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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 20

[ Page 12249 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Campbell: I'd like the House to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of Mark Dosanjh, a brave young man who passed away on Monday. Mark will be missed by his wife, Balwinda Dosanjh; his 22-month-old daughter, Alisha; and by his parents, Pritam and Nirmal Dosanjh.

Mark developed blood cancer almost a year ago. The community rallied their support behind him, and 2,200 people were tested to find a suitable bone marrow match. None could be found.

Mark was only 26 years old when he died. Mark's bravery during his ten-month fight against this fatal disease inspired an entire community. In the last few weeks of his life, he urged the community to establish a bone marrow registry. This registry is now being established, and Mark's legacy will help to save others who are afflicted with similar life-threatening diseases.

I ask the House to acknowledge the bravery of Mark Dosanjh and the community that has turned this tragedy into an inspiration of hope for hundreds of other families.

The Speaker: I'm sure that acknowledgement is apparent.

Hon. A. Petter: With us today in the gallery I notice Prof. Frank Cassidy from the school of public administration at the University of Victoria. He is also well-known for his expertise in the area of first nations and first nations rights. I ask the House to join me in making him welcome.

K. Jones: Today in the House we have some wonderful guests from Vancouver South, Ed and Kay Novakowski. I'd like the House to give them a true welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: We have two school groups from Coquitlam visiting today: first of all, there are 47 grade 5 to 7 students and their teacher, Mr. Champagne, from Ecole Montgomery Elementary in Coquitlam; and visiting in the gallery at the present time are half of a group of 75 students from Ranch Park Elementary School with their teacher, Mr. Mackenzie. I ask the House to join me in making them all welcome.

In addition to the introduction of Frank Cassidy by the Minister of Forests, I would also like to welcome his friend and colleague Fr. Frank Brennan, who is visiting us from Australia. Father Brennan is a Jesuit priest and lawyer and a very highly regarded consultant on aboriginal issues in Australia. It's been very fine for a number of us to have the opportunity to exchange some of our ideas and experiences. Will you join me in making him welcome.

D. Mitchell: We have with us in the gallery today three visitors from the No Casino Committee in the Vancouver area. Joining us are the chair of the committee, Hart Molthagen, and Gary Jackson and Margot Furk. These are three members of the broad-based committee that is opposed to Las Vegas-style gambling in the city of Vancouver -- or in British Columbia. I hope in the days, weeks and months ahead the government will pay attention to their message.

R. Neufeld: It gives me pleasure today to introduce someone who has been able to visit the Legislature for the first time since the election -- someone I'm very proud to introduce: my mother, Jessie Neufeld, from Clearbrook. Would the House make her welcome.

A. Hagen: Visiting in the precincts today are two representatives from the New Westminster Chamber of Commerce: Doug Walker, its manager, and Dale Kerr, its project coordinator. Along with other members of the House, I welcome them.

H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today my wife, who is accompanied by a longtime family friend, Mr. John Dykshoorn. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.

D. Lovick: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an introduction today, if I might, of some American cousins. Janet Stockton Barnes is well known to all of us in this chamber, I suspect. What isn't so well known is that Janet has been carrying out a personal family reunification program for some time and has apparently had success. She has tracked down three of her second cousins from Lancaster, California, and has brought them up here today so the Speaker can see them in the flesh. Will the House please join me in making welcome Matthew Charles Mahood, Mitchell Allan Mahood and Amy Diane Mahood.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have Olaf and Pearl Mjanes from the Sunshine Coast, and Erva Wennberg and Mildred Ebenstiner from Burnaby-Willingdon. They're all accompanied by my wife, Aileen Randall. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Jones: Touring the precinct today are students from my riding from Fraser Wood Elementary School. There are 45 grade 7 students, their teacher Dan McCafferty and several parents. I'd like the House to make them truly welcome as they visit the wonderful parts of Victoria.

T. Perry: I had no idea the introductions would go on so long, but I can beat all of the ones so far. I've got some guests who are visiting from the great state of Tennessee, which is very close to your own roots, hon. Speaker. I thought the introductions would be over, so I neglected to write down their names. I can't give you their names, but they are two lovely children with a visiting ophthalmologist and his wife. Would the House please join me in making those great Tennesseans welcome.

The Speaker: I would just like to state a ruling. Yesterday the hon. member for Okanagan East rose under standing order 35 to ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House. I have examined the statement which was given to the Chair following the hon. member's application. It is clear that the matter involved is presently before the courts. I quote from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, second edition, page 45: "A sub judice matter cannot be raised on a motion under standing order 35." Accordingly, the hon. member's motion must fail.

Oral Questions

COST OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

G. Campbell: My question is for the Premier. When the Premier and the NDP were in opposition they said it was reprehensible for the Socreds to spend $500,000 on an advertising campaign that was basically political

[ Page 12250 ]

propaganda. Yesterday the Premier informed members of the media and the public that he didn't think it was untoward for the NDP to spend a million dollars on a propaganda campaign for the NDP. Can the Premier tell us why British Columbians should accept this double standard and why British Columbians should believe anything he says tonight, when we clearly can't believe anything he said in the past?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government is proud of the fact that we represent working people and their families, that we represent forest-based communities that want to have a sustainable future, that we are prepared to protect the environment and that we are interested in renewing the forests. Our government has those basic values and goals. I think it's about time the Leader of the Opposition, rather than asking peripheral questions, started to stand for something and to let the people of this province know what he stands for.

ELECTORATE'S TRUST IN GOVERNMENT

G. Campbell: I don't think we have to worry about the opposition standing for things. The fact of the matter is that across this province they know that the opposition stands against a government that condones stealing from charities to support their political ends. Across this province....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Would the hon. member please take his seat.

Hon. members, in the heat of debate sometimes comments are made which may not be intended to impute an improper motive to anyone. Clearly, if the hon. member is suggesting that the government has acted in an improper manner, I would ask him to withdraw.

G. Campbell: I certainly don't believe the government did; their party certainly did. But I'm glad to withdraw the comment or any suggestion that you find offensive, hon. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that across this province, people and families in resource communities are terrified by what this government is doing to them. They are terrified by the policies which contravene the principles this government endorsed. The Premier has said that it is worth spending....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Campbell: The Premier has told the people of British Columbia that he believes he should spend their tax dollars for his political message. Why doesn't the Premier do what's right? Why doesn't he call an election so the people in those communities can decide who will represent them? I will guarantee him that it won't be the NDP.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, the Leader of the Opposition just made two quite astonishing statements. First of all, he said that the people of this province don't have to worry about the Liberal opposition believing in anything. We agree with them; they don't have to worry about it. Under their present leader they have certainly shown they don't believe in anything except manufacturing figures. That's probably the way they would run the budget. God help this province if they ever got in as government! They manufactured a figure of $1 million yesterday. They pulled it out of the air, as they pulled out all the other innuendos and charges that have come to naught.

I am very proud of the Vancouver Island land use plan. It is going to bring stability and certainty to forest workers and their communities, and will renew the forest industry of this province. Putting out information through TV ads and direct appearances is the way we are going to let people know what our government stands for. The people of British Columbia are still waiting for this leader to let them know that he stands for anything.

G. Campbell: The people of British Columbia have known for some time that the opposition stands for 12 percent. The opposition stands for the communities in British Columbia. The opposition stands for including people in decisions that affect their lives. There is not one backbencher here who is speaking up for those communities they are supposed to represent. We will hear that tonight.

Will the Premier -- whose macho posing is supposed to generate excitement among his back bench -- call an election so that we can put to the test who the communities across this province trust to manage the resources of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Not only has the Leader of the Opposition told us what most British Columbians have become aware of -- we don't have to worry about them standing for anything -- he has also predicted the outcome of the next provincial election. He has the arrogance to be predicting victory. I never try to predict what 3.3 million independent British Columbians are going to decide. That's their decision; not ours.

In the next provincial election I will be quite prepared to stand up and show that this government has made British Columbia -- working with the people of the province -- the model for sustainable development, not just in Canada but in this world.

INQUIRY INTO DEATH OF MATTHEW VAUDREUIL

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Social Services. This week at a procedural hearing in the public inquiry into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil, the lawyer representing the Ministry of Social Services attempted to restrict the terms of the Vaudreuil case to that case, and not allow inquiry into the full operations of the ministry. In attempting to limit the scope of the inquiry, was the lawyer working under a directive of the minister?

Hon. J. MacPhail: No. In fact, the ministry was reiterating the terms of reference to which Justice Gove was referred in order to investigate. The terms of reference for his inquiry are very clear: they are to deal with the inquiry into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil.

Far be it from me to suggest that the opposition choose to do their research beyond the Vancouver Province newspaper, but if the opposition had actually chosen to attend the hearing, they would have seen that the Ministry of Social Services representatives were indeed cooperating in the process and ensuring that there was an expeditious hearing -- and that indeed the inquiry actually deals with the terms of reference before it. In fact, there was no disagreement between the commissioner and our ministry representative.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental question?

[ Page 12251 ]

V. Anderson: When information gets out, whether it is accurate or not, it is important that the public understands clearly what it might be.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

V. Anderson: It is important that the minister clearly communicate to the public what the position is. Will the minister confirm that the commissioner has full authority to review all the operations of her ministry needed to review the Vaudreuil case?

Hon. J. MacPhail: In fact, information about the terms of reference for the judicial inquiry by Justice Gove has been made public. They are terms of reference for the inquiry into the death of Matthew Vaudreuil. In fact, I'm not sure.... Well, I am sure, because the hon. member fully participated in the debate of the legislation that was the result of a two-year review -- not a one-month or two-month review, but a full two-year review -- of the Ministry of Social Services. Indeed, his party voted in favour of that legislation.

NANAIMO COMMONWEALTH HOLDING SOCIETY

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Premier. When the Premier goes on BCTV this evening, I'm sure all taxpayers will want to hear a public apology for the $100,000 or so that was pilfered from charities by his good friends in Nanaimo. Will the Premier now commit to formally apologizing on BCTV for his negligence in the charity ripoff that benefited his party, and will he commit at the same time to holding a public inquiry into the sordid Nanaimo Commonwealth charity scam?

The Speaker: Hon. member, there is clearly innuendo with respect to improprieties on the part of the government....

Interjection.

The Speaker: The hon. member's interjection is not appropriate. I think members know that the purpose of question period is to ask ministers about their ministerial responsibilities. These matters do not come clearly under the minister's responsibility.

COST OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

R. Neufeld: I'll try one that maybe the Premier will try to answer. Hopefully the Premier realizes that Vancouver Island isn't the only area of interest in British Columbia when it comes to land use planning. Surely to goodness the Premier isn't planning to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxpayers' money to broadcast similar NDP messages for each and every land use plan. Will the Premier now assure British Columbians that he won't use any more of their money to make similar announcements?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think it's astonishing that the opposition is whining about the government communicating with the citizens of this province, when you look at the millions of dollars that were misused by the previous government. For this member, who is Socred-Reform, to now stand up and haughtily, in a voice of indignation, talk about the legitimate use of a modest investment in informing the people of this province about an important land use decision -- which will not only impact on Vancouver Island but on other areas of this province -- is truly astonishing.

The Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

R. Neufeld: The reply from the Premier is amazing. But obviously his main purpose tonight is to be seen in prime time. If the Premier wanted to go on TV, if he wanted to get his message out to all people on the Island and in British Columbia, certainly he must have realized that there are facilities available here in the Legislature. In fact, Hansard is broadcast...

The Speaker: Order, please. Does the member have a question?

R. Neufeld: ...free of charge. In fact, the Premier should have approached....

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has a question or he can please take his seat. Do you have a question?

R. Neufeld: Yes, I do.

The Speaker: Please put your question, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: I'm just leading into it a little, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: No, hon. member. The question, please.

R. Neufeld: Has the Premier even thought at all about using ministerial statements or about using the TV that broadcasts from here instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of British Columbians' money just to get something in for his election campaign? Has he ever thought about using...

The Speaker: Order, please.

R. Neufeld: ...the facilities in this building?

M. de Jong: Getting back to the issue of advertising, we haven't seen an advertising campaign like this since Slim Whitman proved that you don't have to have any talent to sell a lot of records as long as you're willing to spend a million bucks on advertising. But the difference between Slim and this Premier is that at least Slim took the money out of his own pocket.

The Speaker: The question, please.

M. de Jong: If it wouldn't be too much trouble, Mr. Speaker, maybe Premier Slim could put his guitar down long enough....

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. Would the member please take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, clearly the member for Matsqui is offending standing orders by not asking a question and by using question period to make a speech.

[ Page 12252 ]

Interjection.

The Speaker: I did not hear the question, hon. member. Please repeat it -- but just the question, please.

[2:30]

M. de Jong: How much money that belongs to B.C. taxpayers has this Premier spent and is he going to spend on his NDP election campaign?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The hon. member is aware.... But this opposition, even when they hear the answers, usually like to continue to repeat the questions, because they've run out of gas. They've blown this session under their new leader, so they keep asking the same questions, because they've run out of gas.

I have already said that $55,000 will be invested in the broadcast tonight, and $70,000 will be spent to place ads in papers in places on Vancouver Island that are directly affected by this decision. I'm going to really test this out-of-gas Liberal opposition. I know they have trouble with figures, because they make them up all the time, and they forget the figures they're making up. If you add it up: it's not a million dollars; it's $55,000 plus $70,000. The people of British Columbia just added it up in their heads, but I'd like to see how many of you can actually do it. Take pen to paper and try it out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I was attempting to advise the Clerk that I would like to extend question period one minute to allow the hon. member who has been seeking the floor.... Unfortunately, there have been more than the usual number of interruptions necessitating intervention by the Chair, due to members' behaviour. I would like to recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, who has been seeking the floor.

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate that courtesy. I only hope we can tighten up on question period in the future to allow more questions, and meaningful questions.

I have a question for the Premier. Earlier this week, when the federal report on the GST recommended scrapping the GST and replacing it with a new tax, and recommended that the tax be harmonized with provincial sales taxes across the land, the Premier indicated that the government of British Columbia didn't really have a position on this issue. Will the Premier, after a couple of days' consideration, indicate whether or not the province of British Columbia is in favour of that kind of harmonization? I understand that if that recommendation is implemented, it may cost consumers in British Columbia up to a billion extra dollars out of their pockets.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's good to finally get a decent question from the opposition. As I said when I was asked about this yesterday, this is simply a report of a parliamentary committee, which the government tabled and then escaped out into the ether of summer vacation. They have dropped it into the laps of Canadians to read at their leisure, at their summer cottages or on the beach.

I have said all along, as has my Minister of Finance, that we want to address the issue of the GST and reforming that tax as part of a broader look at federal-provincial financial relationships, including the tax dump from Ottawa this year to the tune of $2.6 billion in extra health, education, social services and other costs. We want to look at streamlining the duplication of federal-provincial jurisdictions -- about 13 to 15 of them -- and cutting out waste and inefficiency. We want to look at the income security measures that are being contemplated by the federal government.

There's a range of federal-provincial measures that we are looking at with the federal government, including the GST. When the government finally stops testing the waters on their commitment to get rid of the GST, we will sit down and look at all those issues together. Thank you, hon. member.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan West rises on what matter?

C. Serwa: On a point of order. I'd just like to point out that if members paid attention to standing order 47A, I think we would have a more satisfactory question period. I would further advise that private members' statements are on Friday morning.

The Speaker: The hon. member's point of order is well taken.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I wish to table two reports from the Waste Reduction Commission, one on soils and hazardous wastes and the other on biomedical wastes.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the 1993-94 annual report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia and the twenty-second annual report of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act of British Columbia, January 1 to December 31, 1993.

Hon. A. Petter tabled the audited financial statements of the Provincial Capital Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 43.

FISHING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 43; D. Lovick in the chair.

section 1.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment standing on the order paper under my name with respect to

section 1.

[SECTION 1, in the proposed definition of "employer" by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (

a) and by adding the following paragraph:

(a.1) a person who provides as remuneration a share or portion of the proceeds of a fishing venture, and .]

On the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to ask the minister what the effect of these amendments will be. My understanding is that they're to clarify what exactly an employer is. There was some discussion earlier on. Perhaps he can walk us through it and give us a brief justification for that amendment.

[ Page 12253 ]

Hon. D. Miller: As a result of the previous consultation, on the recommendation of the committee of special advisers, by Stephen Kelleher, and subsequently the initial tabling of the bill in the House, a kind of further consultation took place. We received advice -- actually not from someone in the ministry but from a university faculty member who specializes in these matters -- that the definition needed the addition that's being proposed in the amendment.

The intent of the bill is to allow persons involved in this co-venture relationship with the vessel owner the option of accessing certification under the code. And even though it may be unlikely that that would happen, this amendment has been introduced to address a suggestion that the language of the bill does not achieve this purpose. The current definition of employer talks about an employment relationship which does not exist because of the co-venture status of the two parties. So that's the explanation that we received, and we followed that advice.

W. Hurd: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I've been advised that I have in the precincts a group of 25 grade 7 students from White Rock Elementary School in my riding, accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Huang. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Wilson: This definition of employer through the removal of "and" in the amendment suggests -- and I think the minister just clarified it, at least in part -- that (

a) and (

b) are freed from being conjoined in some way. The concern I have, in light of the definition of fish, is with respect to subsection (

a) and "a person who purchases fish from a commercial fisher." My concern is with respect to purchases of shellfish, in particular, as there's widespread shellfish harvesting, which presumably is now going to fall under the same definition as the landing of fish. If that's correct, could the minister tell me so?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, potentially that is true. I have never been aware of any activity in that area of the fishing industry, but potentially it is true. It's the definition of the relationship between employee and employer that this

section seeks to capture.

G. Wilson: There may be a better

section to pick this up in the act than here, but it needs to be pointed out that in terms of the purchasing of shellfish, there are a number of independent buyers who couldn't or wouldn't, under any other circumstances, be seen as an employer for status. They purchase from a commercial operation, but they are simply there to act as a conduit through which that is sold directly into the retail market in some instances, and often on a relatively small scale.

The scale of operation of a lot of shellfish operations on the coast is vital to a lot of small communities, as the minister will well know, coming from a coastal community. This might create a complication in relation to other sections of the act as it applies to "employer." I wonder if that has been given some thought. If it hasn't, I think it needs to be.

Hon. D. Miller: The first subsection under "employer" is "(

a) a person who purchases fish from a commercial fisher." The language here is intended to be used in the event that.... Let's use your example of a group of shellfish harvesters deciding to form together. First of all, they would have to get the required sign-up; then they would have to apply to the board. There would obviously be some determination about an appropriate bargaining unit. They would then seek to negotiate with their employer. In the case that's captured under subsection (a), that definition is very simple. It is the person who purchases their product.

Normally, one would say the person who purchases their labour, but in the case of the bill we are dealing with we recognize that it's the sale of the product.

R. Chisholm: I just want clarification, hon. minister, as this amendment covers the aquaculture industry too. Does it relate to that the same as to shellfish and the commercial fishery as we know it?

Hon. D. Miller: Hypothetically, I suppose, but I would say they are already covered. In aquaculture, let's say a fish farm operation is already covered under the existing Labour Relations Code.... Employees of a company that engage in that business have the right under the current Labour Relations Code to follow the normal procedures -- apply for certification, etc. It's probably a more defined employer-employee relationship than what we're dealing with here.

[2:45]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am going to anticipate the minister's amendment to

section 5.1 a bit. I can probably speak to it at that point, but I'd like to speak to it here too. One of the items I raised in second reading debate -- something that I heard in my discussions with the fishers' union, some of the employer organizations and other groups -- was that of successorship rights as they are provided in the code. I am very pleased to see that the minister communicated with those people also, and that a change is about to come forward.

There was another issue I mentioned in second reading, which I note the minister has not brought forward. It is the secondary boycott provision, which is something that could cause pretty substantial disruption in the industry, given that there are not huge quantities of processors to purchase fish from people. Compared to other industries, there is a relatively limited number of big buyers to purchase the supplies -- in this case, the fish.

My concern is that if the union were to negotiate a secondary boycott provision in a contract with a processor, there would be a substantial effect on a vast number of other people who supply that processor but aren't part of the trade union. In many cases the trade union is a small portion of all the suppliers who go to that processor. That was another amendment I was hoping to see in this code to stop that type of thing from happening. Those individual suppliers and their employees should be able to determine on their own whether they want to be part of the trade union. That should not be imposed from above due to a secondary boycott provision negotiated in one collective agreement.

Hon. D. Miller: I realize that issue was raised, and I have given consideration to the issue. It's my view that we should

[ Page 12254 ]

not attempt in this bill to remove fishers from access to that provision of the code.

The likelihood of the scenario that the member describes could happen right now. There's certainly nothing to restrict the union -- in this case it's fairly predominant in the field -- from attempting to negotiate or even successfully negotiating that. Nor is there anything to prevent individuals from attempting to pursue issues of secondary boycotts. The compelling difference is that currently, in the absence of access to the Labour Relations Code, there really is some question about where those kinds of disputes can be resolved. Presumably the courts are the venue.

Under the provisions of this bill, which provide access to the Labour Relations Code, the LRB itself would be there to resolve those issues. Clearly they have much more expertise and can move very quickly. In that sense I think it's preferable to allow the provisions of the code to apply in the kinds of situations the member described.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure the minister is aware, but I want to refresh his memory and that of others who are participating in this debate, that there is nothing in the Labour Relations Code that prohibits secondary boycotts. That was taken out during the revisions that took place in 1992.

I'm not looking for the granting of an application of a clause that exists in the Labour Relations Code to the fisheries. It is the granting of a privilege that exists anyway, and the government has restricted a portion of it with Bill 84. The provision exists; what I was hoping for was an understanding of the unique situation that exists in the fishing industry, where there are a large number of small independent suppliers.

The possibility is that a small arrangement could be made between the union and the people they represent and a large processor that would exclude all other fishers from supplying to that producer unless they became part of the trade union. In this case that would be very difficult. It would essentially do just what the government has always said they're not trying to do with secondary boycotts, which is to force top-down organizing and almost, if you will, sectoral bargaining or sectoral certification in that region. It could cause some major disruptions. It's important to deal with that.

I would hate to see a situation where that type of clause was included in a collective agreement because of strong leverage being applied by a union in a certain economic climate in the fisheries and using that clout to gain that clause and then having that certification forced on all the other suppliers to that producer. It would be a negative impact, very disruptive and would certainly violate the rights of those other fishers to determine for themselves what they'd like to do.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll just take a few minutes to try to answer in a fairly comprehensive way. I said at second reading, and I'll repeat here and repeat publicly as well, that it's my considered opinion that this bill will not cause disruption in the industry. I've talked to a lot of people now. In fact, I think there are some meetings taking place today between the UF and the processors, and I think people are starting to deal with the fact of the bill.

But let me say a couple of things. First, although there are secondary boycotts allowed under the Labour Relations Code, the LRB has clearly, in a declaratory opinion, said that they cannot be used for the purposes of organizing. In other words, they can be used for the purposes of protecting the work, if you like, but not to force organizing or force unionization, and that's important. Again, I go back to what I said in response to the last question.

I think it's preferable to have access to resolving disputes that might arise around these issues with the LRB, which has expertise and clearly has signalled with the opinion that I just referred to that they would not look favourably upon a boycott that was intended to produce that consequence.

Second, the shore-work plants in many instances are currently unionized, and we don't find any incidence of the kind of behaviour that the member is talking about.

Third, I must say from my own experience in talking to people in the industry that the nature of the industry has changed to some degree, and we are finding -- and I think it's a positive move -- the emergence of many more buyers.

My experience really goes back to the early seventies. Latterly, with the difficulties being experienced by the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative, one of the principal issues for fish plants is the requirement that they have the ability to know that a certain volume of fish will be delivered to their plant. In fact, what it's done, quite frankly -- and I think this is good for the fishers themselves -- is increase the opportunity for competition, thereby giving fishers much more flexibility with respect to where they sell their product. That's a healthy situation, one that I hope would continue and that I think would also mitigate the circumstances that the member outlines.

But I certainly appreciate the concerns that have been raised there. I am satisfied, however, that it would, in some sense, be even more chaotic if we were to remove access to the code with respect to these matters.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess the best I'm going to get is to refer myself back to the minister's comments at the opening of second reading debate, when he said that the intention of this bill is not to force workers to unionize against their will. I give some credence to that.

Also, the minister commented that it has been demonstrated by the Labour Relations Board that they are not about to allow secondary boycotts to be used as a means for certification or for organizing. I would like to see it in legislation; the minister would not. We disagree on that point, and I guess we can leave it at that. I think it would be good to state it.

One never knows the changes that can ravage an industry and make what wasn't a problem at one time into a problem. There have certainly been a number of cases, one as late as last evening, where the government has gone out of its way to state something that most people would consider obvious and put it into legislation. This would be an example, I think, where that approach would be well used. I would like to see it there; the minister doesn't, and that's fine. I think he knows where I stand, and I know where he stands. I just hope that it won't be used, and we won't end up with that situation.

I think it would be a tragedy for those workers who don't have an option and have to choose between work or being a member of a union that they may or may not wish to be part of. It's up to them to decide -- not just to decide, but to decide freely -- what they wish to do free from duress. I would like to see it in legislation. The minister doesn't, and that's where we differ.

Section 5 approved.

section 5.1.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[ Page 12255 ]

[SECTION 5.1, the following

section is added:

Successor rights

5.1

Section 35 of the Code does not apply with respect to the sale of a fishing vessel.]

The

section is very simple. It simply says that where a vessel is sold,

section 35 of the Labour Relations Code, which deals with successor rights, does not apply. It reflects the concern that was expressed to my staff and me from the various sectors in the industry about what is common practice. I have also talked to people on the union side, and they have confirmed that this does reflect common practice. I believe that there's common agreement; in fact, I think some will be quite pleased with the amendment, which removes that access. I will leave my comments at that.

On the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: I too am glad to see this amendment come forward. It is one that I was pushing for in second reading debate. I, like the minister, found some willingness -- in fact, some eagerness -- on both sides to have that

section of the Labour Relations Code excluded from this.

There is a different system set up in the fishing industry. When one purchases a boat, the crew tends to go with the boat. To have a certification and seniority rights attached to the various boats would be very disruptive -- and not just in the general commercial fisheries. The Native Brotherhood certainly brought to our attention the way they set up their crews on boats, and the way the family is set up.

I think this is a good change. I don't think it is going to cause any sort of difficulty for the union in doing what it wants to do -- which is, of course, to expand. It's a wise amendment that the minister has brought forward. I think it will stop a lot of problems, disruption, difficulties and animosity that could have happened. I'm glad to see it, and I'm glad it's there. I give full credit to both sides of the debate in this House, if we can say that, and certainly to the general industry for dealing with that issue and coming to some conclusion that will, I think, end up in a positive change and head off a problem that could have come in somewhere down the line.

Amendment approved.

Section 5.1 as amended approved.

section 6.

Hon. D. Miller: A question was raised in second reading about

interpretation. The

section really is there to make it clear that it is recognized that there are two major price bargainings that take place -- one on herring and one on salmon -- and even though an agreement may exist in one, it does not prevent a disagreement in the other area. In other words, one doesn't provide a blanket over the whole thing. That's really the intent of this

section -- for members who raised it during second reading.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

G. Farrell-Collins: I raised an issue in second reading on

section 8, which deals with the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit. I have, essentially, two concerns with the way this

section is worded, and one is, I suppose, principle-oriented. If the Chair will let me get away with it for a minute, I would like to touch on that.

I feel it will be good for the government to give some guidance, in legislation, to the Labour Relations Board as to what those bargaining units are going to look like. I think it's going to be a difficult transition for them. I don't know that there's a great deal of experience or base of knowledge on the Labour Relations Board in dealing with the fishing industry. I hope that the minister is going to correct that in an unbiased and neutral way -- rather than the appointment of Mr. Brown, which caused some kerfuffle to the board, industry and labour in general in the past.

[3:00]

I would like to see some more certainty to the appropriateness of bargaining units. I think there's a risk and a concern in the industry that that bargaining unit may be determined primarily around.... I think the last sentence of the

section is the one that they are a little nervous about. There may be fairly broad

interpretations of what a bargaining unit is -- a very broad, inclusive

interpretation of the appropriate bargaining unit -- that could cause some problems, which would amount to a sectoral certification, although somewhat segmented, within those aspects of the industry. I would like to seek some assurance from the minister that that's certainly not the government's intent, and that it will let the Labour Relations Board determine that -- keeping in mind that we're not looking at sectoral certification and that they should be dealing with it in a more restrictive, as opposed to expansive, way.

Hon. D. Miller: I should say at the outset that I don't wish to stray too much beyond the wording of the

section into comments that might prejudice any

interpretation the board might offer with respect to an appropriate bargaining unit. Clearly, we have felt in the bill that there should be greater direction than is ordinarily provided to the board in reaching a determination. We have broadly stated some direction with respect to what reflects the current practice -- in other words, bargaining over the prices for a particular species, and over prices that are obtained by different gear types.

Beyond that, I think it would be imprudent of me to go too much farther. I think the member made a good suggestion with respect to being prepared to add members to the board who have a particular expertise in the area, although I would remind members that there is a long history of bargaining in this province on the shore side. Nonetheless, those people -- either on the union side or the company side -- also deal with the fisheries end.

So there are people who have been involved in labour relations in the province who have a wealth of experience. Certainly we would look to ensure that the board has the advantage of that experience. As I say, I don't really want to intrude beyond the language of the bill into areas that are more properly the purview of the board. I think it would be quite wrong of me.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know that the minister has received a letter with regard to

section 8, because I received a copy of it -- and I know he knows that I received a copy of it. It's from a gentleman who wishes to remain, if not anonymous, at least independent. To be honest, I'm not clear on the argument that he's making. Perhaps I can ask the minister to impart information to me from the staff he has with him.

The last part of

section 8 -- indeed, after the last comma -- says: "...fishing industry have taken place in the past, including such matters as whether negotiations have taken place based on fish species and gear type." I'm advised that no bargaining unit has ever been certified based on fish species and gear type. Is that correct? If it is, why do we have this here? Could it be worded differently? If it's not correct, perhaps the minster could advise me.

[ Page 12256 ]

Hon. D. Miller: There have not been previously -- obviously, because we have not had legislation applications so that the board could deal with these issues. But broadly stated -- and I'll use salmon as one example -- fish are caught primarily by three types of vessels, and typically, you'll find quite a variance in price according to how the fish are caught and the species -- of salmon, obviously.

So again, I really think it is far more prudent of me to resist trying to add further definition. I appreciate the member's concern, and I appreciate that concerns have been expressed by sectors of the industry, but I think we have -- untypically, in fact -- offered some direction to the board with respect to any applications that may be made.

G. Farrell-Collins: I guess my

interpretation of this section, then, is that if that type of collective agreement or bargaining has never taken place in the past, the fact that that's stated clearly is an indication to some extent to the board to recognize that fact when determining the appropriateness of a bargaining unit. Therefore getting back to the board to let them know quite clearly that it's something they should take into consideration when they're determining whether it's an appropriate bargaining unit is almost like a double negative. I guess I'll leave it at that.

D. Symons: Coming from that great historical fishing place of Richmond, we have a great interest in what happens in the fishing industry there. I have some concerns with this

section when it mentions gear. Quite often a boat that's outfitted for gill-netting can come in when that season closes and change over to do some trolling. From the answers you've given, when it says "gear," I think the implication could be that this certified bargaining unit could be a gill-net bargaining unit or a trolling unit. What's going to happen, then, to the crew of that particular boat if the boat is changed over? Is this going to be in the purview of the Labour Relations Board, where they can end up making a sort of joint bargaining unit? Or will they indeed have to recertify with a different union in those circumstances?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll try to give some broadly stated response, recognizing the member's concern. Let's say hypothetically that there had been a certification with a single-gear type, and the vessel was capable of converting to a different gear type. Presumably, when that took place they would not be involved in a certified unit. That's very hypothetical.

Again, the wording of the

section is really saying that the board must consider -- in addition to other matters it considers relevant -- the manner in which negotiations in the fishing industry have taken place in the past. It really compels the board to look at the industry rather than draw conclusions on their own. It requires the board to examine the relationships in the industry and to formulate their directives and opinions based on what has been the practice. It's good that we offer that additional directive.

D. Symons: Just one further question, because of my concern about looking at past practices. The past practices in this case would not be covered by the Labour Relations Code, because generally the people on the water have not been a unionized industry. The shoreworkers certainly have been. "Past practices" does not mean negotiated labour practices; it just means what has been common practice on the water. Is that the

interpretation you're giving to past practices?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, but I would add that there has been a very long history of labour negotiations on the water -- albeit on a voluntary basis. Nonetheless, it has been taking place.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a brief question, and then I believe the member for Chilliwack does also. This

section states: "The board has exclusive jurisdiction to decide a question arising under this Act, including jurisdiction to decide (

a) that a person may be an employee for some purposes and an employer for other purposes...." I'm concerned. When I met with the fisheries union, I brought to their attention that in that case there may well be conflict with their constitution regarding membership. I don't know if the minister has explored that with them, or if our amendment to

section 1 has clarified that sufficiently. But I'd like to hear what the minister has to say. Perhaps there is no conflict, but I drew that to the union president's attention as something he may want to look at. I don't know if that's been done or been communicated to the minister or not. I'm just concerned that you will have a constitution for the union that sets out what the requirements are to be a member, and that this may conflict with what the Labour Relations Board may decide under 13(a). So perhaps the minister can explore that a little.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I am aware of the constitution. I'm aware of the practice where certain members -- or certain boats, quite frankly -- are excluded. Nonetheless, the

section is relevant. The board ultimately determines who is an employee. It is possible, in some instances, for an individual to be, at some point and at some times, an employee under the act in terms of negotiations on prices but an employer with respect to the relationship with other members of the vessel. Those determinations would have to be made by the board, notwithstanding practice or, indeed, the constitution. If the constitution is maintained -- and I suspect it will be -- it's an issue that probably won't arise. The fundamental principle is that the board needs to make that determination of status at any given time.

G. Farrell-Collins: I just want the minister to clarify that the board may well make that decision. Is it then incumbent upon the union to provide that individual with membership -- they may be in no man's land, in the middle -- or could they be denied membership, contrary to the ruling of the Labour Relations Board?

Hon. D. Miller: As with rulings that have been made by the board on this matter, there have been other cases; it's actually fairly common. A union typically applies to the board to determine, where the company says an individual is not a member of the bargaining unit, whether or not they are in fact a member. Where that ruling is that the employee is a member of the bargaining unit, clearly the union has an obligation to accommodate that person.

R. Chisholm: The last question I have is about the Labour Relations Board. Seeing that the Labour Relations Board doesn't have very much expertise in this area, before they get up to speed, will they be bringing in experts to sit on the board or advise them before they make these decisions? How

[ Page 12257 ]

will this be put in place to assist this bill and help the industry?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe Hansard will show that I responded to the questions in the affirmative. I did consider the request from my hon. critic to consider the addition of individuals with expertise if that is required. I would say that there are some people who do have expertise.

Section 13 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Miller: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; D. Lovick in the chair.

Bill 43, Fishing Collective Bargaining Act, reported complete with amendments.

Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. D. Miller: Now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 43, Fishing Collective Bargaining Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Miller: I call Committee of Supply B, the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.

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

[3:15]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR

(continued)

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

Hon. D. Miller: I would like to lead with a response to a question asked by the member for Okanagan-Vernon. I was asked yesterday about the issue of adult basic education and its delivery in the Okanagan College region, and whether my ministry played a role with the college in determining which communities offered those courses. I answered that I suspected that we did not. I can now confirm that that decision is one the university college makes.

To add to that, I can advise the member that the funding for ABE has been increased in this budget from $1.9 million and 419 FTEs last year to $2 million in this fiscal year with 440 FTEs. So we have provided for a relatively modest increase in the amount of money and full-time-equivalents in adult basic education. I hope that satisfies the member's question.

L. Reid: I have a series of questions on tuition and the loan repayment

schedule that we were debating yesterday afternoon. I don't intend to belabour the point, but as critic for this portfolio, a number of students have come to me in the last number of months wondering if the ministry's policy is changing in some respects. They speak specifically of those applications being handled in one central location. I believe that starting in the fall of 1993, student loan applications were to be processed through one location. I am questioning the increased administrative costs of that processing. Has it been advantageous to centralize that process?

Hon. D. Miller: I may get further information with respect to the absolute administrative costs, but I think there is a savings. We did canvass the issue somewhat yesterday, but more on the issue of student debt loads and collections. I think the simplification, if you like, has improved the situation. There is less paperwork, and that would suggest a less onerous administrative burden and a more efficient turnaround with respect to students who have applied for loans. My information is that we have improved our delivery in both aspects.

L. Reid: Page 12 of your ministry annual report, which was just released, looks at a $2 million increase in administrative costs in your ministry. I appreciate that the minister may be able to provide further information, but it certainly suggests that there is a $2 million increase in administration for the centralization of processing for those applications. Could the minister comment?

Hon. D. Miller: A comparison of the restated estimates for '93-94 with the estimates for this year indicates no increase whatsoever in the.... Oh, sorry, I may be misleading the member. In the total dollar figure, and given the additional $2 million that we've allocated to student financial assistance, I suspect the administrative cost on a comparative basis is equivalent or less than it was last year.

Looking across the ministry budget, we see an increase in some areas -- for example: program management, an increase in administrative costs of 0.9 percent; educational institutes and organizations, 3.4 percent -- but that's the budget increase; and some increase on the debt-servicing cost. But there's really not a significant increase at all across the administrative side, except for the new FTEs.

I wonder, hon. Chair, whether the members on this side of the House might carry their conversation somewhere else.

The Chair: Thank you, minister, you are absolutely right. Could I ask members who are chatting in the background to please keep the volume of their conversation to a barely discernible level?

L. Reid: I trust I heard the answer, so I'm going to assume that I did and ask the minister to confirm that there was some evaluation of the cost savings from centralizing that process. I was suggesting that there seemed to be an additional $2 million being spent on that process. Could the minister confirm that some kind of cost-benefit analysis occurred around that decision that justified the $2 million increase?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, indeed. Our target, of course -- like all government targets, under edict from the Premier -- is to seek efficiencies. What I'm pleased about, of course, is not only efficiencies we may have gained internally but efficiencies in terms of service delivery. That's the goal, and that will always be the goal of the ministry.

There are a number of other questions relative to student financial assistance, of course. I think, perhaps, we're looking at a changing world, depending on what direction the federal government may proceed in.

[ Page 12258 ]

L. Reid: In the fall of 1993, it has been suggested there was a four- to six-month waiting list for the processing of student loan applications. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on whether there continues to be a waiting list within the ministry, and what that might be.

Hon. D. Miller: The nature of the service is such that once students have entered university or college and received or not received their application for a student loan, any waiting lists disappear and then presumably may recur in the fall when students once again go back to university.

There were some difficulties last year in processing. I believe there were people who had already started their respective classes at college or university but had not been notified as to whether they'd been awarded their grants or student loans. The ministry worked with the institutions to bridge that uncertain period of time. That has all been resolved. At this point I can't tell you how many students were involved; I don't think it was a huge number. But where students were caught in that kind of position because of our administrative failure, we worked with theinstitutions, and I think we took care of everybody.

L. Reid: That's exactly my point: there was a difficulty a year ago. My question today is: has the difficulty been remedied? Is anybody currently waiting? Or do you anticipate taking care of the processing of those applications for the fall semester?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. This sounds like an excuse, quite frankly, but computer problems caused that issue last year, and they have since been rectified.

L. Reid: My thanks to the minister. I know he can appreciate that the students who come before him as an MLA are the ones who are having difficulty making the system work for them. If there are any ways we can improve the system, I'm happy to be part of that discussion.

I understand from yesterday's debate that a number of issues around repayment of student loans have been canvassed. I understand, as well, that there seem to be some glitches between the federal and provincial situation in terms of where those dollars go. I'm wondering if the ministry has plans to track more efficiently students who are not currently paying. I understand that we had the discussion yesterday around economic circumstances, the inability to seek employment and all of those issues. I don't disagree with the minister; they are factors in the discussion.

But if we're talking about streamlining a process and making the system more efficient, what ideas does the minister have for tracking those students who have outstanding loans? What tracking system would the minister commit to and hopefully allow to improve the scenario?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we did canvass that, and there are a variety of things we can do. I think that, working with the institutions, there could be an improvement in the financial counselling that takes place so that students are perhaps more fully aware of their responsibilities. There is some suggestion, advanced by the member for Prince George-Omineca, that the lending agencies themselves perhaps need to have a stake in the collection.

It may be the case that, in order to reduce the loans that are not quite in default in particular branches -- in other words, where repayment has not started -- it's all too easy for the lender to ship that into the ministry and for the ministry.... Obviously, a requirement for the ministry is to ship it over to the loan administration branch in the Ministry of Finance. In other words, the suggestion is to bring the lender into play, if you like, or give them a bit of a stake in terms of collection.

It's also been suggested that maybe there should be more flexibility on the part of the lender to consider more flexible repayment schedules, and that might in fact do something about it.

We are concerned about the issue. The member for Prince George-Omineca has quite properly raised it as one that we should continue to watch. When we lend out the public's money we must make every effort, from a system point of view, to ensure that that money is repaid, and we will continue to do that.

[R. Neufeld in the chair.]

L. Reid: I would ask the minister to kindly draw his attention to page 35 of the ministry annual report. There's a graph that I believe is somewhat misleading; it certainly seems to suggest that more people than ever are defaulting on student loans. I'm not convinced that that's a fact. Indeed, my research tells me that the ministry, in conjunction with a number of other agencies, is getting a handle on it. I'm wondering if the minister could comment.

[3:30]

Hon. D. Miller: There has certainly been an increase in the money that is.... Again, I hesitate to overuse the term "default." Where a regular repayment

schedule has not been started, the amount has increased to about $64 million or $65 million, I believe. That's on the books. That's about 14,000 individual loans, so clearly there has been an increase. I suggested that it did have some relationship to the ups and downs of the economy.

Nonetheless, I think it's fundamentally important that we provide access for students in this province and that we not waver in that respect. I was pleased to add money for student financial assistance, because it is very tough for students. I think it pays off in the end in terms of having trained people in our economy, but we must and will be vigilant in trying to ensure that repayment does take place and that people don't develop an attitude that suggests: "I don't really have to worry about this loan because, after all, it's for education.

Perhaps I don't have to treat it as seriously as a loan I might take out for a car or some other purpose." We'll treat it in that manner, but we'll continue to try to provide a good level of service so that students can access our post-secondary systems.

L. Reid: I would concur with the minister's comments. I think the majority of graduates today have a strong desire to repay their loans, become employable and make some kind of taxable contribution. All those things are part and parcel of what your typical graduate expects to do as a member of the workforce.

My specific question relates to a particular example. It takes a look at a regulation from the ministry in terms of employable hours that are needed to make one eligible for a student loan. Failing that, if one is not able to acquire X number of employable hours, there was a regulation suggesting that a certain number of community service hours must be put in to allow them to be eligible. It seems that for a four-month window last year there was a change in the number of hours required. It was originally 360 hours, and then for a very short time it went to 500 hours.

A number of individuals were basically caught in that window of opportunity, where they had exceeded the 360 hours that would make them eligible for loan remission at a future date.

[ Page 12259 ]

But when the regulation changed, for whatever reason they weren't aware of the change, and they now find themselves having less than 500 hours. I'm wondering if the minister has addressed that and if the minister could perhaps comment.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the scenario. I assume that the member is aware that we have a pamphlet available for students and that the change from 360 to 500 hours may have captured some.

I sign a great deal of letters that have been written to me as the minister, for which I clearly require the technical expertise of my staff to analyze and provide me with an appropriate response. It is actually a very heavy part of the mail I get as the minister. I can assure you that my staff, I think, are sensitive to the position that students find themselves in. After going through the total education system and looking at some areas where those kinds of situations arise, they're quite prepared to review that and make adjustments. So if individuals are having difficulties, I would encourage you to advise them to contact my office or my ministry to see if we can do something.

L. Reid: I will take the minister up on his offer. For the record, the individual in question today is Anne Dorval, and the letter is dated May 26, 1994. It says: "Your personal responsibility appeal has now been reviewed by this office, and I regret to inform you that your appeal has been denied as you did not meet the minimum of 560 eligible hours required to satisfy the personal responsibility criteria." If I heard the minister say that he is willing to take a look at this and revisit it for that short window of opportunity, that would answer a number of my questions this afternoon.

Hon. D. Miller: I am prepared to review it, but I want to say that there is some difficulty -- while I'm always open to review -- in doing casework across the floor here. There may be other circumstances that the letter does not reflect and that I'm unaware of, given the volume I deal with. So I don't want to stand here and be accused of making false promises. There may be circumstances that completely justified the letter that was sent to that individual, and upon review, that might be the case. Nonetheless I am prepared, and my staff are prepared, to look at these kinds of situations.

L. Reid: Again, my thanks to the minister. I am not asking for a definitive decision today; I am simply asking for a commitment to revisit this decision, and I believe I have received that.

One of the other issues I want to touch on this afternoon is the interest period for the repayment of student loans. Previously the six-month grace period did not have an interest attachment to it, if you will. Students were not required to begin paying until they had been out of the institution for six months. The change that a number of students have come to me with is that they are now required to pay interest on the six-month grace period. Does your ministry have a comment on that, and are you finding favour or disfavour with that new decision?

Hon. D. Miller: We are very much tied in with the federal program, which is a loan program. As I indicated previously, although they've raised their weekly maximums, what they've done is to increase the amount of student debt. That provision was instituted by the feds, and it stands.

I don't know what kind of money we're talking in terms of the total loan an individual might acquire. We do, of course, write off loans over a maximum. Our system in British Columbia is one that is intended to limit the absolute debt that a student might accumulate over the period of acquiring their education. In that respect, I think it's reasonable.

We have increased the debt threshold from the $15,000 to $17,000 for a first degree. But given the price of most things these days, I would think that the ability to have your education financed through a combination of CSL and B.C. student financial assistance over a four-year period, and to emerge from that with a debt load of $17,000, with some flexibility on repayment, is, quite frankly, not that bad a deal. Everything is relative. It would be nice if we had a system where students came out with absolutely no debt, but I think the system is reasonable.

We've had to increase the maximums just a touch, but the member will appreciate that that allows us to spread the money we do have a little farther.

L. Reid: I was simply interested in the ministry's position on that point. Did you favour the interest attachment, or did you protest to the federal government that the interest should not begin prior to the six months having elapsed?

Hon. D. Miller: There is nobody here who can advise me with respect to whether or not we did challenge it. However, we want a program that is responsive to the needs of the students, and again, there's a cost. If the interest is not payable until six months -- in other words, until the payment

schedule begins -- then clearly there's an additional cost in that the interest has to be carried by the organization that lends the money. It is a federal policy, it is federally driven and it's in place.

L. Reid: In terms of the tuition freeze, if you read the annual reports, there is certainly great self-congratulation for freezing domestic tuition rates of post-secondary institutions in the 1992-93 school year. However, according to your own ministry records, student financial assistance program funding went down by $5.8 million between 1991 and 1992. What is the justification for freezing tuition when in fact student assistance has gone down? How do those two conflicting views mesh in the mind of the minister?

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps the member might illustrate the numbers she's using to arrive at that $5.8 million? What are those figures derived from?

L. Reid: There's a dramatic difference comparing the ministry's annual report for '91-92 with the one for '92-93. I will allow the minister to check the report.

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps the member wouldn't mind.... I'm not certain I agree with her contention that there has been a decline, but I want to be absolutely certain, so I've asked my director of finance to do a very quick analysis and come back to me with a response. If we can leave that just for now, I'd be happy to come back with an answer.

L. Reid: My thanks to the minister.

There have been enough discussions by this government about supporting women in the workforce and child care initiatives. I'm wondering if the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour has specific programs for women in the workforce concerning tuition repayment. It seems that when women gain reasonable employment, they sometimes have more difficulty repaying loans because they are earning fewer dollars. Are there special programs or interesting

[ Page 12260 ]

interventions that the minister is prepared to look at in acknowledging that those differences exist today?

Hon. D. Miller: It's a very difficult field. The answer is no, we don't discriminate -- if I can use that word -- on the basis of gender, nor do we have any programs that particularly recognize the fact that generally women in our society may be in less advantageous circumstances economically than men. I think the member will appreciate why we don't do that. Along with my colleague the Minister of Women's Equality, we do attempt to deal with the issue of child care. I've been to several campuses at the college level where I've seen some very good child care spaces, and there are more being constructed. That certainly breaks down the barriers that exist for some women.

[3:45]

We'll continue to advance the equity issues, as I call them. There are clearly people in our society who, for whatever reason, have greater barriers to access than others. We recognize that with respect to gender, and we recognize that with respect to individuals with disabilities and aboriginal people. We'll continue to do that, because society really only advances when those who are least able also have the opportunities of those who are most able.

L. Reid: I do appreciate the minister's comments. I too have been in dialogue with the Ministry of Women's Equality on some of these issues. My contention today is that the funding for global student assistance has gone down in this province in the last three years, and this government said that this was about levelling the playing field and increasing opportunities -- and not just for the general population, but with a specific focus on women. So I'm not standing today to ask the minister to discriminate in any way but simply to fulfil the promise that I believe this government made to students.

Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated earlier -- no disrespect to any questions that may be asked -- I am waiting for the real numbers.

I see my colleague across the way beat my staff to the numbers, so if he wants to speak....

L. Fox: I think the numbers that the member of the official opposition was looking for are contained in a letter to our leader dated June 9, 1994. It's from your ministry and signed by Shell Harvey, which shows that the validation allowances for student loans in 1991-92 were $38,000,300 and in 1992-93 were $14,000,300.

If I didn't get the question right, that's fine, but I did ask the minister last night for a breakdown on the defaulted loans. I am not sure whether he was able to get those answers, but over the course of last evening and this morning I have had an opportunity to have private discussions with the minister. I was pleased at his willingness to review the whole process, recognizing that there will be an increased need for student loans in the future and increased demand, because of many factors.

Not only are there going to be more seats available in post-secondary education, but there is a lack of opportunity for students to work at high-paying jobs during the summer months -- as they once used to be able to -- in order to earn more money to go to school. Those two factors alone are going to create a larger need for student loans.

With that, I want to ask one specific question. Would the minister agree that perhaps one of the other factors that may need to be reviewed is the student loan remission program? The ministry has confirmed that $18.5 million in student loans will be remitted this year. That compares to $9.9 million remitted in 1991. Obviously that's increase of 100 percent in just four years.

In his statements last evening when we discussed the issue of maintaining a course load requirement, the minister stated it is still going to be only 60 percent in British Columbia, even though the federal government increased its maximum to 80 percent. It seems to me that that action alone is going to add to the increase of the remission percentage. Perhaps the minister can tell me if he doesn't agree that we should be looking at the remission portion of student loans as well as the overall approval process -- how we're going to go through the collection process and so on.

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's comments. As I indicated, we have increased the debt ceiling in this budget. I must say that I wasn't eager to do that. Nonetheless, given the pressures in the budget process, we felt it was necessary. As I indicated in the previous question, we have increased the threshold on a first degree from $15,000 to $17,000, and on a second degree from $20,000 to $22,000. I forget the number, but in the last fiscal year it was increased over the previous fiscal year. So in two fiscal years there has been an increase in the debt ceiling -- it's gone up.

The remission issued in 1990-91 was almost $10 million -- $9.97 million. That increased in '91-92 to $14.5 million, in '92-93 to $17.6 million, and projected in this budget will be $18.5 million. Over that period there has been essentially just under a doubling of the amount of money that has gone to remission of that portion of the student loans.

L. Fox: I take it from that, then, that the minister is satisfied that the action the ministry has taken with respect to that part of the loan program is sufficient and doesn't need review. Is that what I got out of your answer?

Hon. D. Miller: No. I was simply reading out the budget numbers for the four fiscal years to illustrate what has happened there. The member has talked previously about the increases on the default side, and we've talked about -- and I agree with the member -- the need to be vigilant in terms of continuing to try to collect and not giving up too easily on loans that we give out.

L. Fox: Then I'll leave that part of it. But was the minister able to get me the breakdown that I requested last evening so I could ask further questions with respect to default loans?

Hon. D. Miller: My staff are working on that; we don't have the answer yet. If we get it before adjournment, I'll certainly provide it to the member. If not, if the member agrees, I will certainly agree to supply that information in a letter or whatever.

L. Reid: Now that we have the figures in terms of my earlier comment, I see that global student assistance has in fact gone down from -- to quote the hon. member -- about $38 million to $14 million. The question I was posing to you around that was: what is this ministry doing in light of its promises to do wondrous things for women in this province?

Women occupy 51 percent of full-time positions and 61 percent of part-time positions in colleges, universities and institutes in this province. That's a significant number of women who rely on some form of social assistance and who, I think, were basically promised some launching pads, if you will, by this government in 1991. One of the campaign promises was that support would be in place for young

[ Page 12261 ]

women in this province who wish to become better educated and more gainfully employed within society.

From that, can the minister comment on what interventions and initiatives may be considered by this minister and ministry? Again, I'm not asking the minister to somehow discriminate against any group in society. I'm simply interested to know, based on the fact that more women are entering colleges and institutes -- well in excess of 50 percent today. That's the fact. All sides of the House have acknowledged that women's earning potential is substantially less today. Given those two facts, is the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour looking at college and institute tuition and repayment plans? That's my question.

It seems to me that one of the questions that may be the most obvious is whether we're just dealing with women. There may be a need for some women who have children to have a different repayment option than single women. You can break down the needs of people in our society in a variety of ways. I must say -- and I feel very strongly about this -- that in the two years we've been in government, I think we have had the most advanced equity programs in a number of years in this province.

Let's start with today. Quite frankly, I think it was shocking that my colleague the Minister of Women's Equality announced a major $42 million expenditure for day care in this province, and it wound up on page A16 in the Province in a little sidebar. One of the most pressing issues for women in our society today is day care. This is a government that has taken action on day care, and it gets buried. I just think that's quite sad, because despite the fact that some may say that the government wants the publicity, women aren't going to see the fact that there has been some improvement by this government.

We've allocated in excess of $100 million in pay equity issues in this province, dealing with our own employees.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, the hon. member assumes that people who work for either the government or a government-funded agency are not capable of attending university or college and that they may not want to take the time or have the opportunity to work during the summer to try to finance part of their education. It has a great deal to do with advancing the position of women in our society.

I've talked about the day cares that I see going up on campuses. There has been significant advancement, and there will continue to be advancement to assist those who may not have the means. The classic definition is that we try to break down the barriers, and we've taken extensive action in breaking down the barriers.

When it comes to repaying loans, do we recognize gender as being somehow unique and tailor a repayment program simply based on gender? No, we don't. But we do a great many other things, whether it's the topic we're talking about -- on the one hand, some criticism being levelled because we are not rigorous enough in enforcing repayment of those student loans and on the other hand, some criticism that we're not.... I don't want to overstate it; nonetheless, there is some criticism that we're not doing enough. Maybe we've hit the happy medium between the Reform Party and the Liberal Party. That's the longest I've spoken today -- don't provoke me.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

L. Reid: I thank the minister. Indeed, I agree with the minister. The Ministry of Women's Equality has done an outstanding job in this province -- absolutely outstanding. I appreciate the fact that you spoke with such glowing remarks on their behalf. But the question was: what is your ministry -- Skills, Training and Labour -- doing? I'm not taking away from anything you have said in terms of what the other ministries are doing, and I firmly support the notion that it is a package. It all needs to be integrated in some fashion to deliver services, so I firmly support that.

If the answer is a simple no, please stand up and say no. If it's more complex, fine. But tell me what your ministry is doing -- and let's not marginalize it to women -- for groups who find themselves in increasing numbers in college and institutes and in the workforce. That's the reality, and the question is whether or not this ministry is recognizing that new reality. That is what I wish the minister to comment on.

Hon. D. Miller: In addition to the increased resources that I was given in this fiscal year.... I should say that those increased resources have allowed us to put more money into what I have characterized as equity issues -- that is, trying to improve access to post-secondary education and training for those who ordinarily find it extremely difficult. Certainly women are one of those groups. We've got $1 million for additional day care in my budget, in addition to the money that is being allocated by my colleague the Minister of Women's Equality.

[4:00]

We have, I think, on the training side, looking at.... If I take the member's comments with respect to the position of women, one might.... And it's true that women, particularly single women with children, tend to constitute those who find a great deal of difficulty breaking out of the welfare routine simply because of either the ability to find decent jobs or the fact that day care is not available.

Quite frankly, I think day care is one of the single biggest barriers for women in that position. We're taking direct action. In addition to the $42 million, as I say, we've got $1 million in my ministry.

We are tailoring specific programs under the social assistance training area that will clearly benefit women in that position, whether it's the employer program, where we work with employers to provide a training credit that the individual can carry to an individual employer in response to or in return for an individualized training plan that will assist that individual to acquire skills and become a permanent part of the workforce.... We have pushed and will continue to push equity in the trades. We looked at BCIT and some of the activity taking place there.

I must tell the member that in several speeches I've made to mostly male groups, I've talked about the need to increase opportunities for women in the trades, and some people have tried to beat me up on that. But I've said no, we're going to continue to promote and push equity. I'm starting to see the results of that. On every front you can name, we are taking direct action to improve the opportunities for women in this province, and we'll continue to do so.

L. Reid: If I may, I ask the minister to revisit very quickly a topic we raised yesterday. It was regarding centralized applications for admission to colleges and institutes. A

[ Page 12262 ]

question posed to me subsequent to the debate was whether you could apply to more than one institution at a time. If you were indeed ranked or wait-listed at other institutions pending availability -- or if indeed one application covered off your ability to apply -- and perhaps at some point you found out you hadn't been accepted, is it at that point that you have the opportunity to go back and seek another application? Does the computerized system rank you in terms of what's available and basically put you into the first available spot? Or do you need to reapply through that process?

Hon. D. Miller: The thrust of the system is efficiency -- in other words, to prevent a student who may want a particular course from applying at two or three different institutions, locking up that course in all three institutions and then ultimately only taking one. The process that would apply when a student obtains the course they want hasn't changed.

It simply allows efficiency, in that the student no longer has to try to lock up a course in three different institutions -- or indeed, looking at alternative courses in the same institution, perhaps lock up four or five courses that might be related -- in the hope that they will get one. So it will create an efficient system. I'm not certain of the exact details of when a student applies and there's confirmation of an acceptance. But that will be the result of the system.

L. Reid: Then -- for my clarification, minister -- the student who has put herself or himself into that process gets the first available spot, and then they're taken from the system, in terms of applying to a number of different institutions at the same time. You simply get the first available spot and you're removed from the classification system, if you will.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I guess the system allows the priorities to take place. It's a very complicated system. I'll see if I can explain it. They can make choices: one, two, three, four. Let's say they're accepted into their first choice. Then that's it, right? If there's some difficulty in terms of acceptance on the first one, then they're automatically bumped into the second one. So it's selective, but it allows that kind of prioritization.

L. Reid: That answers my question. I thank you.

In terms of the overall goal of the student financial assistance programs, certainly there has to be some sense that this is about increasing productivity, doing a better job and increasing the effectiveness of the administration. I'm wondering: what kind of measurements do you place on the student financial assistance programs to measure their productivity? I'm not suggesting it's simply the number of dollars you give away or the number of dollars you recoup in terms of people paying back their student loans. Are there other measurements, other ways that your ministry measures productivity, around the effectiveness of the student financial assistance program?

Hon. D. Miller: In one sense, we can look at it in terms of how many people we are serving. I think the issues of productivity, though, are more properly addressed at the institutional level. We did have some debate in previous estimates about the difficulty of measuring productivity. In fact, B.C. is a leader in Canada in the field of looking at that issue and developing systems so that we can measure productivity.

My sense of productivity is that we teach courses that give individuals the skills that lead to work -- not in every case, because I want to be clear that we recognize the value of an academic education and the benefits that flow from it. They are perhaps a little more difficult to quantify, but nonetheless they're clearly there. So I would say the institution itself, the courses they're teaching and the ability of students, having taken those courses, to go on to some productive role in society is probably the place where there should be more emphasis. Student financial assistance is simply a funding mechanism to allow students to get into those courses.

G. Wilson: I really was coming down armed to do Labour, not education. I can't resist the opportunity to say it's passing strange that we're not sitting in Committee A and doing pressing legislation in the House, given that we're at the tail end of a session. Perhaps the members will be reminded of that tomorrow night when we're told that we're going to sit through until the early hours of the morning, debating very pressing legislation. We could actually have been doing this in Committee A today and getting a lot of that legislative work completed. However, having said that -- and whatever decisions that were made on that question....

On the question of Royal Roads -- and I'm not going to go back to discuss this at too great length -- I listened very interestedly to an exchange yesterday between the minister and members of the Liberal opposition. The minister was saying that it was important for people to put their position on the floor and let people know where they stood with respect to Royal Roads. The figure that the minister was throwing out was around $28 million, I think, or in the high twenties of millions of dollars. I take issue with that.

Members of the Alliance have had an opportunity to meet with a group who have done a detailed economic analysis of setting up a stand-alone university at Royal Roads. In fact, the cost is a lot less; the cost is closer to the $10 million mark. And if the number of registered students at such a stand-alone undergraduate university is moved to around a thousand entries, given the already existing services, it would be able to provide over the next two to three years a revenue-neutral situation for the provincial government, outside of the initial cost to purchase. "Revenue-neutral" is a good term. I notice the members opposite are sort of wondering about this revenue-neutral situation.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm talking now about the data with respect to enrollees and the cost per student engendered in this particular institution. I think the minister might want to give serious consideration -- and I hope the minister is taking my comment seriously now -- to the government taking an advocacy position for the province taking over Royal Roads as a stand-alone undergraduate university. I think it should do that in the absence of a discussion as to whether or not there is going to be some form of applied or polytechnic or other kind of offering on that huge site. The potential for that site is enormous.

I'd be happy to let this material be duplicated and sent to the minister for his perusal. There are a lot of charts and graphs that I know the minister will find interesting. If you look at the data that's here, there is a compelling financial argument to suggest that we should move quickly to acquire the Royal Roads site for a stand-alone undergraduate university, primarily to service the lower areas of Vancouver

[ Page 12263 ]

Island and also, of course, some students who may decide to come to the Island to do undergraduate work. There are possibilities in that facility for undergraduate teaching in engineering, the sciences and the liberal arts. I know liberal arts is something the minister shies away from. There are also applied aspects, specifically with respect to things such as oceanography, coastal sciences, culture, languages, and so on, which would be most useful on the business and economic side of things.

If the minister is interested, our position is that the government should seriously consider the acquisition and recognize that there may be a net benefit to the province in terms of both cost and the number of students enrolled. I'd be happy to share this information with the minister. If the minister cares to comment, I'd appreciate hearing from him.

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly would, and I would be delighted to pass that on to my officials and to the minister responsible, the Minister of Finance.

I simply attempted to say that life is a series of choices. I noted that a B.C. Buildings Corporation report indicated that the facility would require a capital cost of about $26 million or $27 million, and if the province assumed responsibility for the building, then the province would assume the capital cost liability for the building as well -- notwithstanding any additional costs that may accrue, like operating costs and additional burdens on the student financial assistance program. We've talked about that at some length here.

[4:15]

I really do think it's somewhat fallacious to suggest that we can take over an old and wondrous building and very large grounds and turn it into a university, and that the taxpayers of B.C. wouldn't have to dig into their pockets for some loot. In fact, they would. The question really remains that, given that life is a series of choices, governments everywhere are faced with very tough fiscal decisions and that we are faced with very rapidly expanding populations that include young families and students in other parts of British Columbia.

We need to put these kinds of decisions in that context -- without taking one myself, I might add; I recognize that the minister responsible is the Minister of Finance. She is charged with dealing with the federal government on this issue. But I welcome the member's comments and any information he might have.

M. Farnworth: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: We backbenchers have to get our TV time somehow, you know.

In the gallery today is a former New Democrat Member of Parliament from Regina, Simon de Jong. I'd ask the House to please make him welcome.

G. Wilson: I will undertake to photocopy this information and send it to the minister, because it is well worth the minister's review.

I don't take issue with the comments the minister was making yesterday with respect to the federal obligation on this question. My position on this is well known. I believe the province should get serious about letting the federal government know that it takes seriously the whole question of transfer payments and cap funding, and that we shouldn't be simply stepping in to pick up an obligation or liability of the federal government.

I think, though, for all of the reasons the minister just mentioned -- the demographics, population expansion and investments today that in ten, 15, 30 or 50 years down the road will be seen to have been wise investments -- that such a large tract of land with those facilities would be completely unobtainable 30, 40 or 50 years down the road, purchased at today's market value. Given the fact that the Department of National Defence already owns it and it is a public asset as it stands, the province should not simply sit by and allow this fantastic asset to be lost to the people of British Columbia.

So it's our argument -- and I would put it strongly to the minister -- notwithstanding that we support what the minister is saying with respect to delinquency in transfer payments, and that we support the fact that we should not let the federal government off the hook with respect to British Columbia getting its fair share, Royal Roads is indeed an outstanding asset. It's currently an asset of the public, of the people of Canada and, therefore, of the people of British Columbia.

I hope the minister will take seriously the representation I'm about to send him this afternoon, because we are serious in our assertion that there needs to be a concerted all-party effort with respect to preserving it and allowing it to be developed into a stand-alone institution. I believe there are some statistics that would back that up.

L. Fox: I was listening with a lot of interest, actually, when the member for Richmond East talked about the loan process with respect to how it affected single moms and women who may have had difficulties. I would suggest to the minister that if in fact we went through a process of reviewing those delinquent loans, we would identify whether or not there really was a problem in sections of the population such as that, and why. I think we would be able to identify how we might modify the process so that we might react to needs, reduce the difficulties those groups may have and make the program more successful.

I just hope that the minister is serious when we talk about the idea of doing that, because I believe that information would come out of that kind of review.

Yesterday I pointed to one particular recommendation in the review that was done for the previous minister to adjust the mix of grants and student loans. This review process recommended that over the next several years, beginning in 1993-94, B.C. loans be replaced with B.C. grants. Can the minister tell me whether or not any of these recommendations contained within this document have indeed been accepted? I don't want to go through them one by one....

Interjection.

L. Fox: It's the "Review of B.C. Student Assistance and Barriers to Post-Secondary Education Participation." It's a final report that was given to the previous minister. Were any of the recommendations acted upon?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we did respond to the Orum report, and I issued a press release on March 16.

L. Fox: This year?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. I'd be pleased to provide the member with a copy if he wants to see the details.

L. Reid: I have a number of questions, hon. minister. I would ask the minister and the officials to refer to pages 185 to 191 of the 1994-95 estimates book -- the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour

summary. I'm looking at "Total Voted

[ Page 12264 ]

Expenditure by Group Account Classification," and specifically at the section....

An Hon. Member: What page is that?

L. Reid: Page 185.

It says "Other Expenditures," and for '93-94, under other expenditures, there was roughly $2 million. In the same category for this year, '94-95, it's $21 million. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on a roughly $19 million increase -- ten times the amount. I would be interested in his comment.

Hon. D. Miller: The column on the right-hand side -- in other words, the '94-95 estimate -- includes the money for the loan administration branch and also the valuation for doubtful repayment. We always include an amount that's our estimation of what will not be repaid; I shouldn't say what will not be repaid, but rather what will not be collected in the normal manner. That figure is included in the $21 million.

L. Reid: For my clarification, hon. minister, I'm interested in the vast increase. If it was $2 million in the last fiscal year, were different items contained in that category? I certainly understood the minister's comment about doubtful repayment, but if it was only $2 million last year, has the category classification changed?

Hon. D. Miller: It really isn't that there's been an increase from $2 million to $21 million. There were some changes in accounting policy that repositioned that number. But my answer to the member is that the amount listed in the column -- the $21.6 million -- includes the amount that we indicate for doubtful accounts and the money that gets transferred to the loan administration branch.

L. Reid: Hon. minister, I heard that answer. If indeed the classification has changed, my question is: what used to be represented by the $2 million? I understand you saying that the $19 million is accounted for by the doubtful repayment. What was in that category previously?

Hon. D. Miller: The loan administration amount....

The Chair: Sorry, minister, but I need to recognize you for Hansard.

Hon. D. Miller: Thank you, hon. Chair. There are times when I'd rather go unrecognized, but I can assure you that this isn't one of them.

It's the amount that's allocated in the loan administration branch for collection services.

L. Reid: I would draw the minister's attention to page 188, ministry operations, and the heading "Matching Program, Universities." There is definitely a decrease from 1993-94 to what's anticipated for 1994-95. Could the minister perhaps comment on that decrease?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there was a decrease. Again, it was one of those tough decisions that governments are forced to make, sometimes decreasing expenditures in a given area. But I believe we have an understanding with universities with respect to that.

L. Reid: I would draw the minister's attention to the next category, which is "Capital Debt Servicing." It's a substantial increase, and I'm wondering what portion of that increase might be attributed to the University of Northern B.C. If it's not UNBC, could the minister elaborate on the increase?

Hon. D. Miller: Let me try to give a two-part response. No, I don't have the breakdown. The amount is really debt servicing, and the increase is an indication of the increased cost of servicing debt. That's a simple answer. Within that $192 million is a whole range of projects. I don't have at my fingertips the amount in that total that could simply be attributed to UNBC. My staff may be able to find some further information as we go along, but in its simplest form it is an increase in debt-servicing costs.

There was a very large capital cost attached to the construction of the University of Northern British Columbia. That's there for everyone to see. It pleases the member for Prince George-Omineca. He's giving me the thumbs-up sign. I don't think anybody's quarrelling with the increased capital expenditure to accommodate that. There has been a slight decrease in capital expenditure this year in recognition of the debt situation in British Columbia.

L. Reid: I appreciate that the minister doesn't have that information at his fingertips. At some point in the near future could the portion of debt servicing that can be attributed to each college and institute in the province be provided to me? That would be helpful to me.

Hon. D. Miller: The member may have a broader explanation. If the member has a legitimate question and reason why that would be helpful, I'm quite prepared to put staff at work at doing that. But I'm not certain why. Maybe there are some other questions the member could pose. I'm not saying no, but I don't want to put people to a lot of work at great expense to search out and break down numbers just for the sake of doing it. If there really is some purpose, we could certainly find that.

L. Reid: It was my sense, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that that information is available, but you simply don't have it with you today. If indeed it's not possible to ascertain that information over the next few of days, I will need to accept that. It's your ministry and obviously you know its workings far better than I. It seems to me that for that $192 million it should be possible to ascertain which institutions carry the largest amount of debt servicing and how those dollars are allocated. If that's not possible.... I will simply ask the minister to respond.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, most things are possible.

In any given year we approve a capital budget for certain projects. Those are listed, and I can get you a list going back. I don't know what the member is interested in. You'll see as the year unfolds that various capital projects are approved, some in the planning phase and some in the construction phase. Really, we're talking about the debt-servicing costs of all that capital construction.

[4:30]

Is a list of the specific projects.... I mean, we'd have to go back, find out what the project cost, when it was built and how that relates to what portion of the total debt-servicing cost. In other words, if the member takes my point, I could put my staff to work with calculators, adding machines and computers, but they would not be doing the work I want them to be doing. They would come up with information that had a limited use. Perhaps the member might like a list

[ Page 12265 ]

of the projects that have been built in this term of government or, indeed, last year.

L. Fox: That would be a short list.

Hon. D. Miller: No, in fact, it would not be a short list. The member for Prince George-Omineca says that it would be a short list. Yet just moments ago he gave me the thumbs-up sign for one of the largest capital projects in British Columbia in the last decade, the new Prince George campus of the University of Northern B.C. Perhaps the member would like to acknowledge that there has been a pretty ambitious building program.

L. Reid: For the record, I will leave my question simply as: what portion of debt servicing rests with each college and university? If the minister wants to provide the list of projects, I would appreciate that. Our Finance critic can number-crunch them for me; I would appreciate that. I trust that the ministry can provide that at their earliest opportunity.

Again referring to page 188 -- skills development programs, and labour relations and labour programs -- there seems to be some discussion about those programs being interchangeable. If the minister could comment on the differences that exist between the skills development programs, perhaps that will lead us into a discussion of the skills initiatives and whether there is any commonality between those programs. From what is listed here and from what has been discussed, I understand those are separate initiatives.

Hon. D. Miller: The difference is the normal operations that have been conducted by the ministry historically and that obviously will be continued under the skills development line item: apprenticeship programs, vocational rehab and the transfer-in of the money from the Social Services ministry. In all of those routine areas where the ministry is involved in training, there are skills development programs as apart from the skills initiatives, which are really the new initiatives we've talked about. When the member wants to, I would be happy to go down that road.

L. Reid: I would draw the minister's attention to page 191 to look in some detail at the skills development programs. From the total budget, salaries and benefits, operating costs and the like appear to be about a 25 percent overhead. Is that reasonable in terms of this government's commitment to provide more dollars for direct service? Does that cover your direction? Where do you intend to head with this? It seems that under grants and contributions to that program we're looking at a decrease, but we're looking at increased overhead.

Hon. D. Miller: I haven't broken it down to see whether it's 25 percent, but whatever it is, it's there. It's a numerical exercise. The answer is that we are engaged in delivery of service, as opposed to an administrative function. There is a direct function which clearly would cause the salary and benefit costs that you see to be what they are.

L. Reid: In terms of the decrease under grants and contributions under the category of skills development programs, could the minister comment on why there is a decrease if the objective is for more direct service?

Hon. D. Miller: It's just a slight decrease in terms of the budgeting process, offset in a far more significant way by the increase in the Skills Now initiative.

L. Reid: If that is the case, why are skills development programs and skills initiatives separate? If we're looking at a 25 percent overhead for the administration of those programs, from your comments it seems that those programs have a lot in common. Is it useful to the students in this province to separate those two initiatives and have parallel administrative structures in place?

Hon. D. Miller: The government, in developing the Skills Now package.... As members will know by looking at the literature, it includes a significant number of new programs, but it also includes significant additions to existing programs. Therefore, in terms of a separate initiative of government, clearly, had that been placed in the budget documents there wouldn't have been an announcement; there wouldn't have been an initiative from government. So I'm sure you'll see in future years.... There's no question....

If the member reads the definition on the top of page 190, under skills development programs, she will see the breakdown in terms of the allocation of those funds. It's fairly clear that if you look at these and pick out any particular topic -- apprenticeship, for example -- that that's also one of the initiatives under Skills Now. We will see a restating, I suspect -- without getting too far ahead of myself -- of how we might allocate that in future budgets.

L. Reid: What I'm hearing -- and it would certainly give me some comfort to know -- is that where there's overlap between skills development and Skills Now, the administrative functions will be performed by the skills development branch. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Hon. D. Miller: There has been a fundamental change in this respect: the ministry has altered because of combining the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Advanced Education. So things are clearly different than they were, and they will not change. We have a new structure, and we have some new internal structure in terms of the policy shop that I've established.

As we bring in the training for social assistance recipients, we are looking at different ways of doing that. If you look at some of the traditional areas, the people who work on the university side or the college side are still there, and it really is, in some cases, increasing the grant. But in some cases it's also working with those institutions to develop new programs. We've talked about the applied fields. There is new programming, but in some cases it is building onto existing programs, and in some cases it is a kind of refocusing of existing programs.

F. Gingell: It's now some time since the Neylan report on post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley came out. We were expecting subsequent announcements that the report was being acted on. Can the minister please advise me of the current status of that report and of meeting the needs that it so clearly identified?

Hon. D. Miller: We've not made any announcement out of government, nor have we arrived at any final decisions with respect to that report.

I do wish to say, with all due respect to the hon. member, that I've been asked that on at least two separate occasions by members of your party. I hope the member appreciates

[ Page 12266 ]

that I did try to answer the question. In fact, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale thanked me for my answer, if that's a help. So I have dealt with the issue, and I don't know that we want to recanvass it. We should be in a position to make some announcements.... I hate to use the word "soon," but there will be something forthcoming. I think it's fair to say that we recognize the issues there in terms of the growth and the need for additional opportunities.

F. Gingell: I'm sure the minister will advise me if this question has been asked, too. In the Public Accounts Committee recently, we spent some time in talking to Mr. Watson from BCIT about the particular work that was done by the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation with respect to that institution and to all the colleges. From that particular discussion, a question arose in my mind about what was happening within the ministry to ensure that rationalization of programs is proceeding.

For instance, I think nursing programs are offered by every community college in the province, other than Vancouver Community College and perhaps Capilano. I was wondering if basic nursing programs are now clearly established where the qualifications are accepted across all the colleges, and if rationalization is taking place to ensure that the specialties are being dealt with in particular institutions and that we don't have duplication of effort and resources.

Hon. D. Miller: We did deal with it somewhat, but not in the more comprehensive way in which the member asked the question earlier on the issue of accountability. I indicated that British Columbia is playing a leading role with respect to the issue nationally. The work that was undertaken, really led by John Watson, is being pilot-tested in three institutions -- BCIT, the University College of the Cariboo and the Open Learning Agency. Camosun College is in the second year of testing a variation of this approach, which is known as effectiveness reporting measures.

The member raised an interesting point. Again, it's a topic I've talked about here, where colleges.... Obviously, what we clearly want is relevance. We want the courses that are being taught to be relevant for the students, the economy and jobs, and we want to avoid duplication and overlap. I think it's also fair to say that we want to ensure some kind of regional equity.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: In the old days.... I think it's actually happening. I read a letter the other day from a woman who took her degree without leaving Terrace. We've got a new university starting in northern British Columbia. No doubt there will be some overlap in some areas, but as the colleges try to meet that challenge....

I know of one particular instance where the nursing program was cancelled. When I looked at the facts, the intake was not that great; it was in the mid-twenties. More than half the students dropped out before they would ordinarily have completed the program, and less than 50 percent of those who stayed in actually went out and found a job.

The college looked at that and said: "We think that some other areas in the health care field make more sense and are more relevant to what's happening with New Directions in health care, and we want to reposition ourselves and try to offer some of these new courses." It caused a bit of commotion in the community. I think the colleges are looking at that. It's interesting how the public sometimes responds. It's almost contradictory in some respects. Clearly the work that has been done by Mr. Watson and the testing that's being done now will assist us greatly.

[4:45]

Finally, I think the issue of articulation -- in other words, where courses are taken and credits are earned in one particular institute and students have the ability to take those credits to another institute or maybe a higher learning institute -- is fairly well advanced. I'm advised that British Columbia is no slouch at all when it comes to the issue of articulation. I have met with the group appointed by myself to look at these matters and work with the institutions, and I think it's doing a commendable job.

L. Reid: I want to spend a few moments as we conclude to comment on the Skills Now budget, and I'll ask the minister to comment on the budget in some detail. I want to make a few remarks, because I came to this process and to the Skills Now budget, if you will.... Certainly the hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington and I engaged in some debate during a private member's statement.

He thanked me for my response, hon. minister, but he said: "I'm somewhat astonished that the hon. member would perceive the Skills Now program as a program that would create meaningful jobs." That is your NDP backbencher suggesting that he's astonished at my suggestion that the Skills Now budget should have something to do with meaningful work.

That is, I think, where we want to begin the debate this afternoon. I'm happy to share with the minister the copy of Hansard from which I've just quoted, because that is where the official opposition is coming from in this debate regarding Skills Now. As the Blues from today will show, when asked where the commonalities were between skills development and the Skills Now initiative, the minister did respond that it was a separate initiative, so indeed the government could make an announcement. "Without the initiative, there wouldn't have been an announcement."

I don't take issue with those comments, but I need to come back to whether or not $200 million has some job-creation potential, because otherwise we're simply changing the name. We already have colleges, institutes and universities in this province. This Skills Now -- and certainly the consideration of the Skills Now budget, for myself as critic and for members of the opposition -- has to have some connection to meaningful work. If this $200 million doesn't lend itself to some kind of meaningful employment, it causes me great concern. I ask the minister for his comment.

Hon. D. Miller: I learned a long time ago, despite even my best attempts, that occasionally people say things that they later wished they hadn't said, and I certainly am as susceptible to doing that as anyone else in this chamber, hon. member.

An Hon. Member: No, no -- never.

Hon. D. Miller: Even though members of my own caucus are advising me that they find that hard to believe, I occasionally make statements that, upon reflection, I consider I maybe shouldn't have. Certainly all of us are fallible. Even the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound may include himself in that category.

An Hon. Member: Garibaldi.

Hon. D. Miller: West Vancouver-Garibaldi, sorry.

I was quite pleased to hear the Reform member for Peace River North say on May 3: "The government is finally

[ Page 12267 ]

looking at trying to marry high school and some vocational schooling." I thought: well, that's nice; that's good. I was quite adamant and tough to my hon. critic for her comments on the apprenticeship area because I thought she was dead wrong. I said so with vigour, and I probably will repeat it because that's the nature of what we're engaged in.

I think Skills Now has the potential to -- and in fact will, in my view -- increase job opportunities; as an underpinning of the economy, it will create job growth. But I've been very careful, as I think is proper, to not suggest that this program is a panacea or will solve some of the fundamental issues of unemployment in our economy. I think all members should perhaps look at it that way.

There is a mismatch. There are employers who require people with certain skill sets; they can't find those people to hire. And there are individuals in our society who would like to acquire those skills and find work. To the extent that we can marry those, we will have an impact on employment over the long haul, by providing people an opportunity to acquire the kind of skills that match where we see growth in the economy. And by investing in the human capital as well as the technological hardware, I think we'll see a strengthening of our economy's ability to grow, and that should have an impact on employment.

I very much suspect that there are missing pieces, not just here but elsewhere, about the broader issues of unemployment. I think we should always have a target in mind, and that is to eliminate unemployment. Some people want to discard that and say that it's unrealistic; I don't. If we can set zero targets for pollution for some mill somewhere, then I say we set zero targets for unemployment, because people are the most important thing. It's very difficult to achieve.

The changes in the world economy have created some real challenges in terms of how we might get there, and we're also subject to the vagaries of the world economy. Despite all that, we should pursue that with a lot of vigour.

L. Reid: One of the comments of the B.C. School Trustees' Association on May 3, 1994, read: "The test of this initiative's success will be whether significant numbers of our students will find good jobs at the end of these...programs."

I am coming back to my original point, hon. minister -- and I do appreciate your comments. I would never look to any one program to be a panacea for anything, frankly. What I am asking the minister to focus on and perhaps condense his remarks around is some kind of measurement. How will this ministry measure the success of the Skills Now program? I'm looking at jobs as some aspect of that measurement, and I'm clear about that. For $200 million.... If this is about promoting wealth -- and you say yourself that it's about promoting employment -- how many people are going to be in the workforce?

It's not that you have to have the formula all worked out, but as the critic I have to have some sense that we're looking to measure something. At some point we want to be able to effectively manage something. That's where I'm headed with this discussion.

I'm not going to s