon in the minister's bill. I think it has to go on the record

that at all times this government — at least, this administration —

has been responsive to public opinion, to the park needs of the

province and to the people of the communities surrounding the parks.

With

that said, I strongly endorse the bill. I urge all members to support

it, and I thank the minister for bringing it to the House today.

MR. BARLEE :

I am rather curious about several things in the bill. First of all, I

think that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

compared things that shouldn't be compared. He said that there would be

compensation, and he said that compensation would be made to the timber

companies and the miners. Well, miners are a different breed than

loggers. First of all, you can see the trees, but you cannot see the

ore body. Many of the old claims in the parks are Crown-granted claims,

and have been there since the 1890s.

What is their real value? Do these guys — some of these individuals are extremely sharp operators —

want to mine the ore body, or would they rather mine the public? I'm

rather experienced in the mining business, and it's most probable that

they — most of them, by the way, side with the government —

are going to mine the public much more easily. I don't think you've

taken into consideration what you should do. Is there an individual,

independent assessment of these properties? Have you gone over the

index to the Ministry of Mines reports from 1874 to 1936? Was the

original ore body exhausted? Is it depleted? Is there nothing left?

think you really must assess this extremely closely. Otherwise you're

going to end up paying $50,000 or $60,000 for a claim that is virtually

worthless. But you won't be paying for it — the public will be.

I'm saying that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was a little careless in his comments.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE :

He's a clever man, but I don't think he knows mining. If he did, he

wouldn't have made those statements. So I'm saying: "Make sure your

assessment is independent." For heaven's sake, don't take the word of

the mining companies. The mining companies might drill right on the

vein; they won't cross-cut the whole ore body. So if you are

considering compensation, be extremely careful.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What have you got against mining?

MR. BARLEE :

I've got nothing against mining or the operators in those areas, but I

think we have to be cautious when we handle them. I hope that you will

be cautious.

MR. WILLIAMS : I think it's fortunate

that some work is being done by the present minister in this regard;

there's a long way to go, though. Much was achieved during the '72-75

years. You people have been so busy spending 15 years rewriting history

that you don't have any idea what history is in this province.

MR. RABBITT : We remember lest we forget.

MR. WILLIAMS : Do you indeed?

I'd

just like to go through

schedule B and note the parks that were

dedicated during that period: Atlin Park, comprising some 232,000

hectares; Carp Lake Park near Prince George, comprising 19,000

hectares; Kwadacha Wilderness Park, some 114,000 hectares; Naikoon

Park, comprising some 72,000 hectares....

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Where is it?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Naikoon? At Rose Spit on the northern end of Queen Charlotte Islands.

Indeed, it is one of the most magnificent beaches in the world at Dixon

Entrance.

[3:00]

St. Mary's Alpine Park was dedicated, 9,146 acres; Tatlatui Park, some 105,000 hectares, was dedicated during that period....

[ Page 9645 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What year was that?

MR. WILLIAMS : In 1972-75, Mr. Premier, when you were busy rezoning in Surrey.

Kalamalka Lake Park at Cosens Bay — the most beautiful park, in my view, in the Okanagan —

is part of the Coldstream Ranch and was acquired during that period.

Only in that period did we actually put cash money out for parks on a

scale that has not been seen either before or since in this province.

addition, Mount Assiniboine Park was dedicated during that period;

Ruckle Park, just over here on Saltspring Island, was dedicated during

that period because the Ruckles were so impressed with the

administration of the day....

MR. REID : They probably left the province right away, too.

MR. WILLIAMS : And they sold the park at far less than it was worth, in terms of the public interest.

Schoen Lake Park came out of that period; Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Park in the far north — some 656,000 hectares — was dedicated in 1975; Top of the World Park was dedicated, 8,791 hectares, in the Kootenays. There you are — all in this bill, indeed.

I would like to establish the record for the benefit of those who don't

know anything about the history of this province and have been

listening to the nonsense of their compatriots through the years and

thinking it's the gospel; that's blasphemous enough.

The

Friends of Strathcona are the ones I'd like to recognize today as well.

If the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is talking

about public input in that form, then indeed there has been more public

input during the Social Credit years than we've seen before, where

70-year-old grandmothers had to stand in front of the drilling rigs in

Strathcona Park to prevent any further desecration of the park.

Let's

get it straight. This bill comes out of the hard work of the people in

the Campbell River region from Denman Island, Hornby Island and the

Comox Valley who fought to have that park preserved because they

believed it should stay and be a park. Now I tell you, when some 70

responsible — often elderly — people are ready to go to jail

because they want to see a park preserved, I commend them. If that's

what the member for Prince George South is doing in terms of commending

that public input during their regime, then I second the motion, but I

don't think that's what he had in mind. So there you are.

What

I find really interesting is that this bill doesn't include a lot of

parks. That's the interesting question, and the member for North Island

has said he wants to hear from the minister in that regard. And don't

we all? Why aren't all of the parks included? There's a map here with

lots of parks that aren't in this bill. Some of them aren't defined as

parks per se. For example, the Purcell....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. You were doing so well by staying in order for so long.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. If the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr.

Reid) could contain himself just for part of the day, it would be so

pleasant.

We can't deal with things that aren't in this

bill; I think the member is aware of that. Just the principle of the

bill, and those matters in the

schedule actually point it out very

clearly. Those that aren't mentioned really can't be discussed at this

time. Of course, estimates, when the House is in committee, will afford

a wonderful opportunity to discuss these matters, or even perhaps in

committee, but certainly not when the Speaker is in the chair.

MR. WILLIAMS : We all have our own

interpretations.

certainly wouldn't want to mention the fact that the Purcell wilderness

and other areas are not in the bill. That wouldn't be in order, and I

think it's not in order that they're not in the bill, but there we are.

The

Brundtland commission has recommended that essentially 12 percent

representative of the ecosystem of the regions within the jurisdiction

should be preserved. Let's get it on the record in this debate that the

New Democrats doubled the amount of preservation land and parkland

during three short years, '72 to '75. That has not been equalled.

Nowhere in the history of this nation has that kind of dedication

toward wilderness preservation occurred in such a short period. It was

a doubling of the park space and wilderness space in British Columbia

in three short years. That's essentially why the map of parks in

British Columbia looks the way it does.

You think about it:

Naikoon Park, Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Park.... These are incredible

gems in this province. They would not be there in their present form

had it not been for that period. So let's just make that clear.

But

Brundtland is saying that even though we doubled it in '72 to '75,

there's a need for doubling again in terms of their perception — and these are thoughtful, global leaders. And if you look at British Columbia —

this incredible landscape of ours.... For those that have been around

this province and have had the opportunity, as I have, to land on Mount

Edziza, the extinct volcano in the Stikine country, or to travel the

Grand Canyon of the Stikine, which is one of the wonders of the world,

or to have helicoptered the river systems back of Bella Coola and Ocean

Falls....

MR. RABBITT : Who paid for your trip, Bob?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Well, there you are. I think it's important. Maybe some of my

colleagues here on the other side have not seen these parts of British

Columbia. There are incredible places and very special places on this

planet. And the Brundtland recommendations are probably seen in terms

of jurisdictions that don't have as wide and rich a landscape as we

have. So the Brundtland recommendations — in

[ Page 9646 ]

terms of the incredible natural heritage of this province —

are probably modest in terms of the assets that we are lucky enough to

govern in this province. So with that in mind, the bill has to be kept

in perspective. It's an extremely modest step forward in a long journey

that more and more citizens in our society are ready to embark upon.

And we think that the future steps will be in the hands of others and

that the Brundtland goals will be met in a very short period of time.

Are you still in that nasty mood? Get up and speak!

MR. PERRY . It is a pleasure to listen to the first member for Vancouver

East, because I remember the excitement of that era when the new parks were

created and announced. I remember the wonderful photographs of Dan Conrad, if

I remember correctly, who went out and flew over some of the parks that the

member for Vancouver East just mentioned: Naikoon and Spatsizi and Atlin. I

remember in those days of government advertising we didn't have to borrow

a deer from the provincial museum to make a good publicity photograph. In fact,

it was even before the days when we tried to convince Americans that we could

outdo Las Vegas in show business or sex promotion, or whatever it was we were

trying to attract them here for, back in Expo year.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Perhaps the member could relate this debate to the principle of this bill.

MR. PERRY :

The relation to the principle of the bill is that I would like to

second the argument put forward by the first member for Vancouver East.

I see this as a positive step. It's only a modest step. It's something

that we have long discussed and called for — making permanent park

boundaries and legislation. So I welcome the bill, and I see it as a

very constructive act in that sense. But I also eagerly await, as does

the first member for Vancouver East, the expansion of the park system

towards — or even surpassing — the Brundtland goal of 12 or 13 percent of the total surface area.

would like to mention that I look forward to subsequent bills, since I

don't see anything anywhere in this bill that would incorporate the

Skagit Valley as a provincial park — a subject that's dear not

only to the Speaker and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources but I hope to the Minister of Parks. It's where the Minister

of Energy and Mines is presently promoting mineral development in an

area that should be a class A park. I look forward to seeing that

designation in a subsequent bill, if possible this session, so that

once and for all we can put the issue of mining in the Skagit Valley to

rest.

I look forward to seeing some inclusion in the future of heritage rivers and finally British Columbia's subscription....

MR. SPEAKER :

Once again, hon. member, many of the issues you wish to bring up are

not covered in the bill. This is not the format to do it. I must ask

you to speak to the principle of the bill. The minute we start to stray

on these things, the subject gets broader and wider. The Skagit isn't

included, so we can't discuss it. We can only discuss things present in

the bill rather than ones you may wish to have included. There is an

opportunity for debate at another time, but not now. I ask the member

to continue.

MR. PERRY : I beg your forgiveness, Mr. Speaker. I'll await instruction as to when I can raise those further —

perhaps in the estimates debate. Let me just say that I look forward to

visiting a few of the details during committee stage and that I am

pleased to congratulate the minister on the positive aspects of this

bill.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I would like everyone in this House to join me in welcoming 60 grade 5

students from Bakerview Elementary School in Central Fraser Valley.

They are here to listen to some of this great debate, and later on I'm

going to meet them in person. They're here with their teacher, Mr. J.

Hardington, and some parents and other teachers. Would the House please

make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the Minister of Parks closes the debate.

HON. MR. MESSMER :

Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to say how much I appreciate the fact that

both sides of the House support this bill, and I look forward to

answering any questions that you may have in the committee stage.

specific question, though, was asked by the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann), which I thought I should give an answer to, and that

was the number of class A parks in British Columbia today. There are

321, and 103 of those parks are legislated, in total, through Bill 25,

which means that 218 are not legislated. Those remaining class A parks,

by our policy, need the master planning process. What we have said in

the past — and say today — is that the public must be

involved in the master planning process. Once that process takes place,

then we as a government will bring them before this House to legislate

the boundaries.

The other question we've talked about today is the one that has really had a checkered past —

Strathcona. I had the opportunity of going to Courtenay, first for a

public hearing and later to make the announcement on Strathcona. There

is no doubt that it has had a checkered past; there are many scars on

the public who live in the area. Yes, we're the first to admit that

possibly there were some mistakes made. But in the process of this

government, we did listen to the people, and I believe that this

cabinet and

[ Page 9647 ]

government

have accepted the recommendations and made the right decision.

Consequently, legislating the boundaries at this early date shows that

this government certainly supports the Strathcona. As I said in a

challenge to the people when I was there, the past is behind us, and we

have to look to the future. We should get on with managing the parks,

and the people have to start enjoying the parks. There's no doubt that

it is a great park for all of us.

I must say that we

consult the public before we take action. It's called evaluation before

designation. As has been said before, there is no mining or logging in

our class A parks. We believe that we have the finest park system in

all of Canada, and this bill will make it even stronger. In conclusion,

I move second reading of Bill 25.

Motion approved.

Bill

25, Park Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

[3:15]

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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, $265,076 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Mr. Chairman, I can't recall where we were when we left off, but I'm sure we were having an enlightened....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

SFA. Oh yes. The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari)

brought some discussion about student financial aid, and indicated that

in her opinion perhaps we weren't doing well enough. Of course, in our

opinion we feel that we are, although I did indicate — and I'll advise the committee again —

that we are putting together an expanded database to better understand

our own student financial aid system, to have a better look at and an

analysis of where we may have some problems in applying student

financial aid.

With the incredible enrolment pressures that

we see throughout British Columbia, we know that tuition and lack of

financing is not really an impediment for students to attend a

post-secondary institution. At least, that's generally.

However, we feel that specifically there may be a class of students — single parents, for example — who

don't have the advantage that many others have, and we're going to

assemble a better database to try to identify those students who may

need particular and specific assistance. I think that really sums it up

for my comments on student financial aid, unless the members

opposite — or anywhere in the committee — have more questions.

I indicated in my discussions last week when we first entered this

estimates debate, we have increased the amount of student financial aid

considerably. We feel that we're treating the students well. We have

established a ceiling on how much money they will have to pay back upon

degree completion. We feel that that's adequate.

I think

we're serving those students in the best manner possible. Of course,

we're also serving in the best fashion the taxpayer of British

Columbia, who is putting up some of that money for the loan system.

That said, I'll take my place and anticipate further questions by the members of the committee, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PETERSON : I have a few questions I'd like to ask that deal with long-range planning.

There

have been some recent studies in terms of population growth over the

next ten years in the Fraser Valley. The projections, because of our

strong economy and the attraction of a beautiful place to live, most

certainly show that population for the Fraser Valley over the next ten

years is going to be increasing rapidly.

What I'd like to

first of all know is: is the minister in tune with these studies? Is

there some long-range planning to deal with the demands on our advanced

education system — our colleges and universities? Basically, we

have a lot of younger families moving in there who will be having

children, and when they graduate from our excellent education system

and want to go on for further training, we're going to have to have the

ability to meet these demands. I wonder what the ministry is doing in

terms of addressing them over the long range.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The member addresses a very topical point. The Fraser Valley has the

fastest growing population in British Columbia, and is the largest

portion of the population of our province which is not served in a

degree-completion capacity. In 1989 an estimated 13,500 full-time

students participated in post-secondary education, but this is less

than half of the national average participation rate.

The

lower mainland communities, from Vancouver to Chilliwack, are forecast

to grow by 640,000 people over the next two decades. Of this total,

approximately half a million will be in the Fraser Valley.

answer to this concern, we struck some time ago the Fraser Valley

access committee which was convened by the three presidents of the

community colleges, as well as Dr. Bill Saywell, the president of Simon

Fraser University. They indicated to us in a report, which is going to

be released on June 4, that there was considerable need for a

degree-completion capacity in the Fraser Valley,

That

report was largely internal to those four presidents, and it also begs

some questions. So without trying to tip now what I'm going to be

[ Page 9648 ]

announcing

on June 4, I do want to say that we need considerable public input in

terms of how degree completion is going to be delivered in the Fraser

Valley area.

There's a lot of difference of opinion there.

Some say another campus of Simon Fraser University; others say a

college-university model with the colleges — Fraser Valley College

in particular. So that's something that we have to look at. That will

be done, and I think that report can give us a good, sound basis for

the development of degree-completion facilities in the Fraser Valley.

However,

I would like to say that in response to the enrolment pressure in

1989-90, the last fiscal year, the ministry has added over 1,150

full-time equivalent student spaces for the Fraser Valley area, broken

down in this fashion: 600 at Simon Fraser; 248 at Douglas; another 40

at Fraser Valley College; and Kwantlen, 276. So we have been responsive

in that sense. In the 1991 fiscal year we're going to add another

1,243, broken down in this fashion: Simon Fraser University, 495 extra

FTEs; Douglas College, 264; Fraser Valley College, 177; and Kwantlen

College, 307. So we are increasing the profile of SFU and the three

community colleges in the Fraser Valley considerably, and I think we're

being quite responsible in that.

As I've indicated earlier,

there is some work to be done. I think there is some analysis to be

made. We will carry that out this summer and in the fall, to further

identify the method by which we want to deliver degree completion in

the Fraser Valley.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his question.

MR. PETERSON :

I'm extremely pleased to hear that the minister and the ministry have

got the future consideration and the demands well in hand; that

certainly will make my constituents very happy.

If I could

talk about the immediate future, I heard in the minister's reply that

he'll be talking additional capacity in Kwantlen College. Kwantlen

College has a campus site in Langley. I wonder if the minister could

advise me, Mr. Chairman, if indeed the Langley site would be part of

the consideration for the additional enrolment capacity. I know there

is a lot of interest in that site; they've had it for a long time.

At the same time, there has been a big interest in the horticultural faculty at that site. Will that be addressed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I thank the second member for Langley for his genuine interest in

post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley. I think, out of courtesy

to all the Members of the Legislative Assembly who reside in and are

responsible for the Fraser Valley, I had best leave further detailed

answers to the member's question until our announcement of June 4. The

member will be pleased, I am sure, and I would ask him to join me on

June 4 in Langley, when we announce our future extension plans and our

way of arriving at the design and the profile for the Fraser Valley

area.

MR. JONES : I'm a little surprised, although it

has been some time since we previously discussed his estimates, that

the minister did not remember that the discussion of SFA was not about

student financial assistance.

Maybe I could start off in

what I think is a non-partisan way. If the minister would recall, at

the end of our session a week and a half ago, on a Monday afternoon, it

was my colleague the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey who

described most eloquently and almost poetically the situation in

Nelson. Perhaps the minister will recall that the member described

Nelson as having a great history, a very proud history, as a university

town, and how it has suffered greatly, not only economically but also

culturally and socially, as a result of having lost the opportunity to

be a centre of post-secondary education in the Kootenays. However, I

think all members in this House, and members opposite in particular,

who I know admire the entrepreneurial spirit, would be most impressed

with those in that community who have worked tenaciously and hard,

never giving up on the dream of resuming their rightful place in the

Kootenays as a centre of post-secondary education.

One of

the recent developments that I hope the minister is aware of is that of

Nelson University Centre. It is a very small, city-sponsored,

community-supported, non-profit, independent, non-sectarian, liberal

arts academic community. That is one part of that dream of which I

spoke that the community holds for the future.

They have a

small staff of 14 who work largely, I think, on a volunteer basis. Half

of that faculty have PhDs. They have a small number of students and

they are working in conjunction with several other institutions, some

of them in Washington State — in particular Eastern Washington University.

They

would like two things, and they have probably made this request of the

minister. I would be very interested in the minister's response to see

if he has decided to do anything to help the Nelson University Centre

in their quest to become a post-secondary centre in the Kootenays.

[3:30]

What they want is very simple. First, they want transfer credit.

They believe that their courses are pedagogically sound, are effective

and will stand the scrutiny of the post-secondary community. They

already have transfer credit with Eastern Washington University and

with a university in Halifax. They want students to be able to take

some courses in Nelson and go on to other post-secondary institutions

in this province and receive credit for their undertakings in Nelson.

The second thing they want is to attract more students —

and I am sure the minister will appreciate that in order to attract

students it would help greatly if those students had access to the

student financial assistance program and the Passport to Education

program. Students would then be able to be treated as they would in

other institutions in British Columbia. I think the minister would

appreciate some of the

[ Page 9649 ]

arguments that community uses, which are the same ones people used in establishing the University of Northern British Columbia.

They

want the young people in that community to be able to take

post-secondary courses in that community; to stay there; to not have to

travel to other parts of the province, to travel to the lower mainland

or southern Vancouver Island. In order to do that, they need transfer

credit; they need access to the B.C. student loan program. Has the

minister decided to assist that fledgling post-secondary community in

any way?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I had forgotten. I was

so charmed by the first member for Point Grey and her SFA comment that

I had forgotten what she was referring to when she said, "SFA." She was

actually just using that as a speaking point around the topic of David

Thompson University Centre in Nelson.

For the benefit of

the committee, in the summer of 1983 the David Thompson University

Centre was closed due to low utilization which had resulted in

exceedingly high per-student operating costs — essentially double what they were at any other institution in British Columbia. The government of the day — as a matter of fact, it was my colleague from Prince George who happened to be Minister of Education at the time —

had to take the most unpleasant step and show some real courage in

saying: "The public can just not be put to this expense any more. We

cannot be spending twice as much per student in Nelson as we do in

other centres and really be able to look the public in the eye with any

responsibility or credibility."

So we took the difficult

step in 1983 of closing down that institution for that reason and for

reasons which are still applicable now. Nelson is a charming community;

it's one of my favourite towns to visit in the southern part of the

province. I've spent some time there and I quite like it. It's just a

lovely city in the summertime. As a matter of fact, I spent a bit of my

vacation there last summer. Nevertheless it has a declining population.

The

area has had a declining population since its former role as the

southeastern capital of British Columbia in the beginning of this

century. So things have changed in Nelson. There is nothing more

constant than change, and that's the reality of communities. It would

be nice to have a university in Wells, British Columbia, but it has a

declining population as well. So those are the facts of life with

respect to Nelson.

I do want to answer a couple of the

member's questions. In terms of transfer credit, the University Act

prohibits me as minister from being involved in that process. However,

there is a process — and I'll make the committee aware of it —

to transfer credit which is dealt with by the council on admissions and

transfers. Rendina Hamilton and Grant Fisher are on that council; they

are both well-respected people in the field of education in British

Columbia. Rendina Hamilton is a lawyer and is a former president of the

B.C. School Trustees' Association; and Grant Fisher, of course, is a

civil servant of long standing and excellent reputation. So that is

transfer credit, and transfer-credit discussion and articulation is

available to Nelson — or the Kootenay Educational Society, operating in the Nelson University Centre — through the council of admissions and transfer.

terms of student financial assistance, that could take place, but I'm

going to advise you, Mr. Chairman, that it might be better discussed

under a bill which is currently before the Legislative Assembly: the

Private Post-Secondary Education Act, which I tabled in this House

yesterday for first reading. We might have many more opportunities to

discuss Nelson and other private institutions when we begin debate on

that bill, so I'm going to leave it at that. If the member has more

questions about Nelson or any other issue, I'm more than happy to

answer them. But with respect to the private institute bill and

Nelson's fitting into it, we would have to wait until it is debated.

I'm sure the Chair and the member understand that.

MR. JONES :

I appreciate the minister's comments. I certainly wasn't asking the

minister to grant transfer credit to Nelson University Centre. However,

my understanding is that that group has run into some difficulty with

the process. Not that the minister or the previous minister haven't set

up a good process, but there does seem to be some frustration at that

level. If there is a bureaucratic problem, then it is quite within the

purview of the Minister of Advanced Education to smooth out the

wrinkles.

On the minister's response with respect to

financial aid to students at Nelson University Centre, I hope that

something can come of that. Perhaps through Bill 24 we will see

something available for the students at that city-sponsored,

community-supported, non-profit, independent, non-sectarian liberal

arts academic community.

I'd like to move on to another

brief topic that the minister and I have discussed, both in our last

discussion on the estimates and again last Friday in private members'

statements: literacy. The deputy minister can turn to that page in his

files.

The minister commented in his estimates on what a fine committee we had —

the Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee. It produced an excellent

report which holds out great promise for this very serious problem that

affects some 360,000 British Columbians. As I said in private members'

statements last Friday, the ministry received that report in September

1989. If you think about it, any sort of planning process for an

international year — and 1990 is the International Year of

Literacy.... One would expect to have had the report on literacy in

September 1989. The committee worked from September 1988 to September

1989 and produced an excellent report. However, there was a deafening

silence after the receipt of that original draft report, which didn't

have costing in it but was certainly very complete.

realize that the minister only assumed his new responsibilities shortly

after the receipt of that report. However, Mr. Chairman, we are almost

halfway

[ Page 9650 ]

through

the International Year of Literacy, and I would like to ask the

minister why he has been so slow in responding to the good

recommendations of the very worthy committee appointed by his

predecessor. Why has it taken so long for the minister to respond to

those recommendations?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : As I told

the member last Friday during private members' statements, the final

report did not come in September, but rather on December 4. I had the

report with me that day; I recall the date. As the committee will

appreciate, it had some very serious and extensive spending

recommendations. One does not just get out one's chequebook when one

receives a report like that. There is a process in our government

called Treasury Board, and there is a process called budget submission.

One has to do many things when one wants to spend money — particularly considerable sums of money — and we are going through that process now.

have a considerably good amount of money in my budget for this. There

are a couple of issues to be dealt with by Treasury Board, but I can

assure the member that the money will be spent wisely and will be

forthcoming as soon as we get Treasury Board and government approval to

do what we want to do. I can also assure the member that many things

recommended in the report are being done now: for example, assisting

volunteers, assisting community colleges and assisting in any way we

can to help stamp out illiteracy.

The member may feel he

has got a point of criticism for saying that we haven't responded as

quickly as we can to a December report, but I would say that we are

taking that report seriously. We are committing funding and resources

to it. The results will speak for themselves. I'm sure we can all see

that. We know with the work we're doing, with the work being done by

the community colleges and by volunteer groups, by the work being done

in some non-educational institutions.... I spoke last week of the Royal

Jubilee, which has an excellent program right in the hospital just to

help many of the employees there who are not literate to become

literate.

We're seeing very good work being done all over

the province. I'm quite proud of our accomplishments to date. I can

assure the committee they're going to be more and more extensive as we

develop our funding and resources to combat the problem of 17 percent

illiteracy in British Columbia.

MR. JONES : I'm more

concerned with the British Columbians who need assistance with the

literacy problem than I am with scoring political points. However, it

is clear that the ministry — not the minister — did have the

draft report in September. The recommendations of that report were well

understood. They were reported, in fact, in the Times-Colonist in

October. Much later, we are still waiting for any official government

response to those recommendations. I don't want to belabour the point,

but it's been a ten-month wait for a response. We are halfway through

the International Year of Literacy.

The minister indicated

last year that $1 million had been set aside for literacy. I would like

to ask the minister: were those funds spent? In what program areas

other than the advisory committee itself were those funds spent?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Just to give you some budget numbers —

I think this is what the member wants. Budget allocations for the

fiscal year '89-90 for literacy were $4.2 million for the colleges and

$650,000 for federal-provincial cost-shared. In '90-91 again the $4.2

million for the colleges and the $650,000 federal-provincial

cost-shared. Then there's a further item that I can't reveal yet,

because I haven't had Treasury Board approval, which will become public

soon, I would suspect.

One more thing I did want to advise

the committee: the report the member refers to that was delivered to

the ministry in September was a draft. It was drafted for public

response. It was not final and was in fact left open so the public

could respond to it. One could not take that report and say we knew

what we wanted to do then. Clearly the report was not complete; it did

not have the benefit of the public input we wanted. The first final

report we received was in December, not September.

[3:45]

MR. JONES : The report to which the minister refers ended up as the final report, basically —

substantially unchanged. So I do conclude that the ministry was aware

and did have ample opportunity. Here we are now.... I appreciate that

the minister has to go to Treasury Board and has to plan a budget and

that there are not unlimited funds. However, I'm amazed that we're

almost halfway through the International Year of Literacy.

The

minister says the funds in the budget as we know them are identical to

what they were last year. The $4.2 million for colleges and the

$650,000 in federal cost-shared programs were the same in the '89-90

year as they are in the '90-91 year. If in times of inflation there is

no change in the budget, that means a decrease in the amount of service

that can be offered.

I'm amazed, given all this time, that

with the good planning that went on from September 1988 with Paul

Gallagher, whose college is in the riding of the first member for

Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Fraser), we have a decrease in the funding

for literacy programs established at this point — almost halfway through the International Year of Literacy — and the minister is still going to Treasury Board, still trying to establish his budget.

What

are we doing here in estimates? I thought we were debating the

estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education. I thought by this time

the minister would be able to give a full accounting of the funds we

are approving at this point. If he can't, what are we doing here? What

are we voting on? Why is the minister still going before Treasury Board

when his estimates are before this House? Perhaps there's

[ Page 9651 ]

something I'm missing, because it sure doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe the minister could explain.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I have given you the numbers that are in the budget for literacy, both

from the year before and for this year. I am seeking more dollars from

Treasury Board as a result of this report. The budget preparation comes

to the government in the fall of the year. We work on this, and the

Ministry of Finance officials would have received it well before this

report was delivered to us.

What I am telling you about now is a request that I am going to be making for funds additional to what we see in the budget.

MR. JONES :

Maybe I'm about to learn a little about the finance of the province

here. If in fact there are funds appropriate to the recommendations in

the report of the Literacy Advisory Committee, we would see a

substantial increase in the efforts of the province to meet the

tremendous needs of those people who need help with reading and writing

at a basic level in this province.

First of all, what will

happen to the figures in the ministry budget? Secondly, where do those

funds come from? Do they come from the BS fund?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

In the Ministry of Finance estimates there's an item called "New

Programs Vote." That's where the money will come from. That's where I

or other ministers who have new programs they are developing will go to.

MR. JONES : Can the minister give a date when a decision will be made — hopefully sometime during the International Year of Literacy — as to when these programs might be approved by Treasury Board?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It is our intent, Mr. Member, to have the announcement made well before

the end of June so we can begin programs in earnest by September —

the fall semester at the community colleges. You will appreciate, of

course, that we want to let the colleges know as quickly as possible

the amount of funding we have for this new program so they can in turn

do what they have to do and assemble their resources, instructional

staff, materials and all the equipment they are going to need to spend

the money we are giving them.

MR. JONES : So I take

it then that beginning in September we will see funds available from

Treasury Board to respond to the report of the advisory committee. We

will see these programs in place in the last four months of the

International Year of Literacy. I appreciate the minister's response.

I'd

like to go back to a topic we were on briefly last Monday, and that has

to do with labour relations. The minister, in discussing the very

serious situation that occurred at two colleges in this province where

a strike protracted to the point we hadn't seen before in this

province....

Mr. Chairman, could I ask that there be order

in the House? The member for Delta and the first member for Vancouver

South seem to have another agenda going on here, other than the

estimates.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, I rise to

join in this great debate to talk about what this government has done

for the post-secondary industry in the province of British Columbia. I

know how well we do. I know how many millions we spend. I know more

about literacy than he ever will, and I want to tell you that this

government is determined to make sure that every student who graduates

from grade 12 can go to post-secondary. That's what it's all about.

The

harping and the carping and the whining of the NDP is just

unbelievable. I read a little

article in here today, and I rise

specifically to talk about this. The education of engineers.... I

happen to like engineers; most engineers are pretty reasonable, and I

can't think of one who isn't, come to think of it. My colleague, the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis)....

But the one thing I really like about engineers is that they do think ahead and they do plan.

I am very proud of my whole industry, in fact, because not too long ago — and not too long ago can mean different things to different people —

my industry decided they wanted to encourage more and more women to go

into engineering. To that end, the Canadian industry has raised almost

20 percent of a million dollars being sought by the Canadian Council of

Professional Engineers to fund education in engineering for women.

They

are going to produce a number of incentives to encourage women to take

engineering, which I think is very positive. There is certainly no

question about the fact that there is lots of talent there, and we

should encourage all students to take the courses of their liking,

whether it's engineering, truck driving or whatever. Incidentally, it's

very difficult to drive trucks these days; they're so sophisticated and

hightech. It's not the simple changing-gears system that it used to be.

MRS. BOONE : It never was simple.

HON. MR. FRASER :

The member for Prince George North says: "It never was simple." Well,

it's more difficult now than it ever was. The trucks are bigger

than they ever were, the loads are heavier than they were, and so it is

more difficult — which is the point I was making. You obviously have to concur.

It's

interesting that they're going to be giving annual awards for female or

male engineering students who initiate a project with the greatest

potential to attract female high-school or community-college students

into engineering. It's an interesting point that you would give a prize

to men or women or both, so that they would encourage one — the females —

particularly in high schools and colleges, to get into engineering.

It's a very positive step. I think it's a reaction of the profession to

a need for more scientists in the land, and in the world for that

[ Page 9652 ]

matter.

Indeed, we have scholarships for women in high school or community

colleges entering engineering and bigger scholarships for students to

come up with projects that would likely encourage women to take

engineering. We have wonderful engineering schools in British Columbia,

and I was very pleased to have had a chance to serve on the

Universities Council, which came to the point of promoting the idea of

opening another engineering school in the province. Now we have three:

at SFU, UBC and the University of Victoria.

I wouldn't be

surprised if, before too many years go by, the minister is able to

promote, develop and encourage the university of the north — for which this government takes great pride —

so that people from the north can go to school closer to their homes

and people from across the province can go to schools almost wherever

they like. One of the things I happen to think is very important is for

students to travel away from their homes to go to post-secondary

institutions if they can; and this way they can. In fact, you can take

university degrees almost everywhere in the province now, and

increasingly more so.

I'm sure that under the leadership of

this great minister and this government, more and more students will

understand the value of post-secondary education, and we'll find the

average student age going up. Indeed, in many of the colleges in the

lower mainland, the average age of students is much higher than that of

students graduating from high school, which indicates that more and

more people are going back to school. It means that we're doing a good

job of promoting post-secondary education.

MR. REID : They're not even listening to you.

HON. MR. FRASER : They don't want to hear it, my friend; they don't want to hear how good a job we're doing.

hope the minister will get into the issue of student aid, which has

increased significantly in the past few years. Maybe they should hear

it again, because I don't think they believe it. It is wonderful what

this minister is doing. I would like to support him in his efforts to

continue with the good work, to promote those universities throughout

the province, to advance the interests of the students through the

college system, which was developed by Social Credit governments many

years ago.

Oh, I know the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Blencoe) doesn't want to hear it, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that

he was one of the two who made the big promise: "I will give away the

raise; I will give it all to charity." I wonder where that's gone. But

this government makes promises and keeps them, and that minister is one

of those good ministers.

MR. CHAIRMAN : just before

the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) continues, the Chair must

recognize that I wouldn't want the member to think he was ignored in

the request he made just before the Solicitor-General got up to speak.

The member complained to the Chair that some of the noise going on in

the chamber while he was making his point was disconcerting. He has a

point in saying that, although I should point out that it is quite

customary on both sides of the House for conversations to be carried on

in well-modulated voices between members while debate is going on.

However, I'm sure that all hon. members are aware of how disconcerting

it can be to have a lot of chatter going on while you're trying to make

a point. Having said that, I see that the member for Burnaby North

wants to rise. Or does the minister want to respond?

[4:00]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I would like to respond; I will be brief. I do want to speak to the

issue of more females attending engineering schools as well as entering

other science areas. It's something we clearly have to look at and

encourage in every way we can.

There is a lot of good work

now being done through this ministry and also through that of my

colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). Scientists in

the school, for example, is something that we support, and I think that

it's turning an awful lot of young ladies on to considering a science

career, outside of the more traditional ones that ladies might think

of — that is, science teaching and maybe medicine, that type of

thing. So that's good. We know that if we're going to increase the

number of productive scientists in our province, we have to really

encourage young girls in grades 5 and 6 to start thinking about how

they're going to proceed through junior and senior secondary school and

get those science credits so that they can enter the fields of science

and engineering.

I'm just going to close with this

anecdote, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. In January of this

year I spent some time touring Canada, as I've already told the

committee, and looking at small universities, with an eye to what we

will need at the University of Northern British Columbia. I ended up in

Halifax — not that Halifax is a small town, but it has an interesting small university. It's called TUNS —

the Technical University of Nova Scotia. It graduates all of Nova

Scotia's engineers. About 75 percent of its enrolment is in applied

science for engineering; the other 25 is food sciences and computing

sciences. So it's an engineering school, in the first sense of the

word. The other interesting thing is that it does not teach first and

second year. You do sciences at another university and come into TUNS

in your third and fourth years. They also have graduate programs.

met the president of the students' council at TUNS. Here is this

engineering school in Halifax, and the president of the students'

council is a charming lady. So I said: "It's interesting that you would

be the president of the student society at an engineering school." As

soon as I said that, I knew she was thinking: "Who's this old guy

trying to lay this sexist trip on me?" So I immediately apologized for

that, tongue in cheek, and she was in quite good humour; she took what

I meant.

[ Page 9653 ]

But

then we got discussing the participation of women at TUNS, and I was

advised that they have the highest participation rate of any university

in any engineering school in Canada. The reason for that is that TUNS

has its own profile in Halifax. It's known as a very good engineering

school. It's unique in Canada, and because of that, female students in

grades 5, 6, 7 and 8 don't set aside the possibility of going to an

engineering school. They think about it, because they know of an aunt

or a sister or someone else who has gone to TUNS and successfully

completed an engineering degree.

That awareness of women in

engineering exists in Halifax and causes TUNS to have a higher

participation rate. I think that's what we really need. Halifax has a

different attitude about women in science than any other community in

Canada. That's clear, because they have a higher participation rate at

that school.

I'll leave it at that, but I did want to share

that with my colleague the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and also

the rest of the committee, because it is important, I think. If you

establish that attitude change, if you establish the awareness that you

can take a certain program and be successful at it, then you will have

a better participation rate.

MR. JONES : I did want

to raise a question with respect to labour relations and the strike

situation that we talked about last Monday. In that discussion the

minister was explaining, I suppose, that we had had a number of

settlements. He was pointing out that the two difficult strikes we had

must have been due to some other reason.

I found the words

that he chose particularly unfortunate. He said, "They successfully

concluded a very good settlement, so obviously it's not the funding

process that's doing it," indicating that it wasn't the overall funding

that's producing these strikes — a fair position for the minister

to take in defending his argument. He goes on to say, though, that

there must be something else: "Maybe there's a political agenda." I'd

like the minister to clarify what he meant in that situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Exactly what I said. I know what the budgets are for the colleges and

institutes, and I know that many of them have successfully concluded

negotiations. I gave the example of the College of New Caledonia in

Prince George. I met with the president of the faculty association

there during the time that they were negotiating, and we spent.... She

was quite forthcoming — Kathy Conroy is her name — and in

confidence she told me where they were in the negotiation process, as

much as she could. Then they had a successful conclusion to their

contract, and they're signed up again, I think, for another 30 months.

know that the funding is there, I know that it's adequate, and I know

that when you have two responsible parties at the bargaining table— the employee association and the employer — you're going to arrive at a just, fair, equitable, responsible settlement. In two cases we didn't have that happen.

Knowing

that throughout B.C. we have responsible faculty associations and

responsible employers, and knowing that the institutes are well

funded — I know that from my point of view — I have to

conclude that there's something else happening when we have these

protracted strikes. It could be a political agenda — which in some

cases, I'm advised, it was. I'm not going to discuss that, because I

was given that information in confidence. But I do know that if we had

so many successful settlements, then there....

MR. BLENCOE : Name names.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'll give you the names. I've already told you CNC is one of them.

There's a whole bunch that settled quite nicely. Here we are: Emily

Carr, Fraser Valley, New Caledonia, Selkirk, Northwest and Camosun.

Camosun, in your own home town, Mr. Member for Victoria, settled quite

successfully. Those are the names you wanted. Again, I think we can

look at those names and see that this is the result of responsible

faculty associations meeting with a responsible administration and

arriving at a fair and equitable settlement.

MR. JONES :

I'd like to try and clarify for the minister what he has just said, in

my view. He is suggesting that the funding is adequate, that the

government is responsible and that the boards and the administration

are responsible. He's suggesting, in these two instances where there

was a labour dispute, that it's the faculty that had a political agenda

and were being irresponsible. I know the minister wants to clarify that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I didn't say faculty. I said that in these instances there was maybe a political agenda. But I didn't name the party.

MR. JONES :

It's very clear. I know when the minister reads the Blues it will be

very obvious what was said. He didn't say faculty, but he mentioned

everybody else involved in the process as being responsible. The one

party he omitted was the faculty, by which he meant that they were

irresponsible and they have some sort of political agenda that he won't

discuss in this House — that I still don't understand it.

Let's

just have a further look at what the minister said last Monday. Again,

it's passing strange that the Minister of Advanced Education would talk

about political agendas and, in my view, take a very partisan view of a

labour dispute. He said:

"It's interesting

that as the Douglas College dispute became more and more critical in

terms of time and dragging out, when the Douglas College administration

published ads in the morning Province and in the afternoon Sun

stating what the...demands were, a settlement was reached at 7:30 that

evening. The public was finally made aware of what the demands were.

Obviously the faculty themselves felt the demands were very high, and

when they reached the public eye, there was a decision and a conclusion

and a settlement reached at 7:30 that evening."

[ Page 9654 ]

suppose the Minister of Advanced Education believes that nonsense, but

that is not at all the situation as the strike unfolded. My

understanding is that several days before the conclusion of that

unfortunate strike, the college had several conditions under which they

would sit down again at the bargaining table. The afternoon of the day

of the settlement, they agreed to sit down unconditionally. There was a

move there on the part of the board.

I don't think the ads

played any role in the settlement of the dispute. In fact, it was

generally agreed that the ads were quite misleading. Some of the issues

mentioned in those ads had already been settled. The college was

embarrassed at some of the details being inaccurate in those ads. What

the faculty were demanding was parity with New Westminster public

school teachers in one year. Those demands were met in the settlement.

The faculty feel — as I hope both sides feel — that their demands were met. That was the basis of the settlement.

Another

suggested factor in bringing about a resolution to that unfortunate

dispute was the suggestion that the Industrial Relations Council step

in and order the faculty back to work. When that happened, my

understanding is that the B.C. Federation of Labour were very

concerned, and it was only at that point that things began happening. I

think the minister's view of the resolution of that dispute.... His

unfortunate remarks I don't think accurately describe the situation

that occurred in bringing about that resolution. I think it is

important that the records show at least the other side of those

unfortunate comments that the minister made last Monday.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Since we're examining the record, I want to point out to the committee

again that probably three or four times this afternoon, prior to the

member's statement about my feeling on faculty, I have said that in the

case of the faculty that have settled, they were responsible faculty

associations. I made that statement many times.

Now the

member has delivered a series of opinions with respect to the Douglas

College settlement and the successful conclusion of those negotiations,

and he may or may not be correct in his opinions on how the negotiation

was going, carried on and finally finished.

My comment about the newspaper ad disclosing the bargaining issues is fact. There was an ad in the Vancouver Province in the morning, a subsequent ad in the Vancouver Sun

in the afternoon, and at 7:30 that evening there was a settlement.

Those are the facts. You can take any opinion you want from those, but

nevertheless you can't dispute them. That's what happened. That's all I

was trying to point out.

[4:15]

MR. JONES :

I think I would be remiss if I didn't raise, at least briefly, an issue

that is important. One of the avenues that we as a party have long

promoted in this province is the opportunity for degree completion in

the regions of the province. We were very supportive of the minister's

announcement last year which created that opportunity for students in

Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo and now Prince George. So that concept has

the support of this side of the House. In fact, we have been calling

for that since the mid-eighties, if not before.

Interjection.

MR. JONES : I'll repeat for the minister.

We were calling for and were supportive of degree-completion opportunities in the regions of the province.

However, this is a new area. We are embarking on a new concept — the university-college concept —

and very clearly the melding in what I hope is an interim phase that

will lead to autonomous degree-granting institutions in those regions.

During this interim phase and during this marriage between the

university and the colleges, there are very clearly some jurisdictional

problems that have arisen, I suppose partly as a result of the slowness

and then the speed of implementation of this process.

Very

clearly there have been contract problems with the college faculty in

terms of selection, appointment status, seniority, departmental

organizations, salary and benefits, workload, the requirement to do

scholarly work and the transfer of pensions and benefits. Those are

some of the contractual things that clearly have been difficult for the

institutions to work out on their own.

It seems to me that

the arrangements that have been made with the colleges haven't

necessarily taken into account the goals and aspirations of the college

faculty that had long been there prior to this arrangement. I am

wondering if the ministry has concerns about this area, if there is any

leadership being shown on the part of the ministry and if there is

anything planned in terms of bringing about a resolution to these

difficult problems that have arisen as a result of a concept that I

think we all support.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The member

raises a very good point. It's reminiscent.... I was at the College of

New Caledonia in the early and mid-seventies when we had the same type

of problems with transfer, and we had articulation committees that

would decide whether or not a program from a regional college would be

accepted for transfer at the universities. It was a difficult process.

Dr. Ian McTaggart-Cowan, a noted environmentalist and a friend of mine from another movie, a zoologist extraordinaire

with an international reputation as a scholar, was responsible for

assisting the universities and the colleges in terms of articulation

and accreditation — would a course transfer or not. He did a remarkable job.

have the same thing here. We have some problems.... I shouldn't say

problems; I guess we'll call them challenges, to use a more positive

term. We have some challenges with the three universities and with the

three university-colleges, Malaspina, Cariboo and Okanagan. But we also

recognize that we're bound to always have those questions and challenges

[ Page 9655 ]

when

you bring two institutions together; and as you quite adequately

pointed out, the research load, the teaching load, and all the

questions that arise when you have two different philosophies coming

together in order to serve the student.

But I can tell you

that an assistant deputy minister in our ministry, Shell Harvey,

regularly meets with all of the presidents involved in this situation.

I understand that the meetings go reasonably well and are productive.

I'd be darned surprised if we didn't have those problems. As a matter

of fact, maybe it's good to have those problems and challenges, because

quite often the successful resolution of those questions really does

set out good government policy that's going to be sustaining and will

benefit other areas.

So I don't see any problem with that.

I think you're absolutely right in bringing it to the attention of this

committee, because there are some questions there. But I feel positive

that with good, clear thinking and management on behalf of the

presidents and of the staff in this ministry, we can resolve all those

unanswered questions, and turn those challenges — if you will — into successful solutions.

The

bottom line is something that was instilled in me by the first

president of the CNC, Dr. Fred Speckeen, whom I worked for and who, in

all of our deliberations, continually told the administration at

CNC — and I was in the student services office — "Always think student first, and if you do that, you'll be okay."

That's

one message I want to leave with the administration at the colleges and

at the universities I know they are going through a lot of navel-gazing

and discussing how they're going to better serve their own particular

philosophies. But if they maintain the notion that it's the student

first and our bureaucracy second, they'll be well served. The

educational community will be finely served if they maintain that

philosophy.

MR. JONES : Mr. Chairman, the minister

simplifies the situation far more than it deserves. I got the

impression that the minister was talking about a situation with

negotiations between two equal partners. We'll put those partners in

the room, and they will hammer out a solution to the problem, keeping

in mind the interests of the students.

However, that's not

the situation. It's a very complex situation; it involves university

jurisdictions, college jurisdictions, established practice and

jurisdictional problems with people who have been there a long time and

with people who are doing new and different things. And it's not simple.

have faith in those people too. Ultimately that situation will be

resolved. But I think some guidance to ensure that one of those

jurisdictions doesn't have inordinate power in that process.... I think

that's something that the ministry and the minister have to watch.

I'd like to go back to a comment I made last Monday, more or less summing

up a major effort that the province has made in terms of promises, providing

hope for post-secondary education in this province.

had some difference of opinion, the minister and I. I was suggesting

that at this point in time we are still far behind other provinces in

terms of participation rates, in terms of degree-completion rates and

even in terms of student financial aid,

I quoted some 1989

figures that substantiated that. In 1989, in university enrolment per

capita, we're tenth out of ten provinces in Canada. In terms of number

of degrees per capita, we were ninth out of ten. I know the minister is

not happy with those figures any more than I am. However, he didn't

accept those as representing the situation that exists today.

I turn to a Times-Colonist

article of Tuesday, March 20, which again underscores my comments:

"Next to Prince Edward Island, British Columbia grants the fewest

degrees per capita of any Canadian province, Statistics Canada figures

show." It pointed out that the Canadian average, excluding B.C., was

376, and B.C. awarded 259 university degrees for each 10,000 population

between 18 and 24 years old.

I don't take any joy in

pointing out those figures, because I think everybody in this province,

regardless of political persuasion, wants us to take more of a

leadership role than we have in the past. I think this current

administration is largely saddled with problems created by previous

administrations.

I would like to look at the efforts of

this government to address that serious problem, just for me to arrive

at a better understanding of those efforts. I was at the minister's

press conference, I believe it was March 20 last year. The minister

indicated, in leading up to that announcement, that this was the most

important decision made in post-secondary education in British Columbia

in some 20 years. So last year we had the Access For All announcement,

very strongly supported in the post-secondary educational community and

on this side of the House as well. Last year we saw a budget item of

$35.3 million, a special fund created for access and enrolment, and

$8,250,000 of that was to go to universities and $26,340,000 was to go

to colleges.

Maybe I could begin by asking the minister:

were the moneys in that special fund for access and enrolment, the

$35.3 million, spent? If so, how much went to universities and how much

to colleges?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Just a quick comment

on the arrangement with the universities and colleges; I don't want to

leave that alone. The member and I agree, I think, that there's a lot

of work to be done with respect to the arrangements, and there are

challenges. But I also want to advise the committee that when we put

the university and college arrangements together, we put the colleges

in the driver's seat so there would not be that sort of

father-knows-best attitude by the universities. The colleges were given

some advantages.

With respect to the question on budgets,

the access budget of last year was totally spent. The answer is yes. I

don't at this point have a breakdown between

[ Page 9656 ]

the

universities and colleges, but it was according to the budget. Whatever

the budget in March of last year said was going to be spent at

universities and colleges for access was spent, and it was spent in the

same ratio.

MR. JONES : Could you repeat that? I'm sorry, I missed it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The money announced last year by my predecessor in March for Access for

All was all spent. In the relationship between colleges and

universities, it was spent exactly as it was described it would be. I

don't have those percentages, but whatever was said in the March press

release was spent and in that fashion.

MR. ROSE : I'm

grateful to my friend the critic for letting me, in the middle of a

meeting, burst in here with little warning and even less preparation.

But that's never held me back before, so I don't anticipate it will

this time. I've already mentioned a couple of things to the minister,

and I'd like his comments.

Some colleges — it may be some, but it may only be one that I have heard rumours about —

propose using a grade-point average as an admissions screening device.

Wouldn't the institution of that kind of technique be contrary to the

objectives of a community college? When I hear his answer, I'll perhaps

elaborate more on that one.

Would you like to have them

all, and you can deal with them one after another, or do you want to

deal with each one individually?

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'm easy.

MR. ROSE : Be your guest?

is also the practice, I hear, among some instructors not to give As to

nobody could possibly be good enough at that level to get an A. In view

of the competition for academic placements in such things as law and

social work and other things afterwards at a higher level, at

universities....

MR. CLARK : At a different level anyway.

MR. ROSE : At a different level, okay. This practice — that I call academic snobbishness —

can really have dire consequences. Let's take two equally good

individuals attending different colleges or the same college with

different instructors. One has the attitude I've mentioned, and one has

another attitude, which might be described as more liberal. I know the

minister would hesitate to get into this with both feet, on the grounds

of academic freedom, but at the same time, there is academic freedom

and also power-tripping. I was around colleges and universities long

enough to know about things like that, so I would like to have....

MR. CLARK : Whose side are you on?

MR. ROSE :

I'll leave that for you to understand, but I just want to tell you that

I was just as generous with my students in college as I have been with

you since you've been here.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wanted

to ask whether the minister has changed the practice of diverting the

EPF funds away from post-secondary education as was the practice

between '83 and '86 — that is, the federal grants for health and

education. B.C. during those years was actually making a profit on the

federal grants. They looked after it in the health field by changing

the Canada Health Act, so you had to be accountable; but no such

provision exists federally for post-secondary financing. I know my

friend from Richmond will be desolate when he hears that this happened,

but it happened before his time. Lots of things happened before his

time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'd like to comment generally and thank the member opposite for his questions.

Grade-point

average is a screening device. I don't really know how you're coming at

that, because community colleges will of course enter students from....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Entrants. Some people have prerequisites. If you look at a college

calendar, you'll see that there are certain prerequisites and a certain

mark required.

Let's take first-year calculus. It says

right in any college calendar that you have to have math 12 and a good

mark. Everybody knows that; otherwise you're going to fail. So I can't

criticize colleges for doing that. If you don't have grade 12 math and

you can't enter that calculus 101, the college says: "Here is calculus

106. This is for folks who don't have that gold-plated grade 12

transcript." This brings them up, so they take 106 or whatever the

number might be, and then they can take 101 in the spring semester.

There are all sorts of arrangements; that's what colleges do best. Then

they have study skills programs. These are services that colleges offer

and universities don't, and I think that's where they have their value.

But I certainly can't disagree with their setting prerequisites and

standards, as long as they are offering an alternative to the student

who doesn't have that gold-plated grade 12 matriculation and does

require some extra help.

In terms of the instructors not

offering As, I don't know of any who do that, but if they do, it's

certainly not a practice I would condone. Having had the opportunity to

I'll just make an off-the-cuff comment about that. I've been in this ministry since November 1 and have

[ Page 9657 ]

had the good fortune to meet some brilliant, international-class scholars —

for example, John MacDonald of MacDonald Dettwiler, who taught at MIT

and has made a substantial contribution to science in the world —

an internationally acclaimed scholar; David Scott, University of

Victoria, an international leader in hydrogen research; Tom Paine, who

worked for NASA; Willis Hawkins from Lockheed, the famous skunk works.

All are brilliant men; none are on power trips. It seems that it's only

the people who haven't made it to the top-scholar level who have to,

for whatever reason. There's something in their psychology. They have

to show some strength, do some power-tripping. But if you look at real

scholars, first of all, none of them are eggheads; they're all very

exciting, very interesting people. Secondly, they're all genuine and

down-to-earth and are never on any academic power trip; and thirdly,

they're just darn fine folks. I imagine that at one time or another

they have all been remarkable instructors in their institutions,

remarkable employers and remarkable leaders. I think I know where the

power-trippers come from. It's too bad that we have those people, but I

guess we do.

What was the last question? Oh, EPF. Well, EPF

was always a bone of contention, but I can assure you that we spend a

lot more in this ministry than we get from Ottawa. I mean, the budget

is a billion dollars, and EPF covers health and.... What's health —

$5.5 billion? So Ottawa's contribution to post-secondary education and

health through EPF is nowhere near what we spend totally.

This

government has always taken the position that EPF is a gratuitous

contribution to general revenue and that our cabinet will set our

spending priorities. That's been the position of this administration

and of Social Credit governments since 1975. It's a good thing, too,

because as you recall, Mr. Member, the EPF was cut back this year. Yet

my budget wasn't; my budget increased in spite of a decrease in the EPF.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'm talking about the policy we have had since 1975 that EPF is not for

health or post-secondary education. In our view, it's a contribution to

general revenue, and we as a government set ministry spending

priorities.

MR. ROSE : I thank the minister for his

usual eloquent and forthright comments. A couple of mine, which I would

define similarly, are these. If we — or I, or anyone — happen

to criticize a policy, we're not criticizing a person. So I don't think

it's necessary to run up the flagpole all of the fine scholars we have

in British Columbia.

I'm acquainted with Mr. MacDonald, and

I had a lot to do with David Scott. I don't think he's always been at

the University of Victoria; I think he's from Windsor or somewhere down

there. I happened to be on a task force on alternative energy — if you ever care to look at the report, it's in the library —

in about 1982 or '83, and he was the one who twisted and.... Persuaded

is a better word than twisted; it sounds less political. He was the one

who persuaded us of the future of hydrogen as a fuel. It's a

non-hydrocarbon and is non-combustible, and has its source elements in

plentiful supply in the earth. So I am well acquainted with the

enthusiasm of Dr. Scott.

I don't think there is any question that for certain courses at what we used to call junior colleges — now community colleges —

there have to be some sort of entrance standards. I have no problem

with that for those courses that require a prerequisite. But,

obviously, many courses don't require a prerequisite. Certain courses

that I can think of in some fields.... Let's say you're studying

romantic literature. I don't think it's necessary to study classical,

Elizabethan or Renaissance literature in order to key in on that. It's

like saying that you have to study Vivaldi before you can study Mozart.

I am using an analogy that I'm sure....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

Well, I know. If you're stuck with the chronological world, you might

do that. But I'm not; I'm a bit more liberated than that.

MR. PERRY : What about Scarlatti?

MR. ROSE : Born the same year as Bach — 1685 — and so was Handel. That's Domenico Scarlatti, not the father, Alessandro. Do you want more? Enough of that.

Anyway,

I feel that in certain areas you need entrance standards,