1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th 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, JUNE 14, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 12

[ Page 11875 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

F. Gingell: Members of the House will remember that three weeks ago, or a little less, I rose in the House and spoke about the death of Tom Goode, a previous Member of Parliament and mayor of Delta. I would like to ask members to join me in welcoming two people who are in the gallery today: his widow, Anna Welling, and his daughter, Caroline Welling, an intern in our research department.

G. Janssen: It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the member for Parksville-Qualicum, to introduce constituents of his and neighbours and friends of mine: the mother of the former leader of the New Democratic Party, Dolly Skelly, who is accompanied by another good friend, Barb Barrett. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

U. Dosanjh: I would like to ask the House to bear with me. A group of nine individuals, whom I want to introduce today, from the Chinese Language Education Advancement Coalition of British Columbia were in the precincts some time ago. They are: Dr. Philip Yung, chair of the coalition; Mr. Mason Loh, vice-chair; Dr. David Yip, secretary; Mr. Richard Lee, secretary; Mrs. Virginia Grasby, treasurer; Mr. Sydney Chu, executive member; and Ms. Yukiko Shiroki, executive member. There are also two members of the media: Winnie Kit Yip, a reporter from Ming Pao Newspapers Ltd., and Travena Lee, an editor and reporter with Canadian Chinese Radio. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

UTILITIES COMMISSION REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM B.C. HYDRO

W. Hurd: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Can the minister explain to the House why B.C. Hydro has declined a request for information which was presented to it by the staff of the B.C. Utilities Commission at the recently completed hearings in Vancouver?

Hon. A. Edwards: I'll take the question on notice.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. Another question, hon. member?

W. Hurd: I have a new question for the Minister of Health, who is the government's point man for the timely release of information to the B.C. Utilities Commission. I have a transcript of testimony from June 2 which details the power purchase agreement between Alcan and B.C. Hydro, which Hydro has refused to release details of after specific requests issued by the Utilities Commission. This minister had a lot to say about the timely release of information. Why won't he stand today in the House and advise us why B.C. Hydro is stonewalling a request from the B.C. Utilities Commission in these important hearings?

Hon. P. Ramsey: That question was taken on notice. We'll be getting back to the opposition with that information.

The Speaker: The member has a third and final question?

W. Hurd: I have a question to the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro. Will he at least stand in the House and commit to ordering B.C. Hydro to release all information to the B.C. Utilities Commission? After his government castigated the federal government and others, will he at least order Hydro to meet that minimal commitment to the B.C. Utilities Commission?

Hon. G. Clark: I know not of what the member speaks, and I will take the question on notice.

RATIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Yesterday the province signed an agreement with the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en which would provide for claim negotiations to start next year. The treaty negotiation process requires that each of the parties to a land claim negotiation have in place a ratification procedure. Would the minister advise this House what procedure the province has adopted to ratify land claim settlements?

Hon. J. Cashore: The province's ratification procedure involves the six stages of the process being completed. Prior to the sixth stage -- the settlement agreement in principle -- the ratification of that agreement in principle would be presented to the cabinet and the House.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: Do I understand the minister to say that the province has decided that the ratification procedure for British Columbia will be in the Legislature and at the cabinet table, and not by way of any ratification by British Columbians on these important questions?

Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that yesterday was the day that a litigation was ended. The parties agreed that it is better to negotiate than to litigate. We recognize that that is in the interests of all first nations and British Columbians, and that process was put in place in that historic agreement yesterday.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: We'll find out a year from now whether or not we're going to litigate or negotiate. But let me hope that the province is successful in those negotiations.

Given that first nations will adopt a process that will allow for all eligible band members to vote on the acceptance of any settlement, will the province commit to give non-aboriginal British Columbians in the territories affected the same opportunity to vote on the details of land claim settlements?

Hon. J. Cashore: One of the fundamental points in the process is that there needs to be mutual respect with regard to the basic position of each of the parties in the tripartite process. That means the process that first nations governments would establish would be the appropriate process for them. The process that we would establish would be the appropriate process for British Columbians.

If the member were to take his argument to the logical conclusion, it would mean that there would be referenda on the part of all three parties, which could involve people in other parts of Canada voting on an agreement made in British Columbia. I don't think any person in British Columbia would want that to happen.

[ Page 11876 ]

HOSPITAL WAIT-LISTS

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. During the last election, the Premier of this province promised to eliminate waiting lists. Today we have a three-year waiting list for joint-replacement surgery in the Health minister's own riding. If indeed this health care system is not in chaos -- as this dogmatic minister would have us believe -- will the minister stand up and justify how he can keep British Columbians waiting for three years?

[2:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The surgeons in Prince George who deal with joint-replacement surgery -- and the hospital provides that service, as do other hospitals -- are working hard to make sure they provide the high-quality health services that British Columbians deserve in going through the transition that we need in the health care system. Over the last two years, contrary to the member's information, wait-lists for surgery at Prince George Regional Hospital have actually decreased.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: Again my question is to the Minister of Health. I have the wait-lists from the Ministry of Health, and I can tell you today that there are 75 people in your riding waiting for hip-and knee-replacement surgery. The majority of those people travel by ambulance to receive that service because surgeons are not available in Prince George. How can you justify that as an appropriate way to treat constituents in this province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I recognize that any wait-list is distressing to the person waiting for elective surgery. I recognize the reality of that in people's lives. Those who need emergency surgery, as the hon. member knows, move to the head of the list. That is appropriate, too. We have a system in this province where we say very clearly that access to medical services should be based on need, not ability to pay. That's the system that we're working to preserve and, indeed, improve in this province.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: Again my question is to the Minister of Health. There are ten operating rooms at Prince George Regional Hospital; five are open. How can you justify that to the 75 people currently sitting on the wait-list as an appropriate service delivery model?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Prince George Regional Hospital and other hospitals in the province have taken, I think, innovative measures in the last few years to make sure that more surgery is done on an out-patient basis rather than an in-patient basis. That has happened in Prince George, and it is happening around the province. The result has been not a decrease in surgeries in Prince George, hon. member, but an increase in surgeries performed over the last two years. That has resulted not in an increase in waiting lists but a decrease. I believe that hospitals can accept the challenge and move on with providing high-quality care in this province.

U.S. DRAWDOWN OF LAKE KOOCANUSA

D. Jarvis: We are finally getting to the truth. The Americans are drawing water out of Lake Koocanusa in the Kootenays to flush the fish habitat down the Columbia River. This is in direct contravention of the Columbia River Treaty, by which water can be siphoned off B.C. lakes. What has the Minister of Energy done to stop this water theft from the Kootenays?

Hon. A. Edwards: The demands that have been put on the Bonneville Power Administration in the U.S. to make some moves for fish preservation have created some disagreements between those of us who depend on those rivers. Certainly nothing so far has been done, as far as we know, that is contrary to the Columbia River Treaty. In fact, the levels of the river are managed by the Boundary Waters Treaty. We have certainly made and continue to make representations to ensure, as closely as we can, that the values put on Lake Koocanusa, which are considerable, are recognized. But so far the Americans have been able to do what they have done under the treaties we have.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: I think the minister is wrong. She has once again flushed the Kootenays down the river. This is the third year in a row that we have brought this before the House. Last year the former NDP MP from the Kootenays pleaded for this government to give him some help. We know what happened to his political career: his NDP friends sacrificed him. What is the minister going to do to protect tourism revenue in the Kootenays area?

Hon. A. Edwards: I don't have any fancy phrases to throw back to the handle wigglers. Nevertheless, I can say very clearly that this government has asked for an electrical systems operation review...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members, please.

Hon. A. Edwards: ...by B.C. Hydro. That review will be complete and handed in to the ministry by the end of June. We will look at measures that we can take to ensure that as much as possible we are using our rivers for the particular purposes that we choose, and those will be purposes that are chosen by people throughout the province.

The Speaker: Does the member have a final supplemental?

THREAT OF WILLISTON LAKE DRAWDOWN

D. Jarvis: Speaking of good lakes and bad government, Williston Lake in northern B.C. is in the same boat. Our need for energy is threatening the operations....

An Hon. Member: The lake is in the boat?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The hon. member is attempting to place his question.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: They're obviously not really concerned about what's happening in the north of B.C.; that's for sure.

The Speaker: The question, hon. member.

[ Page 11877 ]

D. Jarvis: As I was trying to say, our need for energy is threatening the operation of two mills in the Mackenzie area. Mackenzie is totally dependent upon high water levels for continued operations. I ask this minister what she is doing to ensure that there will be enough water and power in B.C. so as to not draw out Williston Lake, and to preserve the Mackenzie forestry industry.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. A. Edwards: Certainly we are well aware of these problems, and we have had a number of meetings about them. The electrical systems operation review, ESOR, continues to have some meetings, and a report will be in at the end of this month so that we can take a very intelligent and balanced view of what we should be doing with our resources and where the best value is.

POSSIBLE LABOUR ACTION BY NDP CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANTS

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Alliance has learned that there is yet another group of unionized workers who are poised to strike against an unscrupulous employer. [Laughter.] Can the minister tell us if his ministry has had any representation from the union representing the constituency assistants of the New Democratic Party in this province?

Hon. D. Miller: No.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental question.

G. Wilson: I have a supplementary question which is in a more serious vein, perhaps, in light of the fact that there are unionized workers who are represented by the ministry -- and this minister, in fact -- who work for him. Could the minister tell us whether or not he believes there would be a conflict of interest in any mediation services that would be provided by this minister's ministry with respect to the provision of those services?

Hon. D. Miller: It's an interesting question, actually, and it's one I had briefly pondered myself.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Actually, the member refers to overtime, and I'd be happy to debate the issue of the Liberal opposition's support of vast amounts of overtime being worked when people are unemployed in this province.

But to get back to the question, I can only say that, like every member, if I am of the opinion that I am in a potential conflict -- and if any other members had that opinion, I would hope they would draw it to my attention -- I would certainly avail myself of the opportunities we have to test those issues through the commissioner.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

G. Farrell-Collins: I ask unanimous leave of the House to move a motion under

section 8 of the Inquiry Act, referring to the matter of criminal activity of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and other groups with regard to their dealings with the New Democratic Party and with regard to payments or contributions...

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: ...for campaign and other political purposes.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member.

The Government House Leader on a point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: This matter is sub judice. Charges have been laid, a plea has been entered, sentencing has not yet transpired, and obviously any appeal procedure has not been pursued. The members opposite have had several years to raise this question, of course. They're obviously not happy with the special prosecutor's results and are attempting to play politics with the question. They certainly had the opportunity for a couple of years to raise this question; they chose not to do so. To attempt to do so today while the matter is still before the courts clearly is a breach.

The Speaker: Before listening to any further points of order, the Chair should remind hon. members that when it comes to matters outside of the normal order of business, motions such as that by the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove are properly placed by the government.

The members will recall that we had a similar situation just a week or so ago, where we did set a precedent. We allowed a debate on a matter that I'm sure most of you will recall. I warned members that it would not be acceptable in the future.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would be glad to withdraw my motion and hand it to the Government House Leader within 30 seconds, if he'd like to move the motion himself.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

That is not a valid point of order, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I remind members that somewhere around 5:08, I think, we'll adjourn for approximately two and a half to three hours. I call Committee of Supply in

Section A, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates, and in the House the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour estimates.

[2:30]

The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR

On vote 49: minister's office, $372,200.

S. Hammell: I'd like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hammell: I'd like to introduce a group of grades 6 and 7 students from Kirkbridge Elementary School in Surrey. They're from one of our newly built schools in our ever-bustling community. They are accompanied by their

[ Page 11878 ]

teacher, Mr. McCallum, and some parents. Would the House please make them welcome.

The Chair: I thank the member, and I also thank the minister for allowing that brief interruption.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll make some opening comments. I'll try not to take too much of the members' time, but it is a pleasure to introduce the budget estimates for this new Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.

I should start, first of all, by introducing some of the staff who are here to assist me. To my immediate right is Tom Austin, director of post-secondary finance and student assistance, and to his right is Kelly Speck, ADM of skills development. Behind me is Jim Crone, ADM of management services, and behind him is Mr. Claude Heywood, the Deputy Minister of Labour, who is familiar to most members, I think.

This is the first full year for the new ministry. It has been a busy eight months, and I really want to commend the work done by my staff, in conjunction with other ministries, to put the Skills Now package together -- which we have announced and which I'll touch on in my opening remarks. It's been a tremendous effort on the part of staff, first of all, to bring together two ministries -- the old Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services and the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Those members familiar with government know that it's no mean feat to restructure a ministry, to extricate yourself from programs that have been sent over to other ministries and, at the same time, to work on a significant, new initiative in the field of skills training.

Believe me, contrary to some erroneous impressions about the work of employees in the public service, I can tell you that they put in extremely long hours, and they were really committed to developing this program, which I think is going to be a significant success in this province. There are growing pains, in order to achieve that. As I say, it's very difficult, and some of that work is ongoing, specifically with the extrication of the program that deals with the training of people on social assistance. That is still being worked on between my ministry and the Ministry of Social Services.

By this fall we hope to have that extrication process completed and to get on with the new programs we've identified.

I think it's important to note that the ministry was essentially brought together as a result of two important meetings that took place in the province. First of all, the Premier's summit on the economy in 1992 at Pearson College brought together British Columbia leaders from the labour movement, the business community, the education community, the municipalities, if you like, and academia, on the question of how we approach the important issues in our economy.

One of the significant things that came out of that summit was the notion of sectoral accords. I'm very pleased that the government moved on that in a concrete way, through the forest renewal program. We now see a partnership -- and partnership is a theme I'll keep using, because it's important in the work we're doing -- on the economic level between people in the forest sector and the elements I talked about, such as business leaders, labour leaders and community leaders, to put a program in place that recognizes that we're going through a significant adjustment but says that we all have a role to play.

We're not going to just sit on our hands and let this happen, with all the casualties and trauma that creates; we're going to take a very active role in this partnership concept. We've done that now by providing a significant amount of money that can be employed to assist people through this period of change. Most importantly, we've said to working people in this province that we want them to be part of the changes taking place, not to be the casualties of change. This certainly gives some level of confidence that that will be the case.

The second summit took place the following year and, in the same way, brought together leaders from across British Columbia to talk about the issue of training. We use the term "skills training." That has a connotation that I think is important, because in many ways it deals with the more practical kinds of training that we can offer our citizens and that are useful both to them as individuals and to the economy of this province.

Out of that summit -- and I say this with some pride -- came the formation of the new Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, with the specific mandate, and indeed an order from the Premier, to act on the issues identified at the Premier's summit held at the B.C. Institute of Technology. Therefore we have a program that I think is of some significance to this province, and it will perhaps establish a different kind of culture, in the way we look at the issues of skills training right through all our systems, whether it's K to 12, colleges, universities or whatever.

When you consider the number of people served by our educational institutes in this province, it's amazing that almost 170,000 British Columbians were served by colleges and universities last year. That's a very high number. As well, the skills development programs serve an additional 117,000. So we are really touching the lives of a very large number of British Columbians through the programs we offer, and it's important that we do the job right.

I needn't take too much time to talk about the importance of the labour side of the ministry and the role that plays in offering services through the Labour Relations Board to assist parties in making the free collective bargaining system work.

This ministry is also responsible for pension legislation, and there has been change there. Through new legislation we are now requiring pension plans to pass the solvency test so that we have that kind of protection in place for individuals who are members of pension plans. They will have the security of knowing that they will in fact receive the benefits they think they are entitled to at the time they retire. That's been a challenge for employers and unions -- one that I think they are successfully grappling with.

In speaking to the issue of the changes that have taken place in our economy and the steps we are taking to try to deal with that, the Skills Now package is a vital and integral part of that change. It's a message that needs to be stated more and more by all British Columbians in leadership positions. It has almost become trite to suggest that the world has changed and that our industries are no longer the same ones that existed 20 years ago.

But it so fundamentally true that I continue to say this at every opportunity: our primary resource industries -- which allowed this province to develop to the state it is in now -- have fundamentally changed. For whatever the product is, the global competitiveness is tougher. Twenty years ago we could sell our lumber. We didn't even have to go out sell it; people came to our doors and said they would buy it. There was no sophisticated marketing involved in running forest products companies in those days, whether it was lumber or pulp. People simply beat a path to our door.

They bought it and they paid top dollar for it, because we had, and continue to have, the best quality in the world. But the world has changed, and with the rise of production capacity in other parts of the world at a cheaper rate, those heady days of the

[ Page 11879 ]

fifties, sixties and seventies stopped. We have entered a new era. I think it is a much more sophisticated era that will develop a stronger economy over the longer term.

As technology has fundamentally altered the workplace, we have seen a kind of downsizing. The forest industry is an appropriate example. I use it quite a bit, because it illustrates my point in the most dramatic fashion. We have seen a dramatic decline in the number of jobs in the primary end of that industry, but there has been growth in the more sophisticated jobs that go along with the forest sector. Whether that's in land management or some of the technical jobs that exist now in the manufacturing industry, we have seen that kind of shift.

We have seen a massive investment in technology and new equipment and processes in the workplace that have, in the main, tended to replace labour with capital. The jobless recovery is not just a challenge for British Columbia, it's a challenge for the industrialized nations of the world. But it struck here with particular vengeance, given our extreme reliance on primary resource production.

As much as we invested in the technology, we have not, in the main, made the investments in human capital that are a necessary corollary of the investments in hardware. Skills Now is an attempt to do that. Through a variety of programs it's an attempt to provide individuals in our society with better opportunities -- and certainly they need those opportunities. In terms of that, I have run through some elements of the program that deal with students in high school, particularly those students who don't go on to post-secondary education -- to college or university.

They all too often come out of high school without some kind of basic skill level that will allow them to make choices about what they might want to do, whether they want to go on to post-secondary at some future point or go into the workforce. So part of our programming is aimed at addressing that deficiency.

There's an old saying that there's nothing new under the sun. Having put together this program -- still dealing with the K-to-12 system -- I'm actually delighted now to go out and talk to people in the high schools around the province who have been working on these ideas for some time. In that sense, I think this skills initiative is an idea that's simply there to match public demand.

Whether I go to Kitimat or some of the other high schools in this province, I see teachers, educators, administrators, and members of the community, the business community and the labour community, working together to promote the concept that we've outlined here -- to give those kinds of choices to those students in high school who, as I say, at this point primarily don't belong.

Again, I'm pleased to see.... It's amazing. Sometimes we offer programs that are designed to teach in a practical way and include the opportunity for work experience and hands-on learning -- not strictly the academic, theoretical learning with the student in the seat and work on the blackboard, but programs that actually put the student's hands on the theory in practical ways. In my view, they allow for students who ordinarily would not take the academic courses -- they're turned off; they don't feel they have the capability; they've never done well in math or science.

"Oh no, I can't take that." And they actually are learning these math and science skills at a much higher level than they ordinarily might. Therefore they do have more flexibility in terms of their career choices.

[2:45]

I should say that I have been very careful not to suggest that what we're doing is ultimately a panacea for some of the broader issues with respect to unemployment and the jobless recovery I talked about earlier. We think it can help -- in fact it can help considerably. We think it's important now and in the future. But it is not, nor should anyone suggest that it is, an immediate panacea.

The critics are the ones who say.... The simplest criticism is: "Train people for what?" Implicit in that is the notion that we shouldn't even bother to train people. I know that all members of this House would reject that, even though there may not be an absolute guarantee that there's a job at the end of every single training opportunity, whether it's in the high schools, colleges or wherever. I don't think anyone would subscribe to the notion that we should simply stop training, or that the workforce is not an integral part of the economy.

So we're moving to increase in a significant way the number of spaces available for students who want to go on to

post-secondary training in this province -- 8,100 spaces. No doubt we'll get into that with some of the questions. Again, we'll get into a breakdown. Some of those spaces are at the university and college levels and some are through the community skill centres that are part of the program. Those centres provide an opportunity for working people to upgrade their skills, not necessarily to wait for the trauma to happen or for unemployment to hit before they decide to go and try to upgrade.

They try to encourage employers and employees to take those opportunities now, so they really have a much better ability to adapt to change when change occurs -- so they're part of change, not casualties of change.

Our institutes and colleges are as good as you'll find anywhere in this world. We're pleased to announce the awarding of autonomous degree-granting status to four of the community colleges and two of the institutes: the B.C. Institute of Technology and the Emily Carr College of Art and Design. We think that's going to pay dividends in terms of the kind of people they're going to turn out. It will pay dividends for individuals, as I say, and for the economy.

I'm delighted that -- I think this claim is true; I haven't really checked it out -- this fall British Columbia is opening the first new university in Canada. I don't know whether any of my staff have an answer to that, or how long it has been since a new university has opened in this country. But I think all British Columbians should take a great deal of pride in the fact that this province is opening the doors of a brand-new university whose central campus is located in Prince George.

I see the member for Prince George-Mount Robson, who was an integral part of ensuring that that dream, that vision, was made into a reality that will open its doors this fall to FTEs -- to students. I hate to use the terminology, you know, but you sort of get into the jargon. There could be 1,500 students in Prince George this fall taking courses at this brand-new university. It's attracting

top-notch professors from around the country, and in my view, it will change the face of the community of Prince George.

I was in Prince George last Monday. I couldn't believe it; I thought I was back in the boom of the sixties. There's a community that is just thriving and bustling. There's construction taking place -- a new university and a new prison, I think; a new corrections facility. There's more action taking place in that town than I've seen in the 30 years that I've been driving down Highway 16 and making it my stop at the end of a long drive from Prince Rupert. I'm just astounded. I commend both members on the government side who are from Prince George.

I say that they have been as successful as any MLAs in this House in ensuring that they represent their constituencies and get the things happening that can make that kind of growth I'm talking about happen. I was very pleased to spend the day in Prince George and

[ Page 11880 ]

talk to a number of people in the community. It's a brand-new university, and all British Columbians are going to be proud when we open those doors this fall.

Our universities have been rated objectively. One study was in Maclean's. I don't know, but I guess the problem with taking a magazine rating for a university is that next year it might not be good. How objective can magazines be?

That reminds me of a story. I met the former Premier, Mr. Vander Zalm, in Prince Rupert once, and it happened to be sunny that day -- as it frequently is in Prince Rupert, contrary to popular opinion and the BCTV weather show. In any event, Mr. Vander Zalm saw me and came over, and he said: "Well, I brought the sunshine." And I said: "Well, Bill, I've got to tell you that as a politician, if you want to claim credit for the sunshine, then you have to take responsibility for the rain, too." I don't think he ever bragged about bringing good weather again. He didn't say a word; I got him.

But I do think that....

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Is this a filibuster?

Hon. D. Miller: The Attorney General is asking me if I am filibustering my own estimates. By no means, hon. Chair. I think it's important in my opening remarks that preface these estimates to talk about our institutions, because again, I as a British Columbian take a great deal of pride in them. Having been the minister for eight or nine months, I don't claim that I've built all this. I'm just simply stating that we as British Columbians should all take some pride in the public institutions that we have, whether they're our colleges or universities. I think they're doing a first-class job.

I think we have done a good job in terms of the funding that we have maintained to our public institutions -- and, in fact, that we have increased.

At a recent conference of the College-Institute Educators' Association, I was struck to hear a report from their representative from Alberta. I'll tell you that it was bad news. I'm starting to get letters now from students in Alberta, saying: "This government has totally disrupted my opportunity to get an education. Can I come to B.C.?" This individual simply bore out what many of us suspect, which is that the Reform agenda being carried out in Alberta is causing complete chaos and havoc in their education system. Unlike others who have gone down that road, we in British Columbia have not chosen to do that.

There's a marked contrast between the 20 to 30 percent cuts we're seeing in post-secondary education in Alberta -- the Reform agenda -- and the 3.4 percent increase that we see here in British Columbia in this budget for post-secondary institutions. I think people are starting to realize that as much as it's not a perfect world -- you know, you could always do with more -- we are indeed fortunate in British Columbia, and I think we're on the right budget track in terms of how we've made those commitments to the post-secondary system and to health care and education.

We've also maintained, I think, a reasonable level of capital spending at our post-secondary institutions. Again, I want to say that this ministry has been outstanding in delivering what's contained in the capital budgets year after year, and we'll do that again this year, although there's been a slight reduction in the amount available. I'm sure the members opposite who continue to preach fiscal prudence will fully support the reductions that have been made in the amounts available for capital construction this year.

I don't expect to hear one plea from members of the opposition for additional capital construction in the post-secondary system. I certainly will be amazed if I do hear that, because it will be directly contradictory to everything they have ever said in this House on a political basis and indeed directly contradictory to what their leader is out saying to the rest of British Columbians.

So, hon. Chair, I suppose that will probably shorten.... Maybe this little time I'm taking now at the front end of estimates will allow that debate to be relatively short. I'm so pleased with the programs we have this year that I could continue probably for too long. But given the desire of some members of the opposition to actually get up and ask a few questions or maybe make a few statements, I think I'll leave it at that for now and look forward to an informed debate on my estimates.

The Chair: I now recognize the member for Richmond East. I hope she will note that I didn't even ask whether vote 49 will pass.

L. Reid: So noted, hon. Chair, and I thank you most sincerely.

I too would like to welcome the individuals to the chamber today. I am looking forward to a glorious debate about

post-secondary education in this province. I think we stand a wonderful chance of creating some very fine and unique opportunities in terms of how we will deliver the service and, I trust, how we will put the focus on the student in receipt of post-secondary services, if you will.

I want very much to be involved in a debate that has some substance to it. I'm not looking just to crunching the numbers with the minister this afternoon. I want to know what the substance is behind those numbers. I want to know how the debate needs to come together so that not just myself, and not just members of the official opposition, but every single student in this province can have some sense of where this ministry is headed.

Certainly I welcome the minister's cooperative spirit. I too intend to participate in a jovial fashion in this debate. I want very much to have the message be positive for students in this province, and I can assure the minister that it has not always been the case. I don't believe that post-secondary institutions in B.C. have always been focused on the student. I do not think I would receive any disagreement from any member of this chamber or from most students in this province.

They have felt put upon by the hoops they must move through and the system they must learn to understand simply to have access to the services they wish to access, and that has not been in their best interest. I think oftentimes the system has frustrated them more than assisted them. Certainly I welcomed the minister's comments when he touched on how we want to make the system useful and productive for students in this province.

There are a number of key issues I want to touch on this afternoon in debate, and I want not only us legislators but also the majority of British Columbians to have a better understanding of who we intend these programs to serve and who we are looking at when we talk about post-secondary programs. Are we going to touch on university programs and the universality around that, or are we going to try to broaden the base and see if we can touch on what constitutes an education, training or learning situation of any sort?

In the next number of years we will have a better sense of supply and demand in the post-secondary education system, and I certainly tie in all the comments the minister made about what constitutes post-secondary. He touched on the Skills Now initiative and a number of other programs that are in place as a result of this government's initiative. I

[ Page 11881 ]

want to know how those puzzle pieces fit together to create the bigger picture. That is where I am headed in this debate this afternoon.

The minister touched on the changing nature of work: what we will be able to say we do for a living in the next number of years -- and I certainly don't want to pull politicians out of that discussion -- and how young people, people with a number of years of working experience and people who are considering some kind of career change evaluate what they do. How do they advise their children about the kinds of career opportunities that will be available for them? As a teacher who has taught in this province for a number of years, I can assure you that that is a pressing question for young people.

It used to be a fairly common debate around the dinner tables in this province. "What are you going to do when you grow up?" was always the tenor of the discussion. Where we are headed is simply: "What are we going to do for four or five career changes in our lifetime?" That impacts dramatically on this ministry. This ministry is incredibly important. It has the ability to be a leaping-off point not only for those kinds of dinner-table discussions but also for future initiatives.

I support the notion -- and research will stand behind me -- that the majority of British Columbians will have the opportunity to participate in four or five different career choices. Some people may be propelled into four or five career choices against their will, and the minister and I will come back to discussions of retraining programs and the WCB as we proceed through this debate.

For those individuals who are not able to continue in a career choice, a career-ending event in their life propels them to look at what viable possibilities exist for their lifestyle, their family and the income they have grown accustomed to. All of those questions come to rest squarely on the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, because they are the kinds of questions that families will pose around the dinner table.

Those are the kinds of questions asked when people start revamping their lifestyle and thinking about what kinds of dollars they will need to continue to enjoy the things that they have come to see as part of their lives. Those questions may seem somewhat removed from this debate, but that is the focus of this debate. If you look at the philosophy of post-secondary education, it's no longer about earning a living; it's about learning a living. You need to learn a myriad of new skills to stay abreast of the challenges and demands that will be placed upon you -- not just as a learner, but as a worker.

As a teacher I understand that, and I believe that we have attempted to do that in the public school system in British Columbia. It's what we need to do in terms of tying those events together.

[3:00]

I appreciate the minister's comments about transition between high school and other opportunities. Whether those other opportunities happen to be what happens in the first year after someone leaves a high school setting or whether it is a college, Open Learning Agency or apprenticeship program, tying those programs together and attempting to make it look like a seamless post-secondary system has to be the objective for anyone truly interested in servicing students in this province. We must make it accessible; hopefully, we make it useful. We must ensure that it's always relevant.

A number of individuals in all kinds of advanced education opportunities don't believe that there is relevancy in their program. That's the issue, and a lot of what the minister said in trying to tie it to where people are is useful. People will support initiatives and, hopefully, will advocate for particular initiatives if they believe they are relevant.

I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about the changing nature of work, because I have a very strong interest in what kind of economic climate we're creating, and whether or not we're building a strong base of research and development in this province. Do I see that as being linked to this ministry? I most definitely do, because what we're attempting to create through advanced education opportunities are new ways of thinking, new ways of looking at issues.

Do we want people who are innovative, who are creative, who are prepared to step beyond what we see as traditional opportunities today and create something new? Are we prepared to look at entrepreneurial spirit as something that can be nurtured in the school system, something that can be taught and demonstrated in post-secondary situations? I think yes; we definitely have to do that. Through this ministry, we're not necessarily creating individuals who will go to work for someone else. That is the essence of my comment on the changing nature of work.

I trust that through this ministry's programs, we will create individuals who will go to work for themselves, who will create new business opportunities, who will do some glorious things in terms of employing others, creating employment, providing people with some niche where they can apply their skill set. Over the next five to ten years, I don't think it's going to be the employer employing X number of employees. If I can borrow the minister's comment, I think we're moving very much to the partnership model. I don't believe you will see the hierarchical model around post-secondary education.

You won't see the boss and then everybody falling in underneath. Hopefully, you will see partnerships where there's some recognition that a brain trust is very important, where people will come to work to generate new ideas and find ways to take the concept from the lab bench to the marketplace. That is what I want to see in a post-secondary system.

I think it's absolutely critical for us to understand that to be the launching point. That's where we need to get to, but we're not there yet. We certainly will have debates on the cost of bricks and mortar in this province. It's not the answer. It's no longer valid to have a system that looks at institutions, that generates additional bricks and mortar. To me, it has to be a system that looks at how we generate and value ideas and how we take those ideas to the marketplace, because we are interested in being a competitive society. Hopefully, we want to employ some of the finest graduates in this province.

All of you know -- whether it's doctors, engineers, technicians -- that those kinds of folks are leaving this province to seek employment, typically in other countries.

We have created a tremendous system here. We have invested vast numbers of dollars in the training of those individuals. It seems to me that we need to address more fully whether or not we are creating opportunities for people to practise their craft in British Columbia, no matter what the craft. We have to ensure that those kinds of programs are in place.

That brings us to the next part of the discussion. What kinds of educational opportunities do we want to offer? Where do we want to take this discussion? When the minister talks about partnership, that speaks very strongly to me. I want very much to see a project-oriented approach to post-secondary education. I don't wish to see the student treated as some kind of serf in a medieval exercise. That typically is what happens today. A number of educational institutions fabricate some kind of endurance exercise: if you can survive all the hoops you need to get through, they will tap you on the head at the end of X number of years -- two years, three years or four years -- and give you a piece of

[ Page 11882 ]

paper. It shouldn't just be an endurance exercise; it should be something that allows you to craft your ideas, your opinions, your thoughts, and apply them.

Gone are the days when you could just have a philosophical education, if ever that was possible. There has to be some ability to apply that kind of skill -- some new skill set around innovation -- and take it with you when you leave an institution. It's not wrapped up in a little piece of paper. It's how you present; it's how you interact, hopefully, with your environment.

I'm sure the minister knows that I have a strong interest in how we apply technology. That, to me, will focus some of this debate, because I'm very interested in having individuals who are looking at ways to apply themselves in job situations have some sense of reality.

I come back to my earlier comment about relevance. If it's not relevant, it will not be accepted by learners. Even the use of "student...." We tend to see students as folks between age five and the early twenties. We need to see learners getting some sense of what it is to be continuously educated, and we need to build that into the system. The WCB is a fine example of individuals who are 40 or 50 years of age who have to learn new skills to provide them with an income. Retraining for a number of those individuals is extremely difficult.

We want people to be educated for independence, and that's where I'm headed with this debate this afternoon. I'm hoping that the discussions we have over the next day or so look very much at what it is to be considered an independent operator, if you will -- someone who can take a particular set of skills and apply it and generate some dollars.

I know the minister has a strong sense that people should be out there paying taxes. The tax base is the only thing that allows government to continue. We all believe there are certain services that governments should provide. The only revenue we have at the present time is the tax base. Do we want people investing in their future? Do we want them to be creating a livelihood that will allow them to fully participate in society? I believe we do.

When I talk about access, I talk strongly about co-op programs. I want to see businesses and universities partnered. I would love to see every elementary school in this province partnered with a business. I don't think we should wait until people are 17, 18 or 19 years of age and somehow thrust them into a cooperative program; we want it right through the system. My comment about seeing a seamless system.... I think we want to see the system tied to businesses, because it's a partnership. It has to be integrated into the process.

I don't think anyone is ever too young to be encouraged to have some entrepreneurial spirit. I've had some glorious days at the Science Council seeing four- and five- and six-year olds bringing their inventions to the table, as I'm sure the minister has in different forums around this province. Those folks have no fear of failure at that age. They are convinced that their idea will go to market and that they will be a business person.

That is the message we want to send throughout this entire debate: you can have an idea, and you can actually do something with it. We don't tend to instil that sense when people are in colleges and institutes in this province. If we can finally move beyond the smokestack approach to colleges and institutes, where you have 15 or 20 of them operating unilaterally, and try to integrate some of that thinking, that would receive the absolute support of the official opposition. It's time to allow people to move more freely between all of those entities.

I want to spend a few minutes this afternoon talking about structures and about the minister's comments earlier about whether or not we'll ask him to spend more money on bricks and mortar. No, we are going to....

Interjection.

L. Reid: I know; he's tremendously relieved by that.

I want to talk about credit banking. I want everyone in this province to have some understanding of how reassuring it is to a student to be able to move freely between institutions. We have a lot of artificial barriers right now -- i.e., if you didn't take your last years at this institution, you can't take the next two years here; this course isn't common to X institution. We're forever asking students to start over. When we think about how much we currently subsidize that educational program, we can't do that. We are simply paying for the same product many, many times over.

It doesn't make sense; it's not a good use of the dollar. And it doesn't make the process any more relevant for students. We definitely need a system that's responsive and flexible and that has some lifelong rationale to it. That is what will determine whether or not British Columbia remains competitive; that is what I want to see.

I think the finest thing this province has going for it is its education system. The product of this education system will be whether or not people are flexible and responsive and have new ideas that they want to take to the marketplace, because the reality is that the dollars will follow the ideas. I want those kinds of dollars to stay in British Columbia. Right now I think we give away a lot of what this province has invested in. We may give it away in the form of a person who has been educated in this province for four or five years, but we still give it away.

We simply don't value people enough; we don't create the climate so that they want to stay here, practise their craft and bring their idea to market here.

This brings me to the issue that, hopefully, ties the three previous points together. That's the issue of funding and whether or not we're going to get a better handle on who pays for education in this province -- whether it's a public delivery system, whether it's enhanced by a private system or whether it's not enhanced by a private system. The issue is: who pays, and how much? I will not stand today and tell you that the official opposition supports a tuition-free situation. I strongly support a system where students in this province participate in the funding of their education.

It begs the bigger question: what's the breakdown? What are we looking at in terms of what the public pays, if you will, and what the student continues to pay? Certainly, as I'm sure everyone is aware, current student participation is somewhere between 14 and 18 percent. We're looking at 20 percent being put forward by the student and the public at large picking up the remaining 80 percent.

I'm not anticipating making any policy statements that advocate a change in that breakdown. Giving people a clear understanding of what it costs in this day and age to receive a post-secondary education -- again, no matter the type; no matter the variation on that theme -- is useful. It makes for a healthy understanding of the fact that education is not free -- just as health care in this province is not free. I can tell you -- to share an anecdote not half as amusing as the one about Bill Vander Zalm, but one about my travels in this province as Health critic -- that the majority of persons in this province believe that health care is free.

[3:15]

We cannot allow that same sentiment to continue to take root in advanced education. You may not pay directly for a service, but certainly a great percentage of your tax dollar

[ Page 11883 ]

goes to those kinds of services. I for one would see nothing wrong with having the actual cost of a post-secondary program -- whatever the program; whether it's a university program, an institute program, or an Open Learning Agency program -- listed at the front of every single university, college and institute calendar. That, to me, would go some distance down the road in terms of people valuing that program and, hopefully, making some better choices around the program that they choose.

We tend -- to use the minister's phrase -- to look at how many full-time-equivalents we enrol in institutions. I'm not thinking that that's a terribly progressive assessment of how well we're doing in education. We should be looking at the product. What is the outcome from those institutions? Let's measure that. Let's report back on that. We haven't done that particularly well over time. I think if we build the process so that everybody has a sense of where we've been and what we hope to achieve....

I have a strong sense that if we want to manage something particularly well, we have to be in a position to measure it. We haven't done that particularly well in post-secondary education -- and, again, no matter which program. I don't speak specifically of universities, colleges or institutes. We haven't measured the outcome from any of those learning vehicles particularly well, and that's an issue for this minister. We certainly tend to go for the red flags. We look at students who haven't paid back their loans. We look at those kind of issues.

I very much want to see this minister in the next year or two look at how many students successfully complete programs and to figure that kind of thinking into how we fund institutions. Perhaps we fund institutions based on how many students they actually graduate and have finish a program, as opposed to how many students actually start a program. I think we have to create some incentives in the system for institutions -- and, again, no matter what institution -- to focus on the student. We give the money....

All of you who have stood in a bank lineup for 46 days know that oftentimes students trying to receive service from an institution feel exactly that way. They feel that their needs are not being met and that they're not being recognized as the recipient of a service; they're simply put through an assembly line. That's not appropriate. If we want them to be innovative and creative, and if we want to respect their individuality, we have to ensure that we put something in place that values who they are. Pushing them through the process doesn't do it. Just funding who they are when they begin doesn't do it.

We should have some sense of how many students in this province actually finish a program and some sense of where they go after that.

The documentation today looks at the kinds of skills students need to be gainfully employed and to be considered a recipient of a rounded education. We don't do anything with that information. We know what we think people need to prepare them for the next century, and we know what we think they need for the next five to ten years. But we don't incorporate that into the funding of institutions, and I think it's time we did that. I don't think it's radical science, but I truly think we need to look at the outcomes from all those institutions and decide how we're best going to proceed.

We're at the stage where we're looking at learning for the post-industrial age. We always get off on a tangent about that. What does that really mean? I think we need to move beyond that. We need to say yes, we required certain skills to bring us to the point we have now reached -- fabulous -- and it's time to move on.

I have touched on capacity, under the guise of access, if you will. What can each institution conceivably be expected to deliver? Again, if we tie it to outcome -- what we're intending to produce and what products we want -- I think we'll have a better sense of capacity and a better sense of how people can look to those institutions for the services that can be offered.

Almost in concentric circles, we may have a group of students on campus every single day, enrolled in a program; we may have students in the next circle who come and utilize the resources and technologies that are there, such as videoconferencing or teleconferencing programs; and we may have students who use other systems in the community. Yet they're all part of the package. It has to be seen as a package.

I very much want to applaud the initiatives the minister has taken in some of the skills centres around the province, particularly in Prince George. I think that's a focus for the community. Now that it has the opportunity to be tied to the University of Northern British Columbia -- and hopefully it will have the ability at some point to generate some clear sense of where we're headed -- it makes perfect sense.

I don't intend to get bogged down in arguments or discussion about whether or not this province can afford another freestanding university. We have to look at what we're trying to achieve and put in place in the framework so that people can receive the services. The service will be individualized, if we're doing a good job and if we're interested in measuring the outcome. We should look to that before we ever again look to just the bricks-and-mortar discussion.

I have some understanding of the comments the minister made about asking for dollars for bricks and mortar. Frankly, all the money in the world is truly not the answer. I'm sure the minister will want to hear this comment, so to restate my point: all the money in the world is not the answer. If we continue to deliver education as we have in the past, we will be missing the boat. It's not about delivering something to a static market; it's about inviting people to participate in the process.

I very much want to make a comment on something entitled "High Skills or Low Wages" taken from a May 1993 journal. I think it ties into the framework I've been trying to build in the last few minutes, and I want this to form part of the discussion over the next number of days. I made mention of the post-industrial economy, but I think we are well beyond that. We need to talk about what a new economy looks like, and I want to enter this into the record, if I might.

There is a request for an introduction. If I allow it, may I continue?

Interjection.

L. Reid: Thank you.

The Chair: I thank the member for yielding and recognize the member for Cariboo North.

F. Garden: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Garden: I appreciate the member allowing me this, and I thank her very much. I have a group of 28 students who have travelled over 700 kilometres to get here from Bouchie Lake Elementary School -- the best elementary school in our area. They are grade 7 students who are accompanied by adults Sandy Oxenbury, Luvanna Erixon, Lorraine Sanford, Maureen Bettcher and Mairlen Sloan. I didn't mean to say that the teacher was not an adult, but the teacher gets special

[ Page 11884 ]

mention: Mr. Winthrope. Let's make them welcome to the Legislature. They're a great group.

L. Reid: I want to quote from this

article of May 1993 titled "High Skills or Low Wages." I think it focuses the introductory comments I have attempted to make this afternoon:

"In the new economy, that old industrial model is being replaced by a rapid move towards customization of goods and services and the decentralization of work. Today, new products can be developed in a fraction of the time it took in the old industrial economy; services and products are custom-built to order; quality is dramatically improving; and costs are being driven down through the use of new technologies such as computer systems, robotics, and measurement systems.

"In the new economy, workers are on the front line interacting with customers, and workers on the factory floor are empowered to make decisions. This is the only way customized goods and services can be created quickly, with the highest quality, at the lowest cost, and with maximum flexibility."

In terms of measuring who leaves an institution, this

article is making the point that they must possess these kinds of skills. It is supported in Canadian research and in skills and training documents that have come forward from this ministry.

In the new economy, strategic resources no longer just come out of the ground. The strategic resources are ideas and information that come out of our minds. That, I hope, will be the focus of the debate in the next number of days. Students in other industrialized countries are learning math, sciences and critical judgment skills that are more relevant to today's economy. The greatest certainty about the new economy is the pace of change. Young people in school today can reasonably expect to have four or five careers. Skill needs will constantly change. Therefore education must become a lifelong pursuit -- not just an institutional experience early in one's life.

Education, training and retraining must become as much an ongoing experience in our lives as exercise and vacations, which I thought that was an interesting twist. It's something we look forward to and something we plan for. Most of us have at least a yearly vacation. If people were to look at retraining and training in that same vein -- something that was just a given built into how you live your life -- it would make a tremendous difference in the kinds of programs this ministry will provide and the kinds of programs that all learners demand from the system.

More than just making the economy more responsive, students in this province must make their institutions more responsive to what they believe they need to know. I would suggest that they are far more skilled at determining what they need to know than is a lot of the curriculum that we simply set before them and ask them to give back to us in some other form.

If we talk about Olympics of the Mind, in an elementary example, we send young people from all over this province to be creative. We ask them to be flexible decision-makers and to come back to the table with a solution. We are asking people to be solution-providers. I don't know about you folks, but I don't know the last time I saw that kind of language in a university calendar. We are asking people to be creative and be

solution-providers, and I trust we will begin to see that in university calendars in this country. That is the kind of thinking we need to bring to the table.

I would very much like to begin today's dialogue with a discussion of the minister's office. I certainly enjoyed the opportunity to make opening remarks, hon. minister, and I trust we can continue to use that as a launching point over the next number of hours of debate. So if I might, hon. Chair: vote 49, the minister's office. I want some sense from the minister of the kinds of programs and communication tools he may wish to put in place to indicate to parents and learners the range of ideas and programs that are available. What kinds of communication devices does his ministry have in mind?

The Chair: With the member's permission, before I go directly to the minister, I believe there are some others who may also want to make opening statements. I'm going to take that approach, if I may, and recognize the member for Prince

George-Mount Robson.

L. Boone: It's with pleasure that I rise today and bring congratulations to the minister and the ministry for obvious reasons. I want to do a little bit of preening here, because we have in our midst, close to my constituency, the jewel of the north: the University of Northern British Columbia. It's something that we can all take pride in. UNBC is the first new university to be opened in Canada in over 25 years, and it's something that we are very proud of.

UNBC did not come about just because government happened to decide one day that it would put a university there; this came about after tremendous lobbying from constituents right across the north. We had people from the Queen Charlottes, Kitimat, North Peace and Fort Nelson down to Williams Lake. They actually put their money on the line. They put $5 down to sign up and become a member of a society that lobbied government and put forward their position that we not only needed but deserved a university in northern British Columbia.

We have that university because this government had the foresight and the strength of mind to realize that roads flow north and south, and people can travel upwards and attend university in the northern half of this province.

[3:30]

When the University of Northern British Columbia officially opens with a visit from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth on August 17, we will be seeing a university with some enthusiasm, that is actually taking some chances and is trying some innovative things. We will see the opportunity for staff and faculty to come in and try something new.

You know, when this was first suggested, there were people who said: "It will never fly; you will never be able to get qualified faculty to come to Prince George." Well, guess what. We have some of the finest faculty not only in Canada but in North America, and they have come because they're enthusiastic and want a chance to participate in a new university.

We had members of my own caucus, hon. Chair -- surely not you -- who said to me: "You won't have enough students to fill a university in Prince George." We said: "Nonsense. Of course we will." We have a waiting list now; we have 3,000 applications. As the minister says, we are going to have close to 1,500 students participating when classes start in September. Those students are coming from the north, but a lot of them are coming from the southern half of the province, because of the uniqueness of some of the programs there and because they want the opportunity to participate in a new university.

I can certainly relate to that, as I attended Simon Fraser University as a charter student. I went there because I wanted to go to a new university; I wanted to be in on the ground floor.

I want to congratulate the minister and the former minister for having the tenacity to hold on despite pressures from the rest of the province to give in, take money out of that area and put it elsewhere. That funding was kept and

[ Page 11885 ]

held whole through some pressure from various people to move those dollars out of there. Those dollars have remained there, and we are seeing a university that is, as I said, the jewel of the north. UNBC is a turning point for Prince George and for the north, and we're going to see some tremendous things come about as a result.

I just wanted to make that comment before I handed this over. There will be some other items, because I think there are some exciting things happening in this ministry right now with the Skills Now initiative. I'm pretty excited about what's taking place -- not just in my community but throughout this province. I look forward to hearing the minister respond to the questions that are asked of him in his ever-easy, just-a-working-man way that he does so well.

Hon. D. Miller: I am indeed pleased that the members who have spoken thus far seem quite happy -- recognizing that nothing is perfect -- at the efforts being made by the government to improve our delivery of educational opportunities to people such as those we see in the gallery, the students who are watching this debate. Perhaps it might be interesting for them to see what we legislators have to say about education. In fact, it would be nice to get a dialogue going sometime.

Nonetheless, the issue is communications. I believe the question asked something like: what capability or whatever do I have in my office with respect to communications. The communications budget is contained in vote 50.

I'm going to argue at the outset, and I would hope all members would agree, that we have the latitude in estimates debate to discuss any aspect of the ministry -- providing, of course, that as we come to the end of the debate, it's understood that we have canvassed both votes and, as I think I insisted in some earlier debate on a bill, that I not be compelled to come back and rediscuss or redebate issues that have been canvassed already. I don't want to put any limit there, but as the minister, clearly I don't want to be repeating myself over and over.

We have a budget for communications in the ministry. It's $1.6 million, I think, or something like that. I think it's an important area, and I want to say that as much as we're going to advertise, out of necessity, the range of new programs under the skills initiative, I think all of us have a bit of a challenge.

Although the programs may be there, and although there may be agreement among educators or people in the business community, and indeed even among the opposition on occasion, I'm not convinced that the information is going to get down to the level where I think it's needed, without a commitment -- not for a professional public relations program, but by business leaders, union leaders and public leaders in all walks of life -- to start talking about this in the communities and in the schools.

I talked earlier about the choices we offer young people. By the way, I want to say that I'm a bit uneasy when I hear the opposition talking about business partnerships in

elementary schools. Quite frankly, my view is that because we accepted the notion long ago that the state has responsibility for the public education system, those earlier grades in our system should be confined, if you like -- not exclusively, but confined -- to the kinds of basic education that I think we need to equip every student with, such as the ability to read and do those numerical calculations that are important. In other words, we need to give the basics, the groundwork.

When I say that, I don't ever want to be misinterpreted as saying it's being limited, because I think the basics can be freedom of expression and the ability to recognize that, as much as we are all different in our society, we are all people of this world and should have a common understanding -- those kinds of basics that are fundamental to an informed populace.

I would not like to see them overburdened with some notion of business at that young age. Nor do I think everybody wants to be or should be an entrepreneur. The issue is one of some choice -- that, given a skill level, people have the opportunity to make choices. Clearly there are many people in our society -- I was one for most of my working life, and who knows what may happen after this period is over? -- who freely choose to be employees. There's no disrespect or anything else. We need employees as well.

I also am quite concerned at what I think is almost a trendy kind of approach to the economy in this province, and that is to suggest that somehow a "new economy" has replaced the old economy. I was remarking to one of my staff that I must have had my eyes closed when I crossed the demarcation line, because I can't quite figure out when it all happened. I'm not convinced that there's anything new necessarily. I think there's been change. We talked about change. We talked about technology and trade issues -- international competitiveness -- really being the drivers.

But our history is full of change, right from the time we moved from an agrarian to an industrial economy. The issue is one of adapting to change.

I also argue very strongly that part of what I characterize as the trendiness is to suggest that we should abandon an industrial base to our economy. I can think of no quicker way to hasten this province to its economic demise than to abandon the notion of having a strong industrial base. It may be a different industrial base; it may not be the same one we had 30 years ago -- fair enough. But to abandon the notion of an industrial base is to put us at the whim of -- what? -- with respect to change internationally. We have an industrial base in this province.

In its primary stage it's built on the primary production of resources. The challenge is to move to the secondary and tertiary stages and to whatever other refinements and value we can get. If we ever abandon an industrial base, I think.... In fact, several papers have been written about the result of hollowing out the industrial base.

I'm straying. We will have a communications budget. We will attempt to inform people about new programs. But there's a challenge for all of us to do a better job.

L. Reid: I will take a few moments to comment on the minister's comment. But where I want to begin.... Certainly the question I posed to you was about communication vehicles, if you will, to extend that thinking a little.

Perhaps the question is more around how we encourage people to value different types of education. Let me explain my point to you by way of an anecdote. I had a German family visit me in my office; they had recently arrived in British Columbia from Germany. They were coming to see me as the critic for Skills and Training, if you will. They certainly lived in my riding. Their interest in coming was to see if I could encourage their son to do what they wished him to do. Their son wanted very much to be a doctor. They wanted him to be a craftsman, because it was more valued in the community from which they had come.

My thinking around that entire issue is that we have tended to be somewhat hierarchical in post-secondary education; we've tended to rank first, second and third choices. We have graduates -- and I'll speak of the high school graduation I attended on Friday evening in my riding at Matthew McNair Senior Secondary -- and students, as I'm sure all MLAs do, who truly believe the only way to measure

[ Page 11886 ]

success is by whether they're university bound. I want very much to have the minister comment in terms of how we value an entire range of educational opportunity, how we convey the message that we want them to participate in all kinds of different avenues. I certainly respect the minister's comment about choice. That's exactly my point. How do we ensure that they understand that the choices are greater than what we have believed them to be up to this point?

Hon. D. Miller: I tried to address this question in a way, but let me be more specific. I think the member is right with respect to.... I talked about attitude. I said that as much as we may have a communications budget, there are challenges for all of us. I have spoken previously in this House about surveys that we do, for example, of apprentices, of certified tradespeople in this province. We say: "Who guided you? Who suggested that you might take this kind of training?" One in 20 say a high school counsellor or another trades-person. In other words, I don't think they're being given the information.

That's a gross oversimplification, in that we also haven't done much on the opportunity side.

I'll use an example -- and here we have some representative students in our gallery. The British Columbia Institute of Technology did a survey of both the students and their parents. I think it was about the pivotal years between junior secondary and senior secondary. They said to the students: "Where do you think you're going to go in terms of your future education?"

Eighty-five percent of the students said university. They then went to those students' parents, and they said: "Where do you think your son or daughter will go in terms of their future education?" Amazingly enough, 85 percent of the parents also said university. There's the attitude that exists.

We then go to the reality. About 30 percent of students who graduate from high school -- and we have a dropout rate that is too high in this province -- go on to either college or university. In other words, the vast majority, about 70 percent, come out of high school and try to find work in this very, very tough job market. To me, there appears to be -- and it's been conveyed to me in anecdotal terms -- a bit of an attitude issue. In other words, the attitude suggests this: an academic education at the university level is the ultimate goal, and almost everything else is second best.

People like myself, for example, who went to work in an industrial plant and became a tradesperson, somehow don't have the status of someone who might go through university and become a doctor or even a lawyer, for that matter -- although they have their own problems.

[3:45]

So when I talk about the challenge that we have, you can advertise as much as you want, but you first of all need to have people going into the schools and saying to students at a reasonable age, in terms of future career paths, that we value everybody's contribution in this society. I don't care what they are -- a doctor, lawyer or university professor. I don't see that they have any higher status than anybody else. All of us have a contribution to make in our own way, and there is no status associated with that.

Second, we need to say that there are some career choices now that are better than going to university on an academic program. These areas, which we're going to be promoting, are in the technological areas, in career technology. The kinds of programs, whether they're at BCIT or at community colleges around this province, that give those students the education and training that allow them to go out into the workplace, find a job -- most often a job, quite frankly, that pays better than average.... I know that the tradespeople I used to work with who are employed are making reasonable wages, and that's certainly part of life.

So as to how you do that, I have been doing it in my own debates and discussions that I have had around the province. I'm challenging others to do it, and I think educators, administrators and business leaders are starting to pick up that challenge. I think it's something that you have to work on over and over again, and just keep at.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. For the record, it was not my intention to unsettle him earlier about business partnerships in elementary schools but to make precisely the point he has just made. I want young people of all ages in this province to be exposed to a whole range of educational opportunities. I think we have to expose them to those opportunities when they're very young, because if we go back to that point later on in a high school counselling situation and make that part of their reasoning and understanding, we have missed 12 very fine and productive years. So that was the point.

About the minister's comment about not wanting everyone in this province to be an entrepreneur, in my view we want everyone in this province to be a thinker, a fine decision-maker and a solution-provider. That is how we tend to define today what it is to be an entrepreneur. I don't think it's a nasty, evil word, hon. minister. Yes, we do want people to be responsive, reflexive and flexible thinkers. So for the record, I'm standing firmly behind my comment about partnering elementary schools.

Interjection.

L. Reid: I can't.

I want the minister to understand the background to that comment. It's not about churning out identical folks because we partner them with some kind of business. It's about exposing them to new thoughts, new ideas and, hopefully, different jobs and careers that they may have an opportunity to look at in more detail. And as for the minister's comment about the industrial economy and that somehow I treated it as a trendy exercise, the reality is that we are shifting gears in society, and we have done so. It's time to address new demands that the system has and those that individuals will place upon it.

So again, that is not a negative comment. It is simply a statement of reality that we have moved along, certainly in terms of people's views of what is viable for their own education and careers. So to set the record straight, I look upon both of those as being very positive.

It seems that today we have a number of university graduates entering the B.C. Institute of Technology, for example, who already have a university degree. They believe they need some application for their skills and some practical knowledge that will help them apply what they have learned in a different setting. My question in terms of the bigger perspective is whether or not we can afford to put that kind of subsidy into those same bodies. Certainly, speaking to the president of BCIT, approximately 30 percent of people who enrol in BCIT today come in with a university degree.

That's not to say that that's negative or positive, but simply to say that at that point, we are indeed looking at five, six or seven years of an 80 percent subsidy, if you will, on post-secondary education. If that is indeed the trend -- and certainly that percentage has grown over the last five to ten years -- how are we going to finance that?

Hon. D. Miller: I have, obviously, talked at length to the head of BCIT about that. I agree to the extent that every

[ Page 11887 ]

system needs to seek efficiencies. I think that if, for example, there are people currently in university who are only there because they are undecided about what they want to do, and we can.... I see that the leader of the Progressive Democratic Alliance shakes his head. It's probably less true today than it was 20 years ago, when I was young.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

We should seek them, but I don't think you can do it in a coercive way. My view is that you've got to identify the opportunities that might be there with any particular education, whether it be academic or technical. Indeed, BCIT is not the only institute that accepts people who have already received, let's say, a diploma from a university. Capilano College has an outstanding program that Asian business management.... I can't remember the exact name of the course. Nonetheless, it takes those people who have acquired a basic degree and adds value to that degree, in this case through a program of language and business skills that would be applicable in some of the

Asia-Pacific countries. There are probably lots of other examples out there as well, which I can't give off the top of my head -- and some that make sense.

So I don't know that you want to have a system so rigid that it says you can't go to UBC and then expect to go to BCIT. I think you have to look at some combinations that might make sense, certainly keep your eye on any efficiencies that can be gained and allow better access to the system as a whole through that.

G. Wilson: I'd seek leave to ask the House to make welcome 35 grade 7 students....

The Chair: To carry out the formality, I'll just ask if leave will be granted.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I'm really tempted to make a comment, but I'm not going to, because.... I can take the high road on this one.

I'm sure the 35 grade 7 students from Oceanview Junior Secondary School in Powell River who have been listening to this debate about higher education are all en route to some form of post-secondary education. I would like the House to make them welcome, along with their teacher Michelle Silverton.

L. Reid: To come back to the minister's comments about rigidity, it's not about institutions accepting individuals who already have a university degree; it's what kinds of structures are going to be in place to acknowledge and receive that trend. He's absolutely right that it is happening; I concur with the minister's comments. There are a lot more individuals today who are going for the value-added degree, if you will, that the minister has mentioned. If that indeed is the trend....

Again, I come back to the minister's comment about the 15 to 30 percent of individuals in this province who do go to university. What I'm trying to address today is: what is the 70 percent solution? What happens to the other 70 percent? If we're going to put the resources into the same 30 percent.... And I'm not saying it's negative; I certainly agree with what the minister has said about value-added, about people taking academic training and needing to attach some kind of skill set to it. I acknowledge that it's there; I'm not asking the minister to somehow suggest it isn't.

I'm simply saying that because that's the trend, where do we go from here? I come back to the minister's comment that we still are not addressing the other 70 percent who aren't going to university.

Hon. D. Miller: To be more accurate, the statistic is that within three years of graduating from high school, they've not gone on to any post-secondary training whatsoever.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: It's a shade different. You've referred to university. I think that may be a natural slip that a lot of us make. I think it goes back to some of the things I said earlier about the kind of attitude that exists. Maybe I used this in the House previously, but I'll use again the example of the technology courses that are now being implemented at the high school level. I use technology as an example, but there are other examples that can be used. Forestry is one, where we're starting to see in some districts, because of the drive of individuals....

In the case of Vanderhoof, the people in the Ministry of Forests office and the school district have developed in-school programs in forestry, which presumably would allow students with those courses to then get credits at, say, Northwest Community College -- or CNC, for that matter -- to move into a technical

diploma-granting course at the community college level. In the case of Kitimat, those courses will allow the students to move into a diploma program at Northwest Community College. They can then take that -- because it is articulated or laddered, or whatever they want to call it -- into the university where, with those kinds of courses and that background, they could pursue an applied degree. Or one could exit the program at some point into an apprenticeship. Or, in theory at least, one could go into, let's say, the college level, having acquired a trades qualification certificate.

In other words, there are no limits. Let's get rid of this notion of limits: that you go there or you go here, and people simply never meet. There should be the flexibility that allows individuals to pursue those opportunities.

Lots of employment can be gained by acquiring technical diplomas at the community college level. I was struck recently by the weekend edition of the Province, if I'm not mistaken. It's nice to see that people are finally starting to advertise for tradespeople in this province. But do you know where the advertisements are? They're no longer in those rows and rows of classified ads, saying they need a certified millwright for this, that and the other; they're in those great big ads where they're looking for executives to run things. Guess what: they also have great big ads saying they need an instrument mechanic.

That gives you some indication that where those skills are in demand, they're quite highly valued. Clearly, employers don't put the resources into those kinds of ads unless the employees are going to get decent wages. I hope I've answered your question.

L. Reid: The minister made some mention that I had slipped when I said university education. In fact, that was the question. When we talked about BCIT, my question was about folks entering British Columbia Institute of Technology with a university degree. Your earlier comment was that that accounted for roughly 30 percent. My question was about the other 70 percent. In fact, the minister touched on a number of other opportunities that are available, and I thank him for his comments.

[4:00]

[ Page 11888 ]

To come back to funding for a moment, someone who has a university degree will now have a bachelor's degree in technology from the B.C. Institute of Technology. The trend is that the percentage of students going for both degrees is growing. I'm confident that I'm not leading the minister astray here: that is the trend. I'm wondering -- and I'm hoping the minister will address this -- how that trend will be accommodated within the ministry. That's not to take away from all the very fine examples the minister has just given -- I support those. But the group of students that will soon have two degrees is only going to get larger. What does the ministry have in mind for that group of students?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite certain I follow the question. We're making more opportunities available. There are some fairly rigorous standards for students trying to get into university. They may wind up in university in their third year, having taken two years at a community college. You don't always assume that a graduate from a university started in that particular university. So the system has a fair amount of flexibility. It's not absolutely perfect, but it's not bad in terms of people being able to take some courses at the college level and move to another college or on to university.

People will pursue educational opportunities that exist, and it's not my job to say you can't or shouldn't; it's to offer those kinds of choices.

Let's use just post-secondary, excluding university, as an example. Currently, in terms of the working population, we're between 30 and 40 percent for those who have acquired some skills at a post-secondary institution overall, and the demand forecast for a very short time in the future is that that will have to get up to between 50 and 60 percent -- in fact, closer to 60 percent. So you want to encourage people; you want to provide opportunities on the access side, which we're doing -- 8,000 new spaces -- and you want to have relevancy in terms of the kinds of programs we're talking about, particularly at the college level, where diplomas or, in some cases, with the advent of

degree-granting status, degrees will provide the individual with the enhanced opportunity to actually go out and find a job.

Just before I close, I should say that I also feel very strongly that you should not try to focus your entire education system. In other words, the education system should not be a simple cookie-cutter for the needs of industry -- or the economy, for that matter. You get into that more seriously in terms of the university level and the fact that they're research institutes. We spend a fair amount of money, and others spend a fair amount of money, doing what some people might describe as tinkering, where you don't always see the obvious outcome. That's the pure research that I think is required.

If you want to go back to everybody's agreement that there's been a technological revolution, a lot of it came from the pure research that some people, both here and in other jurisdictions, probably complained we spent money on. So you need to do that too. Don't ever lose sight of that kind of goal.

[J. Beattie in the chair.]

L. Reid: If I can beg the minister's indulgence, because perhaps I am not making this question as clear as I might, if we acknowledge that the trend is that people having one degree are back in something like BCIT for the simple reason that they can't be employed with the one degree and are now realizing they need the second degree, my question is about the level of subsidy that the taxpayer is now being asked, willingly or otherwise, to subsidize person X for. It may be four, five or six years, as opposed to what was prevously a four-year contribution.

Certainly the stats are very clear: over the last ten to 15 years, people leaving university with a four-year degree were employable. There were lots of opportunities for them to apply that skill set. Certainly your point about the system being demand-driven is well taken. Now they are realizing that one degree won't provide them with opportunities, earning potential or whatever they would like.

Because that is the trend, because that is where we are headed -- and certainly it's not unique to British Columbia -- I simply would like some framework in terms of how the ministry intends to look at that problem in the long term. I certainly support the notion that it's not a short-term problem. I think the trend will just become larger; so it's a long-term problem, it's broadly based, and it is basically about investing dollars in students. How many degrees are reasonable, if I can condense the argument to that extent?

I have no interest in being rigid about this, no interest in reducing opportunities for people, but because they will demand new opportunities, how is your ministry going to respond?

The Chair: The minister responds to the second degree?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm glad I'm not getting the third degree, Mr. Chairman.

I thought I answered the question. A couple of answers back I tried to say that, first of all, you shouldn't automatically assume that because someone may graduate from university with a bachelor's degree and then go on to community college -- we used the Capilano College example -- the first degree wasn't a necessary prerequisite or that it didn't make a lot of sense. I think the statistical argument can be misleading. One assumes -- I know the simple argument -- that because 30 percent of students coming into BCIT have a bachelor's degree, therefore we're doing something wrong.

You've got to watch that argument; you can get trapped in that argument. It may be that we're doing some things right. We don't impair individuals in our society.

In a stirring story by that great tax writer in the Vancouver Sun, I noticed your leader talked about the.... What did he talk about? How did he define liberalism? I wish somebody had that quote for me. I was kind of intrigued. It was a definition I'd never seen before. I was almost tempted to go to the library and get F.R. Scott's poem about Mackenzie King. I might do that yet. But for those who are familiar with that work, I think it's a classic definition of liberalism. It varies considerably from the one I read in the Sun. He managed to use the word "individual" three times in a row, and I suppose, whether it makes sense or not, it sends the message out.

But I'm here to say that we don't restrict individuals in our society. We don't say that if you've gone to university and acquired a degree, you can't then go on and get a second or a third one, or you can't go to community college and add value to that degree through a specific program. We don't restrict people, and we're not going to. We need to ensure that the programs offered are relevant. That's clearly the issue with respect to the issues I talked about at the high school level and, I think, at the college level. They have to be relevant. It's not always easy.

I spoke not that long ago about a college that is currently trying to make some adjustments in course offerings and has got an adverse reaction from the cancellation of one program -- even though the programs they're hoping to replace that one with are more relevant

[ Page 11889 ]

and provide greater opportunities for people to find employment, for example. We don't direct the universities. I think it would be a big mistake for me as the minister in my ministry to say to universities: "We're going to clear everything you offer." I would think that would be the kind of interference that would bring howls of rage from academia, and rightly so.

So we don't restrict. We're looking at the issue of relevance, and clearly we're working with the colleges to offer courses that are relevant. But at the end of the day, if 20 percent of the people -- if that's the statistic; or indeed, if it's higher -- it may be that it's quite appropriate.... That's why I said about two or three answers ago that you really have to have a closer analysis of those situations before you draw broad conclusions.

L. Reid: I'm not asking this ministry to restrict anyone. I can appreciate that we are not on the same wavelength on this question.

Rather than belabour it, let's see if we can address the problem from an accountability perspective and think of student X who is leaving grade 12 and wonders about X number of resources, if you will, going to a particular student -- i.e., they've been to university, they've been to an institute, they're moving into a college program. That's been the issue, I'm sure, for every single MLA in the province. They've had families and students come to them saying that they're not able to achieve a place or find access to some kind of post-secondary institution. I'm looking for the minister's response to that question.

I can tell you, as I'm sure most members can, that it's not an assumption; it's reality. There are a lot of resources going to a certain number of students, and there are a lot of students who believe they're being underserved by the system. They see someone receiving two or three degrees when they're unable to enroll. How is your ministry going to address the trend? Whether you call it value-added or choices or options.... I don't disagree with any of that. I am simply asking for some recognition of the new reality. We will see many people acquire two or three degrees.

How is your ministry positioned to respond to that?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect, I don't think there is a massive trend toward people acquiring two degrees. I don't have the figures, but I'll go out on a limb and say that.

Let me deal with two issues here. One is economics. After having now come down with our third budget, and after having increased funding for education in every single budget, from the K-to-12 system to the post-secondary system, it is a bit galling to have those consistent cries from the opposition benches across the way. They like to have things both ways. "Cut your budget" -- that's what we hear; that's what they go out and tell the public. It's like walking both sides of the street. I have never thought in this life that you should be able to have it both ways. That's number one.

Now let's deal with number two, the education aspect. If we are promoting the concept of lifelong learning, and rightly so, and if we're promoting the concept that given the kind of change that we expect, you shouldn't now.... Let's talk about practical education, about technical.... It seems to me that we should be encouraging people to pursue a number of degrees, certifications, diplomas. We should not promote the notion that once you've got one of something, that's it, because it's directly contrary to what the hon. critic was talking about a few moments ago.

I talked about someone with a trades qualification being able to go to a college and get a technical diploma and then being able to go on from there and get a degree. It's an oversimplification to draw a conclusion based on some statistical evidence. That's all I was trying to say in all of the answers I've tried to give you on that question: don't do that, because you're following down the wrong path.

[4:15]

Finally, I'm quite proud as the minister to say that we have targeted 8,100 new spaces in our institutions. That's a significant target. What were they last year? Last year we had some 2,600. That is a significant increase in available spaces and in opportunities for British Columbia students. And it's not just for students but for people who may come out of the workforce, although they all end up being students. We've tried to deal with the real demand that exists in our society. We've provided increased budgets.

I said in my opening remarks that there's a 3.4 percent general increase in grants to our institutions. Another amount of money is available in innovation. Those are significant accomplishments.

I get a little hot, I suppose, but it does seem to me to beg the question. On the one hand, if you're in opposition, you can argue about the shortage of spaces or about what we're doing to meet the demand, and on the other hand, you can blithely have the freedom to go out and make political speeches over and over again that say that the simple solution to all our problems is to cut government spending. The real challenge is the intelligent balance of public demand and public need -- in this case, in the education system -- with the ability to raise the kind of money that's required.

That balance is always open to some criticism -- and fair enough, I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be. But when I see two diametrically opposed and quite contradictory criticisms, then I have no choice but to try to respond.

L. Reid: It will absolutely flummox the minister, but I don't think we fundamentally disagree on that point. We're not addressing the question, and I am not going to belabour it. I will simply ask, in terms of my earlier comments about productivity and the focus on the student, whether or not we're focusing enough on the product we hope to deliver. Has your ministry -- and I'm sure they have -- had discussions about accountability? How do you measure the success of institutions in terms of ongoing funding? I appreciate your comments about increasing spaces and the budget. What are you measuring in terms of those additional dollars and additional spaces?

Hon. D. Miller: Accountability really suggests the ability to measure outputs. I talked about that in some other subject recently. In that sense, one must first determine the outputs that you would like. Some objective measures -- for example, some of the survey work we're doing with students who have graduated from an institution -- suggest a fairly high level of satisfaction with both the education they received and their ability to find employment roughly in the field of their choice.

There are some ongoing discussions and debates about the issue of accountability, mostly at the university level and less so at the college level, where it's fairly clear that we see more flexibility and more training directed at specific employment.

I'll go back and say that sometimes it's a difficult issue to measure, but on balance I think we're doing a reasonable job in our institutions. Any discussions I've had with people at the board and president level indicate an acute awareness of the need, given the budget issues they all face at their particular institutions, to deliver an educational product that makes sense for the students and, in a lot of ways, for the regions they operate in.

[ Page 11890 ]

L. Stephens: I have a couple of questions to ask, but first I'd like to make a comment on the minister's question about what the Liberals would do for funding. I will share the same answer with you that I did yesterday with the Minister of Education by making a couple of suggestions. One is that educational institutions be exempt from the fair-wage policy. Second is that perhaps the $53 million used to establish a shell company in the Kootenays could have been better spent on some of these seats that the minister is talking about, as well as in the elementary schools. So it's choices and priorities on how money is spent that we're talking about.

Aside from that, I was very interested to hear your discussions about relevancy in education. I have to agree that it is a concern we have to face now with our K-to-12 system and in the colleges and universities system. I hope the changes to the programs you were discussing earlier reflect that relevancy.

The 8,100 seats that you were just talking about.... I think the universities tend to deliver cheap seats as opposed to others that are a bit more expensive. I'd like to know what direction the minister would like to see the universities in particular take, in regard to relevancy in the kinds of seats and programs they offer to deal with the new technologies and the jobs we need in this world -- if the minister could give us some indication on that.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: Indeed, life is about choices. It's pretty clear that the Liberal Party's choice is to say working people in this province should not be given the opportunity for fair wages. That's been borne out.

I'll get into some statistics here; I think it may be useful. I delivered them in this House previously, and I'll take the opportunity to do it again, because I think it's important. The member draws an erroneous conclusion. She says: "Get rid of the fair wage, and somehow we can do a better job in the education system." It's a leap that I'm not prepared to make. Let's look at the facts and the recent information that comes out from the Ministry of Education with respect to the $1 billion in capital expenditures that have been undertaken by this government in the K-to-12 system -- $1 billion, a proud record.

We compared the pre-tender estimate on the total number of those projects with the final cost of those projects with fair wages in place, and the final cost of those projects was lower than the pre-tender amount.

So the member's arguments have no basis in fact and have only a basis in ideology -- narrow, restrictive ideology -- that says working people are not entitled to a fair wage. We had that debate. The member didn't join it during the debate on the Fair Wage Act, which is a real pity. I pointed out that it's pretty clear to British Columbians what the choices are with respect to the two dominant parties -- at this point, at any rate -- although I think the Reform Party is overshadowing the Liberal Party recently. In his previous role as mayor of Vancouver, the leader of the Liberal Party did two things.

I believe there were two motions passed at that first meeting of council when he took his chair as mayor of Vancouver, and they were in this order: (1) scrap Vancouver's fair-wage policy; and (2) give a raise to the mayor and council. That's the kind of thing we will get out of the Liberal Party should they ever, unfortunately, become the government of this province.

There are some pretty exciting concepts being worked on. I have been at colleges, for example, where a relationship has been established between business.... I was at the University College of the Cariboo and they described some of the work they have been doing. Some sectors of the forest industry have been using the college as a resource to solve some of the technical problems that have arisen in the industry. The college has been very successful in using some of their departments to come up with the solutions to some of these technical problems.

Back out in the industry, that technology then becomes available to others. There is a good relationship building there. I can tell you that they are very excited about the prospects of becoming a

degree-granting institution in their own right, accelerating those opportunities and looking at expanding into technology areas. In their words: "We want to be the BCIT of the Cariboo." That feeling is there in other community colleges as well, and not just the degree-granting institutions.

I have had a couple of meetings at the University of British Columbia, and I have another one coming up with Dean Clark Binkley, dean of the faculty of forestry. British Columbia is in a perfect position to expand the faculty of forestry. There's a notion afoot for a centre of excellence in forestry in Canada -- one school that would concentrate on areas that complement where we want to go on an industrial basis.

If you can term it that way, it would look at a school of value-added -- a faculty designed to look at issues of marketing and issues of wood quality and its uses, which is an integral issue with respect to the expansion of value-added manufacturing; and to look at machinery and equipment design.

A lot of that work is taking place. It's not generally known, and I suppose in many respects it's difficult to make that kind of information generally known. It's not information that's generally picked up in the popular press. I'm not complaining about that; I'm simply stating the obvious. There's some very good work taking place at the college and university level that relates directly to the way we want to go in terms of our economy. I think of this skills package, Skills Now, and that increased expenditure.

We're increasing government spending because we think of it as an investment in the people of this province, and we think that investment in the people of this province strengthens our ability to adapt, change and grow in terms of our economy.

[4:30]

All I was trying to point out in my previous comments was that, faced with some of these complex issues -- and I understand politics -- it doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense that I should simply acquiesce to any Liberal member who happens to get up and ask, "How much are we doing with the lack of spaces," and at the same time leave you the luxury of going outside and making speeches that the solution to the problems in this province is to cut government spending. I'm telling you that we've increased government spending in the post-secondary system -- we've increased it.

I know it's not my position here to ask questions -- and I've got to tell you that even when I ask questions of Liberals, I very seldom get answers -- but my question back to the member is: are you in favour of the $200 million we've committed to

post-secondary education and training -- $200 million extra over the next two years?

L. Stephens: I think it's clear that we need to focus on our educational system -- K to 12, colleges and universities. Again I will go back to making choices and how the money is spent. That's what we're talking about. Again I will say that the fair-wage policy -- or the fixed-wage policy, as we refer to the fair-wage policy -- of this government clearly doesn't care about students. In one school in my constituency of Langley, the fixed-wage policy added $1 million to its construction. Although this government likes to talk about spending, it's clear from a number of this government's

[ Page 11891 ]

policies and legislation that they only care about their union friends. There is much evidence to support this.

The other question I have for the minister has to do with the colleges. If the minister has it, I would like to know the amount of money the colleges spend on remedial studies to enable students coming into the college system to succeed in that system. I have heard from a number of instructors in the college system that they're required to spend a substantial amount of money to bring the students' reading and math skills up to enable them to utilize the programs.

Again, I wonder if we're spending money twice in order to give students the skills they may need to succeed in the post-secondary arena -- understanding that a lot of the students who come to the colleges are not high school graduates and have come through the adult education system. If the minister has some thoughts on the remedial money that is spent in the college system, I'd appreciate hearing them.

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I'm just going to advise members on both sides of the House that there is no longer such a thing as a fair-wage policy. Rather, we have legislation, Bill 37, that has gone through all stages. Legislation is not a fit subject for estimates, and therefore I would suggest that that debate and discussion is out of order. From this point forward, I would tell either side of the House that we won't entertain those discussions.

Before I recognize the minister, I will recognize the Minister of Agriculture, who, I understand, wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I thank the House for its indulgence. I have two introductions. First of all, with us in the gallery are Mr. Grenier and his class from the University of Victoria's ESL program. I'd like to make that introduction on behalf of the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House the students who are visiting here from Naghtaneqed Elementary School, which is in the Nemaiah Valley in the Chilcotin, in the shadow of the beautiful new Ts'yl-os Park. They're here with their teacher, Steve Johnson. The students are Rubina Dhami, James Lulua Jr., Charlene William, Waylon Lulua, Nicky Setah, Lois William and Cecelia Setah. Please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Let me try to explain, if it's possible for these Liberals here, that there's actually a relationship between the state of the economy and people's ability to seek a broader education. I don't know where she's been all her life, but this member figures that the solution to our economy is to drive wages down to the level where people can't make a living -- indeed, to the point where parents can't help their son or daughter achieve a post-secondary education. Where do you think they'd...? Do you think they get the money to pay for a university education by working at McDonald's?

L. Reid: They will be, with....

Hon. D. Miller: Is that the Liberal solution -- $6-an-hour jobs? Guess what would happen: we'd have to spend even more taxpayers' dollars.

L. Reid: That's what they'll be working for.

Hon. D. Miller: We're not talking about facts; we're talking about ideology. It's clear that we understand.... I don't really want to get into a big ideological debate, but I'm quite happy to do it. It's quite clear that this member's and the Liberals' solution is to drive wages in this province down to the lowest point possible, and that's their recipe for success. We reject that. I've read the facts.

I commend the member, if she has such a strong interest in the fair-wage issue.... First of all, I wonder why she never participated in any of the debate -- not once. I say to her: go back and read Hansard. Neither did many of the other Liberal members, quite frankly. And at the end of the day they supported it; they voted in favour. So why are we getting this nonsense?

I think one other statistic is important. It's pretty tough these days to finance a post-secondary education; it's extremely difficult. This province generally has been quite good in providing assistance to students. It's a tough area for students. Some of them come out with very large debt loads. I announced today, as the minister, that we've added an additional $2 million to student financial assistance. It's not going to solve everybody's problems. There are still lots of students who will find it a tough burden to acquire a post-secondary education, whether at a college or at a university.

I have a lot of feeling for students in that position. I think we're doing better than other parts of Canada are, and I'm pleased about that.

I'm dismayed at the federal position. They have not adjusted the minimum amounts available for almost a decade. For ten years the federal amount stood at $105. The policy that drove that was that they would provide 100 percent of that student's assessed need, but they didn't move that figure for ten years. So what happened? B.C. filled the vacuum, so the ratio is now about 40 percent B.C. and 60 percent federal. When they finally increased the maximums, they came out with a new policy that said that it had to be 60-40. In provinces that don't have our ability to increase it, that federal Liberal....

Maybe these provincial Liberals might want to do something about it -- maybe even write a letter or two to their colleagues and friends in Ottawa and stand up for the students in this province instead of complaining about people making a decent wage. That federal Liberal approach to student financial assistance -- those big-L Liberals and their comrades and friends in Ottawa -- has resulted in a student financial assistance program from the federal level that makes it worse for students with higher needs.

If you want to do something constructive, try to convince your federal colleagues -- those men and women, those MPs, those good people from B.C. -- that they should actually try to do something for students in this province. But I don't think they will. They'll go on complaining about the fact that a working person might actually have the opportunity to make a decent wage under this government.

The Reformers asked me a few weeks ago why have we had such a high default rate on student loans. Indeed, it has gone up. I've got some statistics here; I can look them up. Suffice it to say, it's gone up, and it's gone up generally because of students' inability to find employment in these very tough times to pay those down.

An Hon. Member: Jobs are up.

Hon. D. Miller: They are up -- jobs are up.

Let me digress and talk about the economy of this province. Let me talk about the fact that in May of this year 56,000 jobs were created in Canada, and 30,000 of them were

[ Page 11892 ]

created right here in British Columbia. If you look at total job creation over a year under this administration, it has been the best in Canada.

W. Hurd: So why can't they pay their loans?

Hon. D. Miller: The member for Surrey-White Rock asks about their loans. Let's go back to the issue that I talked about earlier. You weren't here, hon. member; you were probably glued to your television set.

W. Hurd: Oh, I was.

Hon. D. Miller: That's right.

We're in a little better position here in British Columbia than in some other parts of Canada, and indeed, other industrialized nations. I think the last StatsCan report with respect to Victoria's unemployment rate had it down as low as 7 percent. That doesn't count, in my view, for the hidden unemployed; nonetheless, on a statistical basis, assuming that it applies across Canada, we're in a slightly advantageous position. What we have not been able to do su