1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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, MAY 13, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6063 ]

CONTENTS

British Columbia Railway Dispute Settlement Act (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Segarty

Introduction and first reading –– 6063

Oral Questions

Use of capital account funds in school board budgets. Mr. Rose –– 6063

Northeast coal. Mr. Williams –– 6064

Tabling Documents –– 6066

Presenting Reports –– 6066

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Pelton)

On vote 27: resource and environmental management –– 6066

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Passarell

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Williams

Mrs. Wallace

On vote 29: economic renewal water management capital construction projects –– 6070 Mr. Williams

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 75: minister's office –– 6070

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lea

Ministerial Statement

Cowichan school trustees. Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6085

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates. (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 75: minister's office –– 6086

Mr. Hanson

MONDAY, MAY 13, 1985

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the House today is a

special guest from the province of Alberta, the Hon. William Diachuk,

Minister of Workers' Health, Safety and Compensation for the government

of Alberta. I'd like the House to give him a warm welcome.

Also in the gallery is Jennie Melanchuk, his very able secretary. I'd like the House to give her a very warm reception as well.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like you and the House to

join with me in welcoming two guests from the States who have come to

watch us in operation, Mr. and Mrs. Jim and Mel Connolly from San Jose,

California. Jim is retired from the U.S. Army, and prior to his

retirement he was an instructor at West Point Military Academy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We have an exchange program underway today

with groups of students from Parkland Secondary School on the Saanich

Peninsula and their guests from Degelis, Quebec. It is my understanding

that the host group is in the gallery at this time, and the students

from la belle province will be in at 3 o'clock this afternoon. Would

the House make them welcome.

MR. DAVIS: This time last year I had the privilege of

introducing members of an executive, which I described at that time as

the best in the province; they're here both in quality and quantity

today. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce the president, Roberta Kelly,

and going on through the group: Mike Gill, Betty Waters, Ernie

Sarsfield, Sandra Craig, Ron Erickson, Wanda Hayward, John Leyland,

Dianne Pollock, Marilyn Anderson, Maire Arkley, Caroline Blair, Jean

Brown, Margret Comba, Elsie Erickson, Rose Gill, Percy Heyes, Bunnie

and Leona Hume, Nancy Huot, Don and Annie Joy, Chris Jensen, Mildred

Larson, Jack and Zellah Leyland, Hilary McDonald, Buster and Trudy

McKinnon, Don McMahon. Jeanni McMinn, Frank Metcalf, Al Ritchie, Gary

and Susan Rhodes, Rod Rhodes, Mary Sarsfield, Brock Swanson, Roy and

Marme Summerfield and Colleen Worsley — all quantity, but quality above

all.

MR. REE: I join with my colleague from North

Vancouver–Seymour. With his group up there are supporters and

constituents of mine, and also a very responsible trustee of School

District 44 in North Vancouver. I'd ask this House to welcome Dr. Ross

Regan and his wife Meyga.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is a

former executive assistant of mine, Mr. Ray Dewar. With Mr. Dewar today are

Messrs. Devlin, Thorsen and Morrison of Canada Waferboard Ltd. I ask the House

to bid them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT ACT

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

a bill intituled British Columbia Railway Dispute Settlement Act.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I'd just like to take a couple of minutes

to explain the bill to the House. As all members are aware, both

parties entered into a collective bargaining process 15 months ago.

Since that time both parties have tried hard to come up with a

collective agreement. A mediator was appointed in August, and Fred

Geddes has tried very hard since that time to reach an agreement with

both parties. On May 6 both parties served lockout notice and strike

notice on each other.

Last week I asked Clark Gilmour, a very able mediator and director

of mediation services, along with my own deputy minister, to meet with

the parties in an attempt to discover exactly where the problems lies.

Last Wednesday both parties asked that I release the mediator's report,

and I was given the assurance, in a sense, that this would provide the

stimulus necessary to produce a collective agreement. It would put

pressure on both sides to reach deadlines for negotiations.

At that time I urged both parties to consider the impact a strike

would have on their families and members of their union, and the effect

a lockout would have on their customers, as well the effect a strike or

lockout would have on all the communities across British Columbia with

regard to the railway. Over the course of the weekend both parties met

and some issues were resolved, but the bargaining process has now

broken down. What I'm asking the Legislature to do today is to support

the bill which calls for the appointment of an industrial inquiry

commissioner to help the parties reach an agreement.

It is my hope too, Mr. Speaker, that the parties will continue to

reach an agreement and to recognize the impact that a strike or lockout

would have on our economic recovery program, and on our customer

services throughout the world.

Bill 39, British Columbia Railway Dispute Settlement Act,

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

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

[2:15]

Oral Questions

USE OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT FUNDS

IN SCHOOL BOARD BUDGETS

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question directed to the

Minister of Education. I'm sure he has been well briefed on this one.

The minister has permitted $5.5 million in capital account moneys to

increase the Vancouver school budget, allowing the official trustee to

fiddle the previous government's own guidelines.

I'd like to ask the minister: has he decided to make this offer available to the other 74 school districts?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the access to the non-shareable capital portion of the Vancouver School Board

[ Page 6064 ]

is available to it as it has been for a long period

of time. Approximately two years ago, discussions were entertained

between myself and the Vancouver School Board with respect to making

access to those funds easier.

As a matter of fact, I made public the understanding — the agreement — and so published that agreement in the Vancouver Sun in a letter under date of September 6; I can't give you the exact date it was published in the Vancouver Sun .

As a matter of fact, with leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I will file

a copy of that letter today. I might, if I may, read from one paragraph

in that letter, which says as follows:

"We eased the rules for the use of non-shareable

capital. This allowed the Vancouver School Board to spend $4.5 million

on school maintenance that would normally have come from the operating

budget. This fund was also used by the board to pay $5 million to

teachers to assist with early retirement. No other board in the

province has enjoyed the luxury of having such funds in such quantity

for such purposes."

Mr. Speaker, access to the non-shareable portion is available to all

school districts. We must draw a distinction between the shareable

portion of the capital budget and the non-shareable. The shareable

portion is that which is used for capital construction land

acquisition. The non-shareable is used for the purchase of equipment,

maintenance, operations, severance and retirement. It's always been

available, and as a matter of fact the income from that fund has been

used to assist the Vancouver School Board as well as other school

districts. The only distinction between the two is that Vancouver is in

the very fortunate position of having surplus inventory which attracts

a very considerable price because of the location in which the property

is found.

MR. ROSE: In view of the minister's answer that this has

always been available to Vancouver — that in itself is an interesting

statement — where it may not be available to others, in a letter

published in the Prince George Citizen on May 7, just last

week, the minister said he would not allow Prince George to use capital

budget surplus to supplement its operating budget. Why does the

minister say one thing in Vancouver and another thing in his own riding?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, with apologies to the House,

that type of question requires a rather lengthy answer. I advise the

Chair that with that type of question I must take time.

First of all, the member must understand that there is a

considerable distinction between a non-shareable account and a sinking

fund which is set up for the purposes of not only funding capital

construction and site acquisition but also servicing that debt.

Mr. Speaker, the annual capital budget provides boards with

authority provided these sites, the facilities and the equipment. The

funding of capital budgets is administered through the B.C. School

Districts Capital Financing Authority. Debentures are usually sold for

a period of 20 years. Boards are required to make annual payments into

a sinking fund. These expenditures are shared between the province and

the local board, approximately on average provincewide about 85 percent

to the province, 15 percent locally.

Payments are invested by the B.C. School Districts Capital Financing

Authority. Interest rates have been much higher than anticipated when

the

schedule of repayment was established. This has resulted in the

principal amount of the debenture being fully funded prior to the

maturity date. In a large number of cases the sinking fund amount

exceeded the principal amount of the debentures and the excess amount

was paid to districts in accordance with the School Act. The sinking

fund excess was credited to the district's surplus shareable capital

account.

Again, I must emphasize surplus shareable capital account and draw a

distinction between that and the non-shareable, keeping in mind that a

non-shareable account is established after a property is disposed of. A

certain portion goes to a shareable account, a second portion goes to a

nonshareable account, and it's that non-shareable account which is used

for a number of purposes by school districts. It has been for some

time. As a matter of fact, I have made the rules extraordinarily

flexible to give the boards a great deal of opportunity to use those

funds for a number of sources, and for a number of reasons.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister in his final words where

he raised his voice has underlined in his little notes: "Argument weak

here; talk louder." The minister cannot get around the fact that he has

permitted some boards under trusteeship, or otherwise through

compliance, to use funds that have been unavailable to other boards. He

fired some and bought off the others, and there's no getting away from

that.

MR. SPEAKER: In response to what may have been a question, the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I think there was a question in

there. I want to advise the House: under no uncertain terms was any

particular deal made with Coquitlam or with Burnaby. All we made sure

of was that they were aware of what funds they had access to. As a

matter of fact, your own school board yesterday said: "There are no

concessions here at all." They are quite right: there were no

concessions.

All we did was make sure that the funds available from revenues,

whether through lease or interest on investment income, could be added

to the budget which was available....

I'm not finished yet.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Because I enjoy watching you get up and down so quickly. Go ahead.

MR. ROSE: I didn't quite get it. Would the minister mind repeating his answer?

Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary — in sotto voce. I wonder if the

minister could tell us, since he made an announcement in Vernon that

this is the last year of restraint and that there would be more money

next year, why there would be money next year and none this year; and

where that money will come from, since provincial revenues, we're told,

are shrinking.

MR. SPEAKER: That implies future action, hon. member.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question for the Minister of International Trade and Investment. I wonder if he checked

[ Page 6065 ]

the career opportunities

section of the Vancouver Province

on the weekend. There, is an ad by Quintette Coal which says: "We

require a competent geologist who will be responsible for ensuring that

required sampling and delineation of coal reserves is carried out...."

In view of the hole being in the wrong place, could the minister advise

if he was involved in the placing of the advertisement?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it's not really a question,

but maybe I should, since the member is so interested in where the pit

at one particular mine is. Maybe the socialists opposite don't

understand. Had the government told them where to put the pit in the

first place, instead of that decision being made by the private sector,

then the government would have been asked or sued, because if the pit

is in the wrong place.... The socialists opposite don't seem to

understand that.

MR. WILLIAMS: It also says in the advertisement that there's

an excellent benefit and relocation package. Would that relocation

package have anything to do with the government? Has the government in

fact met — or have other ministries met — with Quintette or the bankers

or their representatives to discuss guarantees for additional loans in

view of the fact that the hole is indeed in the wrong place?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform the member

opposite that both the Bullmoose mine and the Quintette mine in the

northeast part of the province are producing almost up to their

contracted tonnages. They are employing people; about 4,000 people

living in the town of Tumbler Ridge and several other employees living

in Chetwynd and other areas are gainfully employed. Prince Rupert is

functioning as one of the best ports in North America. Canadian

National Railways, the British Columbia Railway.... Everything in the

northeast coal project happens to be functioning, and because the

opposition can't find anything to criticize the government about, they

attack the decision of the private sector as to where one pit in the

Quintette mine should be. As I pointed out before, had the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Never mind the hole in the head, my

friend. No one paid me $80,000 to retire; and furthermore, I wish you

would have stayed in retirement.

Had government geologists directed the Quintette Coal company where

to put the pit and it happened to be in the wrong place, then the

government would have been sued. Had the wishes of the socialists been

carried out, and had the government invested in the mine, which they

wanted to do — and would have gone ahead in 1973 had the private sector

allowed them to invest in the northeast coal project — then the people

of British Columbia would have been responsible. As it is, the money

invested by the taxpayers happens to be in the infrastructure, which is

functioning very well. It happens to have been put in the right place.

The fact that we spent nearly $10 million studying all aspects of

northeast coal with regard to the port structure, the environment, to

where the railway, power lines and highway should go — it's all been a

success. The project was brought in below budget and ahead of schedule.

So I pity the poor NDP because they can't criticize the government for making a mistake. I really feel for you.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can 56 international bankers huddling in

Toronto over this problem all be wrong? I'd like to ask the minister if

he can confirm that in the new project that he has promoted, the

Klappan project, the geological studies have been carried out by the

same people that carried out the initial studies with respect to

Quintette.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

question, there you go again. We have geologists and we have

geologists, and we have engineers and we have engineers. We also have

economists; some of them are in the universities, and each one seems to

have a different opinion. I think, as long as you're into projects like

this, there are going to be different opinions with regard to geology.

There happen to be, at the present time.... If you care to check your

figures, you will find, my friend, that the Quintette mine is producing

almost as much coal as it contracted for from the pit that you say is

in the wrong place.

[2:30]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair was advised earlier that the member for Cowichan-Malahat has a motion of privilege she wishes to raise.

MRS. WALLACE: On Friday last in the Legislature, I asked the

Minister of Transportation and Highways certain questions relative to

the Mill Bay–Brentwood ferry relocation. I quote his responses from Hansard .

He said: "We have made no final decision on the exact location. We want

to go in at approximately the area called Garnett Creek. They are

looking at all those options now." And finally: "A policy decision was

made that we have to relocate, and they are looking at that approximate

site."

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of order-in-council 801, dated

May 2, a week and a day prior to that statement, which reads as

follows: "On the recommendation of the undersigned, the

Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the

executive council, orders that approval be given to the British

Columbia Ferry Corporation to delete service between Brentwood Bay and

Mill Bay and implement service between Swartz Bay and Garnett Creek."

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the minister's information was, to say

the least, somewhat misleading. I therefore would move that a Special

Committee of Privilege be appointed to consider the matter of

statements by the Minister of Transportation and Highways relative to

the location of the proposed ferry service replacing the Brentwood

Bay–Mill Bay service, made before this House on May 10, 1985, and that

the said committee report its findings to the House, the said committee

to be comprised of eight members to be named by a special committee of

selection, and that the committee so appointed have the following

powers: namely, to have all the powers and privileges of the

Legislative Assembly, under the Legislative Assembly Privileges Act.

I would so move, Mr. Speaker, because as you know, it is an offence of this Legislature to mislead the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Without prejudice to the

member's case, the Chair will undertake to review the matter as

presented by the hon. member and bring a finding back to the House at

the earliest opportunity.

[ Page 6066 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would like leave, if I could have it, to file the letter to which I referred today, addressed to the Vancouver Sun , dated September 6.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the other day

during question period I wished to file a document, and I neglected to

ask leave. I would ask leave if I could now file this document. It's a

letter from the office of the mayor of the city of Vancouver, referring

to the Vancouver School, Board budget.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the annual report for the British Columbia Railway group of companies for 1984.

MR. ROSE: I ask leave to table the letter by the Minister of Education, as published in the Prince George Citizen ,

in which he refused the Prince George School Board permission to use

capital account money to supplement and increase the Prince George

school budget.

Leave granted.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Blencoe, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and

Economic Affairs, presented three reports, which were read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs begs leave to report as follows:

"Your committee has received correspondence from John A.

Bovey dated June 28, 1984, the chairman of the Public Documents Committee established

under the authority of

section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, and having read

the submission on behalf of the Public Documents Committee, recommends that,

in accordance with the provisions of the Document Disposal Act, approval be

given for the, destruction of various public documents, as listed in the submission

to the Public Accounts Committee for 198344, insofar as the following ministries

of government are concerned: Ministry of the Attorney-General, Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Universities,

Science and Communications, and Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government

Information Services. All of which is respectfully submitted."

My second report: "Your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic

Affairs has received correspondence from John A. Bovey dated April 17, 1985,

the chairman of the Public Documents Committee established under the authority

section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, and having read the submission on

behalf of the Public Documents Committee, recommends that, in accordance with

the provisions of the Document Disposal Act, approval be given for the destruction

of various public documents, as listed in the submission to the Public Accounts

Committee for 1983-84, insofar as the following ministries of government are

concerned: Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Ministry of Attorney-General, Ministry

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Environment,

Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing, Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services,

and Ministry of Tourism. All of which is respectfully submitted."

The third and final report, Mr. Speaker. I should add that all these

documents — about 23,000 boxes, about six miles backed up, if they were

put together.... We are trying to get rid of a number of documents at

only one go.

"Your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic

Affairs begs leave to report as follows: that your committee has

received correspondence dated April 17, 1985 from Mr. John A. Bovey,

the chairman of the Public Documents Committee established under the

authority of

section 3 of the Document Disposal Act, and having read

the submission on behalf of the Public Documents Committee, recommends

that, in accordance with the provisions of the Document Disposal Act,

approval be given for the destruction of various public documents, as

listed in the submission to the Public Accounts Committee for 1983-84,

insofar as the following ministries of government are concerned:

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Finance, and

Ministry of Health. All of which is respectfully submitted."

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I move that all these reports be adopted, by leave.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT

(continued)

On vote 27: resource and environmental management, $91,605,504.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, back in 1963 when a water licence

was issued to B.C. Hydro by the late comptroller of water rights, Mr.

Paget, to build what came to be known as the High Arrow and ultimately

the Keenleyside Dam, a requirement of that water licence was that there

be a major fishery spawning project on the Lower Arrow Lake because the

major fish resource, which were and are the kokanee and rainbow, in

fact spawned in the lower levels of creeks, mostly all of which were

going to be flooded due to that impoundment.

The minister is probably well aware that that's a fairly U-shaped

valley, that the only calm, quiet areas of the creeks were the lower

areas and as soon as you got away from the main body of the lake it

became very precipitous. The creeks were not creeks in the normal

sense; they were rather a series of cataracts.

Recently — within the past year — Environment ministry technicians and officials came up with a project which

[ Page 6067 ]

they felt they could put their signatures on

professionally. It involves the construction of a fishway at the mouth

of Inonoaklin Creek near Edgewood. That project has since gone from the

ministry — I don't know whether it went through the minister's office —

to B.C. Hydro and Hydro is considering the project at this time.

I'm asking if the minister can undertake to give a report to the

House on the progress of this project. Better late than never — 1963

was 22 years ago. But I would like to point out that the fishery

resource, both as a food source and as a sport and tourist attraction

on Lower Arrow Lake, has been historically significant going back to,

the turn of the century, and is still significant today. There have

been mitigation projects for the Revelstoke Dam, which was just

completed last year on Upper Arrow Lake. The people on Lower Arrow Lake

are still waiting for a mitigation project for the High Arrow dam, for

a licence that was issued in 1963.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member for

Rossland-Trail, I would first of all like to thank the member for

notifying me that he was going to bring this question forward. I'm

aware of the problem. I'm aware that the fish ladder was supposed to

have been installed and that there have been some discussions on this

matter which relate to the fact that there are some farmers in the area

who believe that if the fish ladder is installed it will inhibit their

availability of water for irrigation.

That is where the project stands at this point in time. I can't help

but agree with the member that 1963 to 1985 is a long period of time.

One would expect that certainly the matter should have been resolved

prior to this. What I will do on behalf of, the member — I have my

staff looking into this already — is see that he receives a full and

complete report on the status of this report.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for

his undertaking on this matter. I'd just like to point out that while I

or, my constituents who use the lake from a sport and recreational

point of view have no desire to injure the agricultural industry in the

Fire Valley, the fact remains that the minister does have professionals

on his staff who do make appraisals and analyses of the capability of

any given water system. I would hope that there is enough water in the

Inonoaklin River to both meet the requirements of the agricultural

industry and the residents of the valley as well as those needs to

supply spawning channels with an adequate supply of fresh oxygenated

water.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to draw the minister's

attention to the intended spraying by the Ministry of Forests — the

aerial broadcast spraying of Round-up to defoliate certain deciduous

growth as part of their forestry treatment program. It's in the Kaslo

and north Kootenay Lake area. This is an urbanized rural area — in

other words there's a lot of settlement in the area. People are very

upset. I understand that the previous minister had banned Round-up

spraying. I believe that some of the ingredients of Round-up herbicide

were part of the list of chemicals that were first approved based on

falsified data, tests done in the United States, I've had some

information that tests done since then would tend to back up the

companies, I suppose; but bear in mind that the tobacco companies can

get researchers to tell you that tobacco is good for you, the sugar

lobby can get researchers to tell you that sugar is good for your

teeth, and everything else. People are very concerned. If we look at

the track record of this particular type of prescription, it's one that

has a very tarnished past.

In regard to the changes in legislation which changed the hearing

process and served to deter people from appearing and speaking out on

their concerns about spraying, the minister has said he would remove

the fee. I congratulate him for that. I want to ask the minister if he

will order that hearings take place before there can be any

consideration of aerial spraying in the Kaslo and North Kootenay Lake

area. It is a matter of very grave concern. I understand there is going

to be a meeting tomorrow evening: I just regret that I can't be in two

places at once. In view of all of these things, would the minister

order that the proper types of hearings be held and that interveners be

heard, and that there of course be no fee in this matter?

[2:45]

HON. MR. PELTON: I can't accede to the member's request by

making a statement that I will order that a hearing be held, but

certainly there is nothing to stop those who are as concerned as the

hon. member is, and others. They can file an appeal, which will be

treated in the normal manner and will involve hearings.

MR. PASSARELL: Just at the onset, I'd like to thank the

minister in his new capacity as Minister of Environment for the

assistance he's given me on issues that I've been able to go to him and

resolve through discussion.

I have five or six specific constituency questions to ask of the

minister. The first one is in regard to the hunting regulations, the

quotas that have been placed on a number of guides and outfitters in

northern B.C. Three subsections to this question. One, who sets the

quotas? Does it come out of regional office, particularly Smithers?

Two, when these quotas are being made, are they in conjunction with the

guides and outfitters in the far north. or are these just bureaucratic

decisions made in the regional office? Three, approximately two weeks

ago I brought to the minister's attention Chief Sylvester Jack, an

outfitter in the Atlin area whose quota was set at five bears for five

years. I bring this into relationship with the two subsection questions

that I asked the minister — who sets the quotas, and are they in

conjunction with the outfitters. It's pretty difficult to make a

business operate on that level if an outfitter-guide is left with five

bears for five years.

My second question is on the Stikine. What environmental protections

are being made specifically in regard to the B.C. Hydro crews that have

been surveying the river in the last 18 months? It was my understanding

— and I think the House's understanding — that approximately two and a

half years ago all decisions regarding the Stikine Dam project were put

on hold, and there are still Hydro crews working those dams. I'd like

to know if the minister has any further information in regard to

environmental protection of the Stikine River.

My third question is in regard to Amax. Before the ministry had the

Amax mine at Kitsault — before the minister gained this portfolio — it

was a major issue, nationally and internationally. Subsequently the

mine closed down due to market prices. The problem was the dumping of

tailings into the ocean, into Alice Arm. Scientists and consultants

across the U.S. and Canada were talking of the movement of the

[ Page 6068 ]

tailings in the seabed. The federal government was

conducting testing on the movement of those tailings...which the Nishga

use as food fisheries, particularly in the crabs and shellfish that

exist in that area. Since the mine has been closed down for 18 months —

24 months now — has any testing been done through the provincial

office, or does the minister know of federal testing that's been done

in regard to the movement of these tailings in Alice Arm? The water is

constantly moving — the ocean bottom tides. Are the tailings moving

farther out to sea?

The fourth question is in regard to perk tests, an issue that was

brought up this weekend when I was at home in Atlin. An individual who

owns a sawmill approximately 18 miles from Atlin — he makes dimensional

lumber — was asked by the government to provide a perk test at his

sawmill. He uses no chemicals whatsoever. He received a letter from the

Smithers branch of Environment asking him for a perk test. He didn't

really understand why he received a request like this, because he

doesn't use chemicals in his operation at all. Is this a new position

or policy of the Ministry of Environment?

The last two questions. There was a recent logging operation, by the

Wrangell-B.C. border on the lower Stikine. The logging happened this

winter and caused a lot of controversy and concern among the residents

of Telegraph Creek, particularly the Tahltan people. Have there been

any environmental studies commissioned by your ministry in regard to

the logging on the lower Stikine?

The last constituency question I'd like to direct to the minister is

in regard to fishing regulations on the Taku River. We often find

ourselves playing second fiddle to the federal government and their

regulations. The Taku is probably the last untouched salmon river in

this province. There is quite a concern in regard to Americans who are

coming across the border and fishing in the Taku, which is just south

of the community of Atlin.

The last question I have is in regard to the cutback in Fish and

Wildlife officers, particularly in the far north. There is one

individual, out of Cassiar, who serves an area about half the size of

the constituency. Last fall there was a problem with poachers coming

down from the Yukon as well as poachers coming across the Alaska

border. Is there any position being brought forward by the ministry to

bring in some additional help during the hunting season for the Fish

and Wildlife officer in Cassiar, who covers a large area?

Poaching is a major issue in the far north because individuals come

in to hunt from Yukon Territory as well as the state of Alaska, because

they know that with one Fish and Wildlife officer.... For instance, if

he's coming from Cassiar into Atlin, he puts a sign up and says he's

going to be there from date X to date Y. Anybody who's going to poach

can find out that that individual is going to be there on those

specific dates and won't come across the border; he'll leave it open

for another 27 or 28 days of the month to come in and poach.

So those were seven specific questions I addressed to the minister,

and I'd like to hear his replies on those specific questions.

HON. MR. PELTON: The hon. member for Atlin certainly posed a

number of questions, and I've tried to record them as he went along. I

will respond to them to the best of my ability.

First of all, with regard to the quotas that were questioned, the

quotas do come out of the regions, hon. member. They come out as

recommendations and they pass through the ministry, where they are

considered by various officials in the ministry, and subsequently they

are passed through to cabinet and approved as orders-in-council. We do

attempt, I'm told, to consult with the Fish and Wildlife people and

with the guides and outfitters when these quotas are being considered

at the regional level, and before they come into the ministry. As with

the case that the member brought to my attention about the five grizzly

bears over a five-year period, I thought a response to that one had

crossed my desk. But if there are any other questions similar to that

with regard to any of the other quotas that have been set, the ministry

would certainly be more than pleased to provide the hon. member with

some answers.

The Stikine water resource. I'll have to take that one as notice and

get you an answer on that. The answers just don't come to mind off the

top of my head.

The question on the Amax mine. No, we have not been monitoring any

movement of the tailings. I would gather from the information I have

been given that there was never a requirement that this should be done.

However, I will get whatever other information might be available and

pass it on to the member.

As far as the perk test is concerned, I have a little difficulty

understanding that myself. The only thing I can think of is that

perhaps the gentleman has filed for a pollution-control permit of some

kind, and one of the requirements of getting this is to have a perk

test done. But normally I think of perk tests in relation to the Health

ministry and the installation of septics and that kind of thing. There

again, if there is anything else that we can pass on to the member, we

would be pleased to.

The fishing regulations on the Taku River, I'm informed, are a

responsibility of the feds, so I can't really answer that question to

any great length or elaborate on it.

The matter of conservation officers, I know, is an ongoing concern

of many people throughout the province like the hon. member, especially

in those areas where there are very large areas to be covered by very

few people. We have done our best to address this problem in light of

the financial constraints we've been living under for a few years. As I

mentioned on the opening day of the debate on my estimates, we did

manage to reduce the conservation officers by only 10 percent,

whereas

the other ministry staff were reduced by well over 30, something like

38 percent. But as we're looking at conservation officers in an ongoing

way, we have some ideas of some things that might be done to alleviate

the problem, and I would hope that we could bring something forward on

this within the next six or eight months.

MS. SANFORD: I want to raise briefly with the minister an

issue that I spoke about last week during question period, at which

time the minister indicated he had no information. I want to follow up

with him on that issue at this time. The Tsolum River, which is near

Courtenay, is virtually dead according to Mr. Genoe, who is the

hatchery manager on a tributary on the Tsolum River. He indicates that

because of leaching of very high levels of copper concentrates, not one

of the 2.5 million fry released into the Tsolum River has returned. A

number of tests have been done, Mr. Chairman, which indicate that from

time to time those levels are very high and are certainly lethal to any

kind of fish.

The mine was operating for only 18 months. This is Mount Washington

copper mine. It closed in 1968, and today we're still paying the price,

because that river is virtually

[ Page 6069 ]

dead. My understanding is that if there's going to

be any cleanup of that abandoned minesite it's going to be quite

costly. Since the company is now defunct, it appears that the only

people responsible will be the taxpayers of the province, if in fact

we're going to restore that stream to fish production again.

It seems to me that it's incumbent upon the government to ensure

that when a mine such as the Mount Washington copper mine is given the

right to mine copper, it too has some obligation in terms of the future

fish production in that particular stream.

Now what is the government doing? What kind of assurances is the

government today, all these years later, getting from these mining

companies that it is not the taxpayer who is going to pay forever and a

day, it seems, for 18 months of profitable operation for a given mine

in this province?

[3:00]

HON. MR. PELTON: Unfortunately, at the time that that mine

was developed there was no requirement that a reclamation program be

filed when the mine was opened. Of course, that is now a requirement by

law. Unfortunately, it wasn't at that time, and so we were left with

the problem which concerns the member, and which concerns the ministry

as well. We are aware of the leaching of metals into the river, which

has certainly had disastrous effects on the fish. What we're doing

about it.... It's a process we hope to have completed by the end of

this month. The regional staff, in cooperation with the ministry in

Victoria, are having the original analysis upgraded to include all the

available data. We're soliciting input from the federal agencies as

well. We expect, as I said a moment ago, to have a preliminary report

on the matter completed by the end of this month. Then I'll be making a

report available to anyone interested. I'll have the file noted, hon.

member, and see that you personally receive one.

MS. SANFORD: Is the minister indicating to me that if there

is any problem now with the wastes following the closure of a mine, the

company is now responsible for all the cleanup, because of the

reclamation plan that has to be filed? Because what's still happening,

Mr. Chairman, is that mines such as Western Mines are given more and

more authority to produce larger volumes of.... I don't know if copper

is the main product out of Western Mines, but they are still dumping

into lakes like Buttle Lake, even though it's very clear that the

levels of mineral content in Buttle Lake are very high as well.

Now it seems to me that this process is still going on and that the

government has still not come up with a plan that ensures that the

people of the province don't have to pay for the problems that these

mines create in terms of environmental degradation.

HON. MR. PELTON: May I suggest, with all due respect, hon.

member, that when you speak of tailings being dumped into the lake,

you're onto a different subject. It is my understanding that the

reclamation plans filed by mines today don't provide that we wait until

we get ourselves into a problem like the very thing that you brought to

my attention. In the reclamation plans, I believe, they do works at the

mine to ensure that the leachate or other contaminations which would

affect the environment don't occur when the mine is shut down.

It is very similar to, I understand, the same idea.... If they

abandon a dam, for example, there's a requirement that the dam be

breached and drained before it's abandoned, in order that there aren't

repercussions farther down the road.

I'll look into the business of tailings in Buttle Lake.

MS. SANFORD: If there is leaching, in spite of the plan

that's been filed by the company, it is the company that is responsible

for paying for any cleanup. Is that it? It's very well to file a plan.

HON. MR. PELTON: I can't give a firm commitment, but I would

think that that would be the idea: if the job is not done properly, it

would be up to the people who owned the mine; they would be held

responsible.

MR. WILLIAMS: Most of us would think so...

HON. MR. PELTON: Oh, that's good. I'm glad we think alike.

MR. WILLIAMS: ...but you're in charge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PELTON: Anyway, where were we? The hon. member

should be aware also that my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources becomes very involved in this process of

reclamation.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, do I need to say any more? "I

think that that's what the plan means; it means that if there is

leaching, as a result of the operations of any given mine, I think it

means that they might have to pay at some time in the future." Well Mr.

Chairman, that's not good enough. The people of the province have paid

time and time again for the operations of various companies, whether

it's in forestry or mining or whatever. I think it's high time that we

set standards in this province that ensured that the taxpayer didn't

have to come up and pay after the company has made its profit and has

left town.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, last week the minister indicated

that he would review the northeast coal question, and maybe he could

bring us up to date on the standards that are applied there.

HON. MR. PELTON: Yes, the hon. member was kind enough to give

me the weekend to ponder the situation. I have a report that I would

trust would be acceptable to the hon. member. Certainly there were some

problems, I have discovered, with the operation at the outset, I am

told that this is not unusual with this type of thing, and that they

did have the problems, and that in some cases they were a little bit

slow in rectifying some of them.

At this point in time Quintette Coal has nine pollution control

permits to cover the various discharges to the air. land and water

surrounding the site. I am told that the company is in full compliance

with six of the nine permits, and the noncompliance of the remaining

three involves some overdue data which they are required to provide and

some minor extensions of ditching systems to catch some surface runoff

and some fine-tuning adjustments to a small sewage treatment system.

All of these matters are considered minor

[ Page 6070 ]

problems within the ministry and are being followed up by both the company and the ministry.

In addition to what I've just said, there is effluent from a

machine-repair station, which is not yet under permit, and the effluent

is discharged into a holding pond and subsequently used to spray on the

roads to keep the dust down in the summertime. The volume of this pond

must be accurately known before we can establish operating levels of

the pond. I am given to understand that there are some people in there

doing just this, trying to establish the volume of the pond. We will be

issuing the permit in this regard once the technical matter has been

resolved.

Since their inception, the Quintette mine has expended in excess of

$13 million on fish and wildlife studies, on sediment bases and on

environmental protection equipment. These works have been effective in

minimizing the impact on the surrounding environment.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting for the minister to

come back with the answers to the two questions he took over the

weekend on advisement from me relative to the CPR spraying and the

leaky PCB capacitors at Mackenzie.

HON. MR. PELTON: Insofar as Mackenzie and the Kennedy

substation are concerned, we are aware of the problems in that area, as

I mentioned the other day, and we have ministry staff onsite right now.

They've taken samples of soil and water around the site which have been

sent to the lab for analysis. We expect to have further reports very

shortly, and I expect to make a full report to this House later this

week. Hydro is also being contacted and advised of our concerns. I was

told just before we came into the House that they are prepared to

participate fully in any cleaning up that might be required.

MRS. WALLACE: Why are the capacitors still there? They were

supposed to be out of there long ago. Surely if there's one thing that

pinpoints the need to get on with the problem of hazardous waste

disposal, this is it. Those capacitors are still sitting there after

all this time. They at least could have been put into some safe storage

site, instead of sitting there where they are leaking into the water

source of a community like Mackenzie. It's disgusting, really, that

this is going on and on, and nothing is being done about it. All we get

are excuses and platitudes.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House if that's

about the standard ratio of compliance across the province? They've

nine permits, and they comply on six. Is that sort of par for the

course in British Columbia?

HON. MR. PELTON: No, it's not.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is it worse or better?

HON. MR. PELTON: Better.

Vote 27 approved.

Vote 28: emergency assistance, $2,403,500 approved.

On vote 29: economic renewal water management capital construction projects, $4,000,000.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise us what the breakdown is for those expenditures in terms of major capital projects?

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member flatters me

that I should be able to remember all those details. I'm afraid it's

quite a long list, but I'd be pleased to produce it for the member.

Vote 29 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,

SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 75: minister's office, $127,740.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I understand the minister will be here in a

moment. Obviously the member for Nelson-Creston wishes to speak first

on these estimates.

MR. NICOLSON: In the absence of the minister.... He is here. I suppose it would be proper if he were to start in this — if he's ready.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, in introducing the estimates,

perhaps I might make a brief report on the three portfolios for which I

have responsibility.

First, in the field of communications there has been a change in

national government and some review of existing policy in our country.

I have had a number of communications with the new minister, the Hon.

Marcel Masse, and I regret to say that there is still a wide gap in

policy between what we have established in our government — which, I

think, should be subjected to review by the opposition and by the

public of British Columbia — and what is seen nationally. The view we

have taken is that there should be an open-skies policy; that is our

declared policy in British Columbia. Essentially what lies behind it is

that there should be, in our view, no attempt at regulation of what an

individual receives. Much of what the CRTC is doing, and much of the

difficulty and resentment which is generated in Canada as a result of

federal Department of Communications and CRTC policy, stems from

efforts to control what people watch and what they hear. We consider

this unnecessary and odious.

[3:15]

The thinking behind attempts to control reception has been to

protect the Canadian consumer against American culture and Canadian

broadcasters and Canadian culture against the overwhelming competition

which comes from south of the border. The difficulty, of course, is

that attempts of this kind really result in censorship, and the only

people you really can limit, in terms of what they may receive, are

those beyond line of sight of the border — i.e., the people in the

smaller northern communities. So what federal policy does is work a

discrimination and a relative hardship on people who live in our

smaller communities, who are deprived of culture and entertainment

compared to the big-city slickers in Ottawa and Toronto and, I suppose,

Vancouver and Victoria as well. To try to have Canadian identity ride

on their backs is, to my way of thinking, unfair and unfortunate.

[ Page 6071 ]

We have suggested that, Canada being a sparsely populated

jurisdiction, with vast geographical impediments to a close community

spirit, there would be no greater advantage to a nation than to exploit

all modern technology to improve our communications system, and to use

this as a way of knitting together our country. That means embracing

rather than resisting technological change; it means seizing

technological change to our advantage. I would submit that, far from

rationing the broadcasting end, which is the supply end — after all,

that is what the CRTC was created to do — we should instead be

promoting more stations, particularly superstations that can use modern

technology to beam into the United States and thereby obtain external

markets for Canadian culture.

Moving to the Science portfolio, I want to say that our long-term

goal here is to upgrade the quality and quantity of science in our

province, to make us more competitive economically as well as

culturally in the world in the future, because the benefits of science

are not restricted to economics and to science alone. The advances

permeate all aspects of society, and therefore it becomes a vehicle for

social as well as economic improvement.

We have a variety of practical vehicles that we have developed in

our province to further the science objectives, and they are the

following. First of all, there's the Science Council of British

Columbia, which acts as the Science Council of Canada, NSERC and NRC

all rolled into one, concentrating on particular scientific

opportunities for our province as opposed to national scientific

priorities. They give away of the order of $3.5 million a year —

whatever our Legislature votes each year in the estimates. They award

prizes; they award industrial post-doctoral fellowships; they award

pre-doctoral fellowships in the form of great awards so that the whole

system is one of discretionary grants after peer review to people who

are most capable of carrying out the scientific work.

On the entrepreneurial side, we have established the Discovery

Foundation, which operates the research parks in our province and which

also operates a program called the discovery enterprise program. Again,

this is a peer review system of emerging enterprises in our province,

and it's designed to provide the bridge funding between an idea and a

working, profitable company. We've had some initial statistics on firms

that have gone through our Discovery Parks and our discovery enterprise

program, and the success rate of the small businesses is truly

astonishing.

One anticipates at least an 85 percent failure rate in small

businesses in the first three years of operation,

whereas the success

rate of the small businesses that had been through that program — much

of it located, by the way, in Burnaby — is the highest success rate I

know of for small business anywhere in the world, So we are really

quite proud of the achievements of that program, and we suspect that

from the small businesses that are beginning to emerge, great

businesses will develop.

Now at the same time we have a program of attempting to recruit

scientific industries from abroad to locate in our province. In the

world today there are a number of industries that are growing at a

truly extraordinary rate — 40, 50,100, 200 percent a year — and these

growth industries need to find locations. If we in British Columbia can

peel off for ourselves just a small portion of that growth, then that

will supplement in a very major way the resource industries that have

been the traditional fountain of wealth and employment in our past.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Oh, I don't think that's true. Of course,

one can always look for greater successes. The only time when you would

say "enough" is when you've become saturated or over-saturated, as we

now see in the Silicon Valley area of the United States and as they're

now experiencing in Austin, Texas, where their combination of policies

and the happenstance of successful industries has created goldmines, in

an industrial sense.

Of course, the fellow who has the technological innovation, or the

invention, is a little like the prospector. His idea, his invention, is

like the goldmine or like the opportunity to build a pulp mill because

the forest resource is there. It's difficult in Canada when we have so

little tradition in this regard to find those who are either venture

capitalists or traditional financial officers to recognize this

equivalent. They may be very willing to fund a venture in the forest

sector or in the mining sector, if they can see the forest resource or

if they can see the mining assays, but when it comes to an idea and an

invention, that's a little bit beyond their traditional experience.

Therefore, compared with jurisdictions that have experience in the

high-technology field, it's been uphill sledding in Canada.

But progress is being made, and our electronics industry in British

Columbia last year surpassed fishing as the fifth largest industry in

our province. In my view, it will soon surpass mining and tourism. and

by the turn of the century our major source of employment in British

Columbia will be the high-technology manufacturing industries. Well,

whether that will come to pass or not depends very much on our policies

and how well they are accepted. as well as the genius of the people we

rely upon to build new industry in the high-technology field.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, you can comment on that in another

arena, and I don't think we want to have the debate depart into the

resource field. You and I would have an interesting conversation about

that, but it might not be permitted by the Chairman.

Finally, I want to move into the field of universities, which has

generated much acrimonious debate over weeks and months, to which the

member opposite has contributed more than his share. That's his special

talent, and he has not missed his opportunities in this field.

Of course, as with all of the heavy spending portfolios in our

province, our difficulty is in providing all the money that they would

wish to have. I feel very badly that there is not more money for our

universities, just as I feel badly that there isn't more money for our

schools, colleges and hospitals. But that's the reality; our economy is

not able to support a generous expansion at the present time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Not with bungled megaprojects all around.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, the member has decided that the

megaprojects are bungled, and without diverting from the main thrust of

my argument, that member has had direct experience with bungling

megaprojects. Over the perspective of time, one can see very clearly

that these were bungled. Now, of course, the cry is going up that

northeast

[ Page 6072 ]

coal is a bungled project. I know the member who used to sit over there — Mr. Leggatt — was predicting that every single day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member.

HON. MR. McGEER: I think in the stretch of time, it's going

to be a very different story. As we look back on resources during the

period '72 to '75....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Minister, I think if we get down to vote 75....

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm trying, Mr. Chairman, to keep very closely to the topic. If only people would not entice me into these broader arenas.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members will have their opportunities to stand in debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: Coming back to universities, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I should hope so. If I were in your position, I certainly would.

Mr. Chairman, the fact remains, however, that people looking into

the future, in the big-spending areas, will have to recognize that

their prosperity is linked to the producers of this country, and that

they rely very much on taxpayers and industry to support their

activities. It's not any God-given right that they should have

unlimited access to taxpayers' funds or to borrowed funds. We're not

the only jurisdiction that is having difficulty now, and as I look

around at....

[3:30]

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, a little closer than that. The

University of Washington is having a budget cut of 10 percent in their

universities in the period '85 to '87. That's nothing that we've ever

had to do in British Columbia. They've had difficulties in the past in

Washington. That just happens to be how it will be in our closest

jurisdiction in the next two years.

As the member knows, I was in Texas only three weeks ago looking for

high technology opportunities for British Columbia. The state of Texas

is experiencing a deficit of possibly $1 billion this year; university

fees in Texas as a result will quadruple this year, and the

universities will have a cut that was originally proposed to be 30

percent for the university system, but will probably be reduced to 5

percent. So here we are with even funding in British Columbia this

year, Texas is quadrupling the fees and dropping their contribution,

and the state of Washington is cutting by 10 percent.

It's merely to say that this is something which always happens when the

economy can't support the spending activities of the systems that are major

consumers of the tax dollars. It doesn't mean to say that we haven't

tremendously high regard for our universities and those who provide service

in them. It doesn't mean that we don't accord them enormous priority.

It doesn't mean that when the economy turns around they will not be able

to share generously in the new spending capability that will follow upon that.

It does mean for the moment that they have to bear their share of the burden.

It's not as severe as the burdens of those who are unemployed or all of

the businesses that have been devastated by the recession, but certainly some

of the burden. We would like to think that that could be done with....

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: You know the unemployment figures for British Columbia. I don't need to detail them. It's tough out there. It's very tough.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: When the automobile industry came roaring back.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: You see, Mr. Chairman, the Premier doesn't

control the price of copper. When it goes from $1.25 to $0.62 and mines

close down, that's not something that is set by the province of British

Columbia. But I can remember, Mr. Chairman, right here in this

Legislature, when copper prices were at world record levels and that

member personally created a depression in the mining industry. As the

member for North Vancouver — your predecessor in this House, Mr.

Chairman — previously said: "They created a miracle by producing

despair in British Columbia mining at a time of world record prices."

That's what they did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. McGEER: Now, with prices at their lowest level....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On vote 75, the minister's estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pure fiction.

HON. MR. McGEER: Fiction? Did the Premier set the world price

of aluminium? Not at $0.94, as it was six months ago, but at $0.47? No,

these are circumstances — world commodity prices — and people have to

recognize and adjust to these circumstances. If you go around believing

myths, then what you're going to do is build policies that will

undermine in the future — to use a pun — because that group over there

was undermined. That's why they were defeated in 1975, that's why they

were defeated in 1979, that's why they were defeated in 1983 and that's

why they're going to be defeated in 1986.

We're hearing the very reasons today. No, sir, no repentance, no

insight, no reform at all over there. The same old gang — against

industry, against wealth, against success. They put failure on a

pedestal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, would you please apply your comments to your ministry estimates — vote 75.

[ Page 6073 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, what we have done in the

Universities ministry is ask our institutions to put forward for the

first time an academic plan which will establish for each institution

its own direction in the future. We believe in the autonomy of our

institutions, and this is a way for them to survey the needs of the

future and to respond by charting their direction. This is something

which our universities have never done before. I think the exercise

will be an effective one.

Included in the plan is an adjustment to our anticipated

post-secondary population in British Columbia. There's been a great

deal of talk in our province about participation rates, so we've taken

a very careful look at how our high-school graduating students are

moving on to the post-secondary system.

In the university stream — this is not necessarily all going to our

universities but also university-level courses, which includes BCIT —

we have over 53 percent of the recent graduates. So we are picking up

at university level over half the graduates. In addition to that we

have our vocational stream which are short courses designed to prepare

people for the working world.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the participation rate in British Columbia

is extraordinarily high. The member opposite says: "Come on now!"

I have to say that I consider that to be the number one educational myth in

our province, because when we take the statements made by those who want to

see their institutions grow.... It's a natural enough thing. Here we've

got three public universities, fifteen community colleges, six institutes, a

knowledge network, an open learning institute, all anticipating growth — because

that was what took place when the baby boom was moving through our system —

suddenly looking into the future with the service to be provided until the turn

of the century, with the baby bust group. Our population now, right back to

grade one and grade two, is flat or dropping, so you're looking at a smaller

and different clientele.

We aren't going to have, in the next 20 years, growth like we had in

the past 20. It will never again take place in our province. What we're

looking at to serve is a population that is already in the school

system. They're there, and you can understand what's going to happen to

them if you plan carefully with respect to the future. There's no point

in planning your educational establishment thinking that the baby boom

is going to continue to the year 2000. The educational institutions can

blame the mothers if they wish to grow, but folks, the kids aren't

there in the school system. We've got to think very carefully about the

size and distribution of our educational systems in the future. That

should be taken into account in the five-year plans of our

universities, as well as our colleges and our institutes.

Mr. Chairman, I've been asked about the tunnel. If the House wishes,

we can go to the tunnel for a few minutes. No? The Chairman objects.

Well, if I'm asked specific questions and the Chairman entertains them,

I would be delighted to deal with that subject too. I'll just close to

permit, I'm sure, sharp, brief, incisive questions — did I hear a

giggle. Mr. Chairman? — from my friends opposite with respect to the

three portfolios, inasmuch as they have been given such a concise and

objective account.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, in his opening remarks the

minister was talking about his relations with the new national

government and his talks with Marcel Masse. He said that he regrets

there is still a wide gap, and that's the thing I'd like to talk about:

the wide gap as far as university participation is concerned.

Here in British Columbia the participation rate for people from

metropolitan areas is about 17 percent; the participation rate for

people from non-metropolitan areas is now down to 7 percent. It wasn't

always thus. It was pretty well closed up back about 1974. But that is

what is happening under this minister under the lack of priority and

lack of assistance for students. which impacts upon all students very

much — taking away the grant portion of student assistance, for

instance. He says we have the colleges. He should find out what is

happening in the colleges. They're closing down all of the transfer

programs. They're discontinuing those programs because of the

government direction that they're getting. There is a wide gap. Also,

the participation rate in this province is absolutely abysmal compared

with other provinces in Canada.

He wants to talk about Washington, about Texas. He neglects to

mention that Texas had the most dramatic increase in its universities

in the early 1980s. If there is some sort of a rapprochement taking

place there now, that's maybe appropriate, but this was after a huge

and dramatic increase. He should know that if he's been there recently.

Net provincial contributions to universities here in British

Columbia have fallen at a faster rate than in any other province since

1981-82. That's according to the Johnson report, with which the

minister should be very familiar. The minister talks about this

participation rate, saying that we have a high rate, and he throws in

everything, including the Open Learning Institute. But we really have

to look at what is happening with the number of students leaving

school. We have to look at people in those young age groups and see how

many of them are engaged. We have a very low rate. Indeed, if we were

to enrol at the rate that students are enrolled in Ontario, we would

have to absorb 24,000 more students into our institutions.

Mr. Chairman, I think that any way one wants to look at it, there is

a great deal for us to be concerned about here. I think that at the top

of the list is the fact that the government is using money as a lever

to force universities to do the Social Credit bidding. There has never

been so much — I won't say carrot and stick; it is stick and stick —

bullying of our universities. It is a very dangerous, destructive and

economically disastrous move to make.

[3:45]

The minister talked about how prosperity is linked to the producers,

and I'll agree. But, by golly, the people in the universities are the

producers. One day this minister will get up and he'll throw his arms

around Dr. Rudi Haering and try to identify himself with the moly

battery. But today he wants to talk about people like Dr. Rudi Haering

as non-producers. The people in the arts community are producers. If

the minister would look at the kind of economic impact here in

Victoria, in Vancouver and throughout our province, he'd find out that

the fine arts are a multi-million-dollar industry in this province. In

fact, if anybody is working today, it's the graduates of general arts

and science. If anybody's being hired today, it's the graduates in

general arts and science. Engineering has fallen on hard times, but, of

course, times will come for them. These are hard times for them, here in

[ Page 6074 ]

British Columbia at least, when last year about

eight graduates out of 30-odd in chemical engineering got jobs. But

most arts and science graduates are getting jobs.

Mr. Chairman, we have never seen such interference. Academic freedom

is an essential ingredient of university life. But today there is a

sense of uncertainty. It hinders and impedes academic research,

academic activity, and the kind of clear mind that one needs if one is

going to be on the leading edge of thought and development and

creativity.

This government is heavily involved in university budget allocation.

It came up with this $14.7 million allocation. Of course, they couldn't

explain what the $14.7 million was going to be for. They couldn't

explain immediately, on budget day, who was going to allocate it, and

after some pressure they said it would come through the Universities

Council. Even today we don't know exactly what it's going to be for;

but I think that everyone sitting on this side who listened to the

budget speech that day could have told you. It's going to be to buy

out.... It's going to be golden handshake pay. It's going to cover the

legal costs of this government's interference in the academic system in

getting rid of professors. There's also going to be this kind of

one-time bonus pay for star performers — under what criteria, I don't

know, but supposedly to induce people not to leave the university.

I guess one can anticipate that maybe in the commerce faculty at the

University of British Columbia.... There's a lot of concern there that

a lot of top people have been approached by the head-hunters from the

United States. So maybe they're going to try to keep them, or maybe

they think that a one-time bonus, a signing bonus, is going to attract

people to come into British Columbia. Well, I don't think that is going

to happen.

The government has been pressuring presidents directly to go along

with their anti-education priorities — they've sent letters; they've

laid things out very specifically — and the minister has laid out his

thoughts on what they should be doing in terms of prioritizing their

spending and rationalizing. He talks about the university adjustments

program, to assist the universities in accomplishing the objectives

that they and the Universities Council set out in their joint letter to

him of January 23, 1985. Of course, all 15 members of the Universities

Council are appointed by the minister, and we know that it's very hard

to tell who is saying what to whom.

That letter was to identify and maintain the vital core programs. I

remember the core curriculum that came out for elementary and secondary

schools — quite a flap about nothing. But what are the vital core

programs? Are they defined? How do we know what is expected there? "To

enhance programs of defined high social demand, outstanding quality and

provincial need, and to redeploy to higher priority areas resources

made available from the reduction or elimination of programs of lesser

academic strength and priority, and to employ strengths and management

capabilities to meet on a timely basis academic and fiscal

responsibilities." Well, what has happened?

We have all had letters from people in rehabilitation medicine,

people concerned about cancellation of programs such as architecture at

the University of British Columbia. We've had resignations of people

who have seen commitments cut to the engineering faculty at the

University of Victoria, and only restored after the very high-level and

politicized resignation of Len Bruton, the person most capable of

leading a program to fruition to make that program a first-class

university program that would stand in good stead as a world-class

program.

The minister sets out his goals: "A modest reduction in overall size

in keeping with post-secondary forecasts." You know, he put out some

post-secondary forecasts; he appended some figures to these statements.

I think they were called the enrolment statistics forecast, or

something or other. All I know is that when I looked at them I noticed

some glaring errors. In other words, the post-secondary enrolments were

consistently 36,000, 36,000, 36,000; then, for two years in a row, it

dropped to 26,000, 26,000, then back up to 36,000.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: A typographical error. Well, if it's a

typographical error, what does it come from? What are those statistics?

What book, what publication? There's a specific question that the

minister can answer later: what specific publication do those figures

come from, or were they dreamed up? They couldn't have been done by a

spreadsheet program on a computer, because the program would have

corrected such an obvious error. It was obviously something that was

typed up and, as far as I am concerned, made up, and really doesn't

tell much of a story.

The real story again is the participation rate. The minister can

talk about the enrolment forecasts for the next couple of years, and

what's going to happen with grade 12 graduations. Certainly at the rate

this government's going grade 12 graduations might drop even lower,

because they're discouraging students — not only participating

post-secondary but also in secondary school.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gloom and doom!

MR. NICOLSON: Gloom and doom! This is the truth, this is the

way, and this is an enlightened — I won't go too far recognition of

some of the facts.

The government have pressured their appointees on university boards

to rationalize or eliminate programs in accordance with government

wishes. One university president, Dr. Pedersen, has resigned, and both

of the others have spoken publicly against this oppression of the

universities. The University of Victoria dean of engineering has quit,

as I say, and 140 top academics are considering job offers elsewhere.

University Affairs editor Gloria Pierre has said that this is the,

worst education climate she's seen in 25 years. She said in the May

1985 edition:

"If the problem in B.C. were only a lack of money,

serious as it is, I'd not be writing this column. It is the apparent

use of money as an instrument of power, as a lever to force the

universities to do what the provincial government wants, that is the

real problem. What the government wants at present appears to be the

elimination of programs that it does not consider worthwhile, and the

reduction of enrolment. This in a province that has one of the lowest,

if not the lowest, participation rates in the country. The education

climate in British Columbia is the worst that I have seen in 25 years."

She talks about the pressure — and a great deal of pressure — that's

been put on the universities in the past few years to eliminate

programs. We have a government that believes there are too many people

at university, that they are there for

[ Page 6075 ]

social reasons, and that entrance requirements should be raised to reduce enrolments.

Mr. Chairman, British Columbia's participation rate, as I have said,

is.... If it were at the Canadian average.... I should correct what I

said earlier: not if it were at the Ontario average, but if it were at

the Canadian average, there would be another 24,000 full-time students

at our universities and colleges. I suppose if it were at the Ontario

average, it would probably be in the neighbourhood of 50,000 more

students at our universities and colleges. The full-time university

enrolment is dropping in British Columbia: it's down 2 percent in the

past year. Really, if one looks at the number of no-shows in first-year

programs, one would realize that it is a very serious portent of what

is going to happen over the next four years. Why? It's because we're

making it virtually impossible. It's being reflected right now most

seriously, as I say, with students from the non-metropolitan areas. But

it will go on.

Mr. Chairman, we see what their plan is here. British Columbia has

the worst student-assistance package in Canada, yet some of the highest

tuition fees. The minister is fond of saying that students have it easy

on fees. He talks about the days when he was at school. Fees have gone

up faster than inflation over the past 35 years. I've looked back to

the year 1950, which I figure is when the.... First, I think if the

minister goes back and talks about what student fees were when he was

at university, he'd have to remember that when he was at university

there were still a lot of war veterans there; there was a DVA program.

Probably most of the students at university, more than half of them,

would have been getting full student assistance as veterans of the

Second World War.

I know that when I went to the University of British Columbia, the

student population had been up over 9,000, but when I enrolled there,

the population of the University of British Columbia was under 5,000.

That shows you the impact of the veteran participation. Even bearing

that in mind, going back to the years when those veterans were

there.... I know that if the minister was not there in that time, the

deputy minister certainly was there, so we can have some first-hand

advice in rebuttal, I suppose, on what it was really like at that time.

Going back to 1950 and working out the average fee increase over the

years 1950 to 1985, we see that fees have increased 5.75 percent,

whereas the average inflation rate, measured by the cost-of-living

index, has been 4.70 percent.

Until 1980 inflation and fees were more or less in step. Fees

increased at 4.04 percent annually, and inflation was at 4.29 percent

annually. In the period 1980-85, the student fees average a 16.66

percent increase annually, while inflation runs at 8.49 percent over

the same period. In other words, student fees have been increasing at

double the inflation rate. This is based on statistics from the

University of British Columbia, which of course was the university in

operation back in 1950, It's based on an arts degree, or enrolment in

regular arts and science. The tuition is now up over.... For this year,

of course, we see more and more increases. We see 10 percent increases

forecast. We now have one of the highest tuition rates in Canada.

[4:00]

The minister claims that there is such a great deal because

provincial tax dollars cover 85 percent of the budget. The province

does not put in a nickel any more. The balance of this, really, is

being put in by student fees. In fact, in EPF funding the forecast....

Next year I think EPF funding will pay for 108 percent of government

contributions to post-secondary education.

The minister says there are too many people in university, and that

they are there for social reasons, and that entrance requirements

should be raised to cut enrolment. That is the government's view, and

he has alluded to that. They've used rather distorted statistics, and

reasoning, to support the diversion of federal moneys away from

post-secondary education. And, of course, there is the minister's

letter of April 2, 1985, entitled " Dear Faculty Member," in which he

tries to explain the diversion of EPF funding.

The minister claims that health expenditures have increased more

rapidly in B.C. than post-secondary expenditures because, in part, of

the 19 percent increase since 1980 in our over-65 population and the 2

percent decrease between the ages of 6 and 24. But StatsCan advises

that the increase in over-65s is 15 percent — 285,900 in 1980 and

329,000 in 1984, but not 19 percent. The 6-to-24-year-old group is

down, but the 0-to-5 age group, which the minister ignores, is up 10

percent and just entering the education system.

But really, you know, it doesn't matter. We still have to come back

to the fact that we have the lowest participation rate, that even with

what we've got today, if we were to have the same participation as the

national average, we would have 24,000 more people enrolled, almost the

equivalent of another UBC in size. Well, I don't know that I want to

get into all of these statistics, because the minister likes to play

this game. But really, if you examine the minister's statistics, they

just don't hold up. He's talking about a very small projected decrease

in enrolment, and even if the minister's figures are accepted in terms

of projections for grade 12 graduation into university, it doesn't

begin to answer the shortfall that we have, simply because we're

discouraging students from attending.

It's a vicious circle: no student aid and high fees will discourage

attendance; lower enrolments will justify more budget cuts and still

higher fees, This government wants the economic spinoffs of the best

intelligence, but will not pay to attract and keep the necessary people.

What skills are we going to give to our young people today? If we

read the papers, we see more and more concern about these young people

who have never had a job, this new lost generation. So what are we

doing for these young people to ensure that they will be able to live

up to their potential in the twenty-first century? The Socred view is

that all we need is to have a few highly specialized technocrats, and

then, if we need somebody else, we simply hire them away from

California or Ontario or other parts of the world. But we are going to

deny our young people participation in these challenging, high-level,

demanding jobs and professions — and lives.

It just isn't good enough. It's philosophically corrupt, I think, to

talk about stealing people from other areas where they've been trained,

from other areas that have paid for their education. It is also

philosophically corrupt to talk about denying our young people

participation in the really fulfilling and challenging life which can

lie ahead for them if we invest today. It's like our not investing in

our forests. We're not replanting trees. In the case of our

universities, we're not replanting students for the growth that is

going to have to take place in order that we can realize and, I

suppose, exploit the resource that they will mature to in 5, 10 or 20

years' time.

Our view is that our people need an equal chance to compete for the jobs that will be available. The NDP believes

[ Page 6076 ]

that ability to pay exorbitant fees is not usually

related to talent and intelligence. The NDP believes that education

should be available to every person to the extent that they can benefit

from it. We have faith in British Columbians. We believe that as

technology makes some jobs obsolete, it's going to be harder to plan to

equip students with job-specific skills. Our education system should

concentrate on providing students with two essential qualities: a high

level of general education and flexibility; and students will need to

be flexible enough to cope with the stresses of rapid and unpredictable

technological and social change.

I might just say — just to touch tangentially on communications,

since it is part of the minister's responsibility — that the other day

I attended a conference on communications. I confessed to some of those

experts my abysmal ignorance of matters of communications, because as

hard as I try, things keep changing. Do you know what the experts told

me — one from Washington? They said that it's the very same for them:

nobody can keep up. So that's the kind of world that we are into, and

yet we want to send people out into that field very ill-equipped. It's

like sending out an ill-clothed army with slingshots against laser

weapons and armoured vehicles, Mr. Chairman.

We have to make an investment. The minister talks about what we can

and cannot afford. I'll tell you, we can't afford any more mistakes

like this government has been making with its economic projects. We

can't afford to be spending $1 million to create one job, which is what

this government has done in terms of its megaprojects and its northeast

coal project: $1 million of government spending to produce one

coal-mining job. We've got to get better return for our investments. We

can't be writing down all of these megaprojects and putting that money

into direct debt against this province at the expense of a properly

educated youth. There will be nobody to pay off the debts for those

megaprojects if we don't have an adequately prepared youth, and if we

don't have the creative energy that comes from that academic community.

I want to ask the minister how it is that he can one day wrap

himself in the reflected glory of a Dr. Haering and on another day fall

short of the mark in terms of supporting the people who will be the Dr.

Rudi Haerings of tomorrow, or the David Suzukis, Sam Blacks, Jack

Shadbolts and other leading people of tomorrow, whether they be in the

sciences, arts or humanities. How can the minister have been in this

community for so long and yet not observe the importance of our doing

our share in this province in terms of participation rate and reaching

out to maximize the potential of all of our students?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to come back for a

moment to reiterate that the greatest myth in postsecondary education

in Canada is this silliness about the low participation rate. It just

is not factual. I'm reading a statistical thing in "Current Issues in

Post-Secondary Education in British Columbia" by an official of the

federal government in which college enrolment in British Columbia is

quoted as being 22,000, and on that basis they suggest the

participation rate in British Columbia is low.

Mr. Chairman, we built colleges all around British Columbia. The

purpose was to permit people to have university level courses in their

own community. That's why we put up 15 community colleges all around

British Columbia. We had three universities, but they're down here

right in the southwest corner of the province. It's easy, if you live

in Vancouver or Victoria or New Westminster, or perhaps even Coquitlam,

to commute to a university. You've got a deal. But it's not that way,

as the member knows, if you live in Nelson or Trail or Salmon Arm or

Prince Rupert or any of the smaller communities. So what did we do? We

built colleges all around the province so people in those communities

could get a university-level education and career and technical courses

in their own community.

What's the accusation of those in the universities? The accusation

is that the participation rate is low because we didn't force these

people to leave Nelson, Prince Rupert and all these other communities

and have their parents fork out the money for them to come to Vancouver

and Victoria. Are you against that, or do you think it's right and

proper that people should be able to have these educational

opportunities at home? For heaven's sake, when we provide that, don't

come and say the participation rate is low. Count those people in those

communities as human beings and as students, the same as you would

count them on the University of Victoria campus. And please tell them

on the University of Victoria campus not to covet those who are in

Trail and Prince Rupert, if they want to stay in those communities and

have their education there, because our policy is to give them a chance

there. Is that wrong?

[4:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We weren't satisfied with that, Mr. Chairman. We said: "We're going

to let you take it right in your living-room." That's why we created

the Open Learning Institute. I wish my friends from Pacific Press were

up in the gallery today. I hope they're listening back there in that

press room, because they opposed it and so did the Vancouver Province .

They didn't want educational democracy in British Columbia. They wanted

to force these people to come down to the campuses where their friends

are who talk to the editorial staffs. That's what took place.

All of these conversations between the editorial boardrooms of the Vancouver Province and the Vancouver Sun

and. the administrative offices of our lower mainland universities,

saying what a terrible thing it was to have an open learning institute

that would bring university programs into the living-room in Horsefly

and Quesnel and Osoyoos and Peachland and all those places.... Why,

these big-city stickers were against that, right there in the Pacific

Press. Are you listening, Pacific Press?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're waking everybody up.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm just reminding them of their past. Now

when these people are registered in the programs and they're able to

take them in their living-room and get a college degree through the

Open Learning Consortium.... No sir, they're not participants. They're

being very naughty. They're not participating in this university

system, because they don't troop obediently down and offer themselves

up at our university campuses in the lower mainland. Baloney, there

isn't participation. There is, and it's distributed all around British

Columbia. I wish people would recognize that that is taking place. The

opportunity has been provided.

I want to tell you, it hasn't been easy, because there was no

willing support from the great media of our province. They weren't the

ones pushing for educational democracy in

[ Page 6077 ]

British Columbia; no sir. They were demanding more money for their friends in the lower mainland, that's what they were doing.

I want to say that I'm very proud of what we've been able to

achieve, bringing educational opportunity to all of the small

communities of British Columbia and having our Knowledge Network and

the Open Learning Institute taking programs right into the living-room.

You know, the Open Learning Institute is now the second largest

educational institution in British Columbia, with 16,000 participants.

These are people registered in courses, folks. They're in the

educational system working for credit toward a degree.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What about the apprenticeship program?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: The largest one? It's UBC.

Oh, I'm not sure — maybe the apprenticeship program, if you include

it at all.... But PVI is smaller in total numbers of people at any

given time than UBC or the Open Learning Institute.

But this is something that we had to push very hard to achieve,

because it wasn't done willingly. There was this demand: "You've got to

come to our place. You've got to make our numbers grow. If you don't do

that there isn't participation." Baloney! There are more people taking

university-level courses that are not on our university campuses than

there are students on the university campuses. That isn't by accident;

that is by design. If we're going to enrich our participation in

British Columbia, it has to be taking the education to the student, not

forcing him to come to you.

We have a particularly difficult geography in British Columbia,

because our population base is right down here in the southwest comer

of the province. So it does require a little extra effort, but it also

requires a little extra understanding and insight. People are sent into

this chamber from all around British Columbia, and they quite rightly

fight for opportunities, in an educational sense, for the people who

live in their communities, wherever they are. I can tell you this:

they're going to find a very sympathetic ear from this particular

minister, because I think that's right.

I'm not going to read garbage statistics that are prepared by people

whose main interest is trying to prove that there should be more

individuals trooping down to their particular campuses and fewer spread

around the province where it's really required. I'm not sympathetic to

that. But I do tell you it's a myth, and the participation rate in our

province is extraordinarily high.

We examine the total number of graduates from our high school

system; they're published every year in enrolment statistics. I'm sure

that a member over there would agree. It's appropriate that we should

keep figures on how many people are in our school system. We should

keep figures on how many graduate. The fellow who does all this

myth-making at the University of Victoria couldn't understand why you

would have 35,000 people attending high school in grade 12, and only

25,000 graduating. This is a historic thing that has gone back a very

long time. Not everybody who finishes the twelfth year has completed

all of the requirements to enter academic courses at the college and

university level. You have these minimum requirements. It used to be

junior matriculation. But there still is that incompletion on the part

of about 10,000 people who are in grade 12 each year.

Later on, the major adult education enterprise in our province — and

we haven't talked about that, but it's a very large component of what

goes on — is called adult basic education. Adult basic education is

picking people up to that grade 12 graduation level. There are many

vocations, quite apart from the academic stream, where that requirement

of grade 12 completion is there, and therefore they have to finish that

in order to get into whatever particular specialty they require.

That's not so for our Open Learning Institute, because there you

start with the assumption that you can do the work. The whole purpose

in setting up the Open Learning Institute was that people would have a

chance, no matter where they lived, no matter what their financial

circumstances, no matter what their previous academic achievement. So

there aren't those kinds of restrictions to get into the Open Learning

Institute programs.

This is the reason why there's that difference between the numbers

in grade 12 and the numbers who get their university-entrance

certificate. Then of those 25,000 or so who get that, over 50 percent

move on. It used to be that if you lived up in Salmon Arm you had to

have the money to come down to UBC to get your university-level course.

Now you can start right in Salmon Arm. That's the way it is all around

the province. That's real participation. I just wish people would

include some of that in their statistics.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister tries to criticize

the statistics of — and I think I know the member he's probably

referring to — a very conscientious and important person in the

education community in this province at the University of Victoria.

I can quote right here from Statistics Canada, table 28, "Education

in Canada, 1983." It talks about the participation rate in

universities. It might even give a breakdown of male and female.

Undergraduate: male, 1982-83, 20.6 percent; female, 18.7 percent; for a

total of 19.7 percent. We look at British Columbia, and we see: male,

15.2 percent; female, 14.3 percent; and a total of 14.7 percent.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: This is for undergraduates, the 18 to-21 age group.

Now I want to talk about the 18-to-21 age group, because that's what

we have to compare if we're comparing apples and oranges. You know,

kids don't come out of high school and say: "I'm going to go to the

television set and get a degree through OLI. OLI is fine. It has its

place; it does a heck of a good job. But you know, there's a great deal

more to education than filling out correspondence forms or sitting in

front of a television set watching packaged programs from.... I watch

the Knowledge Network, and I see computer science programs that are at

least five years out of date. Some of them are pretty puerile stuff.

They're great; they're better than nothing. It isn't bad to be five

years out of date; it's better than not being up to scratch at all.

Some of the other stuff is excellent, and some of it is entertaining.

But even if we accept that as being an equal or equivalent

educational opportunity, which it isn't, 19,000 or 20,000 people — or

something like that; the figure you threw out —

[ Page 6078 ]

in those outreach programs still doesn't close the

gap between our participation rates. It still wouldn't come up to the

Canadian average. It wouldn't even come within hailing distance of

Ontario. Here in British Columbia.... I was born in British Columbia.

I'm a parochial British Columbian and I think British Columbia should

be the best, not pulling up the hind end in terms of its rate.

If we look at the statistics in terms of the 18-to-21-year olds in

our participation rate, again for undergraduate programs we rank tenth

out of ten. That's not something from the University of Victoria; that

is straight out of Statistics Canada. For the minister to get up and

equate.... What athletic teams does one play on in OLI? Is the OLI

basketball team right up there with the University of Victoria team?

Does their football team compete with the UBC Thunderbirds? Does the

wrestling team compare with the Simon Fraser Clansmen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Video games.

MR. NICOLSON: Video games — maybe they're number one in Canada. I don't know.

To compare this as an equivalent experience — what arrangements are

there for doing labs? I know that professors do travel up. There are

seminar groups and you have a concentrated period where you actually

meet with a real, live professor — that is, if the plane gets into

Castlegar. That's some other technical expertise that the deputy

minister could comment on and advise the minister on. Really, it is

spurious; come on, Mr. Minister! To compare the two experiences and to

lump in those statistics.... As I say, even if I accept your

statistics, it doesn't bring us up to national averages, but I don't

accept them. I accept OLI and the Knowledge Network as being useful,

innovative, excellent and supplementary, but is the minister honestly

saying...?

[4:30]

If you live in the lower mainland you have two universities to

choose from; if you live in lower Vancouver Island you have one

university; but if you live in Prince George, Dawson Creek, Nelson,

Cranbrook or Kelowna you have to sign up for correspondence, or watch

your television set and take your courses from there, or get in your

videotapes or audiotapes. I know there are all kinds of learning

assists — canned records — but there is still no substitute for that

face-to-face contact and meeting some of those top people. When I was a

student at the University of British Columbia I had Dr. Gage, Jack

Parnall, Dr. Wort in biology — all of these top rate people; Dr.

when she was away and couldn't do her classes. Dr. Gage got the first

award at the university for teaching excellence, and Dr. Steinberg was

about the third. I experienced people like Derek Livesey in physics,

and a number of others — Karl Erdman and others in physics, or people

like Roy Nodwell, who you now have on the Science Council. I had Roy

Nodwell for optics and did very well, thank you.

To meet those people face to face, and to have them return from an

academic symposium, as Roy Nodwell did.... A paper was given on the

laser, and he was one of the first people to hear about it; and he

brought this right back into the classroom — that kind of immediacy. I

was not an honours student; I was not a graduate student; I was just

taking majors. But we did get that kind of exposure. Now you can't get

that kind of immediacy, and that's what university is about. It's about

being on the leading edge, or having some contact with people who are

on the leading edge. They're not on the leading edge when they've

recorded a videotape two or three years ago. It is absolutely

impossible. So don't try to compare apples and oranges.

I'm not going to defend the position that I've taken by calling down

OLI or the Knowledge Network. They're fine programs. They're

supplementary programs. They do something for people who cannot disrupt

their family; for couples who have children and midlife

responsibilities, and who cannot uproot and come down here. But I'm

talking about the 18-to-21s who can come out of school and go to

university, who are mobile, and who are at an age when they are eager

to learn — they're the most motivated. We're not giving them the

opportunity. We're denying them participation in the twenty-first

century if we continue the way we're going.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm not disagreeing with the member. All I'm

saying is: don't refer to people from our small communities as

non-persons in an educational sense. They are participating in a system

that we deliberately set up so that they would have that opportunity.

If they wish, they can come down and register at UVic or SFU or UBC.

But we put a system in place so that they didn't have to do that; they

would have a choice. My, objection is that the people who prepare these

tables pretend that those individuals are nonpersons, and others coming

in say that there's some dreadful plague on the educational system here

in British Columbia. Everybody doesn't do what these statistical moguls

would like them to do. It just so happens that we've put in a college

system, and we encourage people to take advantage of it. You can get

university courses — maybe not up to Prof. Gage's, but you can get

them, right there in Salmon Arm. You used to be able to get them in

Nelson. I feel badly about that, but you can at least get them in

Castlegar now. That was put there for a special purpose. I'm dismayed

that we have all these people who have convinced themselves that those

in the interior are non-persons in an educational sense. I think it's a

shame.

MR. ROSE: I think the minister is extremely convincing and

persuasive in his arguments — to some people perhaps, but not to me. I

think he does compare apples and oranges. He gives a high school

diploma participation rate, going on to some form of post-secondary

education, as the basis for the percentage of high school grads.... All

the stats that we have been reading have to do with the percentage per

capita, not the percentage per high school grads. As a matter of fact,

it really condemns his argument terrifically. To say that, well, out of

35,000 kids in grade 12 — or 39,000 or 29,000, whatever he said — about

19,000 really don't complete.... They're dropouts, in other words. They

don't complete their high school graduation — what we used to call

their matriculation — in time to go on. I think that's a condemnation

of a number of things.

I think the minister should talk about degrees per capita. I know

that nobody's interested in these stats, except maybe people who are

making speeches or university professors. In degrees per capita and

diplomas per capita, the information I have is that in B.C. we have 733

college diplomas per 100,000 between the ages of 20 and 29. Those are

the people who are going to university. In Canada we have, on average,

about 1,500, or double. That kind of distorts that business about the

great benefits of the Open Learning Institute. I don't discount the

fact that an open learning institution is a

[ Page 6079 ]

great help to those people who are geographically

bound, housebound — moribund — or whatever. I'm not knocking that at

all. But the facts speak for themselves: college diplomas in B.C. are

about half what they are in Canada; we're about sixth among the

provinces. We're tenth among the provinces, per capita, in the

production of bachelor degrees, including open learning grads.

Therefore I can't put much stock in the minister's assertion. Those are

StatsCan figures — I can give you the catalogue number, if you care to

look at it.

I think the basic difference in his arguments here is that most of

the StatsCan stuff — the latest I have is 1983-84 full-time

post-secondary enrolment.... In the community colleges we're 11.5; the

Canadian average is 16.7. Then, I suppose, Manitoba and Saskatchewan

are a good deal lower: they're around a quarter of what we are.

Certainly we're below Alberta; we're below Quebec; we're below Ontario;

we're below P.E.I.

If we go on, as well, to look at the university enrolments — again

I'm quoting from the same document — we're in the same boat. In

18-to21-year-olds, our participation rate is 10.5 and 13.5 for Canada.

It's even worse if you look at the total post-secondary, which includes

postgraduate: 17 percent for B.C. and 23 percent for Canada. Some of

the other figures are comparable. Ontario and Quebec, of course, are

much higher, in central Canada.

So there are lots of impediments to getting a university degree. We

all know that those people who have a university degree, or for that

matter, even any post-secondary at all, have about twice the chance of

achieving gainful employment, even during the Bennett recession. So I

think that we are, in short, shortchanging our students.

We talked about, for instance, the funding for education. We've got

to be able to provide a decent amount of funding for education. I quite

frankly don't think the province is doing its job. We've had a series

of increases of federal money, and at the same time the increase in

federal money has been pocketed by the province for use for whatever.

Now the minister knows.... His argument is that that's all B.C. money

anyway. I've heard him say that many times. "You can't say the EPF

bound for universities is federal money, because it really comes out of

B.C. taxpayers' pockets." That's the minister's argument, and I think

he would nod his head to that one. Yes it is, that's the argument:

that's our money; nothing legally demands that we do anything with it

other than what we're doing. But it seems to me.... And I know that's

his argument; I don't like his argument, but that's his argument.

There's nothing legally demanding on the province to direct the

ever-increasing federal funds from Ottawa into education, even though

EPF was devoted to assisting the province in health and post-secondary

education since its inception. But since 1977, there have been no ties

on how that money was spent locally. However, old habits die hard, and

people persist in continuing to think about how that money might have

been used had it not been diverted into some other purpose.

Similarly, the minister talks about access, and that the community college

system — which is not really up for debate today — and also the Open Learning

Institute contributes to the education of those people who are out of the geographic

area of the lower mainland. I agree it does. But at the same time that is happening,

the university transfer programs in the various community colleges have been

downgraded. They are not on the "must" list; they are on the "may"

list. In terms of what programs are to be given at the community colleges. We

find that those programs, including the adult basic education, have been downgraded.

The classes are a lot larger. The programs are not nearly as numerous, and the

local colleges are not required any longer to emphasize those programs. So anyway

that is the situation.

Let's look at the federal increase. In 1983-84, the increase in EPF

was 7.3 percent or $450 million. The funds granted and transferred in

1984-85 were $477 million or an increase of 6 percent; that was the

year you cut the universities by 5 percent. This year they remained the

same in real dollars, but you know that at least 5 percent was eaten up

by inflation. We have a 7.4 percent increase. It will bring the federal

contribution, if the budget — I think it's on Thursday — reflects a

recommendation of Secretary of State Walter McLean, to $511 million.

So we've reached the stage — and I wish to remind the minister; he

might deny it — where really the province is not contributing at all

from its own sources. It's getting a free ride. As a matter of fact,

it's making money on post-secondary education, because of its increase

of the student fees to the extent where the students are paying an

ever-increasing proportion of it. The minister will counter, I imagine,

by saying: "Well, it's still a very good deal for the students in

post-secondary education." It is a good deal. I have no doubt that it

is a good deal for those people who are able to go to university. But

we know that enrolment is biased in favor of the upper-middle class to

the affluent. The aim of our party is to increase the participation

rate on a meritocracy basis — in other words, those people who are

meritorious in terms of their adaptability and their intellectual

equipment, and also, a favourite of the minister's, their motivation.

I'm not sure, where you have ever-increasing fees, that you are not

going to continue the negative skewing of a rural population — and I

used the term advisedly. I'm speaking in the statistical sense; there

is also a more physical sense. Nevertheless, that's what's happening.

Fewer and fewer of those people coming from lower-income families

will be able to attend university. It costs a rural student a minimum

of $2,500 more than the urban student to go right now. In addition,

because we don't have the access loan, which was $22 million two or

three years ago. we have the worst student aid program in Canada if not

North America. It's going to cost a student in British Columbia going

all the way through university on loans at the maximum amount

approximately $15,000 more to get a B.A. degree than it does a student

in Ontario.

I was told that somebody's relative here, whom I met the other day,

is taking her French major in Switzerland, and it's cheaper than going

to UBC, if you don't count the transportation. What are we doing? Am I

kidding?

AN HON. MEMBER: It was Gary Lauk.

MR. ROSE: No, I don't think it was Gary Lauk.

But anyway, that is the thing. So what is happening? Are we really

chasing people out of the universities? Are our universities too big?

The minister seems to think they are. I don't think they are in terms

of the needs for them. The United States has probably got the biggest

university system in the world, and they have an economy that reflects

that system. They're pumping all kinds of money into universities,

because they think that education is good for the economy. Pure and

simply, on the economic basis — never

[ Page 6080 ]

mind the social, cultural or any other grounds — the educated person is good for the economy.

A brother of a friend of mine wrote this staff study for the

Economic Council of Canada in June 1966. His name is Gordon Bertram,

and the title of his study was "The Contribution of Education to

Economic Growth." He makes these assertions: he compares the Canadian

economy with the American economy, and he compares the educational

attainment of the average American to the educational attainment of the

average Canadian. Also he compares the income attainment of the average

American to the real income of the average Canadian.

[4:45]

He has this to say: "Part of the explanation of the neglect to

analyze education and human capital as a factor in economic growth may

lie in an unwillingness to regard education as an investment in human

beings." It goes on further to say: "What is less well-known is that

per capita income in Canada has remained persistently about one-quarter

below that of the United States since the turn of the century." Then he

goes on further after developing that one to say this: "To the extent

that decision-makers at various levels of public authority fail to

recognize the existence of certain external benefits associated with

education, there could be a misallocation of resources in the economy,

for social benefits (including external benefits) may exceed the direct

benefits which decision-makers compare with education costs."

Education costs too much. What are the benefits? You can't quantify

the benefits. He's arguing on the grounds that you can quantify these

benefits of education. The Canadian male labour force is two years in

schooling below that of the U.S. male labour force, at least for the

group from 25 to 64, "which constitutes the bulk of the existing labour

force. Accumulating evidence and analysis point more and more to

education as a pervasive and basic element contributing to the real

earnings potential of people, and therefore also of a whole economy or

society."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm not going to quote this very much more, but I'll get to the

basic conclusion that he reaches. The point that he's making is a

strong relationship between education and the economy. He points out

that ours has been consistently low, and therefore that is one of the

reasons that we have fallen behind in terms of our economy, as measured

in real dollars.

The argument has often been made that education is a cost rather

than an investment. So the matter of access is a very important thing

as far as we're concerned. I would like to ask the minister a few

things here, and they have to do with an open letter that I received

from a conversation that he had recently with Ehor Boyanowsky, Phd., of

the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British

Columbia. I'd like to ask you whether or not the minister has fought

for the increase in the EPF, reputed to be 7.5 percent this year. Has

he fought to have these funds passed on to the universities rather than

put into general revenue?

I know that the minister is aware that the general formula in the

past, at least pre-1977.... Of the education portion of EPF, the

universities received about 59.5 percent; colleges, 24.5 percent; and

16 percent went to the high schools. So that's one question that I

would like answered.

The next question stems from the letter from Dr. Boyanowsky. I would like to

know whether he agrees with the tradition of 50 percent of the funds for universities

coming from provincial treasuries and 50 percent from federal funds, and whether

or not the federal funds really amount to virtually the whole cost of universities,

less the amount the students pay in fees.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to make a

general comment for the benefit of my friend opposite. We have put in a

very broad and comprehensive educational system. It's the most

comprehensive in terms of richness of opportunity and diversity of

subject matter that is available in Canada.

The Open Learning Institute is a recent addition, and we haven't got

our first graduate yet. They're all moving through the system, taking

individual courses or two and three at a time. We've gone to great

trouble to make it possible for people to take part-time degrees, to

re-enter the system. We've placed emphasis where possible on

technologies with certificates rather than BAs. The more you do of

this, the more you take people out of the simple traditional mode of

going for the four-year arts degree. If you go and look at something

like how many BAs per population, you lose sight of the very thing that

we've tried to build here: to give that diversity so that people may be

taking terminal courses in Castlegar or Prince Rupert or at BCIT or

PVI. No, they're not part of the type of statistics that you would see

from eastern Canada, where these things don't exist. But don't be

fooled into thinking we don't have people here in British Columbia

taking advantage of the system that we've put in place. It's there, and

as far as we're able to track people, the participation rate is

extraordinarily high.

I want to talk a bit about the established programs financing. I'm

certainly not going to talk about the letter that you received from

Boyanowsky but which I didn't receive. But I'll tell you this: there

won't be interviews in my office again without witnesses. I don't take

that kindly.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I read this as

an open letter. I presumed it was published in the paper. It was an

open letter to Dr. McGeer. I hope that I so designated that letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not a point of order,

because during committee stage of a bill members are allowed to further

explain any of the comments they might have made in a previous speech.

That will be afforded to the member during the course of debate.

HON. MR. McGEER: I can't say anything about the author of

that letter beyond suggesting that you judge for yourself when someone

sends an open letter to me, to you and everybody else in British

Columbia but doesn't have the courage to send it to the person he

allegedly had that discussion with.

Mr. Chairman, about the established programs financing. One of the

first things I did as Minister of Education was to go back and

renegotiate British Columbia's transfer payments, because when the

federal government brought in its program of paying 50 percent of the

cost in 1967 — and the member may have been in the federal Parliament

at that time....

MR. ROSE: Yes, I saw you down there one day.

[ Page 6081 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, let me tell you the story, and you

would know because you were there. The federal government said they

would pay 50 percent of the cost of postsecondary education. Once the

bills started coming in, what they did was put a cap on the funds. They

would pay 50 percent of the costs last year, except if they went up by

more than whatever the cap was, and I think it was about a 10 percent

addition.

The fed