1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4067 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Notice of Motion –– 4067

Oral Questions

Ambulance dispatch service. Mr. Miller –– 4067

Native education agreement. Mr. Guno –– 4068

Furnishings of Ministry of Economic Development offices. Mr. Williams –– 4068

Hospital user fees. Ms. A. Hagen –– 4068

Referendum system on education costs. Mr. Jones –– 4069

Privatization of provincial park campgrounds. Ms. Edwards –– 4069

Lake Koocanusa water level. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 4069

Riverview Hospital. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 4070

Tabling Documents –– 4070

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

(Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 4070

Mr. Jones

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

On vote 8: Vancouver Island-Coast development region –– 4078

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Clark

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

This past weekend citizens of Victoria hosted their sixth annual jazz

festival. It was a most successful event, with 20 bands participating,

with a very international flavour, and I would like to personally thank

those who put it on, especially the volunteers who worked so very hard.

There

were many great, different sounds, every band having its own unique

sound, but one band added a whole new dimension to the word "jazz, "

and that was Igor and his Cowboy Jazz Band. He's a great entertainer

and they're from Phoenix, Arizona. Igor Glenn is with us in the House

today, along with his wife Barbara, and I would like the House to make

them very welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN : It is indeed a

great pleasure for me today to have visiting in the House from the

beautiful Comox Valley, which I'm sure all of you realize is the heart

of region 1, a group of students, namely, 28 grade 11 students from

G.P. Vanier Secondary School and 12 students from Highland Secondary

School, together with their teachers, George Cochrane, who also is the

mayor of the city of Courtenay, and another teacher, Mrs. Clough. Also

here is Norma Rankin from Crown Forest Products, who are sponsoring

this tour today, and they are commemorating the startup of forestry

activity in Courtenay again. Five years ago this was shut down for lack

of merchantable timber. Fortunately there is enough now, so they've

opened it up again. It's my pleasure to welcome them and I ask the

House to make them welcome.

MR. MILLER : I hope

nobody was blowing their own horn last week, but I would like the House

to join me in welcoming eight students and their teacher, Kevin

Borserio, from the Queen Charlotte City secondary school. They are here

as part of a program that Crown Forest has to bring students to

Victoria, and I think Crown Forest should be commended. I should also

point out that the students are the top academic students, and I think

the students should be congratulated for that achievement. I would ask

the House to join me in welcoming them to Victoria.

MR. GABELMANN :

As members of the House know, we've had a very successful legislative

intern program in these buildings for ten years or more now, and

graduates of that program usually go on to great things. In the House

today we have a legislative intern from 1983, who has not gone on to

great things; he's actually studying to be a lawyer. I wonder if the

House would welcome Peter Hertzberg.

MR. CRANDALL :

This is a rare day for me, and I'm delighted that I have four

constituents from Columbia River here. I'd appreciate it if the House

would welcome Mr. and Mrs. Ted Cuffling and Mrs. Cuffling's grandson,

Fred Bjoranson from Victoria,

Now that you've welcomed them

for being here, I would also like you to congratulate Mr. and Mrs.

Cuffling, who were married just this past Saturday.

Also in

the member's gallery we have two other constituents from Golden: Mr.

Joe Dusevic and Mr. Wil Corbett. I'd appreciate it if the House would

welcome them.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm sure both the Attorney-General and myself will come

up with some appropriate punishment for the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

for his last comment about lawyers, but before we determine that, I would like

to point out to the House that in the precincts today is Mr. Art Charbormeau.

Mr. Charbormeau is in charge of the provincial organization representing the

interests of those affected by the Principal Trust fiasco. I'd ask that

all members of the House join me in welcoming Mr. Charbonneau to Victoria.

MR. PELTON :

I would like on behalf of our Speaker to introduce some people

attending in the House today: Mayor Alex Stuart from Ladysmith; Chief

Jerry Brown of Nanaimo Indian Band; Ian Terry, chairman of the Nanaimo

Regional District; Mel Woolley, president of Advanced Ecology Corp.;

and James Grey and Beverley Mills, who are visiting from Camosun

College. Would you make them welcome, please.

Notice of Motion

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave to place a notice of motion on a

possible matter of privilege which arises from the responses given

yesterday by the Premier to a series of questions raised by the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

Briefly, to one

question whether there were no personal or corporate financial

obligations to Mr. Toigo, the Premier responded: "I have no

'obligations' to Mr. Toigo." To another question further along about

any corporate transactions in the sense I just outlined, the Premier

responded: "I have no corporate involvements."

Well, today

there are revelations that Mr. Toigo is a tenant in Fantasy Gardens,

which would at least imply a corporate involvement. In view of this, I

give notice now of proceeding with the motion of privilege, subject to

the Premier having a chance to clear the air when he returns to the

Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER : I thank the member for his notice. We'll proceed with the matter further when the Premier returns.

Oral Questions

AMBULANCE DISPATCH SERVICE

MR. MILLER :

A question to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. We had an

unfortunate incident yesterday in which a longshoreman died on the

waterfront in Prince Rupert. The information I get from the union is

that it took 16 minutes for the ambulance to attend. We had an incident

last Thursday; it took 20 minutes for the ambulance to attend. In

another incident, 20 minutes. I have a letter from the first-aid

attendant at B.C. Packers outlining the problem: "I then phoned for an

ambulance. It took me four minutes to talk to a dispatcher, and an

additional 15 minutes for the ambulance to arrive. Some of the

questions asked by the dispatcher requesting a detailed description of

our plant's location were unnecessary." A local dispatcher would have

known the location of a major fish plant in Prince Rupert.

Will

the minister now admit there are serious problems with the centralized

dispatch system, and conduct an in-depth review in consultation with

rural people in British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to specific incidents. If he would give me that information

[ Page 4068 ]

I will certainly bring a report back — I'll take it on notice.

MR. MILLER :

New question, Mr. Speaker. There is general fear and confusion. I've

outlined three incidents. The people in Prince Rupert are up in arms. I

talked to the longshoreman who called an ambulance for his dying fellow

worker and was told that all the dispatcher in Kamloops wanted to do

was jawbone. He didn't know where the port was in Prince Rupert.

Will

the minister forget these foolish plans to privatize parts of the

ambulance system and concentrate his energies on improving the system

we have now so that it works for the people of this province?

[2:15]

NATIVE EDUCATION AGREEMENT

MR. GUNO :

I have a question to the Minister of Education. Last Friday we learned

that you and your federal counterpart, Mr. Bill McKnight, signed a new

agreement on funding of education for some 7,500 status Indian students

in B.C. Can the minister tell the House whether or not he believes that

the right of native people to a meaningful say in their children's

education should be a cornerstone in such an agreement?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I don't know whether the philosophical question the member asked has

anything to do with the funding agreement between Ottawa and the

province.

MR. GUNO : I'll clarify with a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This agreement creates an evaluation

process that doesn't require native involvement in a funding mechanism

that ties spending on native education to the priorities of school

boards. The chiefs of B.C. first nations have rejected this agreement

unanimously. How can the minister reconcile that he respects the right

of the native people to be part of the decision affecting them, when he

freezes them out of the process?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The wording in the agreement does not require the participation, but

neither does it preclude it. I would certainly welcome the

participation of the native people in any evaluation programs as to the

benefits their students are receiving. How can we evaluate anything

without talking to them?

MR. GUNO : Supplementary,

Mr. Speaker. In terms of coming to this agreement, what sort of

consultation took place with regard to the native people? What sort of

input did they have in this agreement?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

In the initial stages, efforts were made to try to involve the native

peoples in the consultation. But as I understand it, there was a

refusal to meet, walking out of meetings and that sort of thing. The

funds available to the province from the federal government, in order

to pay for last year's tuition of these students, was not possible

without signing the agreement by the end of March of this year. There

was no formula in place for the federal government to transmit any

money to the province — and that's some $32 million - in order to pay

for the education of the native people. I might point out that the

agreement allows native people to reach an agreement with their local

school boards - that's the first time that has been done — so that when

they reach an agreement, then the financial dealings would be directly

between the band, the school district and the federal government. So

the provincial government would be out.

The other thing is

that the funding under the new agreement now provides for funding at

the level of the average education costs per pupil in the district, not

based on the provincial average as before.

FURNISHINGS OF MINISTRY OF

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICES

MR. WILLIAMS :

I had hoped to ask questions of the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), but I guess she's out in the furniture stores

today. My question is therefore to the Minister of Finance. Could the

minister confirm that Treasury Board has indeed turned down the

minister's request for $900,000 worth of furnishings etc. to replace

the tatty furniture that the minister has had to put up with to date?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The issue is being revisited by Treasury Board at the request of the

cabinet. The issue is many-faceted. We are in the midst of protecting

the taxpayers' interest to ensure that we get full value for whatever

dollars are expended. That means that we are examining alternatives to

satisfy ourselves that the needs of the ministry and of the taxpayers

will be well served.

MR. WILLIAMS : To clarify, the Treasury Board turned it down and cabinet requested the review; is that correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Could the minister explain to what extent it was outside the guidelines

of these normal expenditures and whether previous expenditures by the

minister with respect to the crystal palace in Vancouver were a factor

in this review?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'm not aware of

any structure identified as the crystal palace, but in answer to the

specific question, which I am able to deal with — the guidelines for

Treasury Board review of ministry requests for expenditures within

appropriated approved budgetary limits — the answer is $100,000.

HOSPITAL USER FEES

MS. A. HAGEN :

The Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has

recognized that his policy of cutting income assistance to new mothers

was unfair and antifamily. The Minister of Health has a policy which

takes effect May 1, which will increase fees for seniors in longterm

care facilities. Will the Minister of Health now admit that his policy

of increasing those fees to seniors is unfair?

HON. MR. DUECK : No, that's a cabinet decision.

MS. A. HAGEN : Perhaps I could ask the Minister of Health a further question that he might take to his cabinet

[ Page

4069 ]

colleagues — a recommendation, in fact. Will the Minister of Health now recognize,

as has the Minister of Social Services and Housing, the worry and outrage to

the elderly and their families that his policy has given rise to? Will the minister

agree today that he will take a recommendation to cabinet with his strong support

to rescind these fees which are so unfair to the most needy and the most vulnerable

of the older people in our province?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I certainly don't take my cue from the opposition on what I should and

shouldn't do. Cabinet from time to time reviews and makes decisions,

and as far as I'm concerned, that decision has been made.

REFERENDUM SYSTEM ON EDUCATION COSTS

MR. JONES :

I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister is well

aware of the very negative reaction he received on the weekend to his

threat to the B.C. school trustees to introduce a referendum system in

order to control school costs. Is the minister now prepared to assure

the trustees, the education community and the parents of this province

that he is not interested at this time in introducing a referendum

system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Sometimes I wish the

member would follow the comments that I do make and the actual

statements that I make rather than the criticisms that he generates and

then attacks me for. I do not want a referendum in this province. I

don't think this government wants a referendum in this province. I was

trying to warn the trustees that there is an increasing demand from

people for a referendum and that if they tax well above the shareable

operating budget, then that demand will increase, and I would hope that

they would act responsibly so that that wouldn't happen. The member

mentioned some sort of a threat. I did not threaten them; I just

informed them that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I have said clearly on the record to the trustees and in this House

that I don't want to see a referendum, because there are many negative

aspects to a referendum. But I am getting an increasing number of

letters from taxpayers saying: "If we must foot the bill, then we want

a vote on it." That is a demand for a referendum, which I was trying to

forestall, not threaten.

MR. JONES : If the minister

is not interested in a referendum, as he suggests, I don't know why he

would raise the ire of the trustees of this province by that threat. Is

it not true, Mr. Minister, that in fact the only call for a referendum

mechanism in this province is at the instigation of Social Credit MLAs,

who are sending out questionnaires like this one — I won't describe it

as "garbage, garbage, garbage," as the Premier does — and putting this

concept to the householder?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I have very little information about these surveys.

I do have a considerable number from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's

(Mr. Sihota'

s) riding, where his people are sending me all sorts of things,

and I'm getting it from individuals. I'm getting an increasing amount

of letters in my office. So when the member asks, "Is it not true?"

he's absolutely right: it is not true that Social Credit members are pushing

for a referendum.

MR. JONES :

I'm sure the minister is well aware of public opinion polls that

support increased funding for education, including one that indicated

that 79 percent of those who voted Social Credit in the last election

support increased funding. Has the minister considered the fact that

it's really the under funding of this government and the lack of

increases to the homeowner grant that's produced calls for reduced

taxation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I'm certainly not aware

of whatever the member is talking about, but I truly am delighted that

the polls are showing that the people want to spend more money on

education. What I've said to the school boards is that the province has

much improved the shareable operating portion above what was put in

supplementary last year, and if they are going to supplementary, then

they are accountable to their taxpayers. If their taxpayers really mean

what they say in those polls — that they want to spend more money on

education — then they will have every opportunity to do so at the

request of the school board members.

PRIVATIZATION OF

PROVINCIAL PARK CAMPGROUNDS

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Parks. British

Columbians are baffled why this government continues to put private

interests ahead of the public good. Does the minister consider British

Columbia's public parks and campgrounds a business to be operated for

profit or a public service for all British Columbians and visitors to

our province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : There has been

privatization of contracted services in the parks since 1983. As a

matter of fact, of 208 parks, 158 have contracted services now. We are

going to be expanding that. The service is excellent. As a matter of

fact, the B.C. parks branch is the biggest accommodator in Canada, with

19 million visitors last year. So it's proved to be eminently

successful since 1983, and I thank you for your interest.

LAKE KOOCANUSA WATER LEVEL

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I have the privilege to respond to a question taken on notice from the

member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards). I regret being a bit tardy on this;

it has to do with low water levels at Lake Koocanusa, a question posed

in March. It's a long answer and I'll be as brief as possible and then

pass this letter on to the member.

The question had to do

with water levels at Lake Koocanusa. This year, as a result of a number

of factors, including low winter precipitation and higher than expected

electricity demands, Lake Koocanusa will be drawn down to an elevation

of approximately 2,317 feet, and will only rise to an elevation of some

35 feet to 40 feet below the maximum. It appears that little can be

done to alleviate the water shortage at this time in terms of reservoir

operation changes by U.S. authorities. Ministry staff will monitor the

Koocanusa reservoir Kokanee fishery this coming season. In particular,

the spawning runs will be evaluated in September. It is primarily

access to the reservoir which is expected to be impacted and not the

fish themselves.

HON. B.R. SMITH : Before the members trundle off to their telly tubes to sing "Farewell to my Red River Valley",

[ Page 4070 ]

I'm

going to file a couple of annual reports: the annual report of the

corrections branch, number one; the annual report of the B.C. Steamship

Co., number two; and the annual report of the official Administrator's

annual return. Makes very rich reading.

[2:30]

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

HON. MR. DUECK :

I'm responding to some concerns that I took on notice from the

opposition House Leader. The one question was increases in the number

of seriously ill and potentially dangerous patients at Riverview

Hospital. In response to the question from the hon. member, ministry

staff have investigated. The hospital has investigated care in the

hospital and now given me a report.

In the report we state

that street-focused kids and people dependent on drug lifestyles have

been increasing — there's no question about that. We, of course, are

mandated to look after these people. It is important to note that most

mentally ill people are not dangerous or violent. The small minority of

seriously ill people who are potentially violent are handled in a

secure way to ensure their own and public safety. Over the past year,

nurse staffing on a number of wards that contain more difficult

patients has been adjusted to ensure appropriate levels of care and

supervision.

The second question was the concern about the

patient care and public security as a result of nursing staff shortages

at Riverview Hospital. Again, in response to the hon. member's question

about a shortage of psychiatric nursing staff at Riverview Hospital and

the impact of this on patient care and public security, I would like to

report that hospital management are constantly monitoring the situation

and believe they are managing this problem appropriately. There is a

current shortage of nurses, and Riverview Hospital has a number of

vacant nursing positions. The hospital maintains a large pool of

relief, on-call nurses to ensure that nurse-staffing requirements are

met when regular nursing staff are not available. They are being used

to fill current direct-care nursing vacancies. To ensure that adequate

staff is available over the long term, the hospital has initiated an

advertising campaign to recruit more psychiatric nurses.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES; MINISTRY OF

ADVANCED EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING

(continued)

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

HON. S. HAGEN :

I was indeed pleased that just prior to breaking at 12, we were

privileged to have the Leader of the Opposition voice his philosophy

primarily with regard to universities and university education. I'm

sorry he has left the House, so he won't be here to hear my answer to

his concerns and questions.

I would like to take this

opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for finally

meeting with Dr. Petch, president of the University of Victoria. Dr.

Petch, in my opinion, is one of the finest university presidents in

this country. He's done a great job at the University of Victoria and

had a great number of innovations there. I am sure that when the Leader

of the Opposition was meeting with Dr. Petch, he was told of my

frequent meetings with university presidents and the interest and good

communication that takes place between my staff and the staff at the

universities.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned four

points that were raised by Dr. Petch at his meeting. I would like to

assure the Leader of the Opposition that I have heard these points from

Dr. Petch. In fact, these points were raised as a response to this

government and this minister from the universities in a challenge to

the universities to produce a ten-year plan laying out the concerns,

needs and requirements of the universities as they deal with access,

quality of education, competent professors and the requirement of

capital. My challenge to the universities is — and I understand that

they have almost completed this — that they produce a ten-year plan of

their requirements and to deliver that to me.

I want to

compliment the University of Victoria specifically for the way they

have opened up their doors and encouraged students from outside the

greater Victoria area. I think of other cities and towns and

communities on Vancouver Island, as well as the great cities, towns and

villages in the interior of the province, the north, the Kootenays and

the coast. The University of Victoria has done the best job of the

three universities in the province in addressing the needs of those

students, although Simon Fraser has done an excellent job as well.

With

regard to the suggestion that professors' salaries were not high enough

in this province, and that therefore there was a problem in hiring

competent staff, I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition and

members opposite that at one of my first meetings with the three

university presidents, I asked them to bring to my attention the first

time that they were not able to hire the individual they wanted for a

particular position in any of the three universities. I have yet to

hear from the three university presidents in that regard.

would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that this province

draws excellent, first-class people to its universities. An example at

the University of Victoria is Dr. Alan Astbury, who is the Rutherford

Prize-winner in physics. He is here because he wants to teach at the

University of Victoria, but also because he wants to participate in the

TRIUMF project at the University of British Columbia. He is a great

physicist and a great professor, but we have many of them.

With

regard to capital, I am pleased to say this year that the minor capital

for universities is up to $16 million, plus an additional $8 million

for colleges. That's in addition to the major capital of about $45

million, plus the $10 million in matching capital. I was up at Simon

Fraser University last night meeting with a packed-out crowd of

enthusiastic individuals involved in the private sector fund-raising

drive up there. They have achieved half of the goal they've set. They

are very enthusiastic, and they want to play a

part in postsecondary

education in this province.

I want to comment on the dismal

opinion of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the attitude of

students in this province. I can tell you that I'm not talking to the

same students he talks to. I've visited every college and university in

this province several times, and I find that British Columbia students

are optimistic and enthusiastic; they work hard and are not

disillusioned. They're proud of the education they're getting, and

they're looking forward to getting out and making use of that education.

[ Page 4071 ]

The

hue and cry that I heard with regard to lack of facilities and lack of

buildings and lack of universities.... I would like to point out — I

know that this is ancient history — that when the party opposite was

government from 1972 to 1975, there was not a single institute or

post-secondary institution started under that government of three

years. All of the great facilities that were described by the Leader of

the Opposition were planned and built by the Social Credit government.

The

Leader of the Opposition also talked about education in neighbouring

Washington state. I would like to remind him that a very large

percentage of the institutions down in Washington, as in the rest of

the states, are private universities and colleges. I'm wondering if

that's the direction that he wishes me and this government to go. I can

tell you that it's not the direction that I'm interested in going in. I

would also like to point out that the students at the state-supported

universities in the United States pay a much higher percentage of the

costs of education.

The Leader of the Opposition referred

to Michael Dukakis and the state of Massachusetts with regard to

education. I can remind the Leader of the Opposition that the 260

colleges and universities in the state of Massachusetts were built long

before anybody ever heard of Michael Dukakis. I might also add that

they are mainly private and privately funded.

The Leader of

the Opposition talked about the great education system in Japan. I'm

sure that he would be interested in knowing that now educators are

coming from Japan and visiting us in British Columbia because they

realize that their programs have been too focused and that they have

missed out on the advantages of liberal arts education. They are coming

to British Columbia to have a look at our degree programs because they

recognize that liberal arts are very valuable to the people of this

province.

I would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition

and the members opposite that my commitment as the Minister of Advanced

Education and Job Training is to the students and the people who want

to learn. My determination is to continue to provide the best possible

education programs that we can at the post-secondary level, taking into

consideration what the taxpayers of the province can afford.

MR. JONES :

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and to the always affable Minister of

Advanced Education. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the

debate on the minister's estimates, primarily because of my interest in

education, and also because I am fortunate in having in my riding of

Burnaby North probably one of the most exciting and progressive

universities in this country, an institution of higher learning of

distinction among those in Canada.

I have a desire to

communicate to the minister some of the concerns that I've heard from

my constituents who happen to be students at that university. By the

end of my remarks and my brief questions to the minister, I'd like to

have conveyed a message to him of their serious concern about the level

of tuition fees that they experience, and their economic lives as

students.

First of all, I wonder if the minister is aware

of these orange postcards. The minister nods. I hope he is, because he

should have received 1,300 of those cards. They were part of a campaign

a couple of months ago from students at Simon Fraser University

expressing their very serious concern about the effect of tuition fee

increases on their economic lives. In addition, I understand the

minister has received a copy of this petition with some 1,700 names on

it, expressing the same sentiments on the part of those students.

I'd

like to ask the minister: is he aware that tuition fees in British

Columbia are among the highest in Canada? At the same time the students

face those high tuition fees, employment opportunities for those same

students are about the poorest in Canada. We have among the highest

tuition fees and about the poorest employment opportunities. The

unemployment level for students in the 15 to 24 age range is roughly

two and a half times the national average of the general population. Is

the minister aware of those figures, and is he concerned? I know he's

interested in unemployment figures. Is he concerned about the level of

tuition fees. and is he concerned about the level of unemployment among

young people?

HON. S. HAGEN : Certainly I'm concerned

about the unemployment statistics with regard to young people, and I

addressed much of that yesterday earlier in my estimates relative to

job training and Challenge '88 and other employment programs.

But

I want to talk about tuition fees for a couple of minutes. I want you

to know that the tuition fees in British Columbia cover 17.5 percent of

the cost of educating students in universities. In Ontario they pay

over 20 percent — and Ontario is always held up to us supposedly as the

shining light. We are 2.5 percent lower than Ontario. In the state of

Oregon, students pay 27 percent of the cost at the state supported

institution. I don't agree that 27 percent is right; I don't agree that

12 percent is right. I think that where we are — 17.5 to 20 percent —

is a responsible range.

[2:45]

I can tell you that when I go and speak to student

associations, there's always one person who stands up and says: "When

is this government going to cut out all tuition fees for university

students?" My answer is: "Never, as long as I'm minister."

MR. JONES :

I have a difficult time with the minister's figures, in the sense that

the tuition fees in Ontario are not as high on average as those in

British Columbia. Yet the contribution to the operating budgets of the

universities seems higher.

The minister says that 17.5 to

20 percent is what he sees as a reasonable figure for students to pay

in terms of tuition fees as a percentage of the total operating budget.

I appreciate that answer. Is the minister aware that in the 1983-84

school year the figure for this province was only 11.5 percent? So he

wants to see almost a doubling from what it was a couple of years ago.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I think that maybe you should ask the Canadian Federation of Students

to re-look at those figures that they've been feeding you, because

they're obviously incorrect. My statistics indicate that in the '84-85

year, students were paying 15 percent.

MR. JONES :

Well, I would certainly trust the figures of the Canadian Federation of

Students, those bright young minds that we're all so proud of in this

province. If there was an error made, it's probably just as likely that

it was made in the ministry as by the Canadian Federation of Students.

I don't see how the minister can justify the level of tuition fees when at Simon Fraser in particular, students have experience

[ Page 4072 ]

increase in fees every year since 1979, and in fact have experienced a

150 percent increase since 1980, which is more than double the increase

of the consumer price index during that period.

The

minister must be aware of the impact of that level of tuition fees on

the participation rate. B.C. has the lowest post-secondary

participation rate of any province in Canada. If we were to get up to

the national average, we would have to be enrolling something like

27,000 more students than we are now. Certainly the minister sees the

tremendous economic barriers, the tremendous difficulty for students in

this province, whose major source of income, being low-paying jobs and

student aid, is roughly two-thirds of what it was 15 years ago. I'd

just like to ask the minister: does he not see the problem that's being

created by these large tuition fees? I guess the minister doesn't agree

that they are large, if they're at 17.5 percent now and he sees 17.5 to

20 percent as being the ballpark. Would the minister respond to my

statement that having these high tuition fees is a tremendous economic

impediment to the young people of this province getting their education?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'd be delighted to respond to that. No, I don't believe it's a large

economic impediment. The population of the universities and the

enrolment are increasing every year, as they are in the colleges. I am

concerned about our access and participation rates. That's exactly why

I've got a provincial team and also regional committees out dealing not

only with access but retention rates, transfer rates, completion and

transition to work. We are working on this.

The other thing

that I've done, as you well know.... One of the disadvantages, Mr.

Chairman, of having numerous critics is that they're not there to hear

the answers to the questions that have been asked previously. I hate to

get into bragging about the student financial assistance program again,

but this government brought that in last year to accommodate students.

It's based on financial need; it's based on exactly what you're talking

about. It's also based on the financial need of people who live outside

of North Burnaby and the lower mainland, who have far greater access

problems than your constituents have. And I have to be concerned about

all the students of the province, not just those who live at the foot

of the mountain.

MR. JONES : Perhaps the minister is

not well aware, but I'm aware of his remarks in these estimates

debates, and he should be aware.... Yesterday, this side of the House

gave him full marks for his attempts at improving the student aid

program in this province. The minister is certainly at a disadvantage

in that he bears the mark of a legacy of long Socred neglect in this

area, and no matter what he does in a short period, he's going to put

only a minor dent in the very serious problem of funding universities

and student aid.

The minister mentioned the '72-75 period.

Even with the increases mentioned by the minister, next year's student

aid proposal still leaves students some $600 short per year — if we

take dollars in terms of constant dollars — than those same students

would have had in 1972.

The minister doesn't see the

connection between participation rates and tuition fees, and maybe he's

quite happy to have students pay 20 percent of the bill, but he should

be aware that in Quebec, where fees are one-half to one-third of what

they are in this province, the participation rate is roughly double

that in this province.

So if the minister is serious about

improving participation rates, he'll look seriously at the relationship

between student tuition fees and participation rate. I don't think he

is looking seriously at that, and he's probably quite happy to see

attending universities the kind of students who can afford to pay 20

percent of the operating budgets of universities. It doesn't appear to

me that he's that concerned about those students who are economically

disadvantaged, who have enough talent to thrive at university and yet

see these kinds of tuition fees as economic barriers to the development

of their potential, to their taking their place in society and to

making a real contribution to society.

I'm very

disappointed in the response of the minister, and given my

understanding of the type of minister he is, perhaps he would like to

reconsider that statement about the connection between tuition fees and

participation rates.

HON. S. HAGEN : I'm very

disappointed with the comments of the member for North Burnaby. I think

they are very unfair and unjustifiable by himself.

When I

was looking at implementing the student financial assistance program,

the greatest amount of time I spent looking at that program was to

assure that it truly addressed people with financial need, looking at

specific groups and also at people living outside the lower mainland,

to get extra dollars to help them pay for that transportation cost to

and from the universities in the lower mainland. And that's not even

getting into the discussion we had this morning on my interest in

George North (Mrs. Boone) and telling her that I had already started on

those studies before it became an issue.

I believe that

post-secondary education is a joint responsibility of parents, students

and government, and I think that with students paying 17.5 percent and

the government paying the difference, we are meeting our

responsibilities.

MR. JONES : I think the minister

also understands the connection between the funding levels and the rate

of student fees, and I'm sure he is aware that this province has the

worst funding record of any province in Canada over the last five

years. He harked back to the 1972-75 days, indicating that the

institutions created in this province were not created during that

period. But is the minister also aware that the percentage of the

provincial operating grants to the total provincial expenditures during

that period — 1972-73 — was 6.6 percent? So we were spending 6.6

percent of our budget, in terms of total provincial expenditure, on

operating grants. My calculations for the 1988-89 school year indicate

to me that we are paying something like 2.7 percent. That's less than

half the contribution we were making during those years, and that's the

legacy you've inherited as a minister. That's your albatross, and

that's what you have to wear. I don't think we need to hear the fancy

kinds of statements of the throne speech — that we will invest in our

most valuable resource, our people, and that that means quality

education — when, as a Social Credit government, you bring forward that

kind of sordid past, that kind of legacy to this province. Education is

not treated by your government, as indicated in the throne speech of a

year ago, as the bedrock on which we must build our new economy. It is

not there yet. It has got a long, long way to go.

You talk about the contributions of the province. What are the contributions of the province? In the seventies, as I said

[ Page 4073 ]

earlier,

the provincial government share was something like 30 percent. Of

course, I'm referring here to federal transfer payments — established

programs funding. What we saw in 1984-85 in terms of federal funding

for universities and colleges in this province was 104 percent. So

don't talk to me about provincial money going into post-secondary

funding, because in that year something like $20 million of federal

education funding was shunted off to other purposes. In fact, student

tuition fees cover a far greater percentage than does the provincial

government contribution to universities and colleges. The primary

funder of universities and colleges in this province is the federal

government. The second major funder is the students of this province,

at what you describe as a meagre 17.5 percent. That's more than your

government is contributing to education.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm delighted to respond to the question on EPE I'm sure the member is

aware that the basis on which that funding is calculated was changed

several years ago; and to make those kinds of comparisons borders on

the ridiculous because there is no comparison there. The transfer funds

that come from the federal government are now allocated for health and

education. The federal government does not break down the percentage

that is to go to each, and I can tell you that the money that isn't

going to health is going to education and vice versa. You make it sound

as if something is being spun off somewhere, and that borders on the

ridiculous. The moneys are designated for health and advanced

education, and that's what the moneys are being spent on.

[3:00]

MR. JONES : I think the minister knows that that is a smoke-and-mirrors argument, and I don't think it impresses anyone.

addition to the kinds of funding shortfalls we saw during the eighties,

a very serious problem occurred with respect to the capital budgets of

those facilities. I know the minister, to his credit, spends a good

deal of time at the institutions, colleges and universities around this

province. He has seen firsthand the deterioration of those facilities —

Simon Fraser in particular. The university on the mountain, which was

the jewel of the W.A. C. Bennett government, with the Arthur Erickson

design, was certainly one of the most beautiful universities on this

continent. Yet we've seen the deterioration, and the minister, knowing

something about concrete and cement, must know the kinds of things that

happen when a building is built very quickly, as that was, and the

kinds of funds that are necessary to maintain that very beautiful

structure at a level it deserves. It is estimated that something like

$57 million in capital funds is needed just to halt further

deterioration of that university structure. I'd like to hear the

minister's response, and his desire to see that beautiful university

maintained at the level it deserves.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'd be delighted to address that question because the insinuation

there, of course, is that the quality of education in the university is

determined by the type of building that the university is located in. I

can tell you that's not true.

I had the opportunity earlier

this spring to visit MIT, which I'm sure you would agree is a fine

university in the state of Massachusetts. When I arrived at the

facility, I looked around and asked where the university was, expecting

to see the type of university campuses that we're used to seeing in

this province. They said: "Well, this is it." They've taken over a

bunch of old warehouses down in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and that's

where they've established the excellence in educational programming.

answer specifically to your question with regard to Simon Fraser

University, as a response to the study that my ministry asked for with

regard to what was necessary at Simon Fraser University with some of

the problems that they have out there, we were able to increase our

minor capital budget this year, because they asked for it over a period

of years, and we also managed to increase our major capital. The intent

of the minor capital was to be able to provide funding to address many

of the needs that they have, and over a period of time we will be able

to address those needs.

At the same time, we have under

construction a new building, the applied science building at Simon

Fraser University, as well as a new chem-physics building at UBC,

which, I might add, was unable to get announced since 1980. I was able

to announce last year a new $16 million to $17 million chem-physics

building at the University of British Columbia.

I don't

believe for a minute that the quality of students that come out of that

new building is going to be any better than the ones that come out the

old building because the quality of the student that comes out of there

is determined by the quality of the professor. I agree that we have to

continue as a government to recognize our responsibilities and continue

to address our capital needs.

I want to make a comment

about my travels around the province. I can tell you that what I've

seen around the province, generally speaking, in our college sector is

first rate accommodations. You complain, which is your job, about some

of the physical structures here. I want to tell you, you should sit

down with the minister who has my responsibilities in the province of

Ontario. The demands and the problems that they have there are far

greater, and they are not able to meet them. We are at least meeting

the demands that we have before us in a very responsible manner.

MR. JONES :

If I was playing games with words, as the minister did, with my

question at the beginning of his response, I would accuse him of

wanting warehouse education for this province, but I know that's not

his desire. I'm moderately pleased with his response to that question.

I have one further question for the minister — after he finishes blowing his nose. He mentioned accommodation....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Vicious attack!

MR. JONES : It's a normal bodily function. I won't hold that against the minister.

I'd

like to raise one further question. Perhaps the minister is not aware

of the serious shortage of student housing on the Simon Fraser campus.

I don't know whether the ministry has any figures for what it thinks is

appropriate for the amount of student housing that a university can

accommodate.

I think the university itself has a goal of

something like 15 percent. But it's my understanding — and I hope to be

corrected; I hope I'm wrong on this — that the ministry does nothing to

assist the university with the establishment of student accommodation.

As a result, in order in the long term to provide student housing, the

university has had to get into marketing land, marketing accommodation

for perhaps non-

[ Page 4074 ]

university

persons, has had to try to generate funds from taking what was granted

to it as land for the university, and is developing a village proposal

that is to appeal to the general housing market. So certainly the

entrepreneurial spirit is alive there, but I think it's an

inappropriate use of that land if it's not for the university

community; and it's a shame that the university has to get into the

housing market in order to generate some funds for other facilities

that it needs as a university.

Could the minister comment

on student housing, what he feels is appropriate for student housing,

and why — if it's true — the ministry does not contribute to assist

universities in establishing student housing?

HON. S. HAGEN :

The decision that Simon Fraser University has taken shows one that

their board of governors has taken without any influence from me, and

that's their privilege. At UBC, UVic, BCIT and at the colleges where

there are residences, the residences are self-supporting. We will

assist as a ministry in arranging for long-term money, but we will not

put money that we see necessary to provide instructional educational

needs into buildings for student residences.

I think it's a

great opportunity for the private sector to be involved. When I went to

university I stayed in a basement of a private home, and I think there

are lots of opportunities for the students.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I found particularly interesting the exchange between the minister and

the member from Burnaby relating the quality of education to the

buildings. The point that I am wanting to make with the minister has to

do with Kwantlen College in Surrey. I am hoping that the minister's

comments about the level of education do not directly relate to the

quality of the buildings at Kwantlen College, at present at least,

given that the college campus has temporary buildings that are leaking

badly.

The point that I do want to raise has to do with

what is happening at the college. I am hoping, given the fact that the

member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is present in the House,

that she too will try, if she hasn't already, to argue in support of

more funding for Kwantlen College and the programs there. I find it

very disheartening that the college board that is appointed by this

government has not fought harder for the very desperate needs of our

community. Our community is a young community; therefore it has strong

demands for a community college and opportunities for education.

was just looking at my speech to the House last year in which I was

talking to the members about Surrey, about who lives there and what the

needs were. There was a particular part of that presentation that spoke

about the educational needs, and in particular Kwantlen College. At

that time — and these were statistics from last year — I brought to the

House's attention that 40 percent of all entrance applications to

Kwantlen College for trade or for office courses were turned away

because they failed grade 10 or better literacy levels.

There

is a really desperate need in our community for upgrading and for

college support access to.... The minister is indicating to the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) that he should be listening. I

am sure that the minister has taken note of the comments that were made

in the House last year and is looking at Surrey with a particular

amount of attention to support the need for grade 10 literacy levels.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I think it is really unfortunate that the minister belittles the concern of a community like Surrey...

HON. S. HAGEN : You raised it.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

...and I would expect that the member for Surrey-Newton also would take

offence, because this is damned important and we want you to listen. We

want you to hear what the people in our community have to put up with.

There are 12,000 students of college entry age in Surrey. Of that

number, 8,000 have to leave the community because there is no space for

them. Because of the severe cutbacks, the restricted budgeting that you

have implemented on this college, they are now in a situation of

cutting back a program that is vital.

Our college no longer

has a program called "Success Skills." That program is targeting, in

particular, under prepared students for basic entry to university.

Success Skills deals with time management, research skills and writing

skills: how to prepare papers. That's a basic program that in the past

has been provided by Kwantlen College and is provided by other colleges

around B.C. The funding for that program, I am told, has never been or

is not supported by your ministry. The money is not provided. It costs

$100,000 a year to provide for that program, but because of the severe

budget cutbacks, they are now having to cut the basics themselves. This

is not a situation of cutting the frills but instead is a situation of

cutting the basics, the very essence of community colleges and the

purpose for community colleges: easing the access to university

training in our province. That program is no longer offered at Kwantlen

College.

I'd like the minister to explain to the people of

my riding, the taxpayers of a young, growing community, why they no

longer have that very basic program in their college. Explain to the

students — the mature students trying to re-enter the labour force, to

get an education; those very people that this government says it cares

about — why they are going to have to travel outside of Surrey and

compete for those basic needs with the already increasing numbers of

students who are turned away at colleges.

[3:15]

HON. S. HAGEN : I'd like to thank the member from Surrey for her direct questioning.

can say categorically that when the concerns were raised by the

Kwantlen College board, the first member from the Surrey area to bring

that to my attention was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston), the second was the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), and

it was not until today that I heard from the other member from Surrey

with regard to that problem. But I can tell you that the board has been

very forthright, as have the other boards in the province, in

addressing their concerns to me.

With regard to the

specific question that you asked on the program, there is flexibility

in the college budgets for them to make choices as to what programs

they want to offer. If this program was dropped — and I hope we don't

think in this House that once a program is instituted, it should live

forever

[ Page 4075 ]

— then

I would suggest that you talk to the administration of the college to

see what priority they've placed on that program.

With

regard to the general situation at Kwantlen College in Surrey and in

Richmond, I'm aware of the growth in population in those areas; it's

severe. As you know, the planning for the new Surrey facility of

Kwantlen College has been approved by my ministry. The site has been

identified. We're looking at a very major facility in the neighbourhood

of $20 million, and the board is working with an architect and the

ministry in the design of the new facility.

As to the

ability of the people of Surrey to compete, I know a lot of people in

Surrey, and I think the people of Surrey are able to compete with

anybody in this province.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm pleased

to hear that the government members from Surrey have had an opportunity

to speak to you about this concern. You've also suggested that the

board has spoken to you about it. Again, my understanding is that they

have had to cut this program because of the budget restrictions that

have been put on the college. If the two members from Surrey and the

board have spoken to you about this program, what did they say?

HON. S. HAGEN :

What the two members from Surrey and the board spoke to me about was

the general budget this year, not the particular program you spoke to

me about. What I'm saying to you is that the college has obviously not

set that program as a priority, so your direction should be to go to

the college and speak to the administration.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I thank the minister for clarifying that point, because if we look at

the Blues, the indication is that all those people had spoken to you

about my specific concern and I was somehow following their lead. I

again want to bring to your attention that this is an important basic

course for community colleges. If the minister is saying that the whole

responsibility for cutting this course is an issue of priorities, that

this college has enough money to function and that the board has

somehow placed this basic course as a lesser priority than some other

courses, could the minister tell me, as a representative for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, how I should respond to the people raising

concerns in my constituency office, and how they might hope to

influence the appointed board that you have in place at Kwantlen

College? Would I suggest to them that perhaps this should be a higher

priority?

HON. S. HAGEN : Mr. Chairman, how would the member normally respond to a request from a constituent?

MS. EDWARDS :

I'm here to say a few words. I won't take long, but I want to establish

the record. The minister seems to think that the Social Credit

governments are the only ones that give established post-secondary

educational institutions in this province. I'd like to simply go back a

bit.

I have no worry about saying that I was around in

British Columbia in the early 1970s. It was at that time that the

government — the New Democrats — established the college system

basically on the format here now. There were huge areas of the province

not in the college system. There were four colleges established in

1975. I was in on the beginning of East Kootenay Community College; it

was one of the new ones, with North Island. And there were a couple of

vocational schools, the Northwest and Northern Lights. In the founding

years of that college and the excitement of what was often described as

"outreach" or "distance education" and the ideas of what was to be done

in those colleges and in that college system.... There is a huge

comparison with what's happening in the college system currently, Mr.

Minister. There is no excitement in the college system these days. What

has happened is that the governments have ground the system down.

When

I began in a small college, the people actually had a very close

relationship with the students, the community.... In fact, there were

elected members on the boards of colleges; no longer are there any

elected members on boards of colleges. Now we have a structure into

which the colleges can fit themselves and probably make any number of

budgets per year — approaches, plans and so on — but they don't get the

funding to carry that out.

If the minister thinks that the

education of a student is determined by the power of the professor, I'd

like to suggest to him that he look at what's happening to the

instructors in our post-secondary system in this province. The

instructors are being loaded more and more heavily every year, as it

goes along. In our college in particular, the ability to have

professional development is practically non-existent; it is granted at

the whim of the administration, because the limits of what the ministry

allowed did not want that to happen,

There are continuing

and increasing dangers for the articulation of courses from the

academic courses to the university. The access even in the rural areas

has been diminished. All these things are going together to prove that

the minister, when he says his concern has to be with all the students

of the province, should take a much closer look at the college system

and decide that what has happened to the college system does not

indicate that he has concern for all the students of this province.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure glad that that side of the House isn't the

government, because I think the whole population would be so depressed

that health care costs would soar from psychiatric visits.

am a supporter of the college system as well as the university system

and of the entire responsibilities that I have. I don't know where

you're getting your input from, but as I travel this province and talk

to students and faculty members, I am not getting the view that you are

getting.

MR. JONES : What about the Canadian Federation of Students?

HON. S. HAGEN :

The member for Burnaby North talks about the Canadian Federation of

Students. Rob and I have a very close relationship. He sits on my

committee monitoring the student financial assistance program. He in

fact sat on the committee that developed the student financial

assistance program. He sends me input on various things from time to

time. I'm always willing to meet with the Canadian Federation of

Students and any other students who want to meet with me.

have always had an open-door policy for them. Any time they want to

meet, I'm available. I'm going to Simon Fraser over the next few weeks

to meet with student body representatives up there. I'll meet with

students at any time and any place.

MS. MARZARI : We spent a great deal of time discussing community colleges in this province. It is not to distract from

[ Page 4076 ]

the

overall picture dealing with universities in this province and the

institutes that make up the core of our post-secondary institutions.

From

some of the responses the minister has given in the last little while —

especially his response that it's the job of the opposition just to

complain and to sound depressed — I have to say that I don't consider

It's my job to rage and express the frustration and the anger and the

accumulated disappointment of students, faculty, administrations and

communities throughout this province about the inadequacies of the

post-secondary education and about its hopes, visions and aspirations

as well and to share with you the comments, values and goals that our

communities are expressing. The job is a difficult one, Mr. Minister.

It's

a difficult one because, as I listen to you responding to our

complaints, it's like raging against Tinker Bell sometimes. Why is it

that when we go to the community and talk to students, we hear an

entirely different picture than you do? Why is it that when we go to

the community and talk to university administrators, we hear a slightly

modified picture from what you do. Why is it that when we go to the

community and talk to faculty and teachers, their version of what's

going on is different than what you come back to the House with?

One

gets the impression, Mr. Minister, that you are so tied in to the tiny

budget that you've got and your vision of this year's balanced budget,

that you have forgotten the larger picture. You're going to sit on the

edge of the Premier's office or the Treasury Board and close your eyes

very tight and ask everyone to clap their hands and wish, and suddenly

all the problems will disappear. It is a Tinker Bell approach. It is a

Tinker Bell policy, and it's very difficult — you can understand — to

rage against it.

For example, you mentioned EPE Last year I

made a sort of bargain with you across the floor — a political bargain.

I said that I wasn't going to rage at you around the EPF funding

formula, because it had become so contentious between the federal

government and the provincial governments over the years as to what EPF

would be spent on. It had become such a finger-pointing exercise for

the opposition to stand up in legislatures across the country and claim

that their government had not been putting appropriate numbers of

dollars into post-secondary, and it had been filtered off into Highways

or Health. Then governments could stand up and say that in fact EPF was

a very confused....

[3:30]

I made

sort of a deal with you that I wouldn't rage about EPR In return for

that recognition on this side of the House, I would have expected that

this province, having the lowest access rates of students to

post-secondary and having the greatest needs for improved capital

facilities and improved access for students and with all the concerns

expressed by university administrators and presidents, would have taken

some initiative within the last year with the federal government to

come up with something to replace EPR In fact, when the dialogue was

opened in Saskatoon last year and David Crombie and Brian Segal

initiated a federal-provincial dialogue around funding for

post-secondary, for universities, I would have expected that our

province would have been the first to come in with different, new and

innovative ways in which the federal government could contribute to and

develop national policies around education. All of our discussions and

estimates to this point in post-secondary education have basically

dealt with a terrible, tragic underfunding of post-secondary education

in Canada, but most certainly and most emphatically in British

Columbia. Everything we are saying today underlines that.

Even in this week's edition of Maclean's

magazine, that bastion of middle-class common sense, it is suggested in

a double-page story — which is about as long as you can get in Maclean's

nowadays, because they must assume that the Canadian attention span

can't take anything longer than eight columns — that chronic

underfunding is the major problem in Canadian universities. It uses, as

its prime examples, universities in British Columbia, with a full

frontal picture of Daniel Birch from UBC standing in a leaking library

and pictures of UBC students writing exams in old army huts.

Underfunding

has to be our joint problem, the problem that we have to face. I would

ask the minister to come out of his Tinker Bell reverie and suggest

innovative ways that this province is involved or intends to get

involved with the federal-provincial discussion of a replacement for

EPF.

HON. S. HAGEN : I'd like to thank the member

from Point Grey. I'm a little reluctant to get into the EPF thing,

because I know she knows a lot more about it than I do. But I can tell

you that I sit as a member of the new committee established nationally

— the post-secondary ministers' committee — and we have been asked to

deal with the recommendations that came out of the national forum in

Saskatoon. Of course, one of the big items that came out of that forum

was the level of funding for universities in Canada, so I can tell you

that over the next year we will be holding several meetings, probably

over the telephone, to deal with those issues. The issues revolve

around funding for the university system. The result of that may well

be another system of funding, but I can't say that at this point.

MS. MARZARI :

Is the minister ready to take to these meetings some initiatives, some

comments, some way of redistributing tax points in order to bring money

back to British Columbia, some way of building it perhaps into the

economic development portfolio — like kaon, which is now being

discussed under the economic development package for the west, probably

under western diversification funding; whether western diversification

funding might be used for universities; whether this might be a way of

approaching the whole problem, using an economic portfolio or envelope,

rather than an education envelope?

Have you thought through

the possibility of grabbing back tax points based on some need assessed

through looking at underdeveloped industry, or through looking at us,

as Canada looks at the maritime provinces, being in need of special

economic development? Has the minister thought it through? Has he got a

study going right now with experts in the field? I know there are many

in British Columbia who could probably help in this effort. Have you

got people working on this right now?

HON. S. HAGEN :

The officials have already started meeting. We are formulating our

plan, and I can tell the member opposite that I will be pursuing the

funding of postsecondary education very vigorously at this committee

level. I make that commitment.

I certainly believe that the

post-secondary education system is very closely linked to economic

development. I might say that, to the great credit of the Premier of

this

[ Page 4077 ]

province,

for the first time the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training

sits on the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. Strange as it

may seem, this is the first time that this has happened. I think it

shows that everybody across the country is coming to grips with the

fact that there is a close relationship between the quality and the

importance of post-secondary education and economic development.

MS. MARZARI :

Since we're dealing with the beginnings of an attempt to come to grips

with the lack of funding, let's move right along to a second major

goal, if you will, that we could address our attention to. I'm trying

to be helpful here rather than criticizing, and in that assistance I am

hoping that we can take a look at a second major tenet here: that of

planning.

In the whole budget, we've got distance

education; we've got a special vote for science technology; we have

international education; we have student financial assistance. Where in

this budget have we developed a solid planning concept? Where have we

got the five-year plan and the ten-year plan, for what community

colleges, universities, BCIT and Emily Carr can expect in the next ten

years?

Outside of the fact that each college has a

vice-president in charge of finance and each university has its own

committee and they're reporting to you, what mechanisms have we set in

place? Can I suggest one? Can I suggest that the community colleges,

now being about 25 years old, really have not had any serious look —

they have not had a task force of any serious repute, operating over

any length of time, go out to review their mission statements and

review their relevancy to the communities and review the thin line that

must be trod between community relevance and central administration and

central planning, to find out if there is a better adjustment; to find

out if their original mandate is the one we should be moving with now.

Such a commission would take a look at their curricula, at the funding

formulas and the FTE formulas which seem to be so tightly packed right

now that people are feeling strangled by them. It would review the

overcrowding in the classrooms and faculty morale as the numbers of

full-time staff dwindle and the numbers of part-time staff increase.

There

seems to be a crying need right now, not for little post-budget panic

task forces so that you can justify your case in Treasury Board, Mr.

Minister, but for a comprehensive overview of what community colleges

are capable of doing and can be expanded to do, and a better

integration of those community colleges with the university structures

that we have — a planning process, in other words, that would bring the

whole post-secondary system into perspective and ready it for the new

agreements that undoubtedly will be made between the federal government

and the provincial government in the next few years.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm very pleased to advise the hon. member opposite that all of the

things she has suggested are already underway, and I'm so pleased that

she agrees with the process that's taking place. We have the Joint

Planning and Articulation Committee, which meets twice a year. We have

the University Advisory Council, which includes representation from all

aspects of the education system. And she'll be pleased to know that I

sit on the ten-year planning committee for the government, so all the

information that comes in to me as the minister gets fed into the

ten-year plan.

With all due respect, I don't think there is

need for another commission or another task force. We have the people

out there doing the work; we're assimilating the information; and it

will be a very integral and important part of the ten-year plan

developing for the province.

MS. MARZARI : I'm going to underline that in the Blues and in the Hansards

as I mail them out to my contacts in the field, to faculty

associations. administrators and student associations, because you have

to admit, Mr. Minister, that the last few months have been very

destabilizing for most of these institutions. There have been

suggestions that courses are going to be privatized. There are

suggestions that BCIT is going to be cut back further. There have been

suggestions that reflect a lack of planning, suggesting that we have to

squeeze more out of the existing rocks that we've already squeezed the

life-blood from. So when we're talking about planning, I'm talking

about no surprises for these organizations that have already been

surprised year after year after year until the element of surprise is

long gone and morale falls.

This is another example. The

CFS has produced a report called "The Quality of Post-Secondary

Education in B.C." It says that 83 percent of the faculty in

post-secondary education in B.C. believe that the quality of education

has deteriorated since 1984, and 86 percent believe that the morale has

deteriorated during the same period.

Those are difficult

things to measure obviously, but the CFS has put forward questions that

I believe are reasonably professionally handled, and we are seeing a

decline in morale. You cannot hire new staff, you cannot bring them on

board, you cannot attract them from across the country if morale is low.

would hope, too, that the planning incorporates the notion of how the

universities deal with an ageing faculty. It was suggested last year

that there were plans afoot, and yet I don't see any plan. In fact, I

see panic reactions occurring now that the appeal court has made its

decision.

I would only hope that serious planning is taking

place and that your department, your ministry, is monitoring that and

working with it to ensure that in the next 15 years — until the year

2000 — we're dealing with a system with as few surprises as possible.

We don't need surprises; we need funding in this system, and you know

that, and we need fewer surprises in terms of panic reactions to

budgets.

A third goal that I would like to put forward,

which builds upon the others — the others being funding and planning —

is that I think this province should start and can afford to develop

access goals — real, firm access to students — so that we should by the

year 2000 be talking about access to the average secondary student in a

number like 30 percent. I'll correct the percentage access that I

raised this morning. In reviewing the numbers that I have in front of

me, I should have said the number was 16.8 percent, not 22 percent of

people in B.C. ending up in post-secondary. It still is low; in fact,

it is one of the lowest in Canada.

If we established access

goals for our students, then we could start to move towards them. It's

like working with any business or any industry in the public sector or

educational sector: if we establish goals, we can work towards them. We

should be establishing goals for access for women and ensuring that

programs are put into place so that women are guaranteed, or have a

better guarantee, that they're going to get the courses and they're

going to get where they want to be.

[ Page 4078 ]

[3:45]

You

can't do that in a system which is cutting back programs, very often

programs that appeal to women, such as early childhood education.

Cutting them back from two years to ten months is not a way that's

going to increase access for women who are interested in that kind of

course. We could also have dollar goals for building housing for

students and for capital development inside the universities. We could

be developing goals around the locations of new universities based on

So access to students,

quality of education, planning and funding are the major areas that we

have to be spending our time on. That second one, the quality of

education, is a result of everything else that we do, and if we attempt

to pull together an initiative around funding with the federal

government and planning goals around capital and access to

postsecondary, then the natural result of that will be that the quality

of education is going to improve, because it goes without saying that

there will be a multiplier in there, and it will be improving the

morale of our existing institutions.

I must say that these

estimates have not proven to me that we're any further along the road

towards providing quality post-secondary education. I do sense that the

minister himself has a sincere commitment. I do not feel, however, that

the machinery the ministry is running has a definite enough policy or a

clear enough vision about where we want to go. The goals are not

apparent in the words that have been uttered.

With these

words I would urge the minister and the ministry to press for more

specific enunciation of their goals and a more specific articulation of

their mission. The community colleges are asking for this. In fact, the

acting president of Camosun has said that part of the problem they have

now is responding to abrupt changes in policy without any clear

direction from the government as to the reason for changes. Many of

these people complaining are people who have been appointed by the

minister, and their words have to be taken seriously. The universities

are crying out for some relief, not so much in terms of their operating

this year, but certainly with their capital and planning needs. Once

again the students have been very vocal in the past year. They are

raging. Despite the student financial aid program, they're saying that

things are not what they should be for a student who happens to live in

British Columbia.

I will leave this part of the estimates

here, Mr. Minister, with the assumption that we will probably meet same

time ' same place next year, and perhaps be able to have another go at

these four major goals I have outlined for us.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I just want to say that I appreciate the comments that have been made,

and I will take them to heart — I've been making some notes. I

appreciate the feelings that the member has for post-secondary

education, and I think she knows that I share them.

At this

time I want to read into the record, as I promised this morning, the

list of names that make up the B.C. Youth Advisory Council. The

chairman is Rob Sorensen from Victoria and the vice-chairman is Mamie

Lett from Vernon. The members are: Jason Berg from Prince George;

Shannon Davidson, Fort St. John; Michael Geddes, Okanagan Mission;

Sandra House, Cranbrook; Bruce Kindrat, Fort St. John; Laurie Lee, 100

Mile House; Jean McFee, Bums Lake; Janice Pasqualotto, Trail; Jeremy

Sabell, Courtenay; Laura Sather, Coquitlam; and Kathleen Wong from

Vancouver.

Vote 5 approved.

Vote 6: ministry operations, $856,742,355 — approved.

Vote 7: science and technology development subsidiary agreement (ERDA), $4,240,000 — approved.

On vote 8: Vancouver Island/Coast development region, $796, 82.

MR. BLENCOE :

I'd like to let the minister know that we might spend a little bit of

time on this particular vote. I hope his staff are available, although

I understand he's had some trouble with staffing of late, so we don't

know who's working for this particular section.

AN HON. MEMBER : It's quite the turnover.

MR. BLENCOE : Yes, it's quite the turnover.

hope the minister is a little more prepared than the minister for the

Thompson-Okanagan region. We're finding out that these new governors of

the province of British Columbia, the new "United States of British

Columbia".... It's really a lot of puffery, a lot of money and a lot of

bureaucracy, but we sure haven't seen much action yet. As a matter of

fact, we've seen no action. We've seen frustration of local councils

all across the province. We've seen frustration with small businesses

who really don't know who to talk to anymore, because there are so many

committees that work across this province, and no one really knows who

they are going to report to anymore.

In the

Thompson-Okanagan they've got at least 25 committees meeting — or 26 at

last count — with about 400 people all getting together for coffee,

cookies and doughnuts to talk about what they're going to do in their

regions, spending thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers'

money. But have we seen any action yet? No action at all. We have the

extension of the Poole room over here, all upset because in eight

months we've seen nothing except bureaucracy, spending of taxpayers'

money, committees meeting and no action.

Staff turnovers in

this minister's new governorship — we have no explanation of why the

staff turnovers. We don't know how the current people got hired. We

haven't even seen an order-in-council approving the new regional

development person that replaced Fran Norris. But of course the

governors of the province of British Columbia continue to meet with

their committees, and we see no action.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Chairman, look who's leading the heckling. It's all those

parliamentary secretaries, all on the gravy train. Here they are in the

far left of the Legislature, heckling away. They know it's in their

interest to defend this politically corrupt system because they're all

on the gravy train, making extra dollars, running around the regions of

the province with their ministers of state, a million dollars in their

back pockets, handing out the largess to their Socred friends.

MR. CHAIRMAN : And now back to the vote, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE : Oh, I'm on the vote, Mr. Chairman. We're on the vote, all right. But I tell you, Mr. Chairman, the

[ Page 4079 ]

people

of the province of British Columbia are on the vote too. They'd like to

know how in eight months you and your political cronies have run around

this province spending taxpayers' money, and what do we have as a

result? We have little Socred coffee parties and umpteen committees

reporting to we don't know who yet, all to be decided in the regions,

in these new states. What does local government have to do with it all?

Absolutely nothing. They sit by and say: "Hey, we were elected to do

this job." It's another level of bureaucracy, Mr. Chairman, that

expending tax....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE :

Oh, the parliamentary secretaries are upset again. They're all upset.

They don't like us taking on the united states of British Columbia,

because they're all on the gravy train. They're all getting extra money

for their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer.

I'd like

to ask the Minister of State for Vancouver Island: what has he done in

eight months? Where are these great projects? Where is all the money

going? How many committees have you got working in your region? Maybe

if we get some answers....

I can tell the minister what's

needed on Vancouver Island, because the local governments have been

asking for certain things for years. You didn't need to create another

level of bureaucracy. You didn't need to create a gravy train for your

parliamentary secretaries in the comer over here. You didn't have to do

that. Tell us....

AN HON. MEMBER : You haven't delivered.

MR. BLENCOE : Oh, we haven't delivered?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE : I'll get to that.

Maybe

the governor of Vancouver Island could tell us what he has been doing

for eight months. What has he been doing with the people's money?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm so pleased to hear the enthusiasm of the member from Victoria, who

knows what a great program this is but just can't bring himself to that

point in his life where he's going to accept it as being a great

program for this region. Of course, he was in Powell River for the

AVIM, and he knows the enthusiastic response that we got from the AVIM

there. The most contested election at the AVIM in Powell River was for

people who ran for the ten names that I'd asked for to sit on the

economic development committee; 23 of those people at the AVIM put

their names in to run for ten positions. I can tell you that it was

very enthusiastically received, and the correspondence that I've had

since has supported that.

The member asked what we've been

doing since this was announced. I can tell you that for the fiscal year

ended March 31, because we were just putting the system into play, we

spent $78,319 out of our budget. We have now appointed two committees:

an economic development committee and a government resources committee.

I have appointed a regional development officer by OIC, as well as a

regional development liaison officer by OIC.

The member

mentioned Socred coffee parties. I think the member should be aware

that these are not Socred coffee parties. These are meetings of people

who live and work in the region, who are concerned about and interested

in the future of the region, and who are representative of that region:

people like Mayor Don Lockstead of Powell River; people like the Member

of Parliament Ray Skelly, who is the Member of Parliament for North

Island; and Member of Parliament Jim Manly. All have agreed to sit on

my committee. I look forward to working with these people in a

cooperative manner to accomplish positive things for the region number

one. which is the number one region in this province and includes

Vancouver Island and the central coast.

[4:00]

MR. BLENCOE :

Could the minister answer my question: what has he done in eight months

with the people's money? What projects have you got? What are you

doing? What are the criteria? Tell us some of the great things you're

doing.

HON. S. HAGEN : Mr. Chairman, I just laid

out.... I guess he wasn't listening; he doesn't want to hear things

that he doesn't want to hear. But they're in the record, and I'm sure

that you'll read them tomorrow.

We're working on a number

of projects right now, one of which has been announced and will be

officially open within the next week or so. We are also working on a

number of projects with companies and individuals in the region. We are

acting as liaison, pulling in ministries, together with the federal

government to solve some problems. These are ongoing, and we'll

continue to address the needs that come to us.

MR. BLENCOE :

The minister is admitting that nothing has been done — no projects, no

initiatives, just a bunch of meetings and a lot of taxpayers' money

spent. What a joke! You can't tell this Legislature what you've been

doing and the projects you've initiated in eight months? The Premier

made a grand announcement in September at UBCM, this marvelous

project.... Special warrants were passed, $8 million; $1 million in

your back pocket, Mr. Minister. How many months ago was that?

They're

groping, as the Premier said six months ago. It's quite clear this

government and the minister of state are still groping. You know why

they're groping, Mr. Chairman? It is because they have a system in

place that is redundant to what we have in the province of British

Columbia. That is, local government has the ability to do exactly what

this government to do. Local government is right there; they're elected

at the local level. You don't need another level of bureaucracy. You

don't need to reinvent the wheel, Mr. Chairman.

HON. S. HAGEN : Why are they so anxious to participate then?

MR. BLENCOE : Well, it's the only show in town. You've cut off everything else to them. What are they going to do?

attended the AVIM, and I in my ten years in local office, seven years

at the municipal level, have never seen so much frustration by local

government with you and your system. Well-known Socreds got up to

attack and to say: "What are you doing?" Are you invisible? You've got

this grandiose

[ Page 4080 ]

scheme

that's supposed to be in place, a bunch of committees, recycled news

releases — even the president of the AVIM said recycled news releases.

Every time you come to talk to them, it's another press release of a

few months ago revisited.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

Oh, you've got a bunch more money. You've already had a million; you've

now got another $796,000, and all you keep telling me is you've got a

bunch of committees running around. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, to the

minister, a few phone calls to key mayors on Vancouver Island and

they'll tell you what the priority is: it is build the inland Island

highway. You don't need all these select little groups running around

meeting, having coffee and doughnuts in the region. You've got local

councils; you have the mayors' strategy that was developed a few years

ago; it's there, it's in print. AVIM has got the processes and the

policies articulated for you. You don't need your minister of state

system. You don't need the extension of the Poole room to control local

government. It's not needed, Mr. Chairman. Local government in this

province was elected to do the things that you're trying to do.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate if you were to advise the

members to lift their feet; it's getting higher in here.

MR. BLENCOE :

I suppose that's to be expected from the member for Saanich. We all

know he's looking for a new seat; he knows he's not going to get the

next one.

Mr. Chairman, the minister still has not given me

any evidence that he's using the money in a fruitful way on behalf of

the region of Vancouver Island. Has the minister read the mayors'

Vancouver Island strategy, endorsed unanimously by the AVIM? A couple

of phone calls.... Just call up the mayors; they'll tell you what's

necessary. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Is the

minister's priority going to be the final construction of the inland

Island Highway? That's the priority on Vancouver Island. You don't need

all these committees and super committees and bureaucracy to tell you

that.

HON. S. HAGEN : I certainly appreciate the

rhetoric over there, although I want to tell you that you are keeping

me away — and I know this concerns you — from a minister of state

meeting that I have with some people here from Nanaimo to discuss a

very important problem up there. I don't want that to concern you, but

the sooner we can get this over with the better.

appreciate your very direct question with regard to the inland Island

Highway, but obviously you haven't been to Port Alberni lately. I think

that you have a member on your side of the House from Port Alberni. You

haven't been in North Island lately, where the priority does not happen

to be the Island Highway. I think that these people are very happy to

finally have some input into decision-making at the government level.

You

made a comment about a person who stood up at the AVIM and criticized

the process. I would like you to know that I have had a letter of

apology from the president of the AVIM, who states that the AVIM is

very anxious to work with the minister of state in helping the region.

With

regard to your question as to whether or not I have read the strategy

that was developed and published by the AVIM — and as a matter of fact

a great deal of the credit for that goes to the current Minister of

Finance — yes, I read that when it was first released and I have read

it since, and that of course will become an integral part of our

planning for this region.

MR. CLARK : I just have a

few specific questions to the minister. Could he inform the House how

much of the $1 million was spent last year?

HON. S. HAGEN :

As I said earlier, it's always difficult when you have so many critics,

because when they flip in and out of the House, they're not here to

hear things as you say them. As I stated only about five minutes ago

when you weren't here, the amount expended last year was $78,319.

MR. CLARK : Some $78,000 out of $1 million is all that was spent in eight months. Could you tell us what that was spent on?

HON. S. HAGEN :

Salaries, $16,369; travel, $700; professional services, $10,500; office

supplies, $750; and word processing, which was a capital expense of

$50,000.

MR. CLARK : So that's the one employee that had been hired; is that correct?

seems to me it's an extraordinary jump, given that only $78,000 was

spent in eight months. Could the minister explain the rationale for the

$796,000 this year, in some more detail than we have in the estimates?

It seems to me if you have only one person on staff, your eight months

would be startup, and there would be that $50,000 capital expenditure

which would be one-time, presumably, and now you have some firm plans

for this $796,000. For example, maybe the minister could tell us how

many staff he intends to have on stream this year and what the budget

will be for that. Could he tell us what the staff will be doing — in

other words, what the assignments will be? Will there be a

communications officer, a PR person, a consultant?

you're going to come to the House and ask for justification or ask to

pass a budget of $796,000, given the track record over the last eight

months, I'd like some assurance, if the minister can give it to the

House, as to precisely what the money will be used for.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I would be delighted to provide that information to the member

opposite. In this year's budget the operating costs include fees,

allowances and expenses for committees, $129,000; travel for the RDO

and RDLO, $39,230; communications, telephone, postage and courier,

$26,500; professional fees, consultation on projects, $280,000; data

and word processing expenses, $10,000; office and business expenses,

$33,500; advertising and publications, $70,000; vehicle operation and

maintenance, $5,100.

With regard to the staffing question,

the minister of state office has at present three staff: one clerical

staff is on secondment from another ministry; the regional development

officer is a replacement; and the regional development liaison officer

represents one additional staff person. Another clerical staff person

will be seconded, which will bring the FTE level to four, as identified

in the estimates.

[ Page 4081 ]

for the $70,000 for advertising and publications, the minister of state

initiative is essentially a communications exercise giving a voice to

all areas of the region, involving some expenses. We have a population

of 537,000 in this region with 38 newspapers and 26 electronic media,

including TV, radio and cable.

MR. CLARK : So the

minister is saying that the minister of state is essentially a

communications exercise. Is that what the minister said? Because we

have varying reports on the intent of the plan. Is it an economic

development initiative or a communications exercise in order to

facilitate communications with the government?

HON. S. HAGEN :

Yes, it fulfils all those and more. It plays a coordinating role and

opens up government. It takes government out to the people so that they

have better access to it. The people of the various regions then have

representation at the cabinet table.

MR. CLARK : If I

look at your budget for next year as you've outlined it, there is

$70,000 for advertising and communications and $26,500 for essentially

the same kind of effort. Maybe that's mailings.

But the big

item is for professional fees. I'm trying to get a handle on how this

works. You've got four FTEs, and some of them are clerical. You

essentially have one person working as the kind of economic development

officer, who pulls together the meetings of these two committees, and

committee travel is $129,000. I suppose if someone takes a day Off work

to attend a committee, you're going to pay a day's pay lost or

something. Maybe you could give us a handle on that.

Essentially,

the $280,000 for professional services or consulting fees will be for

major consulting initiatives arising out of these committees. Is that

how you see it working?

HON. S. HAGEN : Yes. Did you

apply for one of the positions? Because you have a very good handle on

how this thing works. I'm sorry I missed your application in going

through the short list.

The $280,000 is available for

consultation, and an example of the type of consultation it might be

available for would be on a waste management project. We believe that

waste management is a regional problem, and so far it's just being

tackled on a municipality-by-municipality basis. I think it is possible

to deal with it on a regional basis, but that would involve more

information than we have available to us at this time.

[4:15]

MR. CLARK :

Just to summarize then, the committees will meet on a regular basis,

presumably, and will decide what consulting reports are done. Is that

how it works? If they decide that there should be a steel mill on

Vancouver Island, the minister can agree to have a consultant study

that proposal based on those people's decision. Is that how you see it

working?

HON. S. HAGEN : Yes. If a recommendation

came forward from downtown Victoria that a steel mill should be located

in downtown Victoria, if it was a recommendation of the joint

committee, then it would come up as a recommendation to me. But there

has to be consensus in developing the priorities of the region.

MR. CLARK :

One last question. Could the minister tell us how he arrived at

$280,000 and how many such major consulting studies he anticipates?

HON. S. HAGEN :

Admittedly that was a very difficult thing to do. As in any budgeting,

you try to ascertain how much planning is going to be necessary, and

you want to be able to have enough money to do what you want to but, of

course, not too much money. It's what you would call a calculated

number. We will try to deal with any of the major requests that come

in, but I won't know really until the end of the year whether that

number is right. We have no way of knowing that.

MR. LOVICK :

As I listen to the answers of the minister of state for the Island and

the coast region, or whatever its terminology is now, I like to think:

wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody in this province would review Hansard

and discover that the point we have been making from the beginning has

indeed been verified and vindicated. You guys don't know what this is

for.

When my colleague from Vancouver East poses the

question to the minister and says, "Te11 us what you are spending this

money on," what do we get by way of answer? Not specifics, not a

description, but rather reading to us from a supplement to the

estimate. Moreover, what do we get read to us from the supplement? We

get the budget categories. Isn't that informative! In other words, we

can say: "Oh yes, indeed, a certain amount of money will actually be

paid for fees, allowances and expenses." Suddenly all our fears are

assuaged and allayed; we understand everything that's happening. For

heaven's sake, the point surely is that, at this stage of the game, you

ought to be able to tell us what you are spending the money for and why

you needed it in the first place. The fact is that your silence speaks

volumes, Mr. Minister. You can't answer the question. You make

precisely the case that we have been articulating all this time.

want to be my usual charitable self when I discuss the minister's

estimates, but honest to heaven, when I listen to a couple of the

comments made by the minister in response to queries from my colleagues

on this side, I begin to feel my little heart go pit-a-pat. Because I

hear the minister say....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK :

Yes, contrary to popular belief, Mr. Minister, I do indeed have one,

and it goes pit-a-pat especially vehemently when I hear statements such

as: "The sooner we can get this over with, the better." That's offered

from a minister of the Crown who is engaged in debate in the

legislative chamber, where we in fact, by law and by constitution and

by precedent, have these kinds of discussions. We have an obligation to

have these discussions, but because we on this side are asking him to

explain why this money is being spent and is needed, suddenly we are

told: "Hurry it up! Come on, I've got other things to get to." That,

frankly, scares me. I don't think that's a laughing matter, because it

seems to me that what that answer indicates is precisely the problem

that we on this side of the House have with your entire program.

Specifically, your program, on the face of it, would seem to subvert

the system under which we live and operate in this province. I

recognize that that is a serious claim, but I am prepared to

substantiate and support it.

The other point that makes my little heart go pit-a-pat is when I hear the minister, within the space of about 47

[ Page 4082 ]

seconds,

say also that the real justification — those are my words, by the way —

for this initiative is so that — let me quote you, Mr. Minister —

people will finally be able to have some input at the government level.

Mr. Minister, if you don't understand that the nature of our system of

government is that people elect representatives who deal with

government, and those individuals, whether they are on that side or

this side of the House, are part of government in terms of that system,

then God help us. The fact of the matter is that any MLA worth her or

his salt is going to be in contact with the ministries and is going to

be representing the interests of communities and regions. To suggest

that suddenly we have need for this brand-new creature, in order that

all the people will be represented, is a fatuous and facile comment

that doesn't really belong and doesn't deserve the grace of having even

a dignified debate about it. That offends me, Mr. Minister, and I'm

challenging you to respond and clarify your point of view on that,

because I think it is quite simply wrong.

The notion of

giving people a voice only by making sure those people have a direct

pipeline to government is quite simply an admission of error of

understanding about the way our system is supposed to operate. That's

the predicament, Mr. Minister.

If the minister is anxious to respond now, I'd be more than happy to yield the floor for a moment.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I am anxious to respond and anxious to give the hon. member's voice a

chance to rest so that he can build up his strength for the next

opportunity. There is no misapprehension on my part as to how the

system works. That is precisely why I have invited all MLAs to play

their part as they see fit and as they wish to in this process. As it

turns out, some MLAs have chosen to be a part of it, and some MLAs have

chosen not to be a part of it. That's certainly their privilege and

their responsibility.

I have addressed requests of MLAs

from both sides of the House who have come to me with concerns. As the

minister of state, I have addressed them equally and with an equal

amount of effort and hard work. There's no differentiation. It's

interesting for me to note, since this started, that by far the

greatest number of proposals and the greatest number of inquiries and

requests have come from the areas of North Island, Port Alberni and

Nanaimo. That's where most of our energies have been directed.

the member said, maybe he's too busy to deal with some of those

requests, but my understanding of what he said to me was that the job

of the MLA is to deal with those requests. I can assure the hon. member

for Nanaimo that if he comes with a proposal or with a request that

needs any help from me, I would be most anxious to participate in

helping him solve the problem. If he doesn't want to ask me for help

then I'm sure that he won't.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before I

recognize the next member, I would like to remind the hon. members that

the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the

necessity for legislation cannot be discussed in committee.

MR. LOVICK :

Duly noted, as my colleague for Vancouver East says, and I would

certainly second the point here. I want to tell the minister, however,

that his answer to me demonstrates rather clearly that he does not,

with all due deference and respect, understand the point I was

enunciating.

The fact that members on this side of the

House are invited does not solve the problem. The problem, we have been

suggesting, is that the system itself represents a corruption of the

normal process. That's the point. Before anybody over there gets too

self-righteous, before anybody decides to become indignant, let me

remind you of the statement made by your colleague the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) in public talking about how this new system is

really going to operate, when he spoke to the good burghers of

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

We are talking about something that

on the face of it, whether you intend it or not, is irrelevant, but on

the face of it systemically looks to be a perversion and a corruption

of the process. If that point appears to be somehow arcane or esoteric,

I'm sorry, but it's a valid point, and I would ask you please to

consider the validity of that point.

I want then to turn

briefly to two of the specifics of those estimates for just a moment. I

recognize there is other pressing business before the House. I wonder

whether the minister would tell us if any of the personnel for the

regional development groups have yet been found. That's a major budget

item.

HON. S. HAGEN : Could I clarify that? Are you asking if the committees have been developed? Is that what you're asking.

MR. LOVICK : Yes.

HON. S. HAGEN :

You must have come in late too. Yes, the letters have gone out. First

of all, a series of letters went out to various groups, including the

AVIM and chambers of commerce asking them to supply names to me. The

appointment letters have gone out appointing people to both of those

committees.

MR. LOVICK : You can understand the

confusion, I am sure, Mr. Minister, because when we have tried to deal

with your office in the past, we find that it is a kind of revolving

door. The regional development liaison officer was not appointed for a

considerable period of time, and then I discovered that my contact

within the new operation suddenly was no longer working there. So you

can understand, I am sure, why we have some queries about who's doing

what at this particular time and particular day of the week.

HON. S. HAGEN : Why didn't you ask me?

MR. LOVICK : You're hard to find, Mr. Minister, just as I am.

want to also pose a couple of other very small questions. Would the

minister be good enough, please, to explain to the House, under item 7

in the supplement to the estimates, the figure of $129,000 — fees,

allowances, expenses — in somewhat more detail, with somewhat greater

specificity, what that money is being spent for? Or do we know at this

point?

HON. S. HAGEN : That will provide the

committee members with the travel allowances and expenses to get them

from where they live to where the meeting is within the region.

AN HON. MEMBER : And lost pay.

[ Page 4083 ]

HON. S. HAGEN : In answer to that comment, we are attempting to hold the meetings on Saturdays to try to contain the lost pay.

MR. BLENCOE :

We're trying very hard to understand why you need this system. If I

may, I would like to refer to.... By the way, we know that most of the

money for this program is going to go to legal fees in this particular

state — when Ms. Norris finishes with you. I got the brief and the

slick little thing you handed out to everybody about the "voice for the

Vancouver Island/Coast region." It's quite evident that this

minister-of-state system is basically just a communication device,

another mechanism by the Premier and these eight ministers of state to

control the agenda of local government as much as possible.

[4:30]

Local governments on Vancouver Island, as I've already said, have

been developing the strategies. You don't need all this. No wonder the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) left; he spent many weeks and

hours and months preparing the strategy — also your member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) on forestry. All those ideas have been

ignored. And now you've imposed this great big, new whatever you want

to call it on Vancouver Island. We don't need it.

But

here we have a slick regional newsletter from the governor of Vancouver

Island. It says: "A Voice for the Vancouver Island/Coast Region." I'll

quote a

section of it:

"The economic

diversification development group will be responsible for producing an

inventory of economic resources within the region, and for developing a

regional plan to ensure long-term economic initiatives. The services

development group will evaluate the level of health, justice and other

government services, and develop recommendations for improving service

delivery."

It seems to me that we've already got ministers

of the Crown doing those very things. We've got cabinet ministers doing

those very things. We've got cabinet committees responsible for those

very things.

HON. S. HAGEN : Not on a regional basis.

MR. BLENCOE :

We've got regional government. What happened to that? Is that to go

next? We've got local government. We've got cabinet. We've got those

ministries. And here you are saying: "We're going to do another

inventory." I would suggest to you that those inventories already

exist. Come on, you don't need this. It's all in place.

few minutes ago you mentioned waste management. You're concerned about

waste management. What's the waste management branch been doing? What's

that minister responsible for?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : Oh, I see — provincial. So you're creating another level of bureaucracy to deal with that.

Mr.

Chairman, we're trying to get some answers here. The minister says

they're going to study all these things I've listed today, things that

are already being done, and have been done for years in the existing

ministries. He's got all these various committees running around the

region, studying things that have been done. He's got a bunch of money

in his back pocket for things that have been done. And yet we, and the

people of the province, are supposed to believe that this minister of

state has the ability to do the things that cabinet hasn't been able to

do; that public servants in those ministries haven't been able to do;

that local government has been doing in their development plans. The

Minister of Finance even worked on those, and your own member, the

member for Cowichan-Malahat, before he came here, at the local level.

Local councils have plans and ideas.

You've got regional

government and economic development commissions that in your last

program.... Do you remember your Partnership in Enterprise program? You

created those economic development commissions, and you spent a whole

pile of money on them. And now you come along, and the Premier

announces at UBCM: "Well, we need another level of bureaucracy on top

of all that. That was no good. That was another waste. Shovel out the

taxpayers' money into that program. Now we'll reinvent the wheel."

Mr.

Chairman. it's no wonder that small businesses on Vancouver Island

haven't got a clue what you're trying to do. All they see is now they

have another level of bureaucracy to go through, which is you, to get

approval for loans. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) — bless her heart — will still have to approve what you do at

the regional level. She will still have to approve what your little

committees do. So what you've done again is elongate the process for

saving industry and small business; you've stretched it out. You've put

another five steps in the process for small business to be able to get

loans.

At the same time, of course, you've stepped all over

economic development commissions that you created in the last term.

You've stepped all over local council and regional development. You've

stepped all over the Vancouver Island strategy developed by the AVIM

and the mayors. You've stepped all over the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Couvelier) when he was the mayor of Saanich and all the things he

tried to do. You've stepped all over the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mr. Bruce) and all the things he tried to do. Where's his program?

Where's the Island Highway? There is no Island Highway — $6 million.

Can

the minister confirm today, after all these great things he's going to

do by interfering in the provincial process and local government, that

the existing ministers will still have to approve what you do — for

instance, the Minister of Economic Development? You go through all this

great committee process, and all these unelected people get together,

and you take these applications in. We don't know what the criteria are

for selection yet, by the way; we haven't got that information. But

when you're finished your months of study and committees and review,

the Minister of Economic Development will still have to approve it. Can

you confirm that, Mr. Minister?

HON. S. HAGEN :

Before I answer that last question, I would really appreciate it if the

member would listen to this, because he's been missing a bit throughout

the afternoon. He said that small business does not approve or does not

agree with this process, and I wonder if he knows that the B.C. Chamber

of Commerce has published a document which states categorically that

they are in favour of the regionalization process, and that they

support this.

I have had countless letters from chambers up

and down the Island; I have spoken at most of the chambers up and down

the Island who totally support this process. So I'm

[ Page 4084 ]

afraid

that the member for Victoria is again fighting a losing battle in

making his whining arguments. He is not coming up with anything

supportive that says that people don't agree with this process. Why, if

people don't agree with the process, would we have so much activity

from groups around the region who have obviously been unable to have

their needs attended to by other people? They bring them to us, and we

work through with the existing line ministries and the existing MLAs to

try to solve problems for people. That's what our job is: to try to

help people. I want to assure the member that despite his negative

attitudes, the program is being well received, particularly by groups

like the AVIM. I would like to assure the member that we have asked

AVIM members who have worked on those committees before to chair two of

the major committees being struck. So the AVIM is totally supportive,

as are the business community, the councils and regional districts up

and down the region.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before we

continue, I'll read an excerpt from page 739, Erskine May, sixteenth

edition, on relevancy: "The administrative action of a department is

open to debate, but the necessity for legislation...cannot be discussed

in Committee of Supply." I would like to remind members that I have

brought this to your attention. We're not here to debate whether or not

the legislation governing the ministry of State should be in place;

we're here to debate the estimates.

Would the second member for Victoria please continue.

MR. BLENCOE :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't mentioned the word "legislation"

once this afternoon. You are obviously getting some instruction from

somewhere.

Like the taxpayers who are paying the shot for

these governors, we'd like to have some information about what they're

trying to do. The minister didn't answer my question. I asked him

specifically, when it comes to economic development initiatives and

loans, after all his committees have met and gone through this

non-elected bureaucracy, is it accurate that the Minister of Economic

Development will still have to approve the loans?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm sorry that I neglected to answer that question, but you throw them

at me so quickly. I have been accused of a short attention span by

another member over there, and it's tough to keep up with you. The

answer is no.

MR. BLENCOE : Isn't that fascinating. We have been told that the Minister of Economic Development will still have to approve the loans.

MR. SIHOTA : The answer today is no.

MR. BLENCOE : Yes. Last week when we did the Thompson-Okanagan, the Minister of Economic Development would be involved.

Let

me try to go through the process so we can glean.... By the way, if I

may, I am talking about the $16 million seed money that has also been

given out. To those members who don't know, these ministers of state

now have another $16 million in their back pocket above and beyond the

first million and then the allocation now to run these ministers of

state. There's an extra $16 million, of which, I believe, they are

going to get approximately $2 million each.

This is the

process that we understand, that the order-in-council has outlined, and

this is the problem of the layer of bureaucracy that we have some

concerns with. Is the process for applying for those loans on a

regional basis as we understand it?

First, the applicant

applies directly to the minister of state. Secondly, the application is

referred to a regional small business development board, which is

composed of the minister of state, his parliamentary secretary and

volunteers from the region. Thirdly, if approved — but it has to go

through all of these committees which meet who knows when and all come

down from all the little areas in the region — the application goes to

two different financial institutions for proposals on the level of loan

they are willing to give and the guarantee level they would require

from the province. Fourthly — this was just a week ago — the minister

of state and the Minister of Economic Development will then consult to

see which of the resulting financial proposals they are willing to

accept. Has that changed?

HON. S. HAGEN : The only clarification I would make is that the second financial institution is optional.

Also,

clarification on a statement made where the member for Victoria changed

what he said. He asked if the Minister of Economic Development had to

approve that loan. My answer was no. Then he said: "Does the Ministry

of Economic Development have to be involved?" The answer to that

question is yes. In the process there is always a representative from

the Minister of Economic Development, but the minister does not have to

approve the loan. The member is very good at slipping and sliding and

changing direction.

MR. BLENCOE : There we have it.

We've got local government elected, we've got regional government,

we've got economic development commissions....

AN HON. MEMBER : Three.

MR. BLENCOE :

Three. We've got the minister of state, the Minister of Economic

Development, these umpteen committees meeting all over the place that

get together over coffee and doughnuts, and now the minister has

confirmed that after all that process, the minister of state still has

to be consulted and brought into the process, as to whether she

actually approves of....

AN HON. MEMBER : Minister of Economic Development.

MR. BLENCOE :

I'm sorry, the Minister of Economic Development approves the loan. You

are using the word "consult," which means if she doesn't agree, you

don't get your loan. But you'll still have to go back to the Minister

of Economic Development to consult about this whole process about who's

going to get the loan.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

You just said that. It would be much easier if you allow regional

government.... I'm glad to see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) is back here because he was at the local level for many

years and is being stamped on by this new proposal, and he knows it. It

would be much easier if the proposals could come in from local

[ Page 4085 ]

government.

They've done it for a long time. The ideas for economic development for

Vancouver Island could come in from the AVIM and local government and

the mayors, if Was economic development set in place for the Ministry

of Eco