1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 1994

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 19

[ Page 12197 ]

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

R. Chisholm: Sadly, I have to rise today and announce that at 3 o'clock this morning while on United Nations peacekeeping duties in the former Yugoslavia, Master Corporal Isfeld was killed and Sergeant James and Sergeant MacMillan were critically injured by land mines. They remain in the former Yugoslavia. All three members are from CFB Chilliwack. I'd ask this House to send a letter of condolence to the base commander.

The Speaker: Is it agreed that this be done?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

The Speaker: Thank you. It shall be done.

The hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson.

F. Garden: Cariboo North.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, hon. member.

F. Garden: This happens a lot between me and my colleague.

The Speaker: It's been going on for three years now, hasn't it? [Laughter.]

F. Garden: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House quite a few members -- and I don't have all the names here -- of the Cariboo Communities Coalition. These are constituents of mine and my hon. colleague David Zirnhelt. They're down here meeting with several representatives of government, and I believe they'll be meeting with the opposition. I know they're not all in the gallery, and the ones I mention are those I recognize: Tim Menning, who is a logging contractor; Harvey Arcand, who is with the IWA; and also Bob Long, who is the administrator with the Cariboo Regional District. They do a fine job representing a great area, and I want you to make them welcome.

A. Hagen: It's my pleasure today to welcome two guests: Frank Grasby, who is a business person in New Westminster and other areas of the lower mainland, and Harry Eastman, who is a person who knows this building very well. He worked for 33 years in this building, retiring in 1976 as one of the people who helped to keep it the beautiful place that it is. I'd like to ask all of you to welcome both these gentlemen to our precincts today.

D. Jarvis: I'd like the House to welcome two friends of mine from North Vancouver-Seymour, Jean and Jack Loman. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure to welcome to the gallery today a dear friend visiting from London, England. Her name is Jan London. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

K. Jones: Touring the precincts today are some students from William Watson Elementary School in my riding of

Surrey-Cloverdale. There are approximately 55 grades 5 and 7 students and their teachers, Ms. Joyce Singbeil and Jym O'Malley, along with several parents. They are touring Victoria and the precincts, learning a little bit about the history of this area. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

COST OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. Traditionally across Canada, television stations routinely grant free access to the public for a Premier when they have been asked for the time to make a public service announcement, as long as it's a non-partisan announcement. We now know that this government was turned down by both BCTV and the CBC because its request was seen as an abuse of this privilege, and nothing but an unadulterated political campaign and advertisement. Will the Premier commit today that the New Democratic Party is going to pay for the Premier's political campaign, not the taxpayers of the province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We can see the contempt in which the Liberal opposition holds the forest industry and forest communities in this province. Yesterday they said they were prepared to invest $500,000 in reforestation. Today they are saying that the future of our forest communities and families and of the economy are not important. That's basically what they are saying with these facile questions about a public policy announcement of great importance to the people of British Columbia. That's where they stand on the forest industry and the forest communities -- they don't care.

G. Farrell-Collins: If we want to talk about contempt, we should talk about the contempt this Premier has for the taxpayers -- and for the people of Nanaimo in the fact that they have ripped off charities in Nanaimo. That's contempt.

Yesterday the Premier said outside this House that his advertisement tomorrow night was going to cost $40,000. We have now learned that that has been jacked up to $55,000. We are wondering what the top limit is. Can the Premier tell us just how much the taxpayers are paying for this production, including the media gurus, and especially the image consultants? Can the Premier confirm that these image consultants, unlike other ones the taxpayers have paid for, will have a performance bond?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Liberal opposition has shown how little importance they place on the forest industry. They voted against the Forest Practices Code, which is going to be a model for this country.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. M. Harcourt: Then they quietly came on board when they saw the support for the Forest Practices Code. They belittled and they said that they weren't supporting the forest renewal plan, which will renew the forests of this province, when every sector came out in favour of that plan. Now they are saying that the Premier of British Columbia should not communicate directly with the people of this province about the most important industry in this province and about a land use plan that is of importance to all British Columbians.

[2:15]

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

[ Page 12198 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Everyone in this House knows how important the forest industry is to this province. The difference is that if the government wants to turn it into a political

re-election issue, they should be paying for it out of their party funds and not out of the taxpayers' funds. The Liberal opposition has come into possession of four different full-page newspaper advertisements that the NDP is about to run in papers throughout the province. We understand that the public is about to be hit with the most extravagant and wasteful media blitz since the dying days of the Social Credit Party. Media reports put this campaign at upwards of $1 million. Will the Premier answer one question today? How much has he budgeted, and how much are the taxpayers going to have to scoop into their pockets in order to pay for his re-election, "I need a job" campaign?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Finally, the Liberal opposition and this government agree on one issue, and that is that this will be a political, re-election issue. We're on different sides of this issue. They said that they were against the forest renewal plan. They were against every provision in the Forest Practices Code until they quietly and meekly came on board. They will not deal in substance; they will only nibble around the edges about issues of communicating with the people of this province. It's about time that they started to be held to account. Where do they stand on anything of substance?

M. de Jong: Last night during the news, amid the ads for beer, pizza, toilet paper and such things, I saw an ad announcing the Premier's speech. Only the NDP would advertise a paid political advertisement. Let's keep it simple for the Premier: how much money is he spending on his pre-advertising advertising campaign?

The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?

M. de Jong: This is the K-Tel government. They advertise their failed budget; they advertise their Island Highway project for their friends. But wait, K-Mart shopper, there's more, because now this government is using taxpayers' money to advertise the Premier himself. My question to the Premier: how long and how much is the B.C. taxpayer going to have to spend on his NDP re-election campaign?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The budget had such a lack of success that this Liberal opposition hasn't stood up in question period and asked one question about it -- not one. They haven't had the guts to ask any questions about this budget, which brought down the deficit, increased jobs, and froze taxes for three years. They haven't even had the courage to ask one single question. I'll be interested in what they have to say about tomorrow night's announcement and whether they're going to take on one of the most important announcements to renew our forests in this province's history.

The Speaker: Your final supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The Premier is half-right: the questions have been asked; it's just the answers he doesn't remember, because we never get any on this side of the House. I guess the Premier has forgotten his promise to cut spending, because it looks like the floodgates of propaganda spending by this government are open, and it's out of control. Why does the Premier constantly ignore the pleas of taxpayers and only listen to the advice given by his high-priced image consultants? When will this taxpayer-paid-for re-election campaign come to an end?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, I'm going to be interested in seeing what the people on Vancouver Island have to say about this Liberal opposition's opposition to the Vancouver Island Highway, which for years wasn't built by the previous government. This government is building it in six years -- on time, on budget, with no strikes or lockouts.

We're coming in with one of the most important forest renewal and land use plans on Vancouver Island, that the previous government couldn't carry out and that the Liberal opposition won't carry out, because they don't have any idea of what to carry out.

An Hon. Member: What's the cost?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The cost is exactly what I said yesterday -- $40,000 for the most inexpensive way of communicating directly with the people of British Columbia and $15,000 for the production cost. This opposition doesn't want to hear the answer; they just want to continue to repeat their questions.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR LAND CLAIMS NEGOTIATIONS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Yesterday the government waffled on my question as to whether this government supported the seven principles for land claims negotiations adopted by the previous government. Does this government -- yes or no -- stand behind those principles for land claims negotiations?

Hon. J. Cashore: This government stands behind the principles of this government, which are firmly stated in the task force report the Premier referred to yesterday. With regard to the programs of previous governments, the hon. member will have to speak for that. This government is very comfortable and confident with regard to the principled stand we have taken on the issue of settling treaties. We know this is going to provide certainty for the future for all British Columbians, including people of the first nations. The principles are implicit in that statement.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The minister obviously hasn't read the Treaty Commission documents. They're process documents. The province needs principles to guide its negotiators. Either it accepts the seven principles adopted by the former government, or it should table its own principles for land claims negotiations. Will the minister either accept those principles or table his own?

Hon. J. Cashore: This hon. member is fully aware of the principles that underlie the position this government has taken. Those principles were stated very clearly prior to our becoming government. They were implicit when we received the mandate to be government, and they are present within the principles of the task force report. The principles that this government is following are far beyond any principles of the previous government.

While we're mentioning principles, I would like to advise this hon. member that the other day when he said, "The Northwest Territories and the Yukon gave all residents of those jurisdictions an opportunity to vote on the land claim

[ Page 12199 ]

agreements reached," he was absolutely wrong. That's absolutely false. While I don't believe he was deliberately misleading the House, that was an incredibly misleading statement, and it needs to be clarified. If that member wants to engage in this type of dialogue, it must be based on factual statements, not false statements.

The Speaker: The final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: If the minister feels strongly about this position on the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, perhaps he'll make a ministerial statement and provide an opportunity for response.

But the question is: does this minister accept the seven important principles for land claims negotiations, or has the government adopted a new set of principles?

Hon. J. Cashore: There is no question that this government has followed a very principled approach with regard to land claims negotiations. It is an approach that's inclusive of third parties, it's inclusive of first nations and it's inclusive of the interests of all the people of British Columbia.

Let me say that this hon. member, who has obviously been seeking to incite discomfort and disrespect with regard to the process we have embarked on, should be very aware of the fact that he had a key role in bringing this government into negotiations. Why he would want to destabilize the work he had done is beyond me.

COST OF GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

W. Hurd: My question is for the Premier, who has admitted a shocking revelation to this House: his government intends to spend over a million dollars in an expenditure tied directly to the re-election chances of his government. While in opposition, the NDP whined constantly about Social Credit advertising. This government is making the previous administration look like pikers. Why has the Premier turned his back on the principle that the taxpayers' money should not fund the re-election campaigns of any government?

GITKSAN-WET'SUWET'EN LAND CLAIM

G. Wilson: It's the role of the Attorney General to provide legal counsel to this government. We note that the government has managed to get the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en to withdraw their legal claim on the matter of title. Will the Attorney General commit today to table in this House what legal advice his ministry has provided the government with respect to the question of title in the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en case?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member is wrong about what's happened with the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en. The appeal was launched to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en peoples. They have now agreed with us to put that appeal in abeyance for 12 to 18 months while negotiations proceed.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove rises on a point of order?

G. Farrell-Collins: I believe that in the last round of questioning, the member for Surrey-White Rock had one question, rose on a supplemental and was not recognized. Perhaps the Speaker can explain.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! As all hon. members know, there is no commitment to the order in which questions may be asked, and the Speaker is entirely free to make those decisions as he deems appropriate. However, I do appreciate the hon. member's submission, and I will give the undertaking to meet after question period with members who have questions about question period.

J. Tyabji: I rise today under standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the preservation of the basic civil rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom to organize to protest publicly.

We live in a free society where we value an individual's rights to speak and act within the law without fear of prosecution, especially prosecution by the heavy hand of government. Today in the courts of Victoria we see that this government is proceeding with criminal prosecution against an individual....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, with the greatest of respect, I think it is apparent to everyone that the matter you are raising, if it is not sub judice -- I'm not able to say precisely -- appears to be a matter that is inappropriate for standing order 35. Could the member, however, conclude with her general remarks on the question, and avoid the specific subject matter?

J. Tyabji: You're asking me to conclude....

The Speaker: The general concern that you have.

J. Tyabji: Okay. To conclude briefly, the people of this province need assurance that this House supports freedom of speech, of assembly and of protest within the laws of British Columbia.

I ask leave to table some documents.

Leave not granted.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I will consider your remarks and report back to the House.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call third reading of Bill 46.

CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT

Bill 46, Child, Family and Community Service Act, read a third time and passed.

[2:30]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply B to hear the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour.

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

[ Page 12200 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SKILLS, TRAINING AND LABOUR

(continued)

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

L. Reid: We left debate before noon today on the question of ESL funding at Vancouver Community College. I can indicate to the minister that I have placed a call to the Hon. Sergio Marchi, and I am willing to stand in support of those programs being continued at Vancouver Community College. I trust that I can report back to the House in terms of what he may say when he returns my call.

When we began the discussion about private trainers, and just before we recessed at lunch today, we talked about criteria for providing those kind of services. I talked about levelling the playing field and whether it would be possible for the minister to give some indication to other private trainers in the province as to what their criteria might be. We established that they would all be members of the Private Career Training Association, and we touched on cost.

Could the minister give some additional criteria for what would allow this ministry to purchase service from private trainers in the province?

Hon. D. Miller: The very simple and short answer -- and I'll go back to the comments I made prior to adjournment at lunch -- is that the clear focus of the ministry is to provide training that is relevant, that allows the recipient of the training to acquire skills, that will allow that recipient to have a much better opportunity at finding employment in today's job market, and that provides training for the real jobs that are being created in our economy. By saying that, I don't wish to diminish the broader and serious issue of the structural unemployment rate that many of the young people who are sitting in the gallery will have to contend with when they graduate from their schooling.

Just by way of example, I had a very good conversation with a high school teacher in Chilliwack who phoned me yesterday. They are very interested in trying to put into place -- particularly in the latter years of the K-to-12 system -- courses such as the technology courses I outlined that are in place in Kitimat and that give young people the real skills they are going to need to give them the ability to be flexible in their future choices, whether they are going directly into the workforce or on to community college or university. All opportunities for training are going to be judged against those kinds of standards.

"Regrettably, these alternatives would significantly reduce funding for the actual services to immigrants. Covering the cost of fringe benefits would amount to about $11 million, which can be equated to language training for some 3,200 adult newcomers."

That further bit of information may assist my Liberal critic in trying to convince her Liberal colleague that they should change that position. I wish her some luck. As I indicated before lunch, in my own small way I am also attempting, through reason, to convince the federal government to change their position. Who knows? Maybe reason will prevail.

L. Reid: For the record, I have no indication that the answer was no. I think where we are today is some discussion about whether or not those dollars will go toward future ESL programs for those 3,200 students. If I hear differently, I certainly will report back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Your ministry looks at $1 million additional funding for ESL programs. I am wondering if you can comment on where that $1 million might be. Will those dollars in fact flow to VCC for the delivery of such a program?

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about the $1 million under the Skills Now budget. Regardless of whether it's going directly to ESL or is combined with training, will that $1 million find its way to VCC?

Hon. D. Miller: I believe I indicated -- and I could get a copy of the press release; I'd be surprised if the member had not seen it -- that the $1 million was for Vancouver Community College.

While I'm on my feet, I might just take the quick opportunity to indicate what the budget is for Vancouver Community College. Members may find that information useful. I should say that these are not the total dollars but the base operating grants. Other questions may arise in the course of this estimates debate about various institutions and what their budget increase was.

I did indicate there is a 3.4 percent increase across the board in the amount of money that I had available for grants to colleges and universities. Vancouver Community College last year had a budget of $39,786,515, and this year they are looking at $41,010,317, for a total increase slightly in excess of $1.2 million -- just over a 3 percent increase. Given the realities of the fiscal situation these days, 3 percent is not bad. I was struck by some comments I heard from a college instructor in Alberta about cuts as high as 20 and 30 percent

[ Page 12201 ]

to the college system there. Therefore I felt very pleased -- and clearly the government is pleased -- about maintaining a reasonable increase in the face of the fiscal realities.

Given the reputation of Vancouver Community College, I know that they will use that money in a very good and efficient way to provide the kind of training I have witnessed on that campus. In fact, I would highly recommend that those who have the opportunity drop in on the campus while they're in downtown Vancouver. They have an outstanding cafeteria and an outstanding Chinese-cooking course. They have a cooking class that has won the gold medal for British Columbia. In fact, I think they're off to Norway again this year.

The Premier and I were delighted to attend the ceremony that we have every year for the Premier's excellence awards, where we recognize the top high school graduates in British Columbia who are going on to a

post-secondary institution. We had a very good lunch there. Not only was the lunch good, it was a pleasure to sit with the students and their parents and talk about these kinds of issues. If anybody gets a chance to drop in on the campus, I would highly recommend it.

L. Hanson: Last year at the Kalamalka campus of Okanagan University College, classroom instruction was offered in the adult basic education program for people who had not yet learned to read. It was apparently cut off this year. I'm told that in the process, the base funding for that program was not authorized for this year. Yet it seems that the Penticton, Kelowna and Salmon Arm campuses have it in their base budgets and are offering it this year.

[2:45]

I have a number of constituents -- adults who have never learned to read -- who found the program tremendously helpful. They feel that a lot of people are going to be deprived as a result of this class being cancelled this year. Maybe the minister can enlighten me as to the reason for that. Was it a discretional decision on the part of the college board, or is there some other reason why the base funding wasn't provided?

Hon. D. Miller: I actually have not had a chance.... I became aware of the situation in a private conversation with the member, and I've asked my staff to get back to me on that. I have not yet received the details.

Let me say that it's my understanding that we do not direct in that specific a manner. In other words, we fund the college with a base budget. Clearly there's discussion with the ministry about program content, etc. But with respect to adult basic education and where it might be delivered within the college system -- in other words, in which communities -- I don't believe that's a call of this ministry; I think that's a call of the college itself. That's the advice I'm receiving. If I'm in error there, I will certainly double-check that.

As that member was a former member of cabinet himself, he may understand the arguments that are sometimes deployed when particular programs aren't offered, such as: "We didn't get the kind of money we needed from the senior level of government." Fair enough. I'm not trying to throw stones at anybody.

As I did with VCC, I will just quote the total budget to give an indication to the member and the House of the kinds of increases in funding that we have provided in this particular budget. In the last fiscal year, Okanagan University College had a budget of $31,396,932. I'm happy to say that this year their budget is $32,867,698, for an increase of just under $1.5 million, or about 4.7 percent. Again, I'm not trying to throw stones at Okanagan. We think the increases we've given are justified. We clearly think a case can always be made that there needs to be more money given.

But given the relative size, I think the member will appreciate that we've tried to do our best by the university college that serves his region.

In addition to that, we have also granted Okanagan College the autonomous right to grant degrees -- something they had only in conjunction with an existing university. So there very clearly exists some significant new opportunities for people who live in your particular region of the province -- and a very nice region it is, having visited there on a fairly regular basis -- to acquire a university degree without having to leave their region or having to go down to the lower mainland or come over here to Victoria. I think that's going to benefit the region. Clearly the college will want to look at what kinds of degrees are relevant to the kind of economy that exists in your region.

I think I'll leave it at that, with respect to the financial numbers. But I will say to the member that I'm still checking for some more detail on the question of the ABE classes, and as soon as I receive those I'll get that to him.

L. Hanson: I find the minister's digression into degree-granting interesting, because in second reading of that particular bill I suggested that that was a good and proper move, and that colleges had earned the right to become degree-granting.

Whereas there were some other things in the bill that were not nearly as....

Hon. D. Miller: We don't want to debate the bill.

L. Hanson: We're not debating the bill, and that's why I was sort of surprised at the minister's remarks.

The reason I asked the minister is not that the course has been discontinued in all the locations of the college. It's been discontinued at one particular location. In talking to the people responsible, they suggest that the base funding was not authorized this year. I am trying to find out from the minister where the decision point is that decides that the Kalamalka campus should not offer that course,

whereas Penticton, Kelowna and Salmon Arm do offer that course. That was the question I posed to the minister.

I recognize that the minister hasn't had the opportunity to investigate it, but it doesn't seem to be a tremendously difficult question. If the minister would give us his undertaking to come back to estimates and state the answer to my question when he does have the information, I'll leave that subject for the time being. But I would like to have it on the record for obvious reasons.

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, I think I did give an answer. Even though I expanded to provide additional information on the budget of the college, I gave an answer. I also said I would double-check, and I will double-check. The information I receive from my staff is that that level of detail is not something this ministry is involved in.

We provide base funding, for example, for adult basic education. The decision about which communities to deliver that programming in is one that the college has. Therefore the decision is one that the college is responsible for. If in the course of events the college wishes to say, "We would have liked to have had more delivery, but we didn't get enough money," fair enough. But the decision to put it in Penticton and Kelowna rather than Vernon is an autonomous decision made by the college.

If I'm wrong in that -- and I want to be just a touch cautious -- and if, for example, we have done something that has influenced the location of delivery, then I will indeed

[ Page 12202 ]

come back to the member and give him that advice. But the advice I'm getting at this point is, in the immortal words of someone I used to work very closely with: it ain't my problem; it's the college's decision.

L. Hanson: That's the point I was trying to make. The minister seemed to suggest that that was the situation, but he was uncertain of it. The reason I am asking the question is that a number of people in my constituency are concerned that the program that was offered last year is not offered this year. I'm trying to find out from the minister where that decision-making process is. If he is absolutely certain that that decision lies only with the college board, that gives me an indication of where I should go to ask why it was discontinued. The minister seemed a little uncertain if that was exactly the case. I just wanted a confirmation of the situation on the record.

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I may rise at my own peril. I will give that member an absolute confirmation. I am fairly confident at this point that those kinds of decisions are localized decisions made by the college board and administration.

L. Hanson: That's not what I'm arguing about. I just wanted to know who to go to.

Hon. D. Miller: Right, okay.

L. Reid: While we are on adult basic education, it's my understanding that the funding is received based on the number of students who need that service. If I am correct, funding from the ministry will be based on the ministry coming forward with the number of full-time-equivalents who require that service. It's the needs of the population that determine funding. I think I am correct in that.

Hon. D. Miller: At least in the college system, unlike, say, the K-to-12 system, where the budget is clearly driven by demand.... In other words, the state has assumed responsibility for providing a basic education to all students. It is therefore demand-driven. If there is increased enrolment, we have an obligation to provide the educational service in the K-to-12 system. In the college system, it clearly varies, because it is budget-driven. I think we have done very well. In fact, over the next few years I think we will emerge as the province that probably devotes a good part of our resources on a per capita basis to post-secondary training. But the college system is not demand-driven.

L. Reid: With the minister's indulgence, I'd like to spend a few moments on the issue of research and development as it pertains to universities. As the minister knows from being in opposition, a number of individuals have pressing issues, and if we can spend a few moments trying to raise concerns and receive some answers for these individuals while getting the minister's comments, that would be useful to me and to the individuals who bring these questions to me for this purpose.

I speak specifically of research and development opportunities that flow from universities. A student comes up with an idea at the university and is interested in marketing that product and creating a commercial outlet for it. The issue right now is Canadian regulatory processes. Apparently there is some feedback from your ministry on regulations as they impact on ideas that come from universities. I'm not clear on that, and I would ask for your guidance on that question.

If I can just take a moment and expand for the minister, it seems that some very fine ideas are stuck in some kind of regulatory bottleneck; they are not able to move forward. In fact, because universities are governed by the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour, some of those concerns come back to your ministry. I'm not clear on how that communication works, and that will basically be the tenor of my questions over the next few moments. How can we best ensure that that kind of communication between the university and the ministry improves, and is your ministry able to take any interest at all in ensuring that those communication lines are open?

Perhaps I can give you an example which might clarify where I'm headed with this. Let's say there are devices on the market today that are going to have to be regulated in some form. When the university is responsible for the creation of that idea and hopefully the utilization of that product -- i.e., at some point they want to generate a profit, and hopefully those dollars will flow back to the university -- those kinds of guidelines....

I understand there is some connection with the division of science and technology in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. But my understanding is that some of that direction either needs to come from your ministry or perhaps needs to be shifted to where that direction may be more readily available. It seems to be very confusing for individuals today. I'm wondering if you can shed any light on how universities can best approach the problem of miscommunication around regulation, when the idea generates at a university.

Hon. D. Miller: I've had a little difficulty following the question, because it has been very generalized. I'm not trying to avoid any specific answers. We do not directly fund the kinds of pure research activities that quite often lead to the patenting of devices that may be useful or could be commercially produced.

There are lots of examples of the relationship between the university, the research that's done and the private sector. I don't have it here with me, but the number of private sector companies that have been spun off -- out of UBC, for example -- as a result of the kind of research efforts that are undertaken is quite significant. I might have to confirm the absolute numbers at a later date, but a significant number of private sector companies -- over 200, I think -- now provide employment to around 2,000 British Columbians, if I'm not mistaken.

So to the best of my knowledge it's a system that is working. The obligation of the academics is to attract research grants, of course, some of which may be available from government or quasi-government, a lot from the private sector through foundations and a fair amount through the area of technology transfer, I think.

I must say that in my discussions with any of the universities I've not been made aware of the details of any particular problems there. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they certainly have not been raised with me as an issue by the universities. If the member has a particular issue or case where she feels the ministry could be of some assistance, then I'm happy to pursue that.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comment that his ministry does not fund direct research. I don't have any issue with that at all.

[3:00]

[ Page 12203 ]

My question related to full-time graduate and post-graduate students who generate some idea that needs some kind of commercial application and in fact can generate some dollars back to the university. I appreciate that the minister doesn't have concerns that have come from the university per se. I simply ask: to whom in your ministry, who may be able to help them, should I direct the people who have come to me? They're not representing the university. These are individuals who have come up with ideas, if you will. Who can I direct them to?

Hon. D. Miller: There are any number of people; Dr. Rubidge in my ministry.... Really, if people have questions or issues they want to pursue, they can contact my office. Perhaps that's the easiest. Depending on what the questions are and what area they lie in, we can redirect them to the appropriate officials in the ministry.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. minister. I appreciate your comments, and I'll certainly do that.

If we can move on, then, I want to ask some questions about the cost of provincial exams. I understand there are now five opportunities -- five sittings of provincial exams -- in a given calendar year. We have some questions regarding exam security and marketing costs. My understanding is that it used to be a smaller number of sittings in a year. Has it increased?

Hon. D. Miller: Perhaps the member could be more specific about which provincial examinations. The colleges and universities conduct their own examination process. We don't do that through the ministry. Is the member talking about some other area?

L. Reid: I appreciate that the minister doesn't set the exam schedule, but you certainly provide the funds for those institutions to set those exam schedules. My question relates to the necessity for five opportunities in a calendar year. My understanding is that there used to be substantially fewer opportunities. Could you indicate what the additional cost is of providing increased opportunities?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, I really apologize; I don't have the answer to that question. Certainly I can attempt to get that while we're here today, but it's a fairly small detail, I must say. I'm happy to put my staff on the hunt for those details that are nonetheless important, but it really is an issue that.... We provide global funding for the colleges and universities. I can't recall in the time that I've been in this ministry.... Generally, I'm a pretty good weather vane.

As the minister, I tend to get the issues where there are problems, and I honestly can't recall once in the last eight or nine months when somebody has asked me this question, except for today. I don't wish to belittle the member's question. Certainly we're taking note of it, and if I can get some more information, I'll attempt to respond.

L. Reid: That's all one can ask for in this life, hon. minister. If you can come back to me at some point with the answer to the question, I can present it to the person who posed it to me. That will be very helpful.

I want to spend a few moments on Japanese and Mandarin Chinese classes as well. I understand that that's a current issue in high schools. But the question comes from something like the University of British Columbia deciding not to have an examinable subject preference given to those two subjects. I'm wondering if the ministry has any intention of encouraging or suggesting to the university that perhaps they may want to relook at that issue and come back to the table with an answer.

Hon. D. Miller: No, hon. Chair. The issue, I think, is being dealt with where it properly should be, and that is in the

K-to-12 system. The University of British Columbia simply adopted what I understand was already in existence at Simon Fraser University. Given the competition for access to the university, it was felt that to be fair in making choices about who could get in, they should rely on those courses that are provincially examinable. The difficulty was that there were no provincial exams in the two Asian languages that you are talking about. The Premier, along with the Minister of Education, I believe, have since addressed that issue and indicated that they intend to deal with the issue of exams in the K-to-12 system.

That should correct the problem. But I don't think that the University of British Columbia did anything wrong in taking the position they took. In fact, I think they were entirely consistent with the policy that already existed at Simon Fraser University.

N. Lortie: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

N. Lortie: I am pleased to introduce 33 delightful young people from my community of Delta North. They are grade 7 students from Hellings Elementary, led by their teacher, Mr. Brown, and several adults who almost look like teachers. Would this House please make them very welcome.

L. Reid: Just for the record, I'm certainly quoting the Simon Fraser University position when you talk about UBC falling in line with SFU. Simon Fraser University also admits students on a percentage basis using the final marks from four grade 12 courses, but those courses do not all have to be provincially examinable. That is where they sit on that issue. In fact, UBC is not falling in line directly, because SFU certainly leaves the door ajar. I'm wondering if perhaps your ministry could have some contact or correspondence with....

Interjection.

L. Reid: I know, but it's quoted directly from the other quote, thank you, hon. minister. I have done my homework on this issue.

The point is that certainly if you have some vision for where we're headed as a Pacific Rim trading partner, it does make sense to have those languages be provincially examinable. It seems that the University of British Columbia has been somewhat arbitrary in that determination.

Interjection.

L. Reid: The minister is suggesting that David Strangway has never been arbitrary. Well, I'll allow the record to show that that has not been my experience.

For me, the very specific question is: will this minister indeed suggest to the University of British Columbia, in whatever manner is deemed appropriate, that the door remain ajar on whether or not Japanese and Mandarin Chinese are examinable subjects? I'm not convinced that it is indeed in the province's best interest to close the door on those two subjects when they are going to be critical -- if not today, then certainly in the next number of years -- for

[ Page 12204 ]

whether or not British Columbia has reasonable trade with Pacific Rim countries.

Hon. D. Miller: Gee, I thought my last answer was reasonably comprehensive. I indicated that steps are being taken to address the problem. I personally think that they should be, and my personal opinion has been supported by the Minister of Education and by the Premier. We can all recall.... When I went to school, and it wasn't that long ago, the language that was most often chosen.... Latin was still being taught in junior high school when I started grade 7, and not many students took it.

In fact, one might conclude that there was a very narrow range of students who would even have had any particular use for Latin. Therefore it was a bit of a dead language for the vast majority of students. I see the Chair smiling; I'm trying my best to get a pun going here.

The other two languages offered at that time were French and Spanish, and I recall the great debate I had with many of my fellow grade 7 students about which language to take -- French or Spanish -- and believe me, it was based on which one people thought was easier to learn. As a result of that, a lot of people ended up taking Spanish -- which again, I don't know.... It's not that I'm opposed to the concept of learning the language, but I'm just not convinced that at that time it was a particularly relevant skill that would be required later in their lives. Yet clearly there was an opportunity, from both a national perspective and an international perspective, for the use of French.

Now the world has changed, and the Asian languages, I think, are particularly appropriate to British Columbia. We are seeing the increasing development of trade links with Asian countries. Many of the immigrants to Canada who have enriched our lives here in British Columbia have come from Asian countries. I think it's entirely appropriate that we have the ability to learn one of those languages, and that the students in British Columbia have the ability to learn them in terms of their future opportunities.

Certainly I would have loved to have been able to speak Japanese when I was over there a couple of years ago. I believe we are moving to develop an examination for a couple of Asian languages, and hopefully that will resolve the problem.

The Chair: Following on the minister's comments about Latin, I think it's appropriate to now say incipit, Richmond East.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Chair.

In keeping with the minister's comments, certainly his ministry and the government have put out a number of press releases about how important it is to foster those trade relations and about how British Columbia can have the strongest economy if we plug into what's happening in the Pacific Rim. I think you and I agree on that issue. I trust that we can allow students in this province who have that skill, and can demonstrate it, to incorporate it into their university entrance. I think that's the issue. If you say that you believe in it, can you back it up and do something about it? I trust that will happen.

I want to spend a few moments covering post-secondary education programs. I have some questions about where the application of the Fraser Valley University Society currently sits and where this minister is headed in terms of looking at opportunities for the Fraser Valley. I would ask the minister to address that.

Hon. D. Miller: I believe we are making significant progress.

L. Reid: I'm going to spend a few moments referring to the Fraser Valley University Society. The minister has just stated that he believes the ministry is making some progress. It certainly seems to be the intent of the Fraser Valley University Society to establish an independent degree-granting university in the Fraser Valley. I would be very interested in the minister's comments. I can perhaps tell you where the official opposition is coming from on this question. We are not looking for another free-standing university, in terms of good fiscal sense for this province.

For a population of approximately three million people, as of this September, we will have four free-standing universities. We certainly don't want to deny opportunities to individuals who happen to live in the Fraser Valley, but we're wondering if the minister can perhaps come back to the table with some alternative delivery systems around post-secondary

opportunities, because I think that's where the ministry is headed. Perhaps he can embellish and expand upon whether we're heading in that direction. That would be most helpful.

Hon. D. Miller: I did deal with this topic on Wednesday. In fact, in a rare move of unanimity, I was thanked profusely by the member for Chilliwack. I indicated that we have not made the final decisions, as the member might appreciate. I don't want to pre-empt any discussion I may have with my colleagues on the form, if you like.

[3:15]

I also indicated quite clearly that this government is aware of the growing need for expanded post-secondary facilities in the Fraser Valley. I was absolutely astounded by some of the growth projections I've read. Over the next decade or two, we are looking at growth rates that will exceed 150 percent in some of those Fraser Valley communities. It's staggering when you think about it. On the other hand, when you look at the situation in British Columbia in general, it's pretty clear that the population here is going to grow at a fairly significant rate.

In my view, that means we will have a dynamic and growing economy. I think we will see an influx of people with the ideas and capital required to expand the economy in British Columbia. In fact, it's the bright spot in Canada in that regard.

There are always issues that you have to be careful about, regarding growth. Clearly, the ability to keep pace with that kind of percentage increase is difficult. It requires major contributions from the taxpayers for increased budgets for capital and programs. We see that with the demand on the growth side in the K-to-12 system that's again being created in the Fraser Valley communities, despite the fact that in the last two years the government has committed $1 billion in capital money for new construction. It's very clear that there are communities where even with that significant capital expenditure the facilities are not adequate.

We're always trying to find a balance and, of course, it's subjective. But I constantly remind members that, on the one hand, we are berated by some on that side of the House who used the simplistic slogan: "Cut your budget." On the other hand, we also hear from members on that side who simply say: "You need to spend more money here and you need to spend more money there." I agree that it's a subjective issue, and one that members are free to have opinions on.

We have committed $1 billion on the K-to-12 side across the province. We will deal with the growing demand for post-secondary training in the Fraser Valley. Members should also draw some signal from the direction we've indicated in the Skills Now package: we're interested in

[ Page 12205 ]

having institutions capable of delivering education and training that's relevant to the needs of our economy and, therefore, to the individuals who receive that training.

L. Reid: The minister's correspondence of January 12, 1994, refers to the report of phase one of the Fraser Valley Committee on Post-Secondary Education being released in July 1993. It states: "The ministry is now considering alternative approaches for phase two of this review and will be communicating its intention in the near future." I have been made aware of the intentions of phase one of the review. I'm wondering if phase two has indeed become public and if you have communicated your intentions. I'd be most interested to learn what they might be.

Hon. D. Miller: The answer is no.

Perhaps I could indicate to the member the budget of the University College of the Fraser Valley. Again, I was pleased to be able to include University College of the Fraser Valley in the announcement of those community colleges that will have the autonomous right to grant degrees. Their budget for last fiscal year was $19.5 million, and their budget for this year is $22.576 million. That's a whopping increase -- if I can use that term; it's usually applied to fish, but nonetheless -- of over $3 million. If I'm not mistaken, that's the largest increase of any college in the system.

That is a 15.6 percent increase, a wonderful increase for the University College of the Fraser Valley that I know they will use. We talked about the demand side; it's clearly there, and the ministry has responded in a very positive way by allocating what I would modestly describe as a significant budget increase.

L. Reid: Could the minister comment on whether or not there would be any ceiling in place for private funding for something like a Fraser Valley university college? I think that is probably the venue, not to presuppose what the minister's intentions will be when his review is released; but my thinking, based on what he said earlier in terms of the Skills Now initiative, is that we're heading to an expanded university college model in the Fraser Valley. I wonder if he has given some thought to private funding for that institution.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite sure I follow. The universities and the colleges do have private fundraising drives. I have previously talked in this House about what I think may be the most successful fundraising drive in the history of the Canadian university -- the World of Opportunity

fund-raising drive at the University of British Columbia, where I had the opportunity to share the stage with your leader, albeit not at the same time. We congratulated the university administration for raising in excess of $100 million from the private sector. I have also been to other functions -- for example, the opening of Green College. Significant donations were made by Mr. Green, who has made his fortune and is bestowing it on universities around the world, and he made a very generous donation to the University of British Columbia. So they do engage in private fundraising.

L. Reid: To take this discussion one step further, as the minister has stated, we have institutions which receive enormous sums of private dollars. Would the ministry ever support the creation of a private college or university in this province? We don't have any universities in British Columbia or Canada that are completely private. I am wondering if the ministry has given any thought to that kind of opportunity and economic investment for this province. If we look at the track records of some well-known American institutions in terms of the students they graduate and the dollars they are able to accrue.... Could British Columbia perhaps be home to a private university?

Hon. D. Miller: I must confess that I have not given the topic that much consideration. There are private universities that are available to British Columbians. I recall the

individual who formerly occupied this chair in the Legislature, who is now deceased. There was some debate about the initials that were tacked onto that individual's name and whether the degree was real; I think it was obtained in California.

We've got our hands full here in British Columbia providing what I think is one of the better post-secondary systems in Canada. Our college system is a standout. There is no other system that compares to what we do in British Columbia. We have a decentralized model. We have colleges around the province that deliver programs. I was reading an

article the other day -- and I may get a chance to quote it -- from a woman in Terrace who said she received her degree without leaving Terrace, British Columbia. I think that's marvellous. We've got post-secondary institutions. The three universities in the province have been rated as world-class, and they are leaders in Canada. We have a brand-new university starting in northern British Columbia, and we're looking at opportunities for post-secondary expansion in places like the Fraser Valley.

There is no prohibition on anyone who may want to offer post-secondary training, except that they must come under the provisions of the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission and the legislation that requires registration; I talked about those issues earlier. I have not heard about anybody who is particularly dying to come to British Columbia to start a private university. There are private post-secondary institutions. I don't know that it's particularly an issue, either with people who may want to do it or with people in the existing public institutions.

L. Reid: To leave the Fraser Valley discussion, I would only ask the minister's time line as to when phase two of that review is going to be out. It says in the near future. Could he perhaps indicate a month that I might look for that report?

Hon. D. Miller: I have made it a practice, ever since I entered the political arena, never to set deadlines for myself that I did not think were absolutely obtainable. It has proven its worth -- to me, at least. Therefore I think I'll continue the practice. We clearly recognize the importance of the issue, and we are moving.

With no disrespect to the members, I must step out in the hallway for a few minutes. I would ask my staff to keep note of the questions that are being asked. I shall return, as the old saying goes, as quickly as I possibly can.

The Chair: I think what we will do, unless any member wishes to jump up and speak, is to simply accept an informal five-minute recess, if that is agreeable.

The House recessed at 3:28 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:40 p.m.

The Chair: I thank members for their patience. Now that the tension has mounted and the suspense has reached a high point, I recognize the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

[ Page 12206 ]

D. Mitchell: I welcome the minister back to the committee. We didn't pass any of the estimates while he was away, I can assure him.

I would like to pick up where we left off. The minister was indicating that it's not easy to satisfy the requirements for post-secondary education and training in the province, but he feels that we are making some progress. I think that is true as well. But the truth is that there are also a number of students who are being turned away -- students of all ages, not simply the traditional students we think of in the 18-to-24 age category. Students of all ages are having difficulties availing themselves of opportunities for training and education that they would like to obtain.

I wonder if the minister could share with us in the committee this afternoon whether or not his ministry compiles any statistics on turnaways.

The reason I raise this issue is that I know his predecessor as minister made a big deal in the committee last year about the new centralized registration program for post-secondary education that the ministry was going to be implementing. This centralized system for application to post-secondary education was going to allow the ministry to give us some accurate figures as to the numbers of people who are effectively turned away from gaining admittance to institutions in our post-secondary training and education system.

I wonder if the minister can tell us, for instance, how many students were effectively turned away in the last fiscal year. Could he also tell us whether the centralized registration system is up and running now, and whether he considers it to be effective?

Hon. D. Miller: Working from the bottom up, the centralized registry system is not in place. It was anticipated that it would be, and an announcement was made prior to my assuming this portfolio. We've not been able to do that. I made the decision as minister that I am not going to allow a system to start up that is not 100 percent functional. Therefore it will not be up this year. It will have to wait until next year. The critics can say what they will, but when it's up and running, it will work. The central registry will give us a much better ability to determine just how many turnaways there are.

One of the difficulties in British Columbia is that in order to try to get the kind of course load they want in any given year, students typically do some blanket booking. In other words, they will book across the system and effectively hold courses that they might not end up taking when they enter the institution in September. That kind of duplication has caused difficulty in forecasting demand. I think it's fair to say that people are turned away; there's no question about it. Some of the estimates are as high as 20,000 applicants. I'm not convinced that it's that high, quite frankly.

But we will have a better ability to assess that. I think we will have an even better ability after September of this year.

You know that we have targeted a significant increase in full-time students at post-secondary institutions under the Skills Now package. That has been broken down into a lot of different component parts, but there are about 5,300 in total going directly into colleges and universities this fall, as opposed to 2,700, which was the targeted increase last year. We've increased that in a significant way.

In addition to that, we have other FTEs in a lot of the new programs that are coming: some of the applied programs at the college level, some aboriginal participation, and the skills centres, which we will be establishing in 20 communities around this province over the next two years. That totals in excess of 8,000 new spaces in our post-secondary institutes -- or at least involves a

post-secondary institute. That's a pretty significant increase. If the estimates on applications are in the 10,000- to 20,000-range, you can see that we have moved to deal with that pent-up demand in a very significant way.

[3:45]

I'll go back to some of the comments I made earlier. This province is expanding. One only needs to look here, at the southern part of Vancouver Island, and at the Fraser Valley communities to see the tremendous potential for growth. We are taking the position this year that we're challenging the institutions. We cannot continue to say that education will always be delivered only one way: in a classroom with a professor and some students sitting down in chairs in front of that professor. There are innovative ways for people to learn, and we think that can increase the system's capacity considerably.

Distance education is one of those opportunities. A woman I talked about.... I didn't quote the newspaper of June 20 from my hometown of Prince Rupert, but I will now. "A recent UNBC graduate...said there are many benefits to attending the university. She did her entire degree while living in Terrace. 'I liked it, because it was financially easier staying closer to my family. It's easier to stay here than relocate down south'."

An Hon. Member: Where did she graduate from?

Hon. D. Miller: The story says UNBC, which I find difficult to believe, since they are just opening -- although they did have some students last year. I think what was really happening here was that the student was at Northwest Community College and took courses through the Open Learning Agency or the open university.

My point is that it is possible to teach in innovative ways; it's possible to learn in different, non-traditional ways. We need to look at the whole area of prior learning assessment to get a better ability to determine what an individual's knowledge really is. We tend to be fairly rigid, and perhaps there's nothing wrong with that when you have the luxury of saying: "There's only one way things are going to happen here: you have to enter in September, come out in April and come back next year; we are going to teach in a fairly rigid way." We're trying to change that.

We're trying to change the whole culture around education and training to some degree -- I'm not really talking about the more advanced academic training at university -- at the college level, at least. We are also trying to refocus, as I said, and to offer encouragement to people to consider the kind of training they can get, particularly at the college level, that's more relevant to the economy.

We will have the system up and running next year. We will increase the number of full-time-equivalents this year. I'm satisfied that we probably made a bigger impact in this budget, with this Skills Now package, than has ever been made on dealing with the issue of backlog or the pent-up demand for

post-secondary access.

D. Mitchell: The minister indicated that the government has abandoned the idea of establishing the registry this year. Could the minister indicate what specific problems there were with getting the centralized registry off the ground? His predecessor seemed to be very firmly committed to it. I'm wondering if the minister can simply inform the committee, since we did approve funding in this committee last year for that centralized registry, what the specific problems were. Why has it not been able to get off the ground? Could the minister also tell us if the centralized

[ Page 12207 ]

registration centre is still planned for Kamloops, as his predecessor indicated?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it is. There were some system difficulties and some recruitment difficulties. I don't know if you want to get into more detail than that. Just for the member's edification, and to indicate the kind of growth that's taking place in British Columbia -- the system growth, if you like.... Across the community college system in 1990-91 there were 58,700 full-time-equivalent students, projected to 67,846

full-time-equivalents this year. So you can see that the government has financed significant growth in the college system right across the province.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Those are for the college system; that's correct.

Again, we've done it in areas where the demand has been greatest. Areas such as the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan have seen some fairly significant increases in their budget and in their ability to deliver those educational opportunities.

D. Mitchell: I wonder if I could ask the minister to confirm something about the picture that he's painting with his comments today about post-secondary education in British Columbia. He's indicated, through the statistics he's just read into the record, tremendous growth in participation for full-time-equivalent students in the post-secondary education system at the college level. We know there's been growth at the university level. We know that demand for technical and vocational training is also increasing.

The minister previously indicated that there may have been as many as 20,000 turned away. That might be a high estimate; we don't know. I certainly had that estimate provided to me as well. As many as 20,000 British Columbians could not get spaces, because there is no funding for spaces in our various institutions.

The minister has also indicated that even with the growth that's occurred in the last few years, the population of British Columbia is growing exponentially.

Is the minister really saying that whether it's the year under approval today in this committee or in the future, regardless of the tremendous progress that has been made -- and I applaud the minister for the progress that he's indicated not only for providing full-time spaces but for trying to develop innovative ways of delivering post-secondary educational programs -- we're not going to be able to give training to every British Columbian who wants to get the advanced education and training they require, because the population is growing too fast? Is that what the minister is saying today?

Hon. D. Miller: No, that's what the member said.

D. Mitchell: I simply sought clarification, because the minister is painting a picture of tremendous growth and the inability of the system to meet the demand -- the demand is exceeding the ability of the government to provide the training and education that is wanted. That's what I understood the minister to be saying.

If that's not the case, and given the fact that we don't have the ability through the ministry to count exactly how many British Columbians are seeking education, because the centralized registry that he's referred to isn't in place yet, how can the minister be confident that either in the year under review, in the year ahead or in the future, British Columbians who want to get an education won't be turned away -- that there will be fewer and fewer turned away, to the point where the capacity can actually meet the demand? Clearly that's not the case today. How are we going to get there?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not quite sure of the member's point. Perhaps he could tell me where he's trying to get with this.

D. Mitchell: For the minister's benefit, I'm saying that the minister has indicated that perhaps as many as 20,000 students were turned away last year in British Columbia. They could not get into colleges, universities or training institutes. However, the minister has indicated that he's making progress, and I applaud him for that. He's making progress in providing more spaces, and I think the Skills Now program is a good advance in that area.

Having said that, the minister has also indicated that the population is growing rapidly in British Columbia. If that's the case, how are we going to keep up? Even with the tremendous progress the minister has indicated, the population is growing. How are we going to meet the needs in British Columbia, given the population growth forecast that the minister himself has provided to the committee?

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I don't think that there is any particularly simple answer to that question. It depends to a large degree on the growth that takes place in the population. Pretty clearly, the trend over the longer term is for the British Columbia population to grow at a fairly significant rate. When I spoke to that issue a short while ago, I also said that that will have a positive impact on the economy. In other words, the economy will also expand.

I happen to think that one of the difficulties we have in this country -- at least in terms of developing a stronger economy from a more national point of view -- is that it is relatively sparsely populated. I understand the arguments to the contrary; nonetheless, I'll advance this at whatever risk it may entail. Our population tends to hug the border; we're stretched out; we have some difficult problems with respect to economies of scale -- whether that's service delivery, transportation delivery or you name it.

As we're seeing, the growth in the population, particularly in areas outside the lower mainland, will strengthen and expand the economy over the longer term. Using that theory at least, this would allow us to increase our capacity to deliver new opportunities.

I suspect that unless you're in a province where there is an actual decline in population -- unless you're in a position, for example.... Newfoundland is really not a good argument, because I think they've got some other peculiar problems that will be resolved to some degree by their ability to do the kind of training that we're proposing under our skills initiative. But unless you're actually in a province where the number of people who would normally require post-secondary training are declining, there will always be an imbalance.

I don't think you can predict what that imbalance may be at any particular point in the future. It's really quite a hypothetical or, dare I say, perhaps an academic discussion.

Future governments will deal with that. Hopefully it will be this one, because I think the record we're going to lay down with respect to the skills initiative will stand the test of time. It will make a significant change in the way we look at the issues of education and training. We'll meet those tests sometimes by having to commit additional provincial resources. For example, we may have to increase debt loads

[ Page 12208 ]

at some future point to construct new facilities. When and if we do that, it might be helpful if we get more than a knee-jerk reaction out of members of the opposition, such as that member, who simply -- simplistically, in my view -- likes to run around and complain that the deficit and the debt are growing. The deficit is getting smaller, in fact, but the debt is growing. To claim that that is the evil of all evils, and then stand in debate here and ask how we're going to meet this demand that we're going to be faced with in the future....

That may be one of the options that future governments consider. They may consider it prudent to offer the kind of training that I have characterized as being fundamental to economic growth.... They may consider it prudent as only being achievable by expanding the amount of capital and facilities they provide.

I find it strange that despite the rhetoric I have heard in this country, we get that member -- who is a former Liberal, and I don't know what his position is -- and a bunch of federal Liberals saying that the province should take over Royal Roads and turn it into a college, and we've got a bunch of Reformers saying that the province should take over Royal Roads and turn it into a college, notwithstanding the fact that it's a federal responsibility and they've dumped the cost on us. In the process, they are showing total disregard for British Columbia taxpayers. But contradictions do exist.

[4:00]

I think we will meet the challenge. I also think we need to change the way that we look at post-secondary training. I don't think the static model of "there's the classroom and that's the only way we can do it" is going to work. We're going to find, particularly with telecommunications, a revolution in learning. People are quite capable, despite the member's comments the last time we debated these estimates about the Open Learning Agency....

An Hon. Member: No, the Knowledge Network.

Hon. D. Miller: By the way, I have had some discussions on that, and I think some people are going to be getting in touch with you to try to educate you on that.

As I said, education is a funny thing. You can supply all of the facts and statistics and still not be successful. I think we're going to change our way of thinking about education and training. I hope that we can foster the notion that learning is a lifelong process. The economy has changed. Working people need the opportunity to upgrade their skills -- not to wait for change, but to anticipate change. We are developing 20 community skill centres around this province, and the communities that I have been in and the people I have talked to about this notion are very excited.

They see this as a significant opportunity to expand post-secondary training. So we will meet those challenges in a variety of ways.

The member may wish to criticize our spending habits. I would be pleased to hear the member say that he either agrees or disagrees. Should we be spending more? Should we be increasing our capital debt load to provide more facilities? I would be interested in the member's position on that. Our spending on the post-secondary side under this government has exceeded our growth. Maybe the member disagrees with that. Maybe he thinks that's wrong -- that we should not do that. But we are dancing in the realm of hypothesis here, and while I enjoy the debate, as I always do, it may not be in the strictest sense....

Far be it from me to try to be strict with respect to the rules of debate; it should be free-ranging. Hon. Chair, I will leave it to you and others to judge that.

D. Mitchell: I am absolutely whelmed by the minister's answer. He digressed a bit, and I'm sure we'll get a chance to talk about the skills training centres he referred to when we talk about that program later on. I know the official opposition critic intends to get into that, and I look forward to that portion of the estimates.

I would like to ask one further question of the minister. I would like to make it a specific question, because his answers mystify me, quite frankly. I am not really sure that I'm getting through to him. I only want to understand where British Columbia stands with respect to post-secondary education. Perhaps I should ask a comparative question, because he might have some data on this. The minister has asked me where I stand, and I don't mind telling him. I believe that the investments made by his ministry are perhaps the best investments that could be made by the government of British Columbia.

The best returns on investment of tax dollars are likely to take place in education and in advanced education and training, and I think those are dollars well spent. We want to take a look at where they're spent, understand how they're spent and understand where we stand in relation to people outside of British Columbia -- the rest of the country.

So I wonder whether the minister could tell us about the participation rate in post-secondary education. Where do we stand today? In the fiscal year 1994-95, where will British Columbia stand in participation in post-secondary education compared to other provinces in Canada? There was a time when we were among the worst. Is that still the case?

[F. Garden in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, without having the numbers right at my fingertips, I think we in fact were on a couple of counts -- participation and investment per FTE, if you like. I said earlier that I think this skills announcement will take us back up. I'm advised that it will probably land us in fifth or sixth place in Canada with respect to participation and the kinds of resources that we allocate to the system.

D. Mitchell: Would the minister agree that it would be a worthy and realistic goal, perhaps, to be number one in Canada? Why would British Columbia not be able to be in first place in terms of the participation rate for British Columbians of all ages, not just the young people who graduate from high school? Why wouldn't British Columbia be able to be number one in Canada when it comes to advanced education and training? Would the minister agree that that's a realistic goal? It's a worthy goal. And would he be willing to commit himself and his ministry to achieving that goal in British Columbia?

The reason I ask the question is that the picture the minister painted earlier was a grim one, quite frankly, because he stated that there will always be an imbalance in a province that has population growth like British Columbia's. The minister said -- and I was making notes of his comments -- that there will always be an imbalance. That's discouraging for the many British Columbians who are trying to get training and who are being forced to go outside of British Columbia because they can't get a place in a college or university or at BCIT.

So does the minister not agree that it would be a worthy goal? Is he prepared to commit today that British Columbia should be number one in participation in post-secondary education and training? That's a simple question, hon. Chair.

[ Page 12209 ]

Hon. D. Miller: As we weave around these topics and probably take too much time to talk about them -- although I'm always happy to do that -- I am absolutely surprised that this member did not listen to some of my previous responses. He wants to use yardsticks; he wants to use simplified measurements. If a province that has really experienced an out-migration, and as a result of that out-migration -- in other words, that reduced demand -- is holding the status of number one in terms of the participation rate, should that be the target that we follow?

Does the member advocate, from a policy point of view, that we simply home in on whoever is number one, regardless of why they're number one? In the case that I cited, because they've had an out-migration of people and therefore the demand has disappeared, should we simply set that as our policy target? What nonsense!

If this member were the minister in charge, and unchecked by Treasury Board or cabinet, he would drive this province so deeply into debt that I shudder to think. And if that is how.... Is it the independent party? What party is it? I can never keep it straight. If that's how policy is determined there, then really I.... What can I say? A man with such a wealth of business experience advocating that kind of approach to policy, hon. Chairman, is surprising, to say the least.

So I hope the member understands the point I'm trying to make: the relentless pursuit of "number one" regardless of circumstances, it seems to me, is utterly foolish. What we want to do in British Columbia -- and I think what we have achieved in large measure -- is, first, to have institutions that are recognized for their quality. Clearly the universities that we have now and the new one coming on -- I'll just deal with the three we have now -- have been recognized nationally by educators, academics and students for their quality. Their quality is up there at the top.

As I've previously explained, our college system is in some sense unparalleled in the rest of Canada. It's decentralized; it serves British Columbians no matter where they are. It has expanded fairly rapidly. It has experienced nothing but growth since about the early seventies -- when the previous NDP government gave the college system in this province its real start, I'm proud to say.

This isn't a political commentary; this is historical fact. The Dave Barrett administration started the college system in the real way -- elements of the college system were existing prior to '72 -- with the designation and appointment of college boards in the regions of this province. That really got things off to a good start. The member is a historian; he's written a couple of books about British Columbia. I'm sure he might want to go back and check those facts -- and they are facts. Our college system has grown consistently over the two decades.

We are now talking about a major increase in its capacity. At the end of the day, we will weigh up all the participation statistics. It's important that our citizens have those opportunities to participate. But we'll do it in a sensible way. I love the idea of saying: "Yes, we're number one." I suppose all of us should aspire to excellence -- I think someone wrote a book about that once -- and we do. We are making meaningful progress in terms of increasing participation. But you don't change overnight the kind of neglect that has existed.

Because you may be behind, do you say: "Well, we're going to have to increase to number one in a year. Do we have to do it over two years?" You do it in a prudent way, in terms of your capacity to expand.

I'm struck by the demand I constantly hear from members of the opposition, on the one side saying, "Spend more money, spend more money," and on the other side wanting to have -- indeed, some having -- the luxury of also standing up and saying: "This is a terrible government because they're spending too much money." I've yet to hear anybody on the other side stand up and defend, or offer some kind of explanation of why this fundamental contradiction exists. Since I've just posed the question, the member may want the opportunity now to offer some rationalization of his position, because he's as guilty as others in that regard.

I've tried to put the rather simplistic question the member asked in a broader context, and I hope he appreciates that context. I'd be happy to answer any further questions he might have.

D. Mitchell: The minister sat a very short while ago on the opposition side of the House. He will remember that. I know he will, because he projects his behaviour when on the opposition side of this House onto members who serve on the opposition side today. He projects his irresponsible ranting and ravings when he was in opposition onto opposition members today.

The truth is that's not the case at all. This minister, after seven or eight months as minister with this portfolio, claims with arrogance to know it all. He claims to have mastered the fine art of advanced education and training. He claims to have mastered a portfolio so complex that I think it's safe to say predecessors who served in that portfolio, during periods of time less complex than today, will admit quite frankly that it's impossible to master a system as complex as the advanced education system in British Columbia. Yet this arrogant minister claims to understand it all and refuses to answer simple questions from the opposition who seek information.

There's an information-seeking role. The minister may not remember that when he was on the opposition side, one of the roles of an opposition member or of any member in this Legislature is to seek information from government. It's very difficult to do with this minister. He refuses to answer questions. He seeks to stand up and make partisan comments about previous administrations. He refuses to recognize the salient fact that in the advanced education sector in British Columbia today, administrators in our universities, colleges and training institutes never thought they would be in this situation.

But today they are in the situation where they actually look back nostalgically to the previous administration, which members now in government used to call penny-pinching. They said the previous administration had a terrible approach to advanced education and that they were starving the system. Yet it's interesting that people who work in that sector today look back fondly to the days of the previous administration, when at least there were more than token gestures made toward increasing the FTEs and spaces and opening up the system. At least there was a goal.

At least there were objectives with the previous administration to try to satisfy the needs and demands.

This minister, instead, paints a grim picture. He tells us there will always be an imbalance. He tells us that British Columbians will always be turned away in the thousands, because he cannot come up with a way to devise a system whereby British Columbians aren't forced to go to other provinces or to other countries, in fact, to seek the training and advanced education they require.

It's a sad day in British Columbia to have a rookie minister stand up in this House, pretend to know it all, demonstrate the height of arrogance that he demonstrates and ask this committee to approve his spending estimates for the next fiscal year.

[4:15]

[ Page 12210 ]

I'm not going to carry this any further. It's a waste of my time, this committee's time and the Legislature's time to ask this minister to answer some basic questions. He refuses to do so; I regret that. Hon. Chair, I can tell you only one thing: I am now forced to move a motion, reducing this minister's salary to $1. I move that motion.

The Chair: The motion is in order and is before the House.

Motion negatived on division.

Hon. D. Miller: I really regret.... I see the member is leaving the chamber. It is too bad he doesn't stick around, because he likes to stand up and make speeches.

I would say only this, hon. Chair: I am quite prepared -- and I started out this set of estimates -- to give candid answers to specific questions posed to me as the minister. If they are factual questions or are a matter of statistics that I have at my disposal or can readily get, I am quite prepared to offer them, and I have done that. If members want to raise hypothetical scenarios and they want to get into philosophical discussions, I am quite prepared to do that as well.

I think the member was completely out of order, particularly in his last little tirade when he stood up and talked about previous administrations paying all this attention to

post-secondary education. He forgot that when he spoke previously, he complained of British Columbia's standing and that we were so far down in terms of our participation rates. If the model that member wants to use to determine whether we are being successful in post-secondary is participation rates, which it appeared to me to be from his questions, then he has completely contradicted himself again. I can only conclude that he's gone out of this chamber in a little pique, because he wanted to enter a fanciful argument and somehow didn't feel that he bested the argument.

I want to assure all hon. members that I'm not here to waste my time or theirs. I'm here to answer questions with respect to the performance of myself and my ministry in the critical area of post-secondary education. I repeat that we have launched the most significant post-secondary education program in this province in a long time. It's under Skills Now, and it will increase the opportunity for participation to in excess of 8,000 full-time student equivalents in this province over the next year.

L. Reid: In the minister's previous comments, he touched on Royal Roads Military College. I'm in receipt of a proposal for the use of that college. It was given to me by my colleague the hon. member for Saanich North and the Islands. I would like to take a moment to touch on this proposal and enter it into the record, because I think it brings to bear the fact that there are some very thoughtful British Columbians who come forward and bring some very fine ideas to the table for debate. The author of this proposal is Catherine Regehr, and she states:

"This letter is to outline one of the possible uses for Royal Roads Military College when it is closed in 1996.

"My idea is quite simple. It could be turned into the

world-renowned Royal Roads horticultural college and gardens.

"Everything is already in place for use in such a learning institution: classrooms, accommodation, administrative offices and, most importantly of all, the 650 acres of magnificent gardens and grounds.

"Fees would be charged for the different courses available, and the admission fee charged for entrance into the gardens would add to the overall profitability of the college.

"Merrist Wood College in the United Kingdom very kindly sent me their prospectus and fee schedule, of which I am enclosing copies, to give you an idea of the courses that could be available at the horticultural college.

"Apart from my contact with Merrist Wood, I have also spoken to Prof. Michael Alder, foremost in his field and principal of Writtle College, the largest horticultural college in Europe, and he is very kindly sending me a prospectus of his college, along with fees and differing degrees that the college offers to the population at large. Professor Alder has students from all over the world apply to his college, and in some cases there is not the availability of spaces.... If more information is required, Professor Alder has offered his expert help in this matter.

"The overall running costs of the horticultural college should be taken care of by the entrance costs to the gardens, which would be part of practical work carried out by the students, and consequently would be of no extra cost to the college or government.

"Other factors that should be taken into account is the economic boon to Colwood, Langford, Metchosin, Esquimalt, Sooke, Port Renfrew and, of course, Victoria in general. Tourists would flock to the Hatley Castle Gardens at Royal Roads horticultural college, and all the area surrounding would benefit from this tourist influx."

The writer goes on to say that Butchart Gardens is world renowned. They generally have 750,000 visitors to their gardens each year. Fees vary, and they also cater to bus tours and have special events.

"Simple mathematics show that with a fee

schedule similar to Butchart Gardens, there can be great profit made from the horticultural college. On top of this profitability, the students can be learning in a practical as well as a theoretical base.

"Apart from the profit and gain of a horticultural institution, something that Vancouver Island, known as the "Garden Island" in Europe, could support as our climate is so amenable to all things that grow, Royal Roads would become a brilliant jewel in the heritage of British Columbia and Canada, there for all future generations of Canada to visit and enjoy."

Again, the author is Catherine Regehr. I bring that to the minister's attention. I know that his ministry has received a copy in the past. I think that rather than the continual debate around the future of Royal Roads Military College as to whether or not the province should take that magnificent 650 acres for $1.... We can debate whether or not the federal government is off-loading -- probably for many hours.

The question is: when such a fine idea comes forward to the table -- and certainly this idea bears tremendous scrutiny and exploration, I believe -- is this ministry prepared to take the initiative? Is this minister, as the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, prepared to accept what is in fact a windfall from the federal government? If indeed we can acquire 650 acres for a dollar, surely we're not going to deliberate on that question; surely we're going to take the initiative and then hopefully put that acquisition to use for the people of this province. I hope it is something similar to Ms. Regehr's proposal. I would ask the minister to comment.

Hon. D. Miller: I think the difficulty, if I could characterize it this way, is that.... I don't disagree. I'm not personally that familiar with the Royal Roads Military College, but I am convinced -- I've read enough supporting evidence -- to appreciate the comments that are made. It is indeed a magnificent site. There was a good column in the

[ Page 12211 ]

Globe and Mail by Robert Sheppard the other day that talked about that. It's clearly a historic building, and I don't dispute at all that it's in a very nice location, and all the rest of it. Nor am I opposed to looking at innovative ideas in terms of how that facility could be used in a productive way. Indeed, in addition to the proposal that you've outlined, others have come in.

I should have said right at the outset that the responsibility for negotiating the use of Royal Roads lies with my colleague the Minister of Finance, and I don't want to impinge on any discussions that she may have had or indeed will have with the federal government. But let me try to deal with some of the issues and public policies that you raise.

The member talked about the place of private training institutes in the province. We currently offer, through a mix of private and public training, horticulture courses in this province. I should tell you that there is an opportunity for the expansion of those horticultural opportunities in other parts of the province. I've got requests coming in from areas outside the lower Island and the lower mainland. People in the regions of this province are saying: "We think there's an opportunity, and we need to be considered for these kinds of programs."

We have to go back to the issue of relevance. Does it meet the test? Yes. Are there real opportunities in the field of horticulture? Yes. Is there an unlimited amount of money? Can we put horticultural training in every college region and in every community? No. Where is it appropriate? Is it appropriate to look at the demand in the regions? I say yes. We offer that in Langley; we offer it here in Victoria, at a private institution called the Horticulture Centre of the Pacific. So those are the kinds of issues you have to look at. You can't just say: "Horticulture is nice. It's a nice site; ergo let's offer horticulture at Royal Roads."

You also have to consider the policy issue. I don't know of any post-secondary institution that was created almost as an economic development project to boost tourism. In other words, you're mixing two policy issues here. Because of its grandeur and location, etc., you're saying that it would become a very desirable tourist location, and I have no reason to dispute that. In fact, a pure economic argument could be made around that. But you're asking us to combine that economic argument with an educational argument. I don't know that that's ever been done. I'm not opposed to innovation.

Again, I don't want any of my remarks to prejudice any discussions that may take place with regard to that institution. But is that a sound policy basis? I don't know. I'm not aware of any major discussions on that, and I think that's something you have to consider.

I'd really be pleased to hear what members may have to say. The member for Chilliwack and my hon. friend the critic raised the issue of the expansion of the community college system. The hon. member who left in a fit of pique just moments ago raised the issue of the expansion of the community college system. Fair enough. I think we recognize that there is a demand. Where is the demand? Where is it located in our province? Is it in the Fraser Valley? I see the member for Surrey-Cloverdale nodding his head vigorously. He's saying yes.

I cited statistics earlier indicating that in some cases we're looking at a population growth projection over the next few decades of as much as 150 percent. Do we have an obligation to meet that demand? Yes. Are there scarce resources to meet those demands on the capital side and on the program dollar side? Yes. When we're faced with those kinds of choices, as we frequently are -- that's really what the business of governing is about -- I'd be interested in the members' views.

The report of the B.C. Buildings Corporation identified.... I saw in the paper the other day that somebody indicated a potential capital cost just to stabilize the facilities of some $26 million or $27 million. I leave it to the member for

Surrey-Cloverdale: faced with a choice, would he rather see that money go here to Royal Roads or would he say -- and I presume he would: "No. I'm living in a growing community where young families are pouring in. I want to see those facilities built there." We have to weigh our decisions with some of the elements that I have outlined. I want to be very clear that I'm not trying to prejudice any of the debate that might take place, but it's a useful debate to look at in the context of the delivery of

post-secondary opportunities.

I certainly support the retention of buildings that are part of our history. Years ago I was very active in my own community as a member of the heritage advisory committee, even before it was fashionable in some circles. I believe in preserving history, and I like old buildings. I like the fact that the grounds are so spectacular. But we have our own fiscal problems in this province. We've talked about it, and even though we've talked about it, I don't know if it has been given enough emphasis.

The fact that the federal government has capped transfer payments to British Columbia -- and now that policy is being extended by the current Liberal government -- means that B.C. was short changed $2 billion. Had there not been a cap on transfer payments, which the federal government freely entered into with all the provinces, we would not have an operating deficit today in this province. We would have an operating surplus and the luxury of more manoeuvrability with respect to issues like Royal Roads.

[4:30]

And I remind members that it's not just Royal Roads. Masset, one of the small communities in my constituency, is faced with the potential loss of up to 50 percent of its economy as a result of the impending closure or automation of Canadian Forces Base Masset. Do we have an obligation as a province to try to convince the federal government that they should not simply abandon communities? Do we have an obligation to deal with those small communities in distress? The answer is yes. All of these kinds of issues come to bear on the decision-making around Royal Roads.

Really, the minister and I, and others in the government, have tried to express some ground rules in simple terms, without prejudicing any discussion we may have with the federal government. As a government we will not tolerate the constant vacating or dumping of federal responsibility in this province. If your only response when the federal government leaves a hole is that we'll come in to fill it, I think, quite frankly, that is simply sending a signal to the federal government to bail out even faster. If you let them off the hook that easily, where does it leave you?

So members should consider the broader context of federal off-loading. If we are simply here to fill the holes left by the federal government, that is indeed an encouragement for them to bail out even faster. In that context, is there some

[ Page 12212 ]

possibility that Royal Roads has a future as a post-secondary educational institute? Quite frankly, I don't know the answer to that, because I don't know what the federal government is really prepared to offer. The member talked about offering the facility for a dollar. They're not prepared to offer the facility for a dollar; they're prepared to offer a lease for a dollar.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Unsaid at this point.

If the federal government's opening offer had been, "We're prepared to give you the property for a dollar," and they then said, "We're prepared to have some fairly extensive discussions about how we might fund some post-secondary training there," that would have perhaps been a better starting point. But all we ever received from the federal government.... It was quite insulting, quite frankly. Federal ministers were saying publicly and through the newspapers: "We've offered it to them for a dollar." They didn't even have the courtesy to send us a letter. There was nothing on paper. We read about it in the newspapers. Is that how you do business? No, it's not.

R. Neufeld: Was that a Liberal government?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that was a Liberal government, hon. member for Peace River North. But I must say that I was equally dismayed by the Reform MP for Victoria, who jumped on the bandwagon and said to the provincial government: "You've got to go in there and spend all kinds of money, because the Liberals are bailing out." I always thought -- when listening to their rhetoric -- that the Reformers were the ones who talked about fiscal prudence. I hope that's not just talk.

In the very first opportunity that the new Reform MP for Victoria had to exercise some fiscal prudence, he said to the taxpayers of British Columbia: "You'd better rush in there and spend some money." Quite frankly, as much as I'm dismayed by the federal Liberals, I have to say, with all due respect, that I'm somewhat dismayed by the federal Reformers for their completely inconsistent performance.

To sum it up, my colleague the Minister of Finance...

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: They don't give him an opportunity in the House, unfortunately.

...who I think is known for her toughness, has been charged with the responsibility of negotiating these issues with the federal government. No doubt she will do an effective job, as she has done in bringing down a budget in British Columbia which has significantly reduced the operating deficit and which has allowed the Premier to indicate that we've frozen taxes for three years. I can tell you that if she does the kind of job with the federal government that she has done on the budget of British Columbia, then we'll get a good deal -- that is, if the federal government really wants to negotiate.

L. Reid: The minister started out by suggesting that he wasn't in a position to impinge on the bailiwick of the Minister of Finance. That was not the question. The minister raised the matter in debate as to whether or not you could partner economic viability with an educational opportunity. I think that for government to be successful, that has to happen. That has to be where this government heads and where thinking governments head. The tenor of our remarks during the course of this estimates debate on Skills, Training and Labour has had to do with whether you could partner initiatives to make them more responsible and more viable.

I would suggest to the hon. minister that this initiative does bear thinking about -- not to take away from the hundreds of other proposals the minister has alluded to. I support the notion that there are probably many proposals on the future of Royal Roads. My purpose in bringing this particular proposal forward was to ask this minister to advocate for the acquisition of that property at the cabinet table, because I can't imagine that even the Minister of Finance would make a unilateral decision. I think it will come back to your cabinet table for discussion.

At that point, I trust that this minister would stand in support of some kind of economic viability around an advanced education opportunity.

To continue with the minister's comments, I think successful governments know that they cannot continue to rely on transfer payments to the extent they have. If those payments continue to come over the next five to ten years, they will be a bonus for thoughtful, productive economies; they will not be something we can continue to rely on. Frankly, a simplistic government stands up and bashes somebody when the money doesn't come. But this is about being self-reliant. Surely this ministry is in favour of teaching self-reliance and independence.

So it makes no sense for the minister to stand up and lament the fact that a transfer payment may not appear in the quantity he may have wished. There are some broader issues that need to be addressed. I would ask the minister to comment, and then I would ask the minister to receive some questions from my hon. colleague from Chilliwack.

Hon. D. Miller: I can hardly believe what I'm hearing. I really am flabbergasted. I just asked my director of finance to give me some numbers on.... Just on established programs the financing is $1.3 billion, and the member seems to suggest: "Don't do that." You don't have to give the federal Liberals much of an excuse to cut back funding to this province. In fact, you don't have to give them any excuse. But to stand up and say we can no longer rely on transfer payments....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: We are a thinking government, and we are dismayed at the $2 billion we have lost so far. If the member is saying that the federal Liberal agenda is to increase the dump on the provinces, there will be one heck of a battle in this province. There are a lot of British Columbia issues we can talk about in B.C. During question period the Premier identified some of them today, but if the issue is whether the provincial Liberals support the federal off-loading in British Columbia, then let's get at her. On reconsideration, I am sure the member would want to back up a touch on her remarks.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Let's go. The old politician in me starts to twitch. Let's go.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: It's old enough.

[ Page 12213 ]

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: No, but I'm looking forward to the next go-round, believe me.

The Chair: Could we have a bit of order. Please make your remarks through the Chair; and will the members refrain from speaking from their seats without being recognized.

Hon. D. Miller: Thank you for that, hon. Chair. They've thrown me off my train of thought.

I don't want to get into protracted debate. This is clearly not the venue for that kind of debate on one specific topic, but I did raise what I thought was a reasonable issue. Let me rephrase it, because it may be that none of the members opposite wish to talk about it. What about the capital costs of accepting -- at least from my information -- the one-dollar lease? It appears to me that we would be setting ourselves up for a capital expenditure at some point -- it may not be tomorrow or next week, but it will be there -- in excess of $30 million.

My question to the members is: is that something they are prepared to say we should do, particularly in view of the fact that there is significant demand from those members -- and members of my own party -- for facilities at the community college level?

I have just spoken about the kinds of choices you have to make. Should we in British Columbia accept an obligation for about $30 million because of the federal government bail-out on Royal Roads? Members opposite may have an opinion on that point. On the other hand, they may not. I will take my seat, but will close by saying that if I don't hear them venture any opinions, then I assume they don't have any.

R. Chisholm: I have a point on this agricultural college idea. I don't particularly want to talk about Royal Roads, but I do want to talk about agricultural colleges, wherever they may be positioned in this province. I am not sure that it should be at Royal Roads, in the Fraser Valley, the Kootenays, or wherever. The problem is that we do not have an agricultural college in this province. We have an ad hoc series of programs with community colleges and with UBC. The problem is that we really have not done this industry justice.

It's a $13 billion industry, and it has 211,000 employees, yet we don't have anywhere where agriculture is taught. This particular subject is getting very technical and detailed. I can quote jurisdictions like New Brunswick that have agricultural colleges -- and we're sitting here in British Columbia, where a much greater portion of our economy is based on agriculture, and we don't have one. If we want a future in this business, we have to be able to educate our younger people and make agriculture attractive to them. One way of doing it is through a college.

As you've noticed, hon. minister, we've been going through programs such as GATT, free trade and NAFTA in the last number of years. They all have restrictions on exactly what we can and cannot do. If you look at the Agriculture ministry -- and I have spoken to the Minister of Agriculture in estimates on these various subjects -- you will see that programs have been cancelled. For instance, FII, which is worth tens of millions of dollars, was cancelled because it's not a green program; it's an insurance program. These are moneys that become available.

An agricultural college with research and development is a green program; it is something we can get into to enhance agriculture and be of benefit to British Columbia without being in contradiction to GATT, free trade, NAFTA or whatever.

These are areas that we need to talk about. We need to talk about advanced education in agriculture and having a permanent home for it in some location. We need to bring all the ad hoc programs together and do it in a consistent manner, one which is going to do justice to the industry and to the province. I think, hon. minister, with your leadership and the cooperation of the Minister of Agriculture -- and possibly other ministries could be involved -- we could enhance this industry and be of help to this province.

[4:45]

I'd just like to hear some of the views on this subject from the minister. I don't really want to get into the downloading. I'm talking about the provincial domain; I'm talking about moneys that are already within the provincial budget. Let's just talk about what we are no longer able to use within our provincial budget, like the FII program that has been cancelled. I know moneys have gone elsewhere, but the point is, they're there -- and we could use them to enhance this industry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to ask leave of the House to welcome a special group from my constituency.

Leave granted.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have approximately 35 grade-3-to-12 students visiting from Maranantha Christian School in Williams Lake. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Taylor. Please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Chair, the member is right: there is no centralized facility. I have not had an opportunity to canvass this issue with those in the field, so I'm really speaking on an off-the-cuff basis. I wonder, though, if there may be some merit to the system we have in that it allows the creation of specialties throughout the province. In other words, various agricultural courses or whatever are offered through the college system that specialize and zero in on particular facets of agriculture. Agriculture, as the member is aware, is not a homogeneous issue.

It's quite widespread, whether you're talking about tree fruits, soft fruits or dairy; there are the vegetable and cattle industries; there's grain in the Peace River. It's quite a diverse and important industry in the province, and I would hate to see a centralized system that would lose the capability that currently exists at the community college level -- whether that be Northern Lights, Cariboo, Kootenay or Selkirk -- to offer courses in the agricultural sector that are relevant perhaps to their geography. Nevertheless, I understand there are some linkages there.

But it's an interesting topic and one that may be worth pursuing through some further discussions. I agree entirely. In fact, my sense is that over time, agriculture will become even more important. It's currently going through some very difficult times with respect to trade. Supply management, which has always been a bit of an issue, will become even more so vis-a-vis free trade.

When I look at the massive subsidization that takes place in California and Mexico through the diversion of very scarce water supplies, it leads me to believe that in future years we might see British Columbia become even more critical in some of the key agricultural areas. That goes back and reinforces, of course, our belief that we should always maintain the capability through the agricultural land base.

So the member has raised some interesting and good points, I think. I'm not that familiar with the subject. I've not been approached by members of the agriculture sector to talk about an agricultural college. Indeed, I'd be interested in

[ Page 12214 ]

any further information the member might have in that regard.

R. Chisholm: I'm glad to see that the minister is interested, because I believe that agriculture will be very important in the future, as it has in the past. It has taken us through some rough times in this country, and it will do the same thing in the future. It's a family-based industry which is fairly stable. It doesn't sound its horn too often, but it does need help once in awhile. This is one area where we could help. The thing I would like to emphasize there.... We talked about these little programs in the community-based university colleges.

They're nice, but they have a tendency to get lost and not get the emphasis within the community college that they should. If you brought them together....

For instance, I'll give you Chilliwack, the community college there in the Fraser Valley. If you take a look at that particular university, they have a program on how to milk a cow. Well, that's fine. Let's say that is germane to that area. But if you take a look at their horticulture, they'll show you where to put in bricks and how to make a nice patio. This is not really agriculture, and it really doesn't do justice to the industry. I don't think it is training our young people for what they're going to have to face when they get into it.

We can debate and discuss this at a future time and put this time to better use. If you are interested, hon. minister, I'd love to have a meeting with you and talk this particular subject over.

My second question pertains to the university colleges, whether it be of the Fraser Valley or whatever college you want to talk about. I'm talking about general interest programs. I realize that there are cutbacks in the system, and the cutbacks have forced the colleges to cut back in what they offer. It would seem that the main percentage of what's offered and what's cut is general interest programming. This goes against the grain of what a community university college is. I believe that the college is there for learning throughout your life; it's there for community involvement.

When you start cutting all of your general interest programs, the college is alienating the community. It's alienating those people who would utilize those courses, which are being cancelled due to the cutbacks. I'm wondering if the minister could look at that. I'm not talking about a specific college; I'm talking about throughout the province.

I have another fear with regard to the same cutbacks. If we cut the general interest programs, I wonder if the trades programs will be next, while all these colleges strive to go to degree-granting. Then we alienate the community even further; we alienate the community college fabric in these communities. I'd hate to see that happen. I'm watching these courses be cut now, so I'm afraid that may happen.

I realize this is a funding problem, but possibly with leadership from the ministry and the minister, colleges could change their ways to some degree. They might not take all of their emphasis and throw it toward degree-granting. They might not forget about the community they're there to serve -- to facilitate and not alienate it -- and get back to the principles of lifelong learning. I'd just like to hear the minister's thoughts and comments on that.

Hon. D. Miller: I think the member raises a good point. It would certainly be my hope that members of the boards of community colleges reflect their communities. Certainly, from my discussions with them, I think that is true. If there's a sense in any given community that they're losing touch, then I think all of us should be prepared to talk to those board members and raise those issues.

Continuing education is important. I'm very pleased to advise the member that we have increased funding for those very programs as part of the Skills Now announcement. In fact, we've provided an additional $2 million to the community outreach partnerships initiative with the community colleges. Three essential components of that initiative are: developing a policy framework for the provision of continuing education; community service and part-time, short-term technical-vocational career programs; and infrastructure grants and program funding targeted to equity groups.

We've clearly moved to address the issue of continuing education. You know, $2 million isn't the greatest amount of money in the world, but it's certainly an increase in funding to respond to the concerns that the member has raised.

R. Chisholm: This is my last question. I gather this $2 million would be in response to the studies that were done by Bill Day and others. Was the increase that came for continuing education the result of those studies? The leadership I'm asking for from the minister is.... I realize that these boards do have a responsibility to try to maintain the fabric of the community, but I'm afraid that because of degree-granting and striving to be icons, these boards have a tendency to forget that the community college is there for a purpose, and that is to serve the community.

That's the point I'd like to see the minister confront. They're there to serve the community, not just to be degree-granting -- even though that's what they strive for. Board members have a tendency to forget that sometimes. Possibly the minister can make mention of that when he's talking to board members at different colleges and just try to restate what these colleges are there for.

Hon. D. Miller: The $2 million increase is not in direct response to Mr. Day, but I understand he's done some very good work and has identified the fact that a heck of a lot of training takes place through the continuing education courses that are offered. I remember taking a welding course once. It was at night school, offered through the local college. I think a lot of that kind of training takes place.

Just a caution, I suppose, but we don't want to tend to either-or these things. I don't think it's necessarily true that because an institute may now do degree-granting, it's somehow automatic that they will forget their role in the provision of continuing education. It may be that they need to be reminded.

There's such an overwhelming need for degrees in applied fields that I really want to encourage all members and the institutions themselves to carry out that role in a much different way than just the traditional university setting of allowing people to acquire degrees that give them the kinds of skills that employers want. I think that's important as well. We need to keep our eye on all of the balls. I appreciate the member's comments.

L. Reid: From the Kimberley Daily Bulletin of June 10, "College Entry Services Put Under One Roof," it seems that anyone wishing to attend a post-secondary institution, including East Kootenay Community College, will have to apply to Kamloops. May I just give you some clarification on this issue? "The Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour recently announced the formation of the post-secondary application service...which will be located in Kamloops by 199