1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1986

Morning Sitting

[ Page 7739 ]

CONTENTS

An Act to regulate smoking in public places (Bill

M204). Mrs. Wallace

Introduction and first reading –– 7739

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Post-Secondary

Education estimates (Hon. R. Fraser)

On vote 62: minister's office –– 7739

Hon. R. Fraser

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Davis

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. MacWilliam

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1986

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to

make two introductions to the House. I would like to ask the House to

welcome a distinguished visitor, the former Premier of Manitoba, the

Hon. Sterling Lyon.

Yesterday in Kamloops, B.C., the gentleman who is accompanying

Mr. Lyon to the House today made a very fine announcement for the

residents of Kamloops, the surrounding area and, indeed, for all of

British Columbia. Mr. Lawrie Pollard, who is in our gallery today,

announced a $10 million printing plant, the first high-security

printing plant for British Columbia. Besides the construction jobs the

$10 million plant will also provide 75 new ongoing jobs for Kamloops

and a payroll that will exceed $2.5 million annually.

The comments that were made by Mr. Pollard in making the

announcement yesterday were extremely ambitious in terms of looking

forward to the future of the plant in Kamloops, and their expectations

are that the plant will double within three years' time. So it was good

news for Kamloops, and today I'm delighted to introduce Mr. Pollard to

our Legislature and to welcome him, and his 79-year-old company, to

British Columbia as one of our newest corporate citizens.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO REGULATE SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

Mrs. Wallace presented a bill intituled

An Act to Regulate Smoking

in Public Places.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I need to outline it

to the members. This must be the eleventh or twelfth time I have

introduced this bill. So why do I stay with it?

What I would like to do in my brief remarks on introduction of this

bill is point out to the members the content of a little booklet put

out by the Cancer Society that talks about second-hand smoke. This

little booklet tells a little story about the person who finished his

work day and went out to have dinner with a friend, and good old

Charlie lit up a cigarette. It talks about two kinds of pollution: "The

flick of Charlie's lighter touches off a two-stage train of pollution

in the air you will be breathing." And it goes on to tell us that

actually it is the sidestream smoke that is the most harmful. The

direct smoke that good old Charlie takes into his lungs, the longer he

holds it there the more harm to him, but the less harm to his friend,

because he filters out a lot of those harmful things. It is the

sidestream smoke that is most harmful, containing a great many

chemicals including carbon monoxide, which is cumulative in the body.

Mr. Speaker, I introduce this bill again in the hopes that the

minister will see fit to either support it or reintroduce one of his

own that will make it a mandatory thing that we do regulate smoking. I

am not saying people can't smoke. If they want to smoke, that's their

privilege. But if I don't want to breathe that smoke, that is my

privilege. It is up to the Minister of Health to ensure that that is

the case.

Bill M204 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

POST SECONDARY EDUCATION

On vote 62: minister's office, $141,717.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin with a

few preliminary remarks about the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education.

For one thing, I can assure you all that in the last two months as

minister I have visited a number of campuses and universities in our

system and can assure you that it is the most vital and important

system in our economic renewal drive in the province of British

Columbia.

With some 23 institutions, the Universities' Council, the Knowledge

Network and others, I know that my work is cut out, but I can see that

that work will be to no small extent to the benefit of those who are in

our audience today. We have a varied and impressive system in B.C.,

probably one that is the best in North America. I hope the students up

there are listening. You can go to university. You can go to college.

You can go to institutes. You can use the Knowledge Network. You can

use the Open Learning Institute. You really have a great opportunity

here.

[10:15]

Some 15 colleges serve the people of the province from both a local

and a provincial perspective. The colleges spread out through the

province enable a vast number of our population to attend

post-secondary programs at main or branch campuses in the province, and

you can enrol, of course, in two years of university-level, career,

technical or apprentice training, vocational preparation or adult

upgrading of continuing education. So indeed we have a wide variety.

We can get our students to enrol in special programs not available

in the colleges. Three centralized institutes offer programs focused on

technology, fine arts and marine training. For those who cannot or

choose not to attend a formal circumstance, then obviously the Open

Learning Institute offers distance-education programs in a

non-traditional way.

With respect to enrolment, some 58,600 full-time and part-time

students were enrolled in academic, career, technical and college

preparation courses in the fall of '85, representing an increase of

about 1.4 percent over the previous year. In addition to that, some

119,000 students were enrolled in vocational and adult basic education

courses in '84-'85. Vocational enrolment did decline slightly, no doubt

due to the reduction in apprenticeship training, as there are fewer

apprentices employed in the province today.

Colleges and institutes offer a wide variety of programs for adults.

Over 35 percent of the training offered is in the technological sector,

28 percent is vocational, 23 percent is in two-year university

equivalent courses and some 14 percent is in post-secondary and

It is of interest to note that full-time college, academic and

technical enrolment showed an increase of almost 3 percent over last

year, and that the greatest increases occurred in the non-metropolitan

areas of the province — this at a time when graduations from grade 12

are declining. I think that

[ Page 7740 ]

should tell you something significant, Mr. Chairman: that the

college programs started and built on by succeeding Social Credit

governments are taking to our students throughout the province

post-secondary educational opportunities that are second to none.

In the fall of '85, enrolment figures showed that numbers of grade

12 graduates proceeding to full-time college or institute studies are

the highest on record at 4,495. Since 1980 the non-metropolitan regions

have increased their numbers of grade 12 students attending a college

or institute by 33.6 percent, compared to 13.1 percent from the

metropolitan areas. The colleges are therefore succeeding.

The colleges and institutes are responding well to initiatives from

provincial and federal governments in addressing youth unemployment,

one of our serious concerns. A number of institutions have received

federal skill growth fund facilities and equipment allocations to

launch new technical and vocational programs which, combined with

provincial operating grants, enabled some 400 new training

opportunities to be created.

In 1985-86 the province established the $5.8 million local economic

renewal fund to assist the colleges and institutes to further the

economic development strategy of the province. This gave rise to 60

specific projects, of which 14 were economic development centres. Those

of you who have seen those programs understand how well they're

working. Here we have our colleges and institutes working with their

local community to help the community bring back some new employment

opportunities in new sectors. As you have all heard, we've gone through

a significant change in our province in the last two or three years.

To give you an example of how successful that program is, Douglas

College offered to private investors to garner investment and project

opportunities. This yielded 17 responses to economic opportunities and

the private sector gave up or committed to these projects $4 million in

private capital. Quite unbelievable. Quite remarkable, and totally

unexpected. But that shows you the commitment we have and the

absolutely gorgeous relationship that the colleges have with the

communities. The communities really do identify with these programs.

It's really good. You can take a campus like Kwantlen, which is not

really all that attractive — but good. Interjections.

MR. R. FRASER: I was just coming to that. One of these days

we should do something about fixing that campus. The colleges and

institutes are developing new and more responsive educational delivery

systems which better meet the needs of both full-time and part-time

students. In a period of financial restraint the colleges and

institutes have been able to establish new programs to meet provincial

needs for skilled manpower. In 1986-87 new programs are proposed in

helicopter maintenance, fisheries officer, post-basic nursing and

dental hygiene at a number of campuses like Malaspina, Northern Lights,

Camosun, Vancouver Community College, etc.

The universities, on the other hand, have a longer and more

distinguished history because of the time they've been in operation.

They will continue to make significant contributions to the educational

and social culture and the economic well-being of B.C. The major focus,

of course, is excellence, and I don't think there is any doubt about

the fact that we have excellent students, excellent faculty, excellent

boards and excellent universities. The universities compete and yet

they complement, which is the way we want the world to work for all of

you. We want people to believe that there are chances for them to

compete and be successful, and universities are no exception. Enrolment

in the three universities was some 50,700, of which 44,200 were

undergraduates and some 6,400 were graduates. The undergraduate and

graduate enrolments have remained essentially unchanged — a shift from

full-time to part-time, but essentially unchanged. We're talking about

2 percent here.

Now one of the things we want to remind everybody who is

contemplating going on to a university-level education — and we talked

about excellence — is we want to tell you…. We have to show you that

there's some proof that our universities do indeed have excellence. We

show you that by pointing out the number of individual awards provided

to scholars and the value of research awards they have achieved, and

here we have it. B.C. universities have traditionally ranked in the top

few among their counterparts in obtaining National Granting Council

awards. Since these awards are made by a peer review, it tells you that

among universities our B.C. universities rank very well.

In 1984-85 universities brought some $67 million into the province

from outside sources for their research. The universities are also

contributing to the economy with their spinoff from basic research. We

can look at two or three B.C. companies that are doing extraordinarily

well that actually were probably born in the labs of the university:

MacDonald Dettwiler, which does satellite mapping and other things, a

company now doing about $35 million worth of business a year; Mobile

Data, which started there, now does some $40 million worth and has

about 60 percent of the international market in data movement — quite

remarkable; Moli Energy, a new battery company in B.C. which, of

course, was spawned in the university atmosphere; and Vortek

Industries. A number of spectacular opportunities which are indicating

that we can do it here and that what we really want to do is get into a

business here which can lead us to develop projects that we can ship

anywhere.... High value, low weight — that means you can build them

anywhere.

In cooperation with the federal government and the science division

of the Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications, under the

former minister, the universities built and established three industry

liaison offices which were built to facilitate the transfer of

technology between the universities and industry. The University of

British Columbia, which had one in place, expects that in 1986 it will

increase its revenue from royalties and licences to $1 million, a

dramatic increase from $10,000 in 1984. We expect universities to

benefit enormously from this in the future, and, of course, that makes

it easier for the taxpayers and probably easier for the students.

With respect to the costs and fees, funding for the universities

comes primarily from provincial grants and student fees, with

provincial grants accounting for four out of the five dollars it costs

to attend university. For 1985-86, the total funding made available to

university level services increased to $330.6 million. While the

operating contributions program decreased by 5 percent, this amount was

made up in the university adjustment program. In fact, universities

have fared well during the recession, which indicates to all of you –

or should; it certainly indicates to me – the absolute commitment to

education that this government has and that future governments will

have and that I have myself.

[ Page 7741 ]

The number of projects either completed in the recent year or nearly

completed include the science and engineering building at UVic, the

pulp and paper research centre at UBC and a number of ancillary

projects, including student residences at UBC and SFU, which were

approved for a total of $17.5 million.

The Universities Council, in response to requests from the minister,

prepared a report entitled "Facing Tomorrow's Needs in Higher

Education: British Columbia University Education in the 1990s." They

sent it out to the community for response, and we're expecting the

universities, the community and others to respond to that document and

bring back ideas. This tells you again that governments do listen, in

spite of the fact that some people don't seem to think so. I'm well

aware of the fact that the formation of this particular ministry and

the multi-year funding came about as a result of the meetings of the

government with the university community. This does indicate and should

indicate to all of you that governments do listen and listen well.

The other thing we have here, which was really significant, is the

distance education program. I am advised that we are the absolute

leaders in this in North America, if not the world. We have a number of

separate components, including the Open Learning Institute, the

Knowledge Network, the Open Learning Consortium and the college

distance education program.

The Open Learning Institute has some 16,000 course registrants in

1985-86, up 7.6 percent from the 15,396 of the year before. About 5,300

of these registrants are in academic courses; career-technical, about

7,500; and adult basic education, about 3,600.

There are some interesting numbers here, Mr. Chairman. Listen to

this one. The Open Learning Consortium offered programs throughout B.C.

to an estimated 30,000 people. The Knowledge Network broadcast 5,110

hours to an estimated audience of 411,000 individuals. That's a

remarkable commitment to education in areas outside the lower mainland

– and to those inside as well, for that matter.

As you know, I will be introducing legislation to deal with the

distance education program and services offered by our universities,

colleges and institutes. A steering committee of board members from the

Open Learning Institute and Knowledge Network, as well as my ministry

staff, have been working on this assignment given by the previous

minister. I am confident that the House will recognize the benefits to

the students and the people of B.C. proposed in the new legislation and

give it wholehearted support — as you can see, a most comprehensive and

excellent system.

In 1986-87 the government has proposed to provide $617,195,876 for

post-secondary education, which is almost as much as last year. But one

cannot say that the funding has remained flat, because in 1986-87 the

government has provided $110 million through the Fund for Excellence

program, which the colleges, institutes and universities are well aware

of. This is the program from which we are looking for great achievement

in the post-secondary institutions. Indeed, we are going to build on

the already existing excellence that is in the program, and I want to

make that point very clear. We are not asking the universities or

institutes to go off in some other direction. We are going to build on

the core and build out from there. They have all been advised of that

by me on at least one occasion, and as recently as last Friday. So

there is more there.

Cabinet will be approving submissions from institutes, colleges and

universities, which is in accordance with the normal accountability you

would expect from a government in any event. As I said before, the

commitment to long-term funding was made by the government after

listening to the universities, and in line with what they wanted — as

was the creation of the ministry. So there is lots and lots of proof

that we are doing our job well.

[10:30]

Using these general themes and goals as a basis for discussion, my

staff and I have met with a number of institutions to develop criteria

applicable to university proposals, and a second set for colleges and

institutes. We're expecting the first proposals for an ongoing

base-adjustment type of funding and letters of intent for programmatic

and centres-of-excellence funding by April 30. We have also set May 30

as a deadline for full proposals which may arise out of these letters

of intent. We have not received any objections to those dates, even

though they are quite near at hand. The reason, we suspect, is that the

colleges, institutes and universities are now well aware of their needs

and have a good idea of where they want to go. So I am not having any

difficulty with that aspect of it. I am very confident that all those

institutions will be making excellent proposals and that we will be off

to a great new world of post-secondary education, as this new ministry

works with all the students – who are, in fact, our main objective.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to

congratulate this minister on being put into cabinet. It is something,

having watched his performance on the back bench — well, maybe not so

much having watched it on the back bench; I haven't seen that much

performance there. But I did know the member when he was at university,

and for that reason, and based on some of that performance, I wondered,

quite honestly and sincerely, why he hadn't been put into cabinet

sooner.

Having shared that experience — we come out of the same era at

university — I would like to maybe just share a little bit of my

experience at university at that time. It was a time when we could have

our choice of good-paying jobs at union rates, and usually all the

overtime we wanted. My personal experience was that I had a choice

between labouring on the Kitimat-Kemano project, logging in a clearing

project, or working in a factory in Vancouver at good union rates,

better than IWA rates and with tremendous amounts of overtime. Many

people who have gone on to distinguish themselves in this province

worked in the same plant that I worked in as students and so on.

Maybe the minister would share with the House the educational

opportunity he had in terms of its affordability through the ability to

earn his way through university, and share with us if he feels that the

opportunity today is equal, less or greater than it was back in those

very heady days of the late 1950s and maybe early 1960s. I would like

the minister, as a new minister, to express.... He has talked about

some of the statistics of the ministry, and really the major statistic

is that there is no change. In a world that is changing, in a world in

which education has to be a higher priority, it is not reflected in the

estimates.

The minister talks about how well our universities have fared during

the recession, but I'd like to point out that this

[ Page 7742 ]

recession has lasted longer in British Columbia than it has in any

other part of the country. Indeed, recessions by definition are not

economic downturns and negative growth that exceed one year in length.

When it exceeds a year and goes on for a second and a third year, that

negative growth in gross domestic product is defined as being a

depression. So

whereas in fact most of Canada experienced a recession

back in about 1982….

AN HON. MEMBER: Looked at Alberta recently?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I look at Alberta and I travel to Alberta

from time to time, and all I know is that for my son to get an

opportunity to go to university he has to find a job in Alberta. He

can't get one in British Columbia, but the minute he crosses that

Alberta border he is snapped up, and his skills, initiative and energy

are valued and prized and there is a use for them. They need young

people in Alberta. They still have single-digit unemployment; we have

double-digit unemployment in this province. Certainly I've looked at

Alberta.

We are in a long-term situation, so our universities saying that

they have fared well during the recession is really putting things

absolutely backwards. The way out of this prolonged recession and,

really, depression that we've had in British Columbia where we've only

this year started to lift our heads up above an economic level that we

were at back in 1980.... I don't think that we can take any comfort

in that.

We have really fallen behind. I know university professors who have

been given offers and.... You know, it's interesting. A professor

will get an offer maybe from Texas to participate in some new team. One

person I know in computer science was recruited to join a team that was

working on artificial intelligence, a very exciting project. Now he

didn't go to that opportunity in Texas, but it did start him thinking

and he did leave the University of Victoria for the University of

Calgary. We can't compete with some of the opportunities that are to be

found elsewhere.

British Columbia has been looked upon as a resource. Just as they

are recruiting high school and elementary school teachers — and

California is doing it very openly and in a very visible way — very

quietly there is a tremendous amount of head-hunting going on in

British Columbia, and there is a great amount of worry.

The minister talked about some of the bright spots in research in

British Columbia — the moly battery. Dr. Rudi Haering has sort of

headed that team, but a lot of the creative energy of that came from

some of his students, which is always the way, I suppose, with senior

researchers. He talked about the satellite mapping program. Well, I

also visited the satellite mapping program at the University of British

Columbia. I came away with, yes, a sense that here was some

fascinating, important research taking place, something of which we can

be very proud, but I heard those same fears expressed at that project

about keeping the team together, about keeping up. Today they might be

the best, but tomorrow if they're not adequately funded they will

quickly slip out of that position. This has happened to us again and

again.

Yes, we have brought in millions of dollars in research grants, and

I said that in last year's estimates. For that very reason alone, we

should not look upon universities as simply some kind of drain on the

provincial economy, that we can't afford to do better because we're in

a recession. This should be the last area in which cuts can be taken,

because if we fail to provide educational opportunities for our

children today, we will punish them for the rest of their lives, and we

will punish this province, and we'll set this province back. The

greatest capital that we have in this province is not the coal in the

ground; it's not a little bit of oil; it's not the trees. The greatest

capital is human capital, and we will keep human capital by keeping our

post-secondary institutions viable. We aren't the only areas that are

taking some of these measures.

The minister mentioned the economic development centres in the

colleges. I'm a little bit familiar with that, having read papers that

were presented to the former minister for universities — papers written

by Dr. Paul Parikh years and years ago. It was heartening to see that

concept finally being adopted in varying measures, but these were ideas

that have been around a long time and things that could have been acted

upon a lot more quickly.

Our post-secondary institutions do provide tremendous human capital.

I was very heartened just two weeks ago when in the Monday issue of the

Vancouver Sun — the business page — I saw this colour spread about Sam

Conkin. He went through our college system; he took hotel management;

he worked in the industry for quite some time and then he got the idea

that one of the things that was needed in the motel business was.... If

you could have a night teller at a bank, why couldn't you have a

night clerk at a motel to dispense keys at 11:00 at night or 2:00 in

the morning, especially across the United States and so on? That person

who was trained in this province went on and has put together a company

which created tremendous excitement at an international convention of

motel owners in the United States.

Innovators and entrepreneurs like that come out of our college and

university system. We spend far too much time, under the philosophy of

this government and the former minister, looking outside of the

province for somebody to come here from Manila to start up a high-tech

company and so forth, when in fact the people who can really get these

projects going are sometimes to be seen under our very noses, like Dr.

Rudi Haering, Sam Conkin and many, many other innovators, people who

serve on the Science Council, the president of Glenayre Electronics and

others. I would like, then, to think that we will be seeing a change in

philosophy and that we will at least not be ignoring looking inward. We

must always continue to look outward, but we cannot ignore looking

inward at the inner resources of this province. I would hope we would

see some change in philosophy in that area.

I would like the minister to share with the committee his

educational philosophy – not just how he may argue about the statistics

of what we may or may not be doing. We can argue about, for instance,

the federal funding formula and how it may or may not be being applied.

I will argue that this government is no longer making a contribution to

post-secondary education — that it is supported by federal funds and

student fees. The minister would argue, obviously, something to the

contrary. But beyond that, what is his philosophy in terms of priority

for post secondary education, and should it not... ? Is it something

that we can afford to scrimp on during a recession or a depression?

What is his philosophy concerning access? The former minister said

that we should be increasing entrance requirements, and yet when I look

at the FTE university enrolment in British Columbia graphed against

every other jurisdiction in Canada — the Maritimes, the Prairies,

Canada as a whole, Ontario and Quebec — there has been some increase,

as the minister mentioned, but the gap is even widening. We are not

[ Page 7743 ]

picking up as quickly as those other provinces, and the

participation rates in Ontario and Quebec and in every other part of

Canada are way beyond what they are here in British Columbia. What is

his philosophy about access to university? Should we jack up entrance

requirements? Should we continue to have what I see as a very serious

economic gap where graduating students owe as much as $40,000,

sometimes, if they are a couple and $20,000 if they are single? But if

two people meet at university — and that's been known to happen — they

could be graduating with a joint debt of up to $40,000, under the

current so-called student assistance. Does this minister feel that we

can continue to hold the line? Do we not need a real accelerated

investment — not something in which government priorities are set,

through some special funding, to add a sort of asterisk to the

estimates, and say, "Well, it's not quite as it appears, because we

have this special fund for excellence in education," but something that

is predictable and that can be counted upon? Indeed, is that fund even

going to be around after the next election, or will it disappear like

the reforestation fund did a few years ago, and probably like the

present reforestation fund will, if this government is successful in

the next election?

[10:45]

Also, what does this minister feel about autonomy and academic

freedom, autonomy of universities and academic freedom of professors,

which is not the right of every person who teaches or lectures at a

university, but something that is earned after proven performance of a

number of years or is an inducement to someone who has proven

themselves in some other institution and is being recruited very

vigorously? Could the minister share with us some of those...?

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to share with the

member opposite the information that we have at our disposal, beginning

with thanks for the compliment he paid to me early in his presentation.

Personally, with respect to EPF funding, you may be surprised to

learn that at least two governments in western Canada believe the

federal government has not done its job with respect to EPF funding:

one of them is ours, and the other is the province of Manitoba. Beyond

the funding level, which you say we're not supporting here, I can

assure you that between the costs of health care and education, the

province puts in something on the order of 55 percent, and the federal

government about 45. So we're certainly carrying our part of the

bargain and a little more on the way by.

Going back to your first question, with respect to whether I thought

my educational opportunities were equal to, better than or less than

those of today, I respond to you that the significant aspect of

educational opportunities for the students today is not what they see

tomorrow, and not what they saw yesterday, but what they see today. I

see the students in our institutions here — post-secondary institutions

— responding very well to the needs of the day. The students that I've

talked to have impressed me greatly with their commitment to themselves

and their future in the province, and their great feeling of

self-reliance. They seem to be graduating from colleges and going out

into the world feeling very confident about their future, even as

though it may be as apparently secure as the one that I went into when

I graduated from UBC some years ago.

We're finding a change in the philosophy of students, which I find

very encouraging. There was a time, not too long ago, when students

apparently felt the best and greatest opportunity they could get would

be working with the government. Now they're changing their minds and

spending a lot of their time trying to go into businesses of their own,

so they can pay taxes and support the provincial institutions, which I

think is very healthy.

Yes, we have been obliged to enjoy a recession that was longer that

we would have anticipated. It is also true, of course, that we did not

cause the recession, nor will our efforts alone solve it. But of

course, we, as you would expect, will always be doing more than our

share to make sure that the province recovers from the recession, which

hit B.C. hardest because of its resource-based economy.

You will also have noticed that a profound change in the province

has taken place in the last two or three years. We are moving into

industries that we hope will be less dependent on our resources, such

as the high-tech industries we spoke of.

When you talk about Alberta, I think you will have noticed recently

that the employment opportunities in Alberta have changed significantly

as a result of forces beyond the control of the borders of that

province. So while it may have been true that opportunities for

employment in that province were better last summer, right now they're

not quite so good, as you are aware. We regret, of course, that this is

true; but in fact it is true. What we wanted to find out, of course, is

that our students are prepared not only to work in British Columbia but

in Alberta and anywhere else in the world, and that our engineers will

travel around the world to do their good work wherever it may need to

be done in the developing countries of the world, where they can

provide the most essential items of health care, which are, of course,

clean water and sewage disposal. I don't have any difficulty with our

students graduating and working overseas, and making a commitment to

areas other than their own, as well as their own educational enrichment.

When it comes to teacher movement, or professor movement, I don't

think you can fault anyone for taking a job that appears to be a way to

enrich his or her own life. We recruit professors from other provinces;

ours go elsewhere. The transfer of knowledge is, in my view, a very

positive one. I don't think we want to be too parochial in our nature

with respect to teachers. We want to have some outside influences, the

same way we would want students from other lands to come to our

universities and colleges, and get to meet us, and we can get to meet

them. We would like our students to travel as well.

When it comes to keeping up with salaries for professors, of course,

as you are aware, the salaries of professors vary greatly not only

between universities but in the university itself. Notwithstanding

that, if there is a need or a desire to keep a specific person or a

number of people here for any reason whatsoever, the Excellence in

Education fund can provide for merit-driven salary compensation

programs.

The development centres are actually a most exciting thing. One of

my personal wishes is to make certain that the communities maintain a

close relationship with the colleges and universities. I think in the

last dozen or so years they have tended to become a little more

distant. The ivory tower complex, which is very important to have from

time to time, has taken over to a large extent, which I would like to

see us reverse. I want the businesses and the community in general to

have a great relationship with the colleges and universities, to take

advantage of the knowledge that is there for them to take and to

provide to the colleges — the students and the professors and teachers — an understanding of the business

[ Page 7744 ]

world that they live in every day so there's a little less distance

between the two organizations.

With respect to looking to growth from people outside the province,

I see no harm in looking to other people or people outside the province

for their growth potential and have them bring it here. This is not to

say in any way that we are subordinating our own people. Naturally we

want the citizens of British Columbia to develop in their own way. You

pointed out some examples of how that has happened, so it's my view

that a mix of these things will be a great advantage for British

Columbia.

With respect to autonomy of universities, I think I would point to

an example at UBC. The new president of UBC was able to work out with

the faculty there that were let go an arrangement that worked out very

well with the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the

teachers themselves and the rest of the university staff.

I read a newspaper

article about the city of Winnipeg where the

school board of Winnipeg was going to increase taxes there by 14.2

percent. That particular school board had increased their costs about

3.8 times that of 10 districts nearby, and the driving force,

apparently, according to two trustees of that school board, was that if

they didn't have these huge increases, way in excess of other boards,

they would have to let teachers go. It would strike me that the

fundamental reason for having a school board or a university or

whatever is not to hire staff but to educate our students. So if we

have more students, we would therefore need more teachers; and if we

have fewer students, we would need fewer teachers, and that would seem

to me to be perfectly reasonable.

My personal philosophy on education, of course, is quite simple. I

would like to provide as much opportunity for our students as we can

properly provide. Access is becoming a perennial question. We look at

StatsCan saying: "Your rates are lower than anybody else's," etc. Well,

being fair to StatsCan for accuracy, as you know, the models will

change depending on what years you include. The StatsCan model is

normally about 18 to 24, and we find that the average age of our

students in many of our colleges and institutes is about 26, so they're

not included.

The fact is that our percentage of students going to post-secondary

institutions is increasing. It's interesting to look back and note that

irrespective of the economic circumstances of the day, the

participation rate remained about the same. Whether we were very

well-to-do or not so well-to-do, they remained about constant, but they

are slowly going up, which encourages me. I think what that really does

is tell us all, whether we happen to be in this particular chamber or

in the community at large, that there is a recognition that educational

opportunities should be taken. People are going back to school, having

given up at grade 9 or 10, and housewives are now going back into

career opportunities or people are changing jobs from one to another in

recognition of the fact that our economy is changing.

In general, while we always know that we can improve our system,

because any human system can be improved, I'm very encouraged with what

I see in the Post-Secondary Education ministry.

MR. ROSE: I was interested in a couple of things the minister

said. I was just looking for the documentation. I was shocked by the

minister's claim that the province puts in 55 percent of post-secondary

education funding and the feds 45 percent. The Johnson report condemned

the provincial government. Al Johnson, the former head of CBC, did a

study on this whole question. As soon as I get the documentation.... He

claimed that B.C. was the only province that financed its

post-secondary — certainly their university system — 104.3 percent by

federal EPF funding. In other words, it wasn't putting in a plug

nickel. In fact, it was making money on the students while it cut back

services. I can't reconcile what the minister has to say with what Mr.

Johnson has to say.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Don't take any advice from the former minister. I

get very nervous when I hear him giving the new minister advice. I

prefer to think that the new minister's going to bring some new dawn,

or new beginning to this whole problem.

B.C. was the only government, too, that acquiesced to the cut of the

EPF funding from the federal level. In other words, instead of fighting

for British Columbia and its education, it acquiesced. It turned over,

put its heels up and let the fells steal $641 million by 1991, which

is more than we spend on university education throughout the province

in any one year. Would the minister like to tell me how I can reconcile

what he said with what the estimable Al Johnson, former Deputy Minister

of Finance, said when he looked at the question?

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Member, in our view, the Johnson report

is incorrect.

MR. ROSE: What do you mean? Look, you can stand up there and

deny anything. He hasn't got any documentation. Why don't you produce

your numbers? You guys have got all the number-crunchers over there.

Allan Gregg and all these other people, they should be able to tell you

everything.

The other thing I noticed is that the minister said that he felt

that when he cited some tiny Manitoba example.... I don't know what

that's got to mean and maybe he has...because Manitoba has an NDP

government so therefore what they're going to do is outrageous. But he

suggested that it was very simple: if you have more pupils you have

more teachers, and if you have fewer pupils you have fewer teachers.

Can the minister explain why, while the colleges have been cut back

roughly 10 percent to 20 percent in terms of their teaching staff, at

the same time their enrolment is growing? I find that difficult to

reconcile too.

[11:00]

HON. R. FRASER: The member would want to reflect on what

level of teachers we actually need, and while we all understand that

pupil-teacher ratios are not necessarily useful numbers, they are

guidelines sometimes, and we want to make sure that the function of the

institutions we have in Post-Secondary or indeed Education itself are

driven because we want to serve the student, not because we want to

employ staff. As long as we can remain convinced that we are doing a

good job in that respect, then we're fine.

I don't wish to get into a big discussion about class sizes, but I

will if you would like. The fact is that I think our system is

functioning very well, and if what I hear from colleges is true, they

have managed.... By the way, before I go on with this I would like

to compliment the boards and the

[ Page 7745 ]

faculty and the staff — I have told them personally, I'll tell you

too — for the great work they've done in the last two or three years

when times indeed were different. They have responded in a way that is

typically British Columbian. They have all worked harder and done more,

including the faculty. I compliment them for that. They have been able

to prove to themselves, to say nothing of me, that indeed they are

capable of responding to a need, and they did it so effectively that we

give them the compliment that is due.

I think we have enough in the system to provide for the student what

he or she might need.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Would the minister agree then, since he has just

qualified, that it isn't always just a simple question of more pupils,

more teachers? This is what he suggested earlier. Now he is

complicating; in some instances you need fewer teachers when you have

more pupils. Would you say that the reciprocal of that would also be

true: that in some situations you might need more teachers for fewer

pupils?

MR. REID: Let's go back to 1975.

MR. ROSE: You can go back to Surrey, as far as I am

concerned. I want the minister to answer that question. Interjections.

MR. ROSE: The Gold Dust Twins are over there too, eh? George

Burns and Gracie Allen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member direct his comments to

the Chair.

MR. ROSE: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I will direct my comments

directly to you.

I would like to ask the minister if that is the case. Since he seems

to be willing, as far as the colleges are concerned, to pay tribute to

them.... In other words, I'll give you my love but no more money.

So it's a case of love nor money, and I am surprised that those people

over there from Surrey.... I am going to bring up and show you the

facts about how Kwantlen College in their very bailiwick is underfunded

compared to all of the rest of British Columbia catchment age. Instead

of trying to defend this kind of parsimony towards their college, they

should be up fighting for more money and a permanent campus and more

funds.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We are.

MR. ROSE: Well, if you were as loud in this House speaking

for Kwantlen as you are clapping when somebody else is speaking for it,

I think you would be a lot more effective.

HON. R. FRASER: The member was asking whether I thought that

some circumstances needed more teachers and some circumstances needed

less, and I think that would be reasonable. That's what makes averages

so unsatisfactory sometimes.

When you talk about not giving colleges, institutes and universities

more money, I think it would be reasonable for me to remind you that

there are $110 million this year, about $200 million next year and $300

million the year after that for an excellence fund of some $600 million

for educational opportunities in B.C. This represents a huge

double-digit percentage increase for educational funding. So there is

money in the system, Mr. Member.

When we talked about teachers and reorganization, the colleges and

institutes told me that because they had a new circumstance to look at,

which was the provincial restraint program — which was very effective —

they found that they were doing some program rationalization. BCIT, for

example, sent an agriculture program out to the agricultural school in

the valley, which made sense; nursing programs were changed from here

to there. They were becoming a little less jealous of the program from

an institutional point of view, and thinking about it from the

students' point of view. That is why the colleges and institutes were

able to have a more interesting and more optimistic productivity scale.

MRS. WALLACE: I'd like to congratulate the new minister on

his new role. He finally made it, and obviously he's enjoying it. I'd

also like to thank him for coming up to Duncan and looking at the

Duncan campus of Malaspina College. I hope he got the message, and I

hope he's going to stand up in the House and tell us that we're going

to get the money. What we have there, Mr. Chairman, is a campus that

has grown considerably in enrolment. It has gone from 100 full-time

students last year to 161 this year, including a great many university

transfer programs.

The facility they have there is 3,000 square feet. For that the

ministry has been putting up some $40,000 lease money. But in addition

to that, they've had to cough up a fair amount of money to rent other

properties scattered all over the area. We do not have a consolidated

campus. In the evening we're able to use the high school; but for the

day courses we're putting these university transfer students in areas

wherever we can get a room. We have in Duncan an offer — the people in

charge of the campus there went out and got got 13 different

contractors to make this proposal. They will build the space — a

15,000-square-foot campus equivalent — all in one place, and they will

lease it to the government just as is happening now. Instead of paying

lease and rent, they will have to pay just the lease money. Granted,

that's going to be a bit more than they're paying now — a little more

than double what they're paying now.

What I'm suggesting to you is that what we have now is just not a

campus; what we have is a series of ramshackle areas. I think the

minister, from his visit there, will recognize that the central housing

of Duncan campus leaves much to be desired in the way of facility from

a community college standpoint. In addition to that, we're having to

spot these classrooms all around the countryside. I'm asking that

minister today for his commitment that he will cover the lease money if

these proposals go ahead — so that we can get one to go ahead. Then

we'll have a facility there that will put all the campus in one spot.

It will be an adequate — not fancy, not posh — kind of campus in one

spot, and we will really have a Duncan campus of Malaspina College. I

would like his assurance that he's prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R. FRASER: Firstly, Madam Member, I did go to the Duncan

campus, and I certainly went to Malaspina, and I would say to all of

you in the audience, and the chamber, that I have been very impressed

with all the colleges I've been to.

[ Page 7746 ]

The faculty, the boards and the students are in a very optimistic

mood and are doing very well.

With respect to the facilities in Duncan which you wish me to commit

myself on at this moment, as you might expect, I cannot, nor will I do

it. However, I can assure you that those proposals are being looked at

seriously, and if everything seems to work out, then judgments will be

made on that basis when the time comes.

More important than facilities, in my view, are opportunities. If we

can provide opportunities for the students in Duncan — and more will go

because they don't have to travel a great distance to either Nanaimo or

Victoria — then I would compliment them for putting up with the physical

inconveniences of a less than beautiful campus, if you want to put it

that way, and taking advantage of the mind-expanding opportunities they

are presented with in whatever circumstance they have.

This is the case in other locations as well. I know that faculties

at other colleges are spending a lot of time with the curriculum while

they wait for the taxpayers to fund the rebuilding of campuses

anywhere. So I would give you the assurance that the ministry will look

at it. I think in fairness to the community I should stop right there.

MS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the minister on

the desire to learn, the opportunity, but you don't have that same

opportunity when you are scattered all over the place. You don't have a

cohesive, concise group of students because they don't have that

ability to work together, to utilize joint facilities. I agree

Malaspina College, the Nanaimo campus, is a beautiful campus. We're not

even asking for anything equivalent to that.

What we're asking for is enough space, 15,000 square feet in one

place, where we can have all of that together, rather than the

situation we have now, and that will do exactly what you're talking

about. It will allow that kind of commitment to learning to flourish

and to grow,

whereas now there is a stifling of it because of the

inability to communicate and to use joint facilities.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that what we are talking about today are the

dollars and cents that that minister has as his expenditure. After all,

this is the estimates, and he must know whether or not he has funds in

his budget to provide for that campus. That's what I am suggesting to

him, that we would like a commitment that he will provide a facility in

one place either by this method that we are suggesting or any method he

wants to come up with. But that is a priority because certainly the

college board has supported the idea that there will be a new campus in

Cowichan. The local college council is quite supportive of that. What

we are asking is: is the minister prepared to go along with this

suggestion or isn't he? I don't care how he does it, as long as he gets

it all in one place.

HON. R. FRASER: I think the member is suggesting that you

might get a greater amount of campus camaraderie by having everybody in

one location, which I think would be true. On the other hand, what you

have also agreed with is the fact that it is better to have an

educational opportunity in a less than perfect situation than not have

one at all.

So that's been done. What I did commit to everybody is that the

proposals will be looked at seriously when they are all put together. I

am advised that that's not the case as yet.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to congratulate

the new minister on his appointment, on the organization of a new

Ministry of Post-Secondary Education.

It is refreshing to have an engineer in that post. I think it is

also a good idea to have someone who is at full arm's length from our

universities and colleges acting as minister responsible for their

operations on the provincial side of things. I am sure he will both

bring intelligence and training and a degree of objectivity to the job,

typical of engineers of course, and that is to be welcomed.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the member just speaking

seemed to suggest that there was less than an arm's length relationship

between the previous minister and the department that he was

administering. I would like to submit that it was more than arm's

length. In fact, I think it was out in another world.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will appreciate that that is not a

valid point of order.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I was ill-advised to use the

phrase "arm's length." I recall the previous minister saying that the

universities were powers unto themselves, and that really, as minister,

he had very little to do with their recruitment of students, the

designation of courses and so on. So in that sense certainly he was

well removed from the Day-to-day administration of the universities.

I want to come back to that, but first let me make a few critical

comments if I may, and I think I can make them because I probably spent

more years at university than anyone else in this House. Back in the

1950s and 1960s, education was an

article of faith. The more money

government pumped into our schools and particularly our colleges and

universities, the better off we would be, that those moneys were the

best conceivable investment which Canadians could make in the future of

their country and of their provinces.

[11:15]

Looking back from the vantage point of the mid-1980s I sometimes

wonder. I wonder whether there's any obvious relationship between the

moneys spent in our universities and colleges and the rate of economic

growth. If you look around the world — and I doubt if academicians have

done this willingly — the countries that seem to have the highest rates

of economic growth are those that do not have large campuses, large

numbers of universities and colleges. Japan has had incredible growth,

but in Japan's case, while it has increased its educational function

substantially, it has focused its training much more on technical

schools, engineering establishments and so on. In Japan, for example,

they graduate 15 to 20 times more engineers than lawyers. In this part

of the world they're roughly equal in number. We seem to graduate many

young people in areas that are either areas of contention like law or

areas chosen by the students themselves and not by the demands of the

economy for jobs for economic drive — arts courses or advanced nuclear

physics, for example.

We seem to have no mechanism — certainly no market mechanism, and as

far as I can see no government-supported mechanism — for determining

what the market for skills and especially particular skills and special

training is likely to be in the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, and

relating that to the courses, to the opportunities offered for training

at our colleges and universities. In some countries, particularly in

[ Page 7747 ]

Europe, and I'm thinking for example of Denmark, they do fund much

more actively training in areas where industry in future will require

people with that particular degree of skill — a general background of

course, but more specialization as time goes by. By focusing their

educational effort, including their post-secondary educational effort,

which is tax-supported, on areas where there are genuine prospects for

employment, they've been able to employ effectively more of their

student population.

We don't do that. We export almost purposely nearly everyone who

studies nuclear physics in this province. We export a goodly number of

young people who choose exotic areas of study. I'd include biology.

There was a time a decade or so ago when it was very popular to go into

studies relating to the environment. The fishing companies didn't

employ those people. Once all the jobs were filled in government

departments, the young people had to leave Canada to find employment in

their area of training and expertise. It's very frustrating for many of

our young people to spend four years — many of them take masters' and

doctoral degrees, up to eight and ten years — studying intensively a

particular discipline or subject, and find that there's absolutely no

opportunity here, particularly in British Columbia, to find any

employment related to their training in university particularly. That

concerns me.

We have currently an influx of young people coming from other

countries to receive secondary education in British Columbia. One of

the reasons, and probably the main reason, is that compared to the

countries of origin — I'll take Hong Kong as an example — only 1.5

percent to 2 percent of the secondary school graduating students can be

squeezed into their colleges and universities. They don't take 10, 15

or 20 percent, as we do. We have vacant spaces in some areas — some

faculties certainly — so we have the space. Many of the young students

who come come from relatively well-to-do families, so they can afford

the travel, they can afford our low, highly subsidized fees, and they

come in large numbers. Last year between 9,000 and 10,000 foreign

students were educated here, and close to 4,000 of these attended our

colleges and universities. They come partly because of the excellence

of our institutions, partly because our fees are low, but also because

they can get in handily as compared to opportunities in their own, home

countries. This is part of a worldwide trend. There are close to a

million foreign students studying in countries other than their country

of origin today. Canada is taking 75,000. Of those young people, less

than a third return to their country of origin. Most of them are on the

move. Most of them are hoping, especially after they've received a

degree or two, to find employment in the country in which they've

obtained their advanced education, and many of them end up – many of

those who come here; not in their own country, but either here, or

more likely in the United States.

So a large proportion of the young foreign students that we are

currently educating at considerable public expense in Canada,

especially in British Columbia, will sooner or later move on to the

United States, where, for example, they have to go if they've had

specialized training in, say, an exotic field like nuclear physics, and

on and on. So this is no B.C. or indeed Canada phenomenon. It's a

worldwide development.

I think we can create an industry in this province. We have an

industry, but it's highly subsidized. We can create an export industry

which is useful to us, which can make use of any idle capacity we have

in our colleges and universities, where, if we're wise and require full

cost recovery, we can influence the lives of many young people

originating in other countries, most of whom are transients. They're

moving on eventually to the United States, and a lesser number back to

their countries of origin. So we can influence them. Hopefully they'll

be more favourably inclined to Canada and the Canadian way of life: to

buy more of our products, to look on us more favourably from a cultural

point of view. That's all to the good, but I believe that with the

exception of scholarships, which I believe we should give to foreign

students in need, we should charge full cost recovery.

All of our private colleges — there are some seven of them now —

recruit very actively overseas to fill out their enrolment. They

require full cost recovery — $10,000 to $15,000 a year kind of thing.

What they're marketing is not so much a grade 12 certificate in this

province but entry into a relatively open university situation in B.C.,

where the fees are very low. Therefore those private colleges have a

very good and effective sales pitch from a dollars and cents point of

view. They seek out students — all of them, or most of them bright, but

certainly the great majority with parents who can afford to pay the

instruction here so that they can present a grade 12 B.C. graduation

diploma from a recognized school in this province, and then can enter

one of our universities or colleges.

I know that West Vancouver, and reading in the paper in the last few

days, the city of Vancouver, is determined to recruit students abroad

to recover the costs involved in their education, which is certainly

laudable, and to bring them here with assurances that they will get

sufficient training and the necessary credentials to enter our

universities. I think that our universities, in the case of these

foreign students — these are not landed immigrants or Canadians from

another province — should know that we will charge full cost recovery

at the university level. If we do, if we were to fully recover costs at

our universities, we'd have another $25 million, $30 million, $35

million that universities would be free to spend thus relieving some of

the problems which they tell us they have, some of the financial

problems they have under restraint at the present time. Most other

countries do this: certainly the United Kingdom does it; all colleges

and universities in the United States do this. They require full cost

recovery; most universities in western Europe do. Because we have not

as yet been attracting more than our reasonable share of foreign

students, I don't think they are coming here simply because of the low

fees.

I think we should make an industry of this. We should encourage our

educators, even at the primary and secondary school levels, to bring

foreign students in to educate them up to our standards and welcome

them in the expectation that they can go on and take post-secondary

education in British Columbia. We must recover all our costs. We'll

have a healthy export industry because most of these young people will

either go home or more likely go to the United States or western

Europe. We will have not only done an effective job for them, but done

it at no exceptional expense or burden to B.C. and Canadian taxpayers.

Hon. members opposite refer often to the funding of post-secondary

education in the province. They point to the recent report a year ago

of Al Johnson, at the federal level, saying that substantially the

federal government gives British Columbia enough money to pay for our

universities. Well, they miss one important point. We pay more into the

federal pot as

[ Page 7748 ]

British Columbia taxpayers than we get back out of the federal pot.

So substantially we're paying the bill, whether it's processed through

the federal till or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time, hon. member.

The Chair recognizes the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: I've heard that argument just concluded by the hon.

member for North Vancouver–Seymour many times. I've heard his speech

on foreign students many times; it's an annual event. I look forward to

it every year. It's one of my favourite speeches. I don't think it has

much relevance. He is the perfect example of somebody who was educated

overseas, and well educated, and I presume that he's had some other

foreign experiences. He claims he's been in the school system or the

college system longer than anybody else in this House. I don't

challenge him on that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, who are you subsidized by — the CPR? As far

as the business is concerned, there are many of us in this House who

have attended....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Don't talk. I'm going to give you your honorary

high school leaving certificate if you don't keep quiet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody.

We carry on.

MR. ROSE: I would love to. I seem to always incite them over

there. I don't know why that is.

[11:30]

What I'm saying is that there are many young college-educated

Canadians who have been subsidized at foreign universities, and I'm one

of them. We have a reciprocal agreement with the state of Washington on

that very subject, which gives at least partial lie — "contradiction"

is a nicer word; it's more parliamentary — to something that the member

said regarding the fees and the foreign fees hiked up to the full cost.

It's just not true. It may have a tendency to be true, but it's not

true.

Then he bewailed that there are a rather large number of our kids

going on to post-secondary institutions, compared to countries like

Japan. Why didn't you cite Korea and Taiwan and others of these whipped

Third-World countries that are working their people 12 and 15 hours a

day and paying them peanuts? We don't want to be a Third-World country.

We want more of our kids going to school, not fewer. We want more of

our kids having opportunities, not just the affluent or the

geographically advantaged. We want more of them, not fewer, because

that will make our country better. It may not make it economically

better; socially it will make it better.

There's no question about what the minister says, or the ex-minister

says, about the fact that government projections of job opportunities

in various skill areas have been terrible. Yet he goes on to say that

he wants more of the same. So fewer people will be left to have a

general liberal kind of education, and more will be focused and sent

and forced into dead-end jobs that are going to change five years from

now. That is a blind recommendation, in my view. People who have looked

at this subject with any kind of depth and any kind of feeling for

humanity have felt quite differently about it. Rumberger of Stanford,

for instance, says: "We don't know what it's going to be in terms of

the technological future." So the thing is not to train people just in

dead-end jobs, for economic reasons only, but to educate them for

humanitarian reasons. And that requires a broad, not a narrow, set of

educational objectives; it requires a wide one, so they can be flexible

and can change and not be condemned to some damned dead-end job for

their whole lives.

I just don't understand the minister speaking the way he does on

that subject, and he gets me slightly irritated from time to time. No,

not that one. The member. But I know that whenever he gets up to speak

he usually has individual thoughts; he marches to his own drummer, and

I thank him for his creativity. I've enjoyed his being a colleague and

I've enjoyed often debating with him over the years. But I think he's

dead wrong on this. I urge the minister not to pay any attention to him.

MR. REYNOLDS: I don't want to talk about anything the last

two speakers talked about. I want to go into something different:

tuition fees. Tuition fees have risen in the last four years in British

Columbia. I would like to know how these compare with those of other

provinces. I would also like to know if the government is doing

anything to help students overcome these fees. I am talking about the

students who maybe are above average in grades. Are we doing anything

to make sure that they finish their education?

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we will address a number of

those issues which we haven't already addressed. I would point out to

all the members that during the period of restraint there was a certain

amount of money — a significant amount of money would be more apt —

committed to engineering expansion, which did demonstrate a commitment

to education on behalf of the government. It's interesting that in

Japan they do graduate more engineers than lawyers, which I think from

my point of view makes a great deal of sense. After all, we want people

to make pies, not just cut them up. Certainly when it comes to courses

that our post-secondary students are taking in colleges and

institutes.... There was a critical statement made the other day that

we are

driving them into the career opportunities of today instead of tomorrow.

The fact of the matter, of course, is that a number of students

choose the courses because they want them, and we do not exercise undue

influence on the students with respect to what they take. I would

certainly encourage any student to think basically upon the premise

that one does take a higher education to learn how to think. If we all

look at our own careers in university, we will probably find that

almost none of us is doing what we were trained to do in school, but we

are using some of the skills we learned in school in our new

circumstances.

The question of students from other lands coming to Canada to go to

school is a very interesting one. I personally am on the horns of a

dilemma on this one. I encourage students from other countries to come

here from a philosophical point of view, as I encourage our students to

go elsewhere. It strikes me that it is very important for us to have a

better understanding of how other countries operate and how other

countries think, and so the transmission of students

[ Page 7749 ]

from one country to the other strikes me as being a philosophical

point that we might want to take up.

On the other hand, of course, we do not want to deny our own

Canadians, whether they were born here or immigrated, the chance to go

to colleges and institutes that are funded by the taxpayers from

Canada. So we are always stuck between a balance here of trying to

figure out what is best for everybody. I do know that tuition for

students in colleges is on a cost-recovery basis, over which we have

total authority. Universities, of course, have more autonomy. I know

the fees established at the universities for students from other lands

are higher than for Canadians. That is in harmony with a practice that

is virtually universal – certainly in the well-developed countries that

have good educational systems. There is simply no doubt about that.

When it comes to training students in courses that don't appear to

have any real end in B.C.... In fact, there are some opportunities

coming up here. There is some interest in the proposal by TRIUMF for a

new kaon factory, which, if accepted by the federal government and

ourselves, would produce hundreds of millions of dollars worth of

construction at UBC and generate all kinds of money for the province.

TRIUMF generates something in the order of $40 million per year, I

understand, in charges to other countries who are using those

facilities out there. I would like to think that a number of the

students who come here to take engineering physics, or any other

course, would take the talents they learned here back to their own

countries for distribution in their own land. I would presume that most

of them have come here to do exactly that.

With respect to tuition fees, the government has done a number of

things to help students defray the cost of their post-secondary

education. First, there is the scholarship program: those students who

are in the top 10 percent of their class get a 50 percent reduction in

their fees, and those in the top 30 percent get a 25 percent reduction

in fees. There is also the remission program: students who finish their

program get an automatic 25 percent reduction; if you happen to be from

a non-metropolitan area, the percentage goes to 33 percent. So there

are a number of things that the government has done with respect to fee

remission to encourage students not only to work hard at universities

or other post-secondary institutions but also to complete their course.

Beyond that, the fee increases in B.C. have been marginal. They're

certainly in line with fees in other post-secondary institutions across

the country. So I think we can look very proudly at what we have done

with respect to fees for our British Columbia students.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour. Oh,

excuse me. We historically allow a member to continue his questioning.

The member for West Vancouver Howe Sound.

MR. REYNOLDS: I just have a very short question. I wonder if

the minister in his new position has seen any studies or is

contemplating looking at the universities we have in British Columbia

and putting them under one management system: instead of having the

University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and Victoria of

Victoria, having one University of British Columbia. They do it in

California; it works extremely well. I just wonder if there have been

any studies. It's a question I get from my constituents quite often,

asking why we have three separate bureaucracies around in that area,

when we could save some money maybe by amalgamating them all. I wonder

if the minister has seen any studies in his ministry or is

contemplating looking at that avenue for saving money.

HON. R. FRASER: The concept of saving by putting institutes

together is not a new one; in fact, the ministry has just gone through

the amalgamation celebration with PVI and BCIT for exactly those

reasons. For the same reasons, one could look at the three universities

and say that we could have one administration, and we could have one

this and one that, and we could do all those things. Indeed I'm advised

that the Universities Council is looking at that.

Obviously, though, on the other hand, one likes to foster the

feeling of rivalry and competitiveness among the universities, and it

may indeed come out that we are better off having three competing

institutions rather than one great centralized one. We'll find out in

due course.

MR. DAVIS: I'll be brief. The member for Coquitlam Moody (Mr.

Rose) made, I think, an important admission — certainly statement —

when he said that we are less than perfect, governments are less than

perfect and universities are less than perfect when it comes to

training, educating and advancing the knowledge of young people in such

a manner that their new-found knowledge will be readily employable. I

think we would do well to devote some real attention to this problem.

We'll not fit everyone into a slot by any means, but I think there

could be much more productive effort in that area, namely trying to

determine the manpower requirements, skilled and otherwise, highly

educated and otherwise, in the province and putting more emphasis on

that kind of education in our post-secondary institutions.

The member also referred to subsidies. When I went to university at

UBC, fees were roughly two-thirds of cost. Today they are more like

one-eighth of cost. When I went overseas I was on a scholarship that

paid the full shot. There was no tax support from citizens of the

United Kingdom in my education abroad. I know that is not the case

generally speaking today; education everywhere is subsidized in some

measure by taxpayers.

But still, I want to get back to this matter of educating foreign

students here. Roughly speaking, we educate three foreign students

nowadays for every student of ours who goes abroad for post-secondary

education. So the balance has changed from our being heavily dependent

on other countries for the post-secondary education of our young

people, to Canada being a major supplier of that kind of support,

education for people internationally.

I think that we should not only cover costs in the case of students

who come here of their own volition, but we should have a scholarship

program, a deliberate one aimed at bringing young people to British

Columbia who are in genuine need, who obviously have talent and ability

and have shown that they are prime candidates for higher education by

scholarship. We should have scholarships. And if we have a foreign

student program that is subsidized, let's put it up front, let's

subsidize those in need from other parts of the world regardless of

where, and do it in such a manner that the taxpayer knows that the

taxpayer is supporting those who could not otherwise afford a higher

education.

This is both a national and a provincial problem, and I think it

could only be a program launched jointly by the federal and provincial

governments. But that's the way to go.

[ Page 7750 ]

If we want to spend $20 million to $40 million a year on the

education of foreign students, we should do it through a scholarship

program, federally and provincially funded, and bring in those in need

rather than, as.... Nowadays, 90 to 95 percent of the foreign

students who come could readily afford to pay full fees, and more. I

know a goodly number who drive Mercedes, who have all manner of

conveniences. They have the ability to pay. If we have a tax-supported

plan, then it should be a scholarship plan and should be aimed at the

needy, not at those who do not need that kind of support.

[11:45]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The member for North Vancouver–Seymour raises

a couple of points which I think bear further discussion. I think

British Columbia, as a participant in our Confederation of Canada, and

also as a participant in the Commonwealth of Nations, has various

levels of responsibility. First, it has a level of responsibility to

its own citizens to ensure that the young people of this province have

adequate access to a first-class educational system. In the larger

context, in the larger role, as a participant in the Commonwealth of

Nations, Canada and British Columbia, as members of that Commonwealth,

also hold a responsibility to broaden the opportunities for obtaining

post-secondary education for other members not so fortunate within the

Commonwealth of Nations.

I attended, as did the present Chairman, a recent conference of the

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the fall. One of the most

interesting debates that took place at that commonwealth conference,

which had representatives from over 50 of the participating nations,

was in fact on post-secondary education and its future in the

Commonwealth. By far the overwhelming feeling or thrust of the argument

in that discussion was the fact that the more fortunate, richer

countries in the Commonwealth, of which Canada and British Columbia are

members, have a responsibility to provide opportunities for the Third

World nations by providing those opportunities to participate in

bringing forward those underdeveloped countries and allowing them to

become fullfledged partners in the modern world. In order to do that we

have to open the doors to education. We have to, if you like, have a

free trade in education throughout the Commonwealth countries. And that

type of system can't be implemented if we're asking those participating

foreign students to pay full fare or to surcharge them — to charge them

even more than would normally be the cost. How can you expect a student

from Zimbabwe or Zambia to pay full fare plus, in order to obtain an

education at one of our local universities? I think that we have a

responsibility as a participant within that Commonwealth of Nations to

assist those less fortunate countries. The direction that the member

suggests is in fact going 180 degrees opposite. We have to open our

doors to those foreign students.

That brings me into another area of debate. Again the member from

North Vancouver has provided an opportunity.... He cited that there

are approximately 4,000 foreign students at our post-secondary

institutions in British Columbia. Now I don't know if that figure is

correct, but I'll take it as it goes. Regardless of the numbers, what

has been happening in the past with the former Minister of Education

was that upon his support the regional colleges throughout this

province began to encourage the enrolment of what we can call

international students or visa students. To give you a specific

example, Okanagan College has developed a fairly aggressive marketing

program for educational opportunities for those international students,

and it's developed that program through the Canadian Bureau for

International Education and the international education fair which

markets annually in Hong Kong. The Vernon campus of Okanagan College,

for example, has about 22 students enrolled in it from countries such

as Lebanon, Hong Kong, China, Denmark, Libya, Spain, Germany — truly an

international assembly of top-notch students.

If we want to look at the dollar value of it.... The minister

earlier suggested that these international students displace our local

students, but that's not the case. That hasn't been proven.

HON. R. FRASER: I didn't say that.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I think you alluded to that, unless I

misunderstood your comment. You suggested that there was a balancing

act, and that certainly gave the implication that one is displacing the

other. But I want to go on record as saying that the available evidence

does not indicate that there is a displacement of local students. More

to the point, each visa student contributes about $11,000 to the local

economy. If you take in the multiplier effect of that money, that's

about $20,000 in annual economic activity, which is about enough to

employ a person for a year. When we look at that aspect of it....

That's one thing. But take it a step further and realize that some of

these students are going to be leaders in their communities, and

international leaders, and it behooves us to bring in these students

and cement personal ties between ourselves and other nations at this

time.

To get to the point now, there is a problem that has developed with

these students when they come into our colleges from other countries.

Although Simon Fraser University and the University of Victoria have

pretty open admission for these students when they transfer from

regional colleges, the University of British Columbia — our largest

university — does not allow the transfer of these international or visa

students coming from either a regional college or high school. The

regulation for international students at UBC — and I'll read the quote

right out of the UBC calendar — states: "International students admitted

on a student authorization to another university or community college

or secondary school in Canada or the United States must obtain the

baccalaureate degree before they obtain permission to transfer to this

university." What does this mean? These students come in from Europe,

or from another country — transferring in at either the high school or

junior college level — they obtain their two years at, for example,

Okanagan College, and then they wish to transfer to a university course

offered at the University of British Columbia. The University of

British Columbia says: "Sorry, we can't admit you until you've got your

bachelor's degree." The student has a choice of trying to find another

university or going back to his native country to obtain his bachelor's

degree. It's a kind of catch-22 situation, because in some cases the

only program available in this province is at the University of British

Columbia. I contacted UBC with regard to this, and the argument was

that the admission of international students is restricted to the

postgraduate level only.

What that does is effectively close the door for further education

for those international students who wish to transfer to the University

of British Columbia. Upon looking at it a little bit further, and the

minister is aware of this because I

[ Page 7751 ]

have written to him previously on it, a critical point that must be

emphasized is that the present policy established by UBC appears to be

in direct contravention of

section 3 of the Human Rights Act.

I will read you a

summary of that act. It says: "No person shall (

a) deny to a person or a class of persons any accommodation, service or

facility customarily available to the public, or (

b) discriminate

against a person or class of persons with respect to any accommodation,

service or facility customarily available to the public, because of

race, color, ancestry, place of origin...."

I have consulted legal counsel on this. International students are

considered persons, and they would be covered under the Human Rights

Act, and it seems that what we have here is a possible contravention by

the University of British Columbia of the Human Rights Act with regard

to these international students.

I would suggest to the minister that UBC should be directed to obey

the law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of the place of

origin. I think its failure to do so is going to lead to a direct

challenge through legal channels. I bring that to the minister's

attention. There are a number of students at Okanagan College, and I

assume there must be a number at other colleges, who have suddenly

found themselves locked out of UBC as a result of this discriminatory

policy.

Perhaps the minister at this time would like to reply.

HON. R. FRASER: A number of interesting points have been

brought up this morning, particularly with respect to foreign students.

I suspect that the two positions of the members we heard from most

recently are very much the same, and that is that we should help those

students who come from countries who are in financial circumstances

that make post-secondary education for themselves more difficult.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has kindly

provided me a paper he developed on a national scholarship program for

foreign students, which I will have sent to my ministry officials for

some comment.

With respect to education as a foreign trade idea, I think you would

agree that that wouldn't work that way. What you did say was that we

would give more, so therefore it wouldn't be a free trade issue in any

way at all. I don't disagree that we as a nation should help people who

are less fortunate than ourselves, and indeed ourselves, but I like to

concentrate on British Columbia students as a personal priority.

When it comes to transferring to the university from colleges,

indeed you did write me a letter, and I did indeed receive it. What we

should remember is that you do not necessarily gain entrance to UBC

because you go to a college; it's not necessarily granted to you. What

you also want to know is that the university admits people from

colleges on a transfer program, subject to whether or not the student

comes from a country where post-secondary educational opportunities

exist. So if you have students from a country where there's a high

order of post-secondary education, transfers might not be permitted.

You have suggested to me that I should step into this particular

activity. What you're asking me to do, then, is to direct the

university to take a certain student. What the government has done so

far, and what the minister wishes to do, is to leave the university

autonomous. I suggest that you would not want me to direct the

operation of the university, although I could do that if we changed the

legislation. I suggest also that you wouldn't want any foreign student

dictating to the university who they would have to take in the way of

students, at the possible expense of students of our own. If there is a

challenge to that, as you point out, then the university will obviously

have to face that when the time comes. In the meantime, I think the

autonomous operation of the university is a priority over the wish of

an individual student who may in fact be able to get his educational

opportunities at home more than adequately. The House resumed; Mr.

Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit

again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright

© 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada