1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4027 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Enterprise Corporation assets. Mr. Williams –– 4027

Mr. Sihota

BCIT cutbacks. Ms. Marzari –– 4029

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training estimates.

(Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 4029

Hon. S. Hagen

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Guno

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I tell the House

that I have some friends here today from Sherwood Park, Alberta: Gerry

and Eula Regehr. They have with them their daughter Jane Jensen, who

resides in White Rock, B.C. Please bid them welcome.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I note that the former Attorney-General, Leslie Peterson, is in the

audience. He must feel nostalgic thinking about that leadership

convention in Whistler that he chaired, and reflects on that today.

Would you welcome the former Attorney-General.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Hon. members, it's my pleasure to introduce, on behalf of Mr. Speaker,

a constituent from Vancouver-Howe Sound. Would you please welcome Mr.

Gordon Ferguson from Pemberton.

MR. GABELMANN : This

afternoon I want to welcome a group of students who are here today

courtesy of Crown Forest Industries. They are students from four

Campbell River high schools: Phoenix, Southgate, Campbell River and

Robron. The names of the teachers with them are Greg Liesch and Carol

Hilland. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Harcourt) and myself, I'd like to ask the House to join us in making

welcome 23 students and their instructor from the great inner city

school of King George Secondary who are in your gallery this afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA :

In the gallery today is Mrs. Jean Seiferman. She hails from the

township of Ponoka, Alberta, and she's visiting beautiful British

Columbia. Everyone knows where Ponoka is; it has also been responsible

for breeding a couple of players currently very active in the NHL.

Hosting

Mrs. Seaferman are two fine residents from the Victoria area: Joanne

Leigh and Kelly Dorin. Would the members of the House please join me in

welcoming all three here today.

Oral Questions

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION ASSETS

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Premier. There have been at least two bidders for the rides left

over from the Expo event. Can you explain why those bids were not

accepted?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, I don't have all

the details, but we did consider one bid, and I don't think the other

ever proceeded. The one we did look at was also opposed by the regional

district. They did not wish to see a part of the area in Surrey used

for those particular purposes. There were a number of things with

respect to that particular bid.

Of course, we did strive to see whether in fact those rides could not be maintained

in British Columbia, and frankly I hope that we won't give up on that if

somehow they could be maintained in the province. I think we would certainly

be very supportive of that, and we would look to see this happen if at all possible.

We'll continue to strive to this end.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Pattison, who headed Expo, says that there were two bids thwarted —

one that the Premier mentions and one in September. The staff of the

Enterprise Corporation advised that the bidding was thwarted because

the rides had been tied to the development of some of the Expo lands.

Would the Premier confirm that that was Mr. Peter Toigo's proposal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The bid we considered.... I suppose any other information with respect

to the rides has been with the ministry responsible. As well, cabinet

has considered this, but no decision has been made. At one point, it

looked as though there was a possible opportunity to see the rides

located on that particular site, but that was not pursued.

MR. WILLIAMS : Would the Premier confirm that that it was Mr. Toigo's festival park proposal that involved that equipment from Expo — the rides?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I believe that bid definitely did provide for those rides to remain on the site.

MR. WILLIAMS : Would the Premier confirm that he or his office intervened with respect to that proposal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, Mr. Speaker. Any decision with respect to how the proposals were dealt with would be by cabinet.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Is the Premier saying that the whole cabinet wanted those rides left

rusting and costing $700,000 or $800,000 interest annually, and that it

was a cabinet decision to pay the interest charges on the borrowed

money for that equipment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : The

matter of how the rides were dealt with, or the idea of keeping them

locally, was definitely a decision for cabinet. With respect to

interest on the moneys while this transaction was incomplete, I would

suggest that any of the proposals that we did see, in effect, did not

offer what we thought to be a reasonable return, neither by way of

money nor the fact that they could be left where we thought they might

be suitably located.

So it's all of those considerations,

and I wouldn't expect the member to understand this or to have such

information available to him, obviously. As far as the economics are

concerned, I can assure you the economics are a little different from

the Westwood lands, which you previously commented on. But the

economics are certainly something we will consider when we finalize how

these rides may best be disposed of.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS :

No less an expert on finance than Mr. Pattison has indicated that he

thinks it's a tragic loss for British Columbia, and I'm willing to

accept the financial advice of Mr. Pattison. Would the Premier have us

believe that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

wanted these rides saved for Mr. Toigo?

[ Page 4028 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I can accept that the hon. member will accept whatever advice appears

in the newspaper, as long as it suits his particular purpose. I don't

think the accuracy or inaccuracy of it makes any difference to the hon.

member that asked the question.

The Minister of Economic

Development was certainly at the cabinet meetings where all of this was

discussed, and I'm not about to discuss cabinet deliberations at this

meeting.

MR. SIHOTA : Shortly after cabinet decided

to negotiate with Mr. Li Ka-shing sometime in mid-March, Mr. Toigo was

in Hong Kong apparently to visit the gentleman. Will the Premier

confirm that he discussed with Mr. Toigo the matter of his presence in

Hong Kong?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I don't quite understand the question —

the matter of his presence in Hong Kong. I certainly was aware that he

was going to Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, I was called about that

two days before he left.

MR. SIHOTA : Could the

Premier explain the circumstances of the discussion that he just

referred to with respect to Mr. Toigo? How did he find out, and what

was the content of that discussion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I don't know the details of the discussion, except to say that how I

found out was that he was going.... His son has a venture that

apparently is being manufactured by a factory in Hong Kong.

MR. SIHOTA :

Another question to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that, at that

time or subsequent to that, he had a further discussion with Mr. Toigo,

whereupon the Premier expressed his concern that Mr. Toigo might pass

himself off as a representative of government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Not quite that, Mr. Speaker. When I became aware that he was going and

that he could be seeing Li Ka-shing, I certainly made it known to him

that in no way was there any discussion with Li Ka-shing with respect

to this, or to suggest that he was in any way involved with it.

Definitely yes, because I think there was some concern by all

participants that one might be talking to the other when there were

confidentiality agreements in place.

MR. SIHOTA : The

Premier says that he wanted to discuss, with respect to this, the

matter with Mr. Toigo. The Premier, in the course of his last comment,

used the words "with respect to this." Was he talking about the sale of

the Expo lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Yes, I was

talking about his talking to Mr. Li Ka-shing, and Mr. Li Ka-shing's

name had been mentioned many times already in the media.

MR. SIHOTA :

A question, then, to the Premier: obviously you discussed more than

videos. What information had the Premier passed on to Mr. Toigo that

would lead the Premier to have some concern that Mr. Toigo might be

passing himself off as a representative of government on the matter of

the Expo sale?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I didn't say "as a representative of government." But he didn't have any information whatsoever.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Premier had a discussion with Mr. Toigo, and the Premier has

indicated that that discussion was on the matter of the sale of Expo

lands. Could the Premier tell this House what the content of that

discussion was?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, I can't,

except to say that Mr. Toigo and many others were well aware of the

fact that a number of names had been mentioned of people who might be

involved in the bidding process. I think there was speculation on his

part, no doubt, that he might be dealing with one of those who could be

putting together a successful package. But no decisions had been made,

and negotiations were continuing with a number of people at the time.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Premier says that there was a set of discussions with respect to a

number of names involved in the bidding process. Will the Premier

confirm that he told Mr. Toigo that one of those names was Li Ka-shing?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

No. I think he and all others were well aware I guess it goes back as

far as October, when certain names were mentioned in the media,

including Li Ka-shing. I think there's been a lot of speculation about

that for a good many months.

MR. SIHOTA : Is the

Premier then prepared to deny that at any time he ever told Mr. Toigo

about Mr. Li Ka-shing being one of the bidders on the Expo sweepstakes?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Toigo did not ask me for those particulars, and I have not provided particulars.

MR. SIHOTA :

There were obviously a host of discussions between Mr. Toigo and the

Premier. The Premier has reflected on some of those in the past few

days. We know, for example, that the Premier discussed the matter of

tax advantages to Mr. Toigo. Mr. Toigo knew that Mr. Li Ka-shing was

one of the bidders. We know that there were some telephone

conversations between Mr. Toigo and the Premier with respect to Hong

Kong. We know that there was some contact and perhaps interference in

the matter of the Expo lands. We know the whole scenario with respect

to the Attorney General's ministry and the matter of the press release

that relates to Mr. Toigo. We know that Mr. Toigo was asked twice to

extend his offer, and it appears that the Premier's office played some

role in that.

The question to the Premier — because I'm sure he will want to clear the record on this matter — is: will he assure the House that there are no personal or corporate financial obligations — loans, guarantees, debentures and the like — between himself and Mr. Toigo, or between their respective companies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I have no obligations to Mr. Toigo. I think perhaps if the

member is indicating that I had a host of discussions, yes, I have

talked to Mr. Toigo, and I've talked to a lot of other people. I've not

talked to Mr. Toigo any more than I've spoken to this member across the

floor; but given the choice, I would much prefer to speak to Mr. Toigo

than I would to that member. But that's a personal choice.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, the Premier replied "I have no...." I just want to again, for the sake of the Premier's

[ Page

4029 ]

interest in this matter, make the record clear on this matter. What about any

corporate transactions in the same sense I just outlined earlier on?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I have no corporate involvements.

BCIT CUTBACKS

MS. MARZARI :

This is a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier

interfered or meddled with the decisions surrounding the cutbacks to

BCIT in the last few weeks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I guess from time to time I've sat in on Treasury Board

meetings as often as possible, and we may have discussed BCIT, among a

number of other things.

MS. MARZARI : A subsequent

question, then. Did the Premier, or the Premier's office, meet with Mr.

David Park before his report was completed to suggest to him ways in

which his report on BCIT should be changed — an independent report ostensibly commissioned by the Ministry of Advanced Education?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, I've never met with Mr. Park.

MS. MARZARI : Has anyone in your office, then, been involved with the cutbacks to BCIT in the last few weeks — yourself or your office, Mr. Premier? Have you been involved with the cutbacks and the procedures leading to the cutbacks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, have I been involved in the budgetary process? Yes, I have

been in the budgetary process for the Ministry of Advanced Education

and for a host of other ministries as a part of the Treasury Board

process. There are meetings of Treasury Board that I attend, so

obviously we're all party to those discussions. I think that's a

responsible thing and that it would be expected.

MS. MARZARI :

Two reports were commissioned: the David Park report, as well as a

Price Waterhouse report which you might be aware of, Mr. Premier. You

must be aware of it to the point where on Friday you suggested there

were aspects of BCIT that could be privatized. Would you comment for

the House on what parts of BCIT you intend to privatize?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I don't know what the question is exactly. Certainly I met with student

representatives; they presented a number of concerns, and I think they

were very positive in this respect. They also made some comments about

certain things that could be improved, or that they saw could be

improved, and it was a very worthwhile and useful meeting.

As far as the question from the media with respect to privatization, that's

always a possibility. I don't know what aspects might be privatized, or

how they could more effectively serve the institute or the students there if

they were privatized. I do know, however, that there is a great opportunity

here for more private sector involvement. Generally speaking, I think the private

sector — the business community — has seen BCIT as an asset, and one where they

could help in the developing of programs that would assist in training people

appropriately for particular functions in their companies or in their commercial

or industrial endeavours.

there is that sort of support, and I think we should capitalize on

that. If we can bring the private sector in and see them still more

involved in the process, or see them participate in programs or in the

development of programs, or perhaps even in how programs are presented

to students.... All of that I think is a very worthwhile effort by the

private sector and I would encourage that. To that end I think we

should have an open mind.

HON. MR. ROGERS : On a

point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe a question addressed to the

Premier during question period by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

(Mr. Sihota) somewhat offends the bounds of question period. Perhaps if

you could peruse the Blues and compare it with the rules of Bauchesne

and May, we could get some kind of an indication from you whether that

assumption is correct.

MR. SPEAKER : I'll be pleased to review them.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ADVANCED EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING

On vote 5: minister's office, $248,576.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm pleased to rise and speak to the estimates of the Ministry of

Advanced Education and Job Training. I'd like at this time to recognize

the untimely passing of several members who have contributed greatly to

the education process in the province of British Columbia, who gave of

themselves for the benefit of others.

I refer to the very

recent death of Malcolm Wickson, who served on the board of BCIT for

six years and was chairman of the board of governors for three of those

years. His passing, following a long illness, is mourned by all those

who knew and respected his dedication.

I also express my deep regret — and I know I speak for many others —

at the death of Terry Ryan of Courtenay, who died earlier this year

after a lengthy illness. Terry served on the boards of North Island

College and the Open Learning Institute. I know that his knowledge and

dedication will be greatly missed.

Another contributor to

the education system whose passing is sadly acknowledged is Mr. Harold

Newman, chairman of the board of North Island College. His leadership

and wisdom will be missed by those who had the opportunity to know him.

I am sure that this House shares in mourning their loss.

[2:30]

When I spoke to you last July 14, I referred to the new ministry as

a far different organization than had existed before in this province.

I told you it was an amalgamation of crucial elements from four former

ministries, bound together as a force to provide basic support for the

development of our

[ Page 4030 ]

people

and the economic growth of our province. The foresight in establishing

a ministry that includes universities, colleges, institutes, science

and technology, job training, youth and women's initiatives has proven

to be noteworthy in every way. When blended, these diverse ingredients

have proven compatible and complementary to each other, producing some

extremely innovative actions. Post-secondary education is an investment

in the potential of British Columbia and is the primary asset of its

people.

It has been an exciting year, a dramatic year. The

student financial assistance program has been an outstanding success.

Yes, we did face some registration difficulties as more people in this

province took advantage of the financial assistance to return to

post-secondary institutions, but that was a small price to pay for its

results. This year, with some streamlining and innovation in our

registration program, I expect the process to operate in a much

smoother manner.

My ministry has adopted a skills-for-life

approach. We believe that we must not only open the doors for

opportunity, but we must also equip our people to walk through them.

Training and education is everything. I quote Mark Twain, who said:

"The peach was once a bitter almond; cauliflower is nothing but cabbage

with a college education."

We remain committed to job

training, and we are proud of what we have accomplished in the

apprenticeship program. We face the challenge of building on that

excellent record by providing leadership in seeking new ways to improve

the whole program, so that the people of this province can obtain the

skills for a useful and productive life.

To ensure that

everyone in the province has the same opportunity, our one-stop centres

in many regions bring together regional economic and business

information, training, employment and educational resources. These

centres are linked through telecommunications to remote and small

training resources through a regional network and information services.

training resources.

I know that you share with me a concern

for our disabled population. You will be pleased to note that my

ministry offers a wide range of services to the disabled. These

services include assessment, counselling, provision of technical aids,

education costs and job placement assistance. I assure you that these

services are flexible, responsible and accessible.

I wish

to point out at this time the concern I have for the colleges and

institutes, which play a key role in providing the skills-for-life

approach about which I've spoken. As you may know, I have formed a task

force to examine the needs of post-secondary education and have called

on the colleges to work with the task force in a concerted effort to

ensure that access to post-secondary education is made available to

those who seek it. This is not a task force with the luxury of a

longterm mandate but one with a deadline of May 13 to report back to me

in several key areas.

The task force is chaired by a

chartered accountant and includes participants from the colleges and

institutes. It will report on the identification of achievable savings

in administration and program areas which are less efficient than

comparable areas; savings that may be achieved through other delivery

methods; measures that would increase the utilization of capital

assets, such as extended hours or development of a semester system; and

expected demand for increased enrolment and the resources required to

meet those demands.

The task force is established to review

the extent to which the redeployment of resources can be achieved and

to comment on the need for additional resources. Based on those

findings, I am prepared to ensure that the high-quality college and

institute system in this province is maintained and indeed grows to

meet the needs of our people.

My ministry's estimates

reflect an increase of 6 percent over last year. Given the success of

the relatively new ministry in its first full year of operation, I feel

the increase is well justified. Due to a shift in emphasis of spending

on training to the private sector by the federal government, our

funding for skills training from Ottawa will decrease by about $8

million.

Despite this reduction in federal funding, we have

absorbed the decrease without corresponding cuts in the colleges and

institutes. Taking account of this reduction, the actual increased cost

to the province for colleges and institutes is not .89 percent, but it

is in fact 3.8 percent. The advanced education program's budget will

increase by about 7 percent, and in addition, the province will match

up to $ 10 million in new private sector donations to the three public

universities.

During the past fiscal year, science and

technology programs were transferred to my ministry from the Ministry

of Economic Development. Additional funding will be available for

science and technology through the new program's vote. Science and

technology have been given new impetus in the past year. The Premier

has established a high-level advisory council on science and technology

to assure that we are getting advice from the broadest base in the

private and public sectors. I am pleased to report the Premier's

council has made great strides in fulfilling its mandate and assisting

my ministry to fulfil its role in the scientific and technological

community.

The Science Council of B.C. is another key

agency bridging the gap from research to products and services in

industry. I also wish to tell you that the lights will again shine

brightly at the silver dome on the site of Expo 86, when Science World

officially opens its doors as a showcase of achievement in this

province.

I cannot say the words "science and technology"

without sharing with you my enthusiasm for the very positive response

we are getting in our quest for the world's only kaon factory at our

TRIUMF facility on the campus of the University of British Columbia.

TRIUMF is a particle physics facility engaged in some of the most

exciting work in the area of pion cancer therapy and other subatomic

research. Those projects involve 400 scientists from this country, plus

40 scientists from 25 countries on any given day of the year.

We are on the leading edge of science and technology — yes, even at a world class —

with our provincial commitment to the building of a kaon factory, the

construction of which will generate 19,000 person-years of employment

and millions and millions of dollars in spinoff benefits.

Canada,

and in particular British Columbia, is fully one year ahead of others

in the development of a kaon factory. Only one will exist in the world,

bringing world-class research and world-class people to this province.

A delegation abroad, led by a distinguished Canadian physicist, Dr.

Geoff Hanna, accompanied by Dr. Erich Vogt, who heads up TRIUMF, and

staff from my ministry has determined there is tremendous international

recognition for our kaon proposal.

This government has committed $87 million to the project and looks to Ottawa for financial commitment which

[ Page 4031 ]

would be quickly followed by major financial contributions from West Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States —

all of which recognize our leadership in this field. Given that

support, the members will understand my enthusiasm for a project that

will create 49,000 jobs and be of tremendous financial benefit to this

province and to this country as a whole.

Every bit as

exciting is the work of the women's secretariat and the B.C. Youth

Advisory Council. Both have achieved a greater level of support and

direct linkage with the constituents they represent and the legislative

assembly and the government.

In the case of women's

programs, a modest restructuring has resulted in a greater flexibility

for the secretariat to reach out for specially qualified skills

required to carry out its mandate. The B.C. Youth Advisory Council's

structure has been altered to make it more independent of government.

Regional committees have been established to make it more responsive at

a grassroots level.

Both the women's secretariat and the

youth council are great support mechanisms to guarantee important parts

of our social structure, and that they have equal opportunity to share

in the social and economic prosperity that lies ahead.

Please note that as minister of state for region 1 — Vancouver Island and the coast development region — that budget is also included in my ministry's estimates.

am extremely proud of the accomplishments of the Ministry of Advanced

Education and Job Training in its first full year of operation. It is

my sincere hope that we can continue to achieve at the same rate,

because as the ministry moves from success to success, so does the

province.

Consider once more the diversity and yet the

integral needs of our programs one for another. The education and

training system provides the human resource to fill the tremendous

demand in the science and technology community where through our

leadership we are breaking new ground and creating new job potential,

potential that is recognized as world class. That is what my ministry

is all about, and that is why I am so proud of it.

I'm

pleased to be joined by my deputy minister, Isabel Kelly, and also with

me is Jacquie Rice, who is the executive director of finance and

administration.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Minister, it's been

a long and difficult year, and one in which we've all come to learn a

great deal about how our ministries function and operate and how

budgets get pushed around and how priorities get assessed. When we

first started off in our first go-round with our estimates, I for one

took very seriously the answers you gave to questions that I put

forward in the House with good will. As I have watched our program —

the program I am responsible for being the debate leader on and the

program you are responsible for monitoring funding for and

encouraging — I must say that it has been a year of disappointment.

has been a year of disappointment to the colleges; it has been a year

of continued demoralization for the universities; it has been a year of

political surprises for institutes that thought they were doing a good

job — BCIT being the case in mind. It has been a year where your

department has virtually been decimated. It has been a year where the

women's secretariat, or the women's component of your program, has all

but disappeared. I must say that as I go through the litany, the list

of areas which your ministry covers, we are faced time and time again

with headline news, stories in the newspapers, surprise policies,

surprise budgets and surprise programs which have shocked many

communities, many administrations, many students. And all this has come

from a minister and a ministry which last year promised during the

estimates process a measure of stability, a measure of steady state, a

measure of promise that suggested to post-secondary education, to those

involved in job training, to youth and to students that there would be

incremental and stable growth in budgets — and therefore in their

capacity to plan. When we look carefully at that, we see that that

stability simply has not been there. In fact there have been many

inconsistencies in the plans that were promised last year.

[2:45]

When I asked —

just as an example, on university planning capacity — how we were

really effectively going to plan with our universities their progress

over the next five years so that they can regroup and redevelop their

staffs and their departments so that they can grow out of restraint

with some integrity.... I asked — as an example: "How are we going

to plan properly for the orderly retirement of the professorate in the

universities who are reaching retirement age?" You suggested to me, Mr.

Minister, that in fact there were plans well in hand, that the

universities were working on these plans, that there were funds being

set aside and that these were being properly discussed. In fact what we

found out just a few months ago is that the University of British

Columbia was actually asking the provincial government for permission

to be absolved from

section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

that in fact no planning had gone on, that there was a knee-jerk

reaction going on in our universities which your department and your

government didn't foresee and didn't handle. Finally it was laughed

down, but not without a headline and a lot of embarrassment, both for

the university and for your government.

I turn too to the

inconsistencies of the colleges, where a student financial aid package

was put together, to the delight of people on both sides of this House.

Aid was almost doubled, based on — it seemed to me — a

reasonable consultation process with people who did seem representative

of the student population in this community. Yet when they showed up at

the community colleges last September, at least 3,000 of them were

turned away — at least 800 at Douglas College alone, and on those

people I have the numbers. So we had students who were ready to quit

their jobs and come to community colleges and could not get the courses

that they needed; and where they did get two courses that they needed,

they could not get the third course to qualify for the financial aid.

These

are just two examples of where there has been inconsistency and lack of

serious, integrated planning to ensure that policies made were properly

carried out and integrated with the decision-making in the rest of the

communities that those policies affected.

When I look at the last

year, there have been ups and downs, but when I look over in some kind

of purview of the post-secondary education policy and its

implementation, I can only suggest that there has been disappointment,

frustration and anger at the promise which has been thwarted in our

communities, at the rhetoric which promises economic growth and

investment in post-secondary education, and through to the truth, where

in fact we do not see anything more than a subsistence increase for the

community colleges, a minor cost-of-living increase for the

universities, and a serious restriction in the ability of the ministry

itself to do

[ Page 4032 ]

future planning by virtue of the fact that many of its people who were capable of planning have been let go.

should say that if there has been disappointment, Mr. Minister, the

area where it has been most keenly felt, especially in these last few

months, has been in the women's area of your portfolio. Women all over

this province would look to your ministry and to your secretariat for

some say, some policy and some inspiration, as this country has been

rocked since January 28 by the revelations of the Supreme Court of

Canada, which finally discovered that women's bodies had integrity and

that women had rights in the law. Since January 28 there isn't a woman

in this province who has not thought through her relationship to her

community and her society in a much more serious way, perhaps, than she

had ever thought before.

Yet when it comes to budget time,

Mr. Minister, we find that your budget for the women's secretariat has

been cut by $65,000. We find inconsistencies in the granting formula

whereby grants of up to $50,000 are promised, but in fact we find that

last year $200,000 was secreted from other locations and injected into

your grants budget. Inconsistencies — setting out one criterion

and yet meeting the obvious need by pulling from other budgets, without

really revising the budget that you've got on the plate today.

For

that reason, we want first today to turn to the women's secretariat. We

consider it to be probably one of the most indicative of all the areas

that you deal with; and that is the area, I should remind the minister,

that we left off with last year on a high note, suggesting that the

minister should implement a status advisory commission on women in this

province. We are nowhere near such a commission, and not one suggestion has been made that such a commission will ever come to be.

for the next hour I would suggest to the minister that we will be

talking to him about his women's budget and about some of our visions

for it; about what we think could be done with the budget he's got,

albeit cut back by $65,000 from last year. With that, Mr. Minister, I

would like to turn the discussion over to my colleague from

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I have some

questions for the minister. I'm looking at the mandate of the women's

programs. One of the areas is "to represent women's interests at senior

levels of government." I'd like to know if the minister could inform

the House how he fulfils that aspect of his mandate.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Just before I address that question, I would like to respond to the

member for Vancouver-Point Grey with regard to the reduction of $65,000

in the women's programs portion of the budget. Most of that is a

communications portion which has just been moved to another

section of

the budget; all of our communications money is in one

section of the

budget. So I don't think you'll find any substantial reduction.

With

regard to the question from the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley, we

have contact people in every ministry whose job it is to represent

women's views and to accent their concerns. I'm also the minister who

represents those views at the cabinet table. To my knowledge, they

didn't used to have this. We've instituted it, and it seems to be

working well.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I have a couple of

questions with regard to two particular ministries and your contact

people in them. First of all, in the Ministry of Health, do you have

continuing liaison with that person? Do you consult with that person?

Can you tell us what the advice of your ministry, under women's

programs, was to that person with regard to the government's policy on

abortion?

HON. S. HAGEN : Contact is maintained

between the women's secretariat and these people, not between me and

these people. I don't have the name of the contact person in the

Ministry of Health, but the people in Health and Social Services

participated in the new program that was developed and released in the

last couple of weeks.

MS. SMALLWOOD : My question is:

with regard to this government's policy after the announcement of the

Supreme Court of Canada, did the women's secretariat advise your

contact in Health to support this government's policy to withdraw and

restrict services on abortions in B.C.?

HON. S. HAGEN : Not to my knowledge.

MS. SMALLWOOD : What, then, was the function of that representative in the ministry?

HON. S. HAGEN :

The function of the women's programs and the women's secretariat is to

assist women in getting access to job training programs and to

educational programs, and also to make sure that they're getting the

financial assistance they need through the student financial assistance

program.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Again, I will remind the

minister that part of the mandate of the women's programs is to

represent women's interests at senior levels of government. My question

is: what advice did the women's programs and their representative give

to the government on this issue?

HON. S. HAGEN : I am advised that the women's programs and women's

secretariat received no input from the community, and therefore had no input

to pass on that particular issue.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

So the representative of women's programs, of women's interests at

senior levels of government, did not have a voice on this crucial issue

to women. They did not in any way advise senior government as to what

women's interests were on the abortion issue. Is that correct?

HON. S. HAGEN :

As I've said before, Mr. Chairman, the area of interest that the

women's secretariat carries out is relative to job training and

apprenticeship, and also the area of education.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Is the minister then saying he sees that as the total responsibility of

the women's program? That the women's program aspect under his

responsibility deals with nothing more than job training?

HON. S. HAGEN : No, I'm not saying that. There are other ministries that deal with that — Health and Social Services.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr. Minister, I have a list of your grants. The grants themselves do not reflect job training

[ Page 4033 ]

solely.

The responsibility of women's programs under your auspices, sir,

reflects a much broader interest than just job training. By the grants

alone, the mandate suggests that the kind of network you talked

about — the network of communicating, of representing women's interests in other ministries — would indeed have a broader mandate than just job training.

HON. S. HAGEN : I'm not sure if I have anything to respond to. Was there a question there?

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm hoping the minister will reconsider his answer that his responsibility for women's programs only deals with job training.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I have here a list of the grants that the ministry has approved over

the last year. There is quite a broad cross-section, but I would say

the majority of them relate to job training or educational programs.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Mr. Minister, if you do not, through the women's programs, represent

women's interests and the issue of equality, then who in this

government does?

[3:00]

HON. S. HAGEN : One of the other functions of the women's programs — whether it's myself at the cabinet table or my deputy with the senior bureaucrats —

is to speak out on issues that individuals ask us to speak out about.

My information is that we received no input to the women's secretariat

to address the particular issue that you're referring to.

MS. SMALLWOOD : So the minister is saying this government received no input as to women's interests in the abortion issue.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Nice try, but no, that's not what I said. I said my women's secretariat

did not receive that input; obviously the Ministry of Health received a

great deal of input on that issue.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'd like to go back to the women's programs elaborate networking —

the representation for women in senior levels of government in each

ministry. My next question has to do with the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing. Did the representative of the women's secretariat

have any input into this family program and the $50 reduction for

single parents?

HON. S. HAGEN : The former, not the latter.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The minister is saying first of all that the women's program had input

into the Strengthening the Family program that the government

introduced in the last month?

HON. S. HAGEN : Yes, we did. That's correct.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Could the minister indicate the input and the sort of recommendation the women's secretariat made to that program?

HON. S. HAGEN :

We did receive information and suggestions from various groups that

we're in contact with in communities around the province, and we passed

that information on to the development group for that program.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The minister has indicated that he did not receive any input from the

community on the abortion issue but that he did receive information

from community groups on the government's Strengthening the Family

program, which indeed was an anti-abortion program. I'd like the

minister to tell the House how they solicited information, what kind of

information it was and what message they forwarded to those ministries.

HON. S. HAGEN :

The staff that we have in this area is in constant touch with

communities around the province, is constantly assimilating this

information, and then uses it at the appropriate time.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The minister is being rather vague in his answer. I would specifically

like to know what the process is to solicit information. When the

minister can come to this House and say that he had no feedback at all

through women's programs on an issue that turned this province

upside-down — the government's policy to restrict safe medical practices — yet was able to solicit or acquire information on their anti-choice program, Strengthening the Family....

HON. S. HAGEN :

There are two ministries that have a regional network set up to gather

information and keep in touch with the various women's groups around

the province: one is the Attorney-General's ministry and one is my own.

Both ministries have a series of regional representatives that

communicate with these groups and receive information from them.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I suggest that you are again being extraordinarily unclear with your

answers. I'd like to know what the instructions to your representative

in that planning process were. What feedback did women's programs give

to the ministries — or perhaps to the Premier's office, if that's where the program came from — when they were putting together...? What were the recommendations from women's programs?

HON. S. HAGEN :

First of all, there were no instructions from my office to these people

on how to gather information; they know how to do their job. They are

in communication with these groups all the time. I gave no specific

instructions on what information to gather or on how to gather it.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Again, I'd like to know the recommendations that came from women's

programs for developing the Strengthening the Family program. Does

women's programs support the end product? Were there items that were

not incorporated into the program? Do you, sir, feel that women's

programs, as the representative for women, had a strong voice in the

development of that package?

HON. S. HAGEN : I don't

have the list of specific recommendations here. so I can't give it to

you. I am prepared, though, to provide information to you and also to

give you the names of the representatives in each of the ministries.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I don't feel particularly comforted having the minister represent or speak for the women of this

[ Page 4034 ]

province.

You have been unable to answer the questions. You've been unable to

give us information as to the input that women's programs have had on

these two very crucial programs that your government has introduced or

intervened with.

I am skipping some of the mandates of your

program because other members will be speaking to them. The final

mandate of women's programs is to ensure that the provincial

government, as a major employer, provides leadership in providing equal

opportunity for women within the public service. Have you, through

women's programs, considered pay equity?

HON. S. HAGEN :

First of all, with regard to equity and employment in government, I can

honestly say that I have done my part and my best in my ministry. I

can't say that I'm particularly satisfied with regard to some other

ministries, but we're continuing to work on that.

The pay

equity question. Yes, we've considered pay equity. We've looked at the

Ontario program and the Manitoba program, but to this date we haven't

made any decisions.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The minister has

indicated that he is unhappy with some ministries within the government

as to their response to equity programs for women. Can the minister

indicate to us what he is doing? Is it this network that is speaking

for women that is responsible for influencing those ministries?

HON. S. HAGEN :

One thing our ministry is doing is sponsoring a training program for

women in government to provide opportunities for those who wish to

advance themselves. The other thing I do is speak to ministers

personally and try to encourage them to give women the opportunity to

compete for senior positions.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I

understand that the network is a voluntary network, additional

responsibilities that individuals take on to represent women's voice or

women's programs in the different ministries. The minister has

indicated that when there are major issues affecting women in this

province, the minister has on occasion received some information, and

on other occasions not received any information. What are you doing to

try to increase the communication with your ministry, if indeed your

ministry is the sole ministry responsible?

HON. S. HAGEN :

One of the things that we're considering is involving the regional

process in this and getting the ministers of state to look at special

committees or some method of getting input from each region of the

province.

MS. SMALLWOOD : There's a major initiative

coming from the Canadian government on free trade. During the budget

speech the Premier talked about the economic impact of the free trade

agreement on the province. Is the women's program planning on doing any

work to identify the impact on women in this province; if so, what can

we expect in the way of programs to soften that impact?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm pleased to advise you that the women's secretariat is doing work in

this area, and that input will be going into government in dealing with

the free trade issue.

MS. SMALLWOOD : How will that input be given to government?

HON. S. HAGEN : Probably on paper — I would think in the form of suggested policy or input.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr. Minister, are you personally going to talk to each one of the cabinet ministers —

take them aside, maybe at coffee? Are you going to somehow send the

message through that communication network that is out there that is

speaking sometimes for women and sometimes not? How is that very

important issue of free trade and its impact on women in this province

going to be dealt with? Answering that it will go on paper is an insult

not only to myself but to the women.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I certainly didn't wish to insult you. You asked me how it was going to

be brought forward. I apologize to you if you felt I was insulting you.

answer to your question, yes, I speak continually to my fellow cabinet

ministers about the issues involving women. If you don't believe me you

can ask them.

With regard to the free trade, the women's

secretariat will have full input, and it will go into the Ministry of

Economic Development as a recommendation. We're obviously interested on

what the impact, if any, on women will be.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Is this a study that the women's program is conducting? Who's doing it?

If it is a study, what are the lines of communication? Will it go to

cabinet?

HON. S. HAGEN : It's being undertaken by the

research coordinator and the women's secretariat, and the paper will

eventually end up in cabinet.

MS. A. HAGEN : The

questions of the last few moments from my colleague from

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley lead into the area I want to focus on this

afternoon, which has to do with training opportunities for women. But

just before I move into that area specifically, I want to look for a

moment at the matter of grants available to various women's groups from

the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training, which over the

past couple of years have been in the area of about $50,000, according

to the budget papers.

That is very much the operative

figure out in the communities. When we talk to women's groups, we find

them acknowledging that the amount of money they feel they can access

is $50,000, and that's for 54 percent of the population right across

the province. For most of them, from the very outset that amount is

very discouraging, because they recognize that it can't go very far.

But when you look at the minister's annual report and also information

that has been provided to us by the deputy minister about grant

expenditures for the current fiscal year, we find that those grants are

in fact considerably larger than that: they're running in the range of

$250,000.

I have two questions I want to ask the

minister. First of all, where is the money coming from, since it's not

listed in the usual sources of information under "Grants, " which does

indicate an approximate $50,000 figure? Secondly, if the ministry does

indeed have those dollars available — certainly $250,000 is a lot better than $50,000; let's acknowledge that right off the top — why is he making such a secret of it? Why isn't he telling the women of the province, the organizations

[ Page 4035 ]

that

work with women, that there are additional funds available, so that

there is some encouragement for groups to know that there might in fact

be a pool of more than the paltry $50,000 that they could tap?

[3:15]

HON. S. HAGEN :

In answer to the member for New Westminster, it obviously isn't a

secret, because we've drawn down all the funds available. The

difference between the amount there and the $47,000 in the budget comes

from the women's non-traditional employment

section of the job training

budget. But there is no lack of applications, and there certainly is no

secret in these groups as to where the money is.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Is the minister saying that those groups know that they can tap that

non-traditional women's program funding? How do people who may not know

that find out about it? Presently, as I say, out in the field, there's

a very strong impression that the amount of money available for

training, for programs that would assist women in the fields of

employment and employability, is limited to $50,000. I haven't seen

anything in the literature. In fact, it's very difficult to find in the

minister's literature reference to that non-traditional program.

I'm

really talking about the kind of publicity that you give to an effort

that I'm commending at this time. I want to know why all those groups

that we are talking to — groups very active in looking for funding for training and employment workshops and opportunities — don't know it's there. Why not, Mr. Minister? Why is it something that so many women's groups don't know anything about?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm going to take that as a positive suggestion, because I'm told that

although the programs are talked about in the newsletters there is no

amount of money mentioned. I will take that as a positive suggestion so

that we can include that in our newsletters, with regard to the

nontraditional employment part of the budget.

MS. A. HAGEN : A couple of other questions just to conclude on the grant issue.

First

of all, Mr. Minister, I would hope that you would not rely just on the

newsletter. It's a very infrequent publication. I would think that if

you have a network of women's groups, you must have a means to get that

information out. If we're going to be proactive, let's be genuinely

proactive and make sure the information is available.

Perhaps

the minister could advise us of the total amount of grant expenditures

for the '87-88 year. I think I have them to just before Christmas, and

at that time they were in the $250,000 range. Could he advise us of the

amount for the past year, and could he advise us in the House for the

record right now what the grants will be for this fiscal year if they

are indeed more than the grant portion indicated?

HON. S. HAGEN : The total for this last fiscal year was $297,500.

MS. A. HAGEN : And for the upcoming fiscal year, is there a targeted amount?

HON. S. HAGEN : The targeted amount is the same as it was last year.

MS. A. HAGEN : It's about $300,000, and about $250,000 of that is coming out of the non-traditional programs for women.

That

leads me, then, into that particular area. I would like the minister to

give us some information now about the commitment of his ministry to

women's opportunities for training. When I look at the recent edition

of the newsletter from the women's secretariat — for the winter, I guess, of 1987-88 —

there is very little information in it that really gives much

indication of opportunities for training and employment. The minister

does speak in a lead story — interestingly enough, to a Philippine delegation —

which is the front-page story of the newsletter.... He states that

women face unique barriers to education and training, and that we are

developing initiatives to address special access difficulties

experienced by specific groups. If almost $250,000 is going into

non-traditional training through workshops and things of that nature,

can the minister tell us what other initiatives he is taking to assist

women to achieve training in non-traditional workplaces, what dollars

are available for that, and how many women in the past year have in

fact received training for non-traditional occupations?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'd be pleased to address that. The secretariat has published a series

of brochures, and I'd just like to list them for you: "Women in

Business: Where to Get Help"; "Women in Business: How to Get

Financing" — which, as you know, is a significant problem; "Women and Pensions: What You Should Know"; "The Women's Grants Program" — and the Women's Secretariat Newsletter .

In addition to that, we have computerized the information resources at

the Vancouver office. We've developed a pilot-tested training program

for women in government in Victoria and the lower mainland; a

preliminary plan, which includes community regional consultation, for

instance, with native women groups; and public information referrals

through the Vancouver office, which is a follow-up to the "Plan for

Progress," endorsed in March 1986.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Well, I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that those brochures might have been very

interesting to the women from the Philippines, who would probably have

been looking for assistance for their sisters who are coming out of an

agrarian and peasant economy, trying to find a rightful place for

themselves and decent work. As I look at those brochures — "Women in Business: How to Get Financing," pensions, grants which go to groups and a newsletter —

I really can't find very much there that I can imagine would be useful

to the 35,000 single parents, most of whom are women on social

assistance and many of whom, I suspect, would be looking for

information and opportunities that would enable them to work in

non-traditional occupations that might afford them a reasonable

standard of living for themselves and their families.

once again I want to ask the minister: what programs are there in your

ministry to provide for some of these people whom you have identified

yourself, in your comments, as requiring special initiatives? What are

those initiatives? To what groups are they targeted? And how many women

have been assisted specifically? To give that last question some

viability, how many women have had training for nontraditional

occupations in the course of the past year?

HON. S. HAGEN : One of the initiatives — a very large initiative — that we started last year and are continuing this

[ Page 4036 ]

year

is the student financial assistance program. I forgot to mention that.

One of the groups targeted is single parents. I recognized, when we

started dealing with this issue, that there was a particular problem

that had to be addressed — and I believe is addressed, or at least

it's starting to be addressed through the student financial assistance.

In my travels around the province and in talking particularly to single

parents, I've spoken to many in the colleges who have said to me

personally that if it wasn't for the student financial assistance

program, they would not have the opportunity to be there — whether to complete their grade 12 or to upgrade themselves in whatever courses they're in.

The

women's programs portion of the ministry also provides direct

counselling through the Vancouver office and through the one-stop

offices around the province to women dealing with particular problems.

I don't have a figure for the number of women who were helped through

the non-traditional employment programs.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I'd like the minister, in his next comment, to tell me whether that

information is available. I can appreciate that he might not have it

here, but I want to know whether that information is available.

One

of the mandates of the women's secretariat is to develop and implement

provincial policies and programs which will ensure equal access for

women in employment, training, education and career advancement. We can

only know if the minister and his ministry is achieving that goal if

there is some accountability at the end of the process. Given the

emphasis that there has been on non-traditional programs, it seems to

me that that would be one of the areas where the minister would be able

to provide us with some concrete information about those opportunities.

want to comment also about the student financial assistance. I will be

coming back to this a little later, but let me just say this during the

portion of our time in dealing with women's issues. The student

financial assistance program for people who have very limited resources

is indeed a boon, but there are some very serious concerns here about

the amount of debt that students have to undertake, particularly in the

area of schooling in private schools. I want to come back to that later

on.

Mr. Minister, in respect to the mandate relating to

policies and programs, perhaps you could give us some indication of the

working relationship your ministry has with the 35,000 women on

assistance or the many women who are underemployed and who will achieve

a satisfactory standard of living only if there is an increase in their

opportunities for training. Does the ministry have any targets in this

regard? Does it have any affirmative action plan — even though it doesn't call it that —

within the ministry to say how many women it would like to see being

trained in particular areas? Are there some targets that relate to some

of the labour market strategies that could be appropriately targeted to

women?

Is there anything in the ministry's planning that

could give women some sense of the direction the ministry is taking so

women would know that in addition to all of the rather general

statements about access and wanting to encourage people to get training

and providing some dollars through student financial assistance, they

can see what the ministry's program and policy is? If you are speaking

to and for women in this very important area, it seems to me that some

of that substance would be sustenance to women as they look to their

planning.

[3:30]

HON. S. HAGEN :

With regard to numbers, I'm told that we don't segregate numbers in any

of our programs. However, I will make the commitment that whatever

information we have in regard to the numbers being trained — I'll be interested in that myself, as a matter of fact — we'll make available to you.

I'm

advised also that each ministry has targets that they work towards, but

no specific numbers. I'm not sure if that's my problem, or if it's a

problem of Social Services.

MS. A. HAGEN : Last year

when we discussed JobTrac, I remember discussing at some length the

fact that you were the coordinating ministry — or the ministry of record —

in terms of those initiatives. I suggest that in terms of many of those

initiatives, because you've marketed all of these programs under one

umbrella which has that name, you made a commitment last year to take

that responsibility. With that responsibility goes the responsibility

for leadership and policy setting as well. It may be cooperatively with

other ministries, but it seems to me that somewhere in this government

there has to be somebody prepared to provide some accountability and

evaluative information on these programs that are part of your

ministry's efforts. If you want to comment on that, I'll sit down and

let you do that, and then I want to briefly pursue another area.

HON. S HAGEN :

I don't think I gave a commitment to provide information on male versus

female in the particular JobTrac programs. We obviously have the

numbers of jobs and the people who got jobs through JobTrac, but we

haven't differentiated between male and female. Is that what you were

saying I had done?

MS. A. HAGEN : I wasn't saying

that specifically. I was saying that if you were targeting women for

some of your programs, then you surely have to know something about the

women you are targeting and what is happening with them. It seems to me

that without any question those kinds of statistics have to be there.

If you're talking about targeting social assistance recipients, the

highest number of people who are probably being targeted are women in

single-parent families who are seeking to find means through training

to get back into the workforce.

I'm having some difficulty

with your saying, "No, we don't keep those statistics," and at the same

time saying that this is a constituency of people for whom we have

special concerns and for whom we are going to be taking special

initiatives to help meet their needs. If you're doing that, then you

clearly have to have some results. I know; I was a teacher; if you

raise your hand long enough, Mr. Minister, then you'll get your day in

court, so I'll give it to you now.

HON. S. HAGEN : We

can provide you with the statistics on the women's non-traditional

employment portion of the budget. What I'm saying is that I can't

provide you with statistics that involve programs that other ministries

deal with.

MS. A. HAGEN : I look forward to that information, and I thank you for that clarification. I would hope that statistics will be kept — and not just the statistics, but the evaluation that goes with those statistics.

[ Page 4037 ]

colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley raised the question of the free

trade initiatives, and I want to just say a brief word about that in

respect to training. I have seen figures that suggest that as many as

85 percent of the women in the labour force are likely to be affected

by free trade. That's largely because women are concentrated in the

service sector. In addition to that, there are other sectors in which

we find large concentrations of women: the textile industry, the

garment industry and the food industry.

Given that should

that free trade agreement become the law of this land the playing field

is being established right now, it seems to me that the study taking

place that the minister commented on earlier is something that seems to

be slow in its process. I would really like to ask the minister again a

little bit more about that study that is taking place: what the target

date is for its completion and — assuming that the ministry should have been in a proactive mode a long time ago —

if it is preparing for major changes in the job picture with women.

What's available in the way of labour marketing forecasting in his

ministry to deal with the needs of women and the workplace, presently

and with free trade on the horizon?

HON. S. HAGEN :

With regard to labour marketing forecasts, because the statistics are

kept by the federal government, that's where we tend to get our

information from.

With regard to free trade and whether its

effect is positive or negative with regard to adjustment programs and,

more specifically, women, I understand that the target date for the

completion of this study is the end of June.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Is it the intent of that study to estimate accurately the number of

women who would be affected and the sectors in which they will be found

in the workplace?

HON. S. HAGEN : Yes, that's correct.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Has the ministry taken any initiatives to plan for the necessary

retraining of women who may or will be affected by the free trade

initiative?

HON. S. HAGEN : This topic of discussion

came up at the last federal-provincial conference that I was at. The

federal government and their minister, of course, are actively involved

with this. The free trade agreement, of course, is something that is

going to be phased in over a period of years, so it's not something

that is going to happen overnight. There will be time to adjust to it

if that is necessary. I see it as a great opportunity for this country

and for the men and women of this country.

MS. A. HAGEN :

We're talking, Mr. Minister, about how your ministry will deal with

your mandate to provide training and employment opportunities for women

who will be affected by the free trade initiative. I take it from your

response that in fact there has been no planning put into place in your

ministry at the present time; that you are still dealing with studies

in this area; that there is nothing on the drawing board for future

initiatives in the way of training; that you are relying on federal

information on labour market surveys; and that, in your ministry or

elsewhere in this government, there are no B.C. labour market surveys

that look at the specific impact the free trade agreement will have on

this province.

HON. S. HAGEN : I've already indicated

that we have this study underway, so obviously we've been concerned

about it and have been thinking about it. We're also looking at the

regional aspect of the federal figures. We discussed it at the last

federal-provincial ministers' conference; the federal provincial

deputies are discussing it and working at it from their level. So I

think it's not a fair comment to make, that nothing has been done.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not confident in the minister's

response, in that I feel that there has been a significant lack of

foresight and planning in training policy in this ministry. This

probably is the most significant change in employment potential for

this province that we're likely to see in many a decade. For a

government whose leader — the day, the night, the hour the free trade agreement was announced —

stated that it was something he embraced wholeheartedly, it's

discouraging to find that we are dealing with yet another study.

Studies need to be done, but I'm discouraged that there is nothing that

suggests a more proactive position.

I want to advocate

specifically at this time for older women, because in many instances

older women have not had opportunities to receive training. Many of

them are in very modest-paying service jobs that, should they

disappear, as all of the predictions indicate they will, place them in

a very difficult position. That's true now, and I think our

initiatives, even in the present state of affairs, are much less than

adequate. Has the minister given any thought to training that's

specifically targeted to older women, and is there anything on the

drawing-board in his ministry?

HON. S. HAGEN : We are

bargaining very toughly with the federal government on the POWA

agreement, and we've made some gains. We're not ready to sign it

because we don't feel we've extracted everything we can out of the

federal government. But that, of course, is directed not specifically

toward older women, but toward older men and women. We can't forget

about the men in this situation either; I would remind the member for

New Westminster of that. We're hopeful that we will be able to conclude

the POWA agreement with the federal government, but we're not going to

conclude it unless we feel we have a fair agreement.

MS. A. HAGEN :

One final question. Could I ask the minister if he's prepared to make a

commitment, given the very significant changes the free trade agreement

could make in the employment situation in B.C., to have the capacity in

his ministry to do labour market work and analysis in B.C., recognizing

the federal-provincial nature of this — the capacity to do that in this province, with the expertise and personnel to provide that service to us here?

HON. S. HAGEN :

With regard to the specifies of the question, the answer is no. There

are a couple of insinuations there. One is that the effects of the free

trade agreement will be negative on British Columbia, which we don't

think it will be. Secondly, the insinuation is that it will be negative

to women. which I don't think is proven either. But I want you to know

that we are working with the status of women ministry in Ontario on

targeting some specific information that will be useful in helping us

with our study.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Minister, I wanted to question you on some of the effects of — and, shall we say, the context for

[ Page 4038 ]

— the

selection criteria for the grants program, which is the centre of the

women's programs, as far as I can see. At least, that's where the

budget seems to be — in these grants.

Of course,

sitting here and listening to my colleagues previous to me talk about

what your ministry has done, it's odd to see that one of the criteria

for selection for grants is that the project will be given priority if

it eliminates systemic discrimination. That seems to me a very good

goal. But if that's the case, does the ministry itself try to eliminate

systemic discrimination, or do we leave that to the women's groups or

the other groups throughout the province that are trying to do things

for women? In other words, I'm a little confused by the minister's

answer to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), who

said he didn't seem to have any input on that basic human rights issue

that we dealt with after the January 28 Supreme Court of Canada

decision, which was a human rights issue and which dealt with systemic

discrimination. You as a minister say that you had no input from

throughout the province, so you didn't have any input to the province's

response.

I lay that out first as a matter of some

bewilderment to me as to how you see your position as representing the

women's programs in this province. Meanwhile, I will go ahead, because

next is the one that says another aim of the secretariat is to minimize

the negative impacts of technology. I would like to ask the minister

this: exactly what impacts does he see as the negative impacts of

technology, and what plans does the ministry have to minimize those

negative impacts? Can I take that as an indication of what the minister

likes to do on a proactive position, rather than just the kind of

criteria he's going to use in case somebody else might like to do it?

[3:45]

HON. S. HAGEN : That criterion is going to be removed from there.

MS. EDWARDS : May I ask why?

HON. S. HAGEN : Because I just decided to do it.

MS. EDWARDS : Do you mind if I ask you why you just decided to remove that as one of the criteria?

HON. S. HAGEN : Because you just read it out to me, and I didn't realize it was in there.

MS. EDWARDS :

I'm still bewildered, Mr. Minister. Doesn't it suit the goals that the

minister has for the secretariat, or why would you remove it?

HON. S. HAGEN : Because I don't believe there are negative aspects to technology.

MS. EDWARDS : That's an amazingly optimistic view, Mr. Minister. Do you have some model for this kind of policy making?

HON. S. HAGEN : What kind of policy making?

MS. EDWARDS : You know, ad hoc; right now.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I just don't think there need be negative intonations to science and

technology. I think there's a more positive way of saying it, and

that's how we planned to do it.

MS. EDWARDS : Might I

ask the minister then how he would phrase it to make clear what he

intended? Perhaps you simply hadn't read your own material and your

criteria, but what would you intend the women's secretariat do in order

to stress...? I also recognize that there are positive sides to

technology. There are very broadly recognized negative impacts on women

in the workforce from technology. I hope you're not denying that there

are negative impacts on any of the workforce, male or female, but

particularly female.

HON. S. HAGEN : What's the question again?

MS. EDWARDS :

The question is: what do you intend to do about technology? Or is the

minister totally eliminating any goals for the secretariat vis--vis

technology and women?

HON. S. HAGEN : I will ask the secretariat to develop a new statement to replace that one.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Minister, I really have not yet had a clue, from what you say,

what's wrong with what the statement says. Why is it that you would

have it there, take it out immediately and say you will have something

else drafted? What do you want to have drafted? What is the basic

rationale that you would put forward to the secretariat to draft a

criterion for?

HON. S. HAGEN : I prefer positive policy to negative policy.

MS. EDWARDS :

What impact does the minister see from technology on women, and what

plans might the ministry have to maximize any positive aspects that he

might see?

HON. S. HAGEN : Certainly that is a very

broad question, and I don't think it's one to be addressed specifically

here. The programs in place at colleges and institutes, for instance,

deal with that issue and provide opportunities specifically for men and

women to upgrade or retrain themselves if their job is being affected

adversely by technology changes.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr.

Minister, I would like to direct your mind again to the fact that we

are dealing with the women's secretariat. We are at this point not

dealing with the programs in place that deal with the population in

general. We are dealing with programs you have put in place to give

grants to projects that support women. These projects are not to be

done by reading the other criteria; they are not to be done by the

colleges. The criteria I am reading from are the criteria to give to

organizations and other community groups, which will do work, as you

say in the other part of this, that is otherwise not going to be done

by universities.

In responding that these criteria would

include one that would minimize the negative impacts of technology, you

seem to have been saying something about projects that community groups

could do. You were saying something about the broadly recognized impact

of the technological world, which is already upon us. Now you are

backing off on that. But we know very clearly that there are certain

effects that are going to impact on women; we know that community

groups may be asking for projects that would work in

[ Page 4039 ]

relationship to those perceived impacts. Is it true that that no longer will be there?

The

minister is telling us that he does not see negative impacts of

technology. I want to go on to another issue that the minister has also

been dealing with, the proposed free trade agreement, which the

minister says he is in favour of, although he has not yet done a study.

That has happened all too frequently. In this case too, you believe

that there are no negative impacts, although you're doing a study that

you think should be done in June, and I'm not sure of some of the

criteria for this study or some of the actual descriptions of it.

Perhaps you could clarify that for me before we go any further.

wonder if you could tell me at which federal-provincial conference it

was that you were discussing this study. Was it the federal-provincial

conference of ministers responsible for women's issues?

HON. S. HAGEN : Yes, that's right.

MS. EDWARDS :

The study you're talking about: is it one done by the province or one

that the federal government has arranged? Who is doing this study?

HON. S. HAGEN : It is a joint federal-provincial study, and the province of Ontario is in the lead role.

MS. EDWARDS :

And this will be done by the end of June. By that time, will the

minister be ready to decide whether the effects will cause him to want

to support the free trade agreement, or is that immaterial now? Is the

study going to make any difference to his support of the proposed free

trade agreement?

HON. S. HAGEN : I'm not sure if the

member is asking if I support the free trade agreement. If that's what

she is asking me, the answer is yes.

MS. EDWARDS :

You have said that you support the free trade agreement, but when you

said you'd like to know the impacts and you haven't seen any

studies.... I am asking you if what a study might say is going to make

any difference to your support of the free trade agreement. In other

words, when the group that you feel should study this question has

studied it and has said, "These things are good and these things are

not so good and these things are horrible," are you going to let that

study make any impression on your support or lack of support for the

proposed free trade agreement?

HON. S. HAGEN : The

purpose and the results of the study will show how we will react if

there is any need for reaction, and how we will provide labour

adjustment if that is needed.

MS. EDWARDS : There

have already been some predictions that the service sector will be most

seriously affected if the free trade agreement goes into effect. As my

colleague for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) said earlier,

approximately 85 percent of women in the labour force work in the

service sector, so it's very probable that there will be some severe

effects on women. The effects are already showing in the data

processing industry. That is technological, Mr. Minister, and there are

some negative effects to women in that particular industry.

I'm

amazed that you're not looking into this more closely if, in fact, you

have what you consider to be a mandate to represent the welfare of

women. I'd like to also point out to you, in case you are not so aware,

that the economic restructuring that could result from the free trade

agreement could cause a major loss of jobs for women. Once women are

laid off, they tend to be laid off longer than men in the workforce,

and if they do find other work, they usually find it at a lower rate of

pay.

whereas when men find another job, they usually find one at an

equal or greater rate of pay. These effects have been determined by

people who have done studies. Have you looked at these studies that

have already been done, or are you waiting for the study that you're

talking about with the federal-provincial group?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm pleased to say that my ministry constantly monitors all of the

studies that are being done, and we base many of our policy decisions

on those studies. As you well know, there are some studies being done

on free trade that may be somewhat politically tainted, and we want to

make sure that our study is objective. Of course we will be comparing

our numbers with other provinces across Canada to try to come up with

an objective view.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Minister, I

sincerely hope you get some studies that are not the least bit

politically tainted, but I'll tell you that I would feel better — politically tainted or not — if you supported very strongly the issues that are of great concern to women right now, and I have yet to hear a commitment.

MS. MARZARI :

The questioning of the last hour has been most interesting. We have

discovered that the women's secretariat has been involved with the

family-strengthening program and had input, but we don't know of

anybody who has been asked what that input should look like.

We've

discovered that the minister has criteria in his grant application

process that allows for programs to help prevent or eliminate systemic

discrimination; yet we find that the minister doesn't have an ongoing

plan or idea for a program for pay equity or for affirmative action. We

discover that the minister has within his grant application a criterion

for dealing with negative aspects of technology, and right here on the

floor of this House, in this committee, the minister decided that that

is no longer a criterion; that that criterion has become inoperative,

on the spur of the moment.

We discover that there is a

study going on from the women's secretariat on the impact of free trade

on women, but judging from the way the minister so ably set aside the

criterion on the negative aspects of technology, we can only assume

that if the study comes back saying that free trade does have a

negative impact on women, the study might become inoperative and might

not ever see the light of day.

[4:00]

What we have here in the last hour is a complete.... We've fulfilled

the prophecy that I suggested at the beginning: what we have here is a

women's secretariat that is not only under funded and under-resourced

and has ambiguous criteria for operation, but we can only assume that

if it were properly funded it still wouldn't be able to function

properly, because we don't really have an idea of where that

secretariat is going or what it's about or what it's doing. The

amorphous network that it supposedly relates to doesn't seem to really

exist when it comes down to the nuts and bolts, because

[ Page 4040 ]

decisions can be made right here on the floor of the House, without so much as an ounce of consultation.

I would

suggest, Mr. Minister, that in the area of women and in the area of the

women's secretariat, you need an agenda. You might start with thinking

about the need for pay equity and the need for affirmative action. And

you could start with a program right here, within the confines of the

Legislative Assembly and within the confines of the administration of

this government. What a good way to start. It's the way that Manitoba

and Ontario and P.E.I. started; a way in which we can develop an

affirmative action program that might actually introduce the

possibility of more and more women coming into the public service and

being promoted through the service. It would not be an expensive study

to undertake. The job has been done by many other provinces; in fact,

every other province has initiated studies on affirmative action, if

not pay equity.

I would suggest too that your secretariat

might want to do a study on child care. It might want to work with the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing, to help them along with a very

difficult task, which they are having tremendous difficulty with, in

developing an agenda for child care. They are having such a difficult

time with it, they actually bought into a program of the Premier's that

suggests infant care for $400 a month for women who choose to have

their babies for the state. They are so misguided that your department

could have stepped in and given them some assistance. I would suggest

that some studies promote and advocate child care as a part and parcel

of the larger agenda of supporting women in the economy.

would suggest that your department could also assist in the business of

helping women to find affordable housing, which very often means

building houses where they are most needed. They are most needed for

people in poverty, and it just so happens that most people in poverty

happen to be women. There are women between the ages of 50 and 65 right

now that nobody's taking care of. They are marginal to the workforce.

Somehow, technology has adversely affected those women, Mr. Minister.

They could be adequately housed with a minimum of effort from your

department.

There is work that could be done by your

ministry on pensions, on their transferability and transportability

from province to province and from job to job. Women are most affected

by these schemes, because women, as we said before, are most marginal

to the workforce, very often, and are moving from job to job, or from

province to province. It creates havoc with their pension schemes. And

as small as they are, and as minuscule as they are, and as needy as

those pensions are, we could be working towards their transferability

and transportability.

I think that your ministry could well

use an agenda, Mr. Minister. I would suggest that rather than cutting

back by $65,000 on your secretariat's budget, you would be well-advised

to increase it, double it. Take a look at Ontario, which spends $18

million a year on coordination of women's programs.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI :

Ontario may have a deficit of $2.4 billion a year; this province has

had an accumulated deficit of $6 billion over the last six years —

a billion dollars a year. Ontario has three times our population. I

would suggest that it's not accumulating three times our deficit.

With

those closing comments, Mr. Minister, I know that you'll take all these

recommendations to heart, and that next year we will see a very

different picture in terms of the women's program coming out of your

ministry. I would suggest that if you don't, it's going to be at your

peril, because women in this province are waking up and taking notice.

Mr.

Minister, at this point in this estimate, we would like to turn to job

training and spend an hour discussing the job training aspect of your

ministry. If I might, I'll suggest to you, Mr. Minister, as I did last

year, what the rest of these estimates might look like. At 5 o'clock we

are prepared to start debating student financial aid; and at 5:30 we

are going to bring on our youth critic, because that is another aspect

of your portfolio; tomorrow morning, we want to spend some time on

community colleges, universities and distance education. We hope that

our contribution to the estimates will be over by about noon tomorrow.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI : Yes, you have to be here tomorrow morning as well, Mr. Minister.

I will turn the floor over to my colleague for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who is our party's critic for job training.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair]

MS. A. HAGEN :

I want to thank my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey

(Ms. Marzari) for using a word that I think is a very critical word

when we're discussing job training, and that word is "agenda."

want to note also that if the minister thought that his broad sweep of

a ministry could be covered in an afternoon, it is because there are

some gaps in what he is doing that it can't. I want to deal with some

of those for a little while in the time that I have available to me

this afternoon.

I spent some time over the weekend reading

through the estimates from last year, when we were under considerable

pressure because your estimates came up much later in the course of our

legislative agenda in 1987. At that time, and in the course of those

estimates, the minister was discussing and speaking with great

enthusiasm about a new program called JobTrac, a program that was

marketed with a tremendous amount of enthusiasm and, I might note also,

a tremendous amount of bumf, a lot of it not very readable, which is

true of some of the publications that come when things are put together

in a hurry, but nonetheless are there in massive quantities.

When

one looked analytically at that particular program, one found that it

was, first of all, a recycling under a new name of a good deal of the

inherited mandate from the Ministry of Labour, which had come to this

Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training — once it got its name straightened away —

and that there were other programs that fitted, perhaps, under the

post-secondary mandate. But in the throne speech and in the budget

speech and in the minister's own discussions for his plans for the

year, there clearly was a very strong and enthusiastic commitment to

this program called JobTrac.

It was a program that was

touted as having an economic development component. This was going to

be the kind of activity that brought together under the lead

ministry — the

[ Page 4041 ]

Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training —

all those kinds of things that dealt with training, employment

opportunities, counselling and special needs, and all of them were to

be aimed at job creation. There was a pretty significant number of

dollars, to the tune of $81 million provincial and an announced $15

federal, that were to go into that program. We heard about one-stop

shops in various parts of the province, and we heard about a whole

range of different programs that were to be marketed under this

particular heading.

At various times throughout the year I,

in my role as the spokesperson for our party on this particular aspect

of job training, kept in touch with JobTrac. One of the things about

which the minister spoke with great pride last year was that JobTrac

contained training toward employment. There was a whole list of

programs that were to come under this: Environment JobTrac, CareerTrac,

Forestry JobTrac, assistance to employment, Community JobTrac, Business

JobTrac, access to programs, social assistance programs, disabled

persons programs, student programs, student venture loans, and, of

course, apprenticeship training, which was one of the programs that

came over from the Ministry of Labour.

Throughout the year

we had running commentaries on progress in terms of the creation of

jobs, because there were a significant number of jobs targeted —

17,000 jobs, in fact. At the end of the year, the minister, in response

to some inquiries from me, provided some information about the fact

that yes, in 1987-88 the money had been all spent, unlike the first

year of JobTrac when it had not. Yes, jobs had been created; not

17,000, but something in the order of 13,600 — almost exactly the

same number of people who were no longer on the social assistance

roles, and those particular persons were persons who are now touted by

the Social Services and Housing ministry as being people who are off

social assistance.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Well yes, come the budget speech we did get off "Trac," much to

everyone's total amazement. When we look at this year's budget speech,

all of a sudden there is no mention of this name. I recognize it's a

market name in part, but there was also no mention of anything relating

to training, job creation, employment opportunities. The budget is

silent in those areas. It has nothing to say about JobTrac.

questioned the Minister of Tourism in the House and he announced that

he really was not aware that this was happening, and he also indicated,

rather wanly I think, that he hoped that something might take its

place, because his ministry, which had had $20 million in program money

for last year, was going to be very seriously affected. The minister,

when he was asked, had a singular and very brief comment that to me

indicates that the program was probably axed somewhere over in another

place than his ministry, and that perhaps he was not really fully aware

of what was happening.

MR. BLENCOE : The Poole room.

MS. A. HAGEN : Well, we could dignify it by calling it the West Block.

At any rate, the minister's comment when he was asked about JobTrac was

that it was felt that with the decrease in the unemployment rate, dropping by

3 percent to 5 percent around the province, government-assistance programs like

this were not needed this year. And with the stroke of a pen, something in the

order of $35 million to $40 million just dropped out of this program and disappeared

altogether.

one looks at the unemployment situation in most parts of the province,

and particularly in those parts that the minister himself said he hoped

this program would assist.... We look at the interior, the north, the

Kootenays, and we find that the employment record is still abysmal.

We're looking at unemployment rates of anywhere from 15 to 19 and

occasionally over 20 percent. The employment situation is far from

rosy, and whether we call ourselves fifth from the bottom or fifth from

the top, we — as a province with resources that should be able to

put people to work and have them gainfully employed for the well-being

of the province and themselves — are still looking at absolutely

appalling unemployment rates. I would venture to speculate that once we

begin to look at employment records over the next short time — and I don't want to be a doomsayer —

we may see an increase in unemployment because the programs that have

provided some short-term employment for people are no longer available.

When

we talked about these programs last year, we were looking at programs

that would last for four to six months. I know that many of those

programs don't have an automatic ongoing nature, and people are

unemployed. When we look at the number of people employed under the

community JobTrac program, for instance, most are employed for five or

six months and then the job comes to an end. Hopefully some of them

will have another job, but the pattern very often is that those people

have had employment for a short period and then are faced with

unemployment again.

[4:15]

Mr. Minister, we had this program that was touted as a major program

last year. It has disappeared, and dollars have disappeared. There's

something in your ministry called "employment programs," and we know

that they are for apprenticeship and disabled people. We know that of

the $28 million there, $10 million is for the student summer program, a

program that hasn't seen any increased funding over at least the last

couple of summers. We know there are programs for special-needs people

like the disabled — in other words, the regular programs that are always a part of your ministry.

have at this time no commitment by your ministry to any innovative

training within any special programs. At the same time, we have the

ongoing situation of a huge number of people who are either unemployed

and requiring income assistance or underemployed because they don't

have the training and skills necessary for them to be productive within

our workforce.

We are dealing, then, with one aspect of training — and none of us ever said it was a perfect aspect by any means — that

your ministry last year was touting as its answer to the training and

employment needs of people in the province. I want to ask you: did you

know that this program was disappearing? From your perspective, what

are the reasons for its disappearance? Is it the simple quote that I

read, that the employment opportunities are sufficient to meet the

needs of people and that the 35,000 women on social assistance and

other underemployed people don't need any of those programs? What

coordinating work is going to be in place now that that program has

disappeared? Are we moving to privatization of many of these programs

now that you have cancelled this program, which you so proudly announced

[ Page 4042 ]

was going to be the flagship of the work your ministry was doing in the field of job training in the province?

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for New Westminster for posing

that question. It's interesting for me to listen, as I do so carefully,

when members from the opposition.... They criticized the JobTrac

program when it was announced: it was no good, it was not worth having,

it was too difficult to understand, nobody knew what it was about, it

wasn't going to generate any jobs. Yet now we hear about what a great

program it was, what a great success it was, what a great number of

jobs it generated. First it was no good and now it's the greatest thing

since sliced bread.

I want to tell you that I take

exception to some of her criticisms, because I think they are a direct

slam at the hardworking civil servants in this government who spend

their time helping people on an individual basis and working with the

programs that they have. I'd like to apologize to them. I think they do

a great job, and I give my compliments to them.

With regard

to the job training programs that we have, first of all she is

absolutely right: unemployment has dropped from 3 percent to 5 percent

in the Comox Valley, where I live. That's just an example of what's

happening in this province with the tremendous job opportunities that

are being generated in the private sector. At the same time, my

ministry is maintaining the training programs that we have on top of

Challenge '88, which we're contributing $ 10 million to, and which,

together with the $19 million that the feds put in, will generate

18,000 student jobs this summer. We have the training programs for

disabled persons, personnel placement program, vocational

rehabilitation service program, apprenticeship training, student

venture loan program, women's provincial apprenticeship board and the

JobTrac centres.

The one-stop centres are continuing to

open. One was just recently opened in Kamloops. I'll just tell you

where they are on a region-by-region basis: Prince George has one,

which is region 5; Victoria — you should know that — region

1; Kamloops, region 3; Nanaimo, region 1. New centres are planned for

1988-89, including Terrace, region 6; Smithers, region 7; Dawson Creek,

region 8; the Fraser Valley, region 2; Cranbrook, region 4; and the

Okanagan Valley, region 3. Yes, we had a good year last year, and we're

going to have a better one this year. I want to point out — I'm sure you found this out when you were questioning him, but it just escaped your mind today —

that the Minister of Social Services has something like $28 million in

his ministry, which is a similar sort of program to what JobTrac was.

JobTrac was, as you said, an umbrella program, and that portion of the

program has now gone to his ministry to be administered.

this province and this minister is concerned and very interested in job

training programs, believes in apprenticeship, in job training and the

importance of those programs, and will continue to accent them.

MS. A. HAGEN :

I want to comment first about the minister's comments that the

discussion last year was that this program is not a good program. The

discussion we had last year was to tell us what this program is all

about, and that's what the discussion is about today. Tell us what your

training programs are all about: how you account for them, how you

evaluate them, how we know what you're doing with the taxpayers'

dollars. I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that that's very

difficult to get at in looking at any kind of long range policy. The

federal government has a Canadian job strategy which is not the

greatest thing since sliced bread either, but at least it's a

three-year strategy, and a revolving one. At this stage of the game

we're not quite sure where you happen to be going.

I also

want to comment about the dollars that supposedly are in the Social

Services and Housing ministry. The dollars in that ministry which are

identifiable are something in the order of $16.75 million. I have as

yet not found the other $12.25 million. Maybe they're in the lottery

fund, which is where we often find some of this stuff tucked away when

we really go looking for it. But it's not announced in his ministry

operations, so my calculations still have us down something in the

order of $35.5 million in commitment to training opportunities for

people in this province.

The issue is that training is an

essential ingredient. We talked a few minutes ago about the issue of

labour market strategy. We talked about how to know where we're going

and how we're going to get there. We talked about the programs that the

ministry has in place which will give us some of that assurance. Mr.

Minister, if we are going to reinvent wheels every year and leave

ministries and people — who are the colleagues with whom you've been working —

totally surprised and astounded at the end of a year that programs

which they had anticipated had some ongoing shelf-life have

disappeared, then that doesn't give anyone — us, your colleagues in cabinet or people in the province — the sense that this province has any planning in the hands of your ministry dealing with training.

want to ask you at this stage of the game what your longterm strategy

is in terms of these programs. The programs you just listed for me are

programs you took over from the Labour ministry. There is nothing new

in that list with perhaps one exception, and I can't recall what it

was. As I went down the list, there was one that looked as if it might,

in fact, be a new program. Every single one of those programs has been

in place. They are the basic nuts and bolts of the programs that you've

been offering, and there are very few dollars available in any of them.

When

you take out your student programs alone, then half of your dollars are

gone. You're looking at $13 million or $14 million in the way of

training opportunities specifically under the job training aspect of

your ministry. Later on we will get to some of the things related to

the college and institute systems and private schools. Right now I'm

talking about those things you identified as new initiatives around job

training.

Mr. Minister, when I wrote to you after a meeting with your assistant deputy minister for job training, Mr. Woodward — who I'm pleased to see in the House today and with whom we had an excellent meeting —

one of the questions that I asked deals with the accountability and

evaluation that goes with your programs. I asked for some indication of

the number of people who have been trained and had secured ongoing work

under JobTrac; a

summary of the initiatives built into this program

that ensured that the employer was getting subsidies to employ the

1,500 to 1,900 people who got jobs under that program; and the criteria

to ensure that those people were not employed just for the period that

employers were getting a subsidy of a third or a half of the wages of

those people.

[ Page 4043 ]

the response that I got under your hand, Mr. Minister, the observation

is made that there was no formal evaluation of individual components of

JobTrac undertaken this year. In other words, the program went through

just like the Hewett Group went through under the Social Services and

Housing Ministry. It went through the year, and we don't have any

record.

I know the people in the field worked hard on those programs, because I'm out and about — just like you are — in

my region and other regions of the province. I do not take lightly your

suggestion that I was reflecting in any way on the work of civil

servants. Civil servants are out there doing what the policy setters

and the program setters of government have established for them. When

you undercut them and all of a sudden pull away a program that they had

anticipated working under with some ongoing funding, you have in fact

done them a disservice. You have betrayed them and left them uncertain

about what programs they are going to be working on over the months and

years ahead.

So it appears there is no evaluation of this

program that has been cut, There is some simplistic analysis that says

unemployment is down 3 to 5 percent, and that might translate almost

exactly into the jobs that JobTrac created in the past year. You plan

to continue with the things you inherited, but there is no economic

development, no job training and no employment initiatives clearly

indicated in your ministry at this particular time. Given your own

statement about the need for and the importance of training, where is

the job training part of your ministry? Where are the policies and the

programs that will take us into the next decade and the next century

with this particular ministry?

His hand is up, Mr. Chairman. He's grasping the symbol of his voice power, and I will give him the opportunity to speak.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm so pleased about those questions that I can't get over it. I

thought nobody was going to ask about new programs. I thought nobody

was going to ask what our objective was, and nobody in fact did ask

what the involvement of industry is going to be. I would sure like to

address those questions, and I'll address them right now.

Our objective — this government's and mine — is to have the best trained and best qualified workforce anywhere in Canada. That's what we're working towards.

preparation for that, in my budget this year we have $1 million for a

new initiative called the industrial training program, This is a pilot

program providing training costs to employers for implementing new

technologies or expanding into new markets. We base a lot on this

program. We have the cooperation of industry, who are very anxious to

get involved with this, and I can tell you that industry is taking on

new responsibilities for training their employees, and many of them are

not even asking government for wage subsidies or any other type of

subsidy program. They are quite prepared to take that responsibility,

because they realize that as well as the employee benefiting, the

employer benefits.

Let me tell you something about the

JobTrac program, seeing as you asked for some specific things. In the

Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training, our allocation was $30

million. The number of jobs created was 10,281; the number of persons

assisted, in addition to that, was 6,482; and the number of workdays

generated last year was 853,831. In other ministries the allocation was

$50,633,000. In Environment and Parks there were 192 jobs, and in

CareerTrac programs, 136. There's a whole list of them here.

make no apologies for JobTrac. For last year it was a good program.

With the unemployment rate dropping and the shift of some of these

programs to other ministries, the help is still going to be there for

the people who need it, but we're also saying to industry: "You buy

into some of these programs and put your money where your mouth is,

because we're expecting you to do your

part in the job-training access,

so that people can be helped."

[4:30]

MS. A. HAGEN :

The trade-off of $1 million for an industrial training program with

$35.5 million that we don't have is really a pretty impossible

trade-off to even comprehend. That's the one new program this year: $1

million for an industrial training program for new technologies and new

markets. I might note that I hope that that isn't to deal with the

negative effects of technology that are requiring people to have new

training. In fact, because there are negative effects of technology,

people can't work in their present workplaces without retraining.

That's negative until we do something about it.

The rest of

the figures that we're dealing with are exactly the point that I'm

making: we have had job creation. Heaven knows, I'm not suggesting that

this is the kind of economic policy that the government should hang its

hat on for years to come, but there has to be some economic policy

toward job creation and job training and, Mr. Minister, with all due

respect to your ministry, I don't think that you have the paper to show

us what that is. I don't have a mandate for what your policy is. All I

have are studies and more studies, repetitious and redundant studies

that tell us that we are going perhaps somewhere but we're not quite

sure where. What we need at this time and what people are looking for

is some leadership on the part of this government around the issue of

training.

I have been keeping in very close touch with

people who have been watching and observing and working with both your

ministry and the Canadian Jobs Strategy on the question of training,

and one of the commentaries that I have read has a couple of very good

observations that in three sentences sum things up very well for me.

The comment is:

"The fact that our ministry

has 'Job Training' in its title is a hopeful sign, but it is no

substitute for organized commitment. Funding by the ministry of

institutions and particular programs offered by institutions doth not a

policy constitute. It smacks more of inertia than of a plan to tie our

institutions into some kind of scheme to further economic welfare of

individuals and the province."

That, Mr. Minister, is it in a nutshell. There are programs and you can list them — you can pick up your paper and go down the list of the various programs there —

but there isn't in this province and, sadly to say, there really isn't

within the nation either, a good solid training policy that people can

see evolving out of consultation and commitment to job training.

Instead,

we have some of the kinds of circumstances that come up with the

formula that you use to fund new programs in colleges, a formula that

leaves the colleges that have set their priorities around new

vocational education programs wondering whether their funding is going

to be at the 96, 98, 100, 101, 102 or 104 percent level, which will

tell them (1) whether they'll have the course at all; and (2) if they

do have it, at what proportion.

Again, we're looking at funding for programs, but we're not looking at anything that provides a long-range policy for

[ Page 4044 ]

those

institutions. We have the kind of situation that has occurred this

year, where the colleges have done a darned good job of providing the

minister with information about the needs of their communities for

access for their students. We have the minister first of all

establishing an access committee in December, and then — because I really believe that he was again shortchanged on the budget for colleges and institutes —

he suddenly had to scramble to save his political face, if you like,

when we were faced with colleges having less than a 1 percent increase

in the budget.

We're dealing here with colleges that have

informed the minister in no uncertain terms of the kinds of problems

they face with access, and that provided him with very reasonable

alternatives for planning. Those institutions, with their open-ended

courses and their diploma and career courses, are faced with the

absolutely frightening prospect of turning hundreds and thousands of

students away from their doors. The minister again says, "We'll do

another study," and one of the things that's a criterion for that study

is that perhaps we can privatize our public institutions a little more;

perhaps we can turn some of this over to the private sector.

Mr. Minister, in this province — and I challenge you to provide me with a document that contradicts this statement —

there is no document that provides those people who are planning for

training with short- or long-term goals, objectives and a means of

accounting for and evaluating those kinds of programs. They simply do

not exist, in spite of the efforts of not only civil servants in your

own ministry — of whom I can't speak, but perhaps you can —

but good, willing and hardworking people in the field of training,

particularly in the colleges and institutes, to challenge you to look

at that issue and to come up with something other than programs and

formulae for financing.

Mr. Minister, those needs have been

articulated over and over again, and if the other half of your ministry

mandate is to achieve any kind of success in its presence, something

has to be done. JobTrac was an initiative that provided some training,

very little accountability and very little evaluation. As I have

responded in correspondence with you, it was something that provided

some dollars and some opportunities; but again, it was a band-aid. What

we have is no more dollars for that in the college system — fewer

dollars, when you look at the cost-of-living adjustments, the increased

demand and the need in the province for adequate training; no labour

strategy; no labour market estimates or ability to estimate; no

statement of policy; and no means of delivering the programs that are

there in a way that allows the institutes and colleges to plan. The

minister himself knows that in his pursuit of science, technology, kaon

and visits to many workshops, he has simply not paid the kind of

attention to the nuts-and-bolts stuff that needs to happen in his

ministry to look after the interests of ordinary people who want

entry-level training, upgrading and retraining. He has not paid

attention to that area, and it's a major deficit in his ministry.

the minister does not wish to comment at this time, there is another

matter to put on the table in connection with job training: the growth

in the private college system in the province. I'm particularly

concerned about this because of some of the initiatives the minister

has taken to try to extricate himself from the problem of access to

college programs this year because of there being so few dollars in the

college and institute budget. The new committee on access for students

that's to report sometime in May.... One of the things that was stated

in that particular mandate was that the committee was to look at

private training institutions.

The private training

institutions in the province have grown by leaps and bounds. There are

something like 40,000 students in the private training institutions of

B.C. at this stage, and there are over 400 schools. Some of them are

within the framework that most of us would accept as being excellent

for schools.

For instance, we have the private trades

training schools, which are non-profit societies and have a very clear

mandate in terms of their accountability. Others — like a program near my own community called youth employment skills or YES —

work with a board of directors that has national stature. It is a model

program that we find in several provinces of Canada and is very well

developed here.

But most of the private training colleges

are in fact entrepreneurial; they are put together by people in the

business of being in business. A number of students have been in touch

with me this year about problems with those training institutes. I'm

really concerned that the minister, instead of having a commitment to

the college system and the system of public institutes, is looking to

the private sector to provide training across a wide range of

initiatives.

I've looked at the documentation that goes

with licensing the private training institutions, and it is a process

that is obviously inadequate to protect the students who attend those

institutions. An application for a certificate of registration requires

a cheque, a surety bond, a course outline, some letters of evaluation,

a submission of full qualification particulars of the individuals

providing instruction and the contract form for students.

Let

me read into the record what's involved with people who are going to be

teaching in the private colleges. "Qualification particulars to be

submitted by teachers" — this is the record; this is the official document. "Length of present employment" — not what they're doing, but just how long they've been there. "Name and address of school where employed" —

the assumption that they are employed at a school. "Subjects in which

you give instruction. Previous to your present employment, have you had

any experience in teaching the subjects covered? If so, please give

details" — no requirement that you have to have. They'd just like

to know if you happen to have any experience. "Please detail your

practical experience in the subjects you are presently teaching,

previous to your present job" — perhaps you were a lowly clerk in

a travel agency, and you're now able to teach how to be a travel agent.

"The institute where applicant completed formal training related to

area of instruction. Date of completion of formal training and

references...."

I can't imagine any statement that gives us

less information about the qualifications of the people who are

presumably going to be teaching in private colleges.

[4:45]

I don't

want the minister to suggest that I am impugning all private colleges;

I am not. I'm talking about the minister's responsibility — as the person registering these colleges — for

some standard that is going to be accepted and recognized by students

who are going to be seeking access to these institutions, because in

most instances, they can't get into the colleges. They are going to

these institutions because they have to wait for two or three years to

get into their programs in the college. They're in a hurry, so they're

prepared to take any avenue possible. They get a brochure from the

college, and it says it's licensed by the ministry. They assume that

provides them with some guarantee about the quality of this school.

[ Page 4045 ]

These

400 schools are administered by one registrar and his assistant. Two

people in this province do all the work associated with the private

schools of the province. With the exception of schools that have their

own boards and are non-profit and accountable to the society they

represent, obviously it's a caveat emptor situation for students.

Indeed, we recently had an inquiry about a franchise college in

Vancouver, where the students were charged $4,000 for six months of

classes from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. It was a travel class where they had an

ancient atlas, some out-of-date material from a travel agency and no

teaching materials. We were told by the registrar of the private

institutions: "Yes, there have been some problems with that particular

operation. We suggest you go to another one, and we hope it won't

happen again." What else could they do? There is no accountability for

400 institutions.

Mr. Minister, when I read that one of the

avenues that you are looking at to deal with access and the crisis

that's occurring in colleges is to suggest that perhaps we need more in

the way of private training institutions, I shudder. There is a place

for private institutions, but when we come to education, those private

institutions should be as accountable as any public institution.

we are goi