1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8357 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Exclusion of Spetifore land from agricultural land reserve. Mr. Harcourt –– 8357

Unused hospital imaging equipment. Mr. Blencoe –– 8358

Funding for Kamloops multiplex. Mr. Clark –– 8358

Milk industry task force. Mr. Rose –– 8358

Comox Valley transmission line. Hon. Mr. Dueck replies to question –– 8359

Lorax Forestry Ltd. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to question –– 8359

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training estimates. (Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 8359

Mr. Jones

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Serwa

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Clark

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Miller

Mr. Barnes

Mines Act (Bill 56). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 8393

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Mining Right of Way Act (Bill 57). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Davis) ––

Third reading

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Statutes Amendment Act, 1989

(Bill 59). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 8394

Mr. Clark –– 8394

Mr. Darcy –– 8395

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 8396

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 37). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8398

Mr. Rose –– 8399

Mr. Clark –– 8403

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8408

British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Loan Privatization Act

(Bill 43). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 8411

Mr. Williams

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 79). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8417

Mr. Clark –– 8417

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 8417

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, we are very honoured in this House today to have with us

the High Commissioner of Kenya, His Excellency Peter Nyamweya, and his

wife Mrs. Nyamweya. They are accompanied by his second secretary,

Rebecca Nabutola, from the high commission office in Ottawa. I would

ask all members to make them very welcome, please.

In the gallery today are Mr. Paul E. Mathews and Mr. Wayne Booth from Whistler. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE :

I would like to introduce visitors from England. Today Group Captain

and Mrs. Hurley are visiting from the United Kingdom. The group captain

is an aviation consultant based currently in the Middle East and is on

vacation at the moment, but I'm told that he wouldn't be averse to

doing some business in the province of British Columbia. The group

captain and his wife are accompanied by my father, Rev. Charles

Blencoe, and his wife Freda. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN :

It's a great pleasure for me to introduce to the House some friends

from the great riding of West Vancouver–Howe Sound whom I met at the

Christmas party of the Rotary Club in Vancouver's Chinatown: Mr. Benny

Wong, his wife Linda Wong, and two sons, Arthur and Richard. Would the

House please join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. PETERSON :

On behalf of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, I'd

like to introduce to the House Bill and Gerry Garside. Would the House

please join us in giving them a very warm welcome.

MR. BRUCE :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two of several of my nephews:

Travis Visscher from Morinville in Alberta and Kevin Visscher, a

resident of Victoria. Would you please make them both welcome.

EXCLUSION OF SPETIFORE LANDS FROM

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question for the Premier. Two weeks ago the former Chair of

the Cabinet Committee on Environment and Land Use wrote the Premier to

express his concern about the basis upon which cabinet excluded the

Spetifore lands from the agricultural land reserve. He stated: "In

hindsight, it appears that some of the information on which we based

our decision was inaccurate." Can the Premier tell the House what steps

he has taken to determine exactly what inaccuracies lay behind

cabinet's Spetifore decision?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Perhaps, since oftentimes we receive a fairly

lengthy introduction of a subject before the question, the Leader of the Opposition

could tell me what he had in mind.

MR. HARCOURT :

The Premier has had two weeks to read the letter from the former Chair

of the cabinet environment and land use committee — he was a fellow

cabinet member at the time— who said that the major decision to exclude

the Spetifore lands from the agricultural land reserve was based on

some inaccuracies. My question, which I will repeat, is very simply

this: can the Premier tell the House what steps he has taken to

determine what inaccuracies lay behind cabinet's decision to exclude

the Spetifore lands from the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I'm not aware of any inaccuracies. I certainly haven't heard of those

from anyone, including the opposition. But let me say this: I get a

little tired of hearing the members of the opposition calling for us to

interfere with the process of local government. There is a process for

local government, and this government has repeatedly said: "We respect

that process of local government." To hear from the former mayor of

Vancouver the suggestion — at least, I take it that's implicit in the question —

that we should somehow interfere with Delta council and the regional

district, all of those local governmental bodies that are right there

on the scene and have voted unanimously for this process to go forth as

it did, to suggest, as the Leader of the Opposition is doing, that the

Premier should politically interfere with this process, I cannot

accept. Shame on the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT :

Well, I'm glad the Premier reminded us that the regional district was

involved in this decision. As a matter of fact, the regional district

voted against excluding the Spetifore lands from the agricultural land

reserve. You took away their powers to plan. Some respect for local

government! As a matter of fact, I can understand why the Premier wants

to park this matter with the Delta council and not outside his office

door where it belongs, but I want the Premier to be aware of the Delta

mayor's statements on this issue. Mayor Doug Husband says: "We are the

end result of a chain of what was action started by the province. They

got the land to the point for this council to deal with it."

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is very straightforward. He does have

a choice to put this back in the agricultural land reserve or go with the developers

on this issue. My question is: can the Premier assure the House that he will

now review the original political decision to take the Spetifore lands out of

the agricultural land reserve, a decision by a cabinet of which he was a member?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the

regional district requested this, that the Delta council voted for this

and that we were petitioned by a unanimous vote from those bodies. He

knows this full well, and he's again attempting to twist the facts.

[ Page 8358 ]

But let me say again that what he's asking — and now it's clear —

is to ignore the Delta council and the request from the regional

district and have the Premier interfere with this process. It's simply

a matter of: he stands depending on where he's at.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, the Premier can wave his glasses around all he wants,

saying it was a unanimous vote of the regional district. Well, I was

there, and I voted against it, and so did the majority of the regional

district. The Premier can use whatever selective memory he wants on the

issue, but I remember, and so do the people, the time when the powers

of the regional district to deal with land use and agricultural lands

was removed by the government of which he was a member.

Mr.

Premier, given that cabinet rejected the expert opinion of the Land

Commission, isn't it a fact that this decision was based more on

helping Socred friends than on any factual information, good or bad?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The Leader of the Opposition says he was there. Well, I can recall

those regional district meetings as well, and I think perhaps he missed

a few of those meetings, just as he is missing a good many meetings

right here.

One of those meetings, for which I will provide

the information to him, was the regional parks committee meeting. He

knows that in fact there was considerable desire on the part of the

regional district to see those foreshore lands established as a park,

and there is information available to him in that regard.

Again

let me say that we as a government will honour the local governing

process. If the Delta council wishes to make a request We expect it

will come from the Delta council, and if they wish to involve the

regional district or the parks committee, they will do so, I am sure.

This will certainly be the process that has to be followed. We'll not

circumvent local government. We will stay and always be supportive of

local government.

UNUSED HOSPITAL IMAGING EQUIPMENT

MR. BLENCOE :

I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister explain

why two expensive magnetic resonance imaging machines installed in

April at the Victoria General Hospital and the Royal Jubilee Hospital

are gathering dust and not being used?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I will be only too happy to respond. To begin with, you have to take

into consideration that the hospitals operate autonomously, and what

they do, how they pay people, is up to them. It is a considered opinion

of the hospitals that this type of procedure should be paid by salary

rather than fee for service. We agree, and there is a disagreement as

to how payments will be received by the physicians or by the

radiologists who operate this equipment. Having said that, I cannot go

into detail as to where the negotiations are at this time, but I must

say that it is somewhat selfish on the part of some physicians who wish

to go against the wishes of the administration when the fee or the

salary offered to these physicians is very substantial. Therefore the

Ministry of Health is taking the position of full support.

MR. BLENCOE :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. These machines cost $3 million each. They

represent the state of the art in diagnostic technology, and they avoid

the radiation dose of older machines. Will the minister commit to

taking whatever steps are necessary to make this medical technology

available to Victoria residents and show some leadership for a change

in the health industry?

HON. MR. DUECK : I don't know

if that is an application to be an administrator at one of the

hospitals, but I can assure you that if his application comes in, it

will be rejected. But having said that, we're looking at the hospitals

to operate their facilities in a manner that is appropriate, and thus

far we have good operations. Again, why don't you ask the physicians

why they don't work for a certain amount of money that has been offered

to them?

FUNDING FOR KAMLOOPS MULTIPLEX

MR. CLARK :

I have a question for the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan and

Kootenay. Today Kamloops council must make a decision as to whether or

not to spend $1 million on architectural design for the Kamloops

multiplex. Under the terms of the municipal referendum, the city cannot

spend the money without commitment from senior levels of government.

The people of Kamloops have waited long enough for your approval. Have

you decided to approve the city's $6 million request for Go B.C.

funding?

HON. MR. DIRKS : Obviously that decision has not been made yet.

MILK INDUSTRY TASK FORCE

MR. ROSE :

I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The

minister is aware that the first half hour of every meeting of the De

Jong dairy so-called task force is given over to a pro-opt-out pitch by

an official of his department. Does the minister plan to grant equal

time to an expert who can explain the value of remaining within the

national plan so that the dairy industry can receive the balanced and

important information necessary to make an informed decision?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

As you know, British Columbia is trying to design a plan for one clear

and succinct objective: to be able to produce more good, healthy dairy

products from British Columbia farms. That is the goal that farmers are

looking for and that this government is looking for. We are determined

to get a greater share of the market share quota from the

[ Page 8359 ]

federal

system. If we did not put forward a proposal in a way that could help

get that share, then I don't believe we as elected officials would be

doing our job. The members from Ontario and Quebec, in my opinion, are

not willing to give us sufficient for an equitable share for our

producers and our consumers.

What we are really doing is

trying to give the dairy producers an opportunity. When we addressed

that at the start of each of those hearings each evening, we were

saying that this is what we are proposing as a province. Obviously we

have to explain. You can rest assured that most of the people in those

meetings already understand the system as it presently exists.

Therefore I believe they will make their concerns heard by the task

force and by Mr. De Jong as the chairman.

I do not believe

that we are in any way jeopardizing the producers. What we have done is

to put in place a program that will guarantee the existing producers

their present amount of fluid milk, plus the MSQ they presently have,

plus what was added by the negotiating process with the Canadian Dairy

Commission and the Canadian Milk Supply Management Committee.

can also assure you that there is an awful lot of vacant agricultural

land in several areas of this province that could be used to a great

extent to increase not only the use of that land but to generate up to

more than $20 million for the economy of this province. By allowing

that task force to do its job to promote opportunities for future and

existing farmers in British Columbia to get a greater amount of quota

and the MSQ to provide industrial milk, I really believe we are going

in the right direction, Mr. Member.

COMOX VALLEY TRANSMISSION LINE

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a question taken on notice from

the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) in regard to action taken by the

Ministry of Health to assess the health hazards associated with the

proposed construction of a transmission line in the Comox Valley.

While

current information on the effect of electromagnetic field exposure

does not indicate that a health hazard exists for persons living close

to one of these lines, it is very important that the public be given as

much information as possible so that the nature of any potential risk

can be understood. I therefore support a cooperative approach involving

the public utility company and affected individuals or groups, to

enable them to look at the total process of how living close to a line

might affect their life and their health.

The B.C.

Utilities Commission has ordered B.C. Hydro to stop work on the

construction of an electrical transmission line between Dunsmuir and

Gold River on Vancouver Island pending a public inquiry to be held

today and tomorrow, I understand, addressing the issues of safety

related to the public exposure of electromagnetic fields.

LORAX FORESTRY LTD.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

A question was taken on notice yesterday from the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). The question made reference to Lorax, and

I'd like to say that our ministry has had a good working relationship

with Lorax. They have had a very good reputation for providing

forest-related training programs. Further, employees who took the

seminar were part of the employee group which successfully purchased

six provincial forest nurseries and are now working in the private

sector at Pacific Regeneration Technologies.

I might add that this is very similar to the other areas that have been privatized — adding to the staff, more employees working, more jobs in British Columbia, expanding services to British Columbians.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING

On vote 5: minister's office, $265,076 (continued).

MR. JONES :

Before the lunch break, the minister and I were beginning to discuss

the situation with respect to degree completion programs in the various

regions of the province, particularly as it relates to the kinds of

contracts that are being reached by universities and community colleges

in which they will deliver third- and fourth-year programs leading to

degree completion.

I used this as an example to illustrate

a concern that I have about the need for leadership, about the need for

increased cooperation between the various components of the various

sectors of post-secondary education in the province. When it comes to

the delivery of these programs, very clearly there is competition:

competition for control of the kinds of academic decisions that will go

to produce those very worthwhile programs in third and fourth year in

the various regions of the province, competition for decisions on who

selects faculty, competition for decisions with respect to the

curriculum that will be offered, competition with respect to the

admission criteria that will be used for students gaining entrance to

those programs and competition for the graduation requirements that

will be there in place to determine who receives a degree jointly from

the universities and the colleges. I am concerned that this kind of

competition will lead to a variety of agreements reached in the

province and that when some small colleges are in competition with some

very large universities, the kinds of arrangements that are reached may

not be in the best interests of those small institutions.

[ Page 8360 ]

For

example, I understand that UBC is very desirous of determining student

admission, promotion and graduation requirements. They want to set

examination and grading policies, as they are the ones awarding the

degrees. As well, they desire to establish the qualifications for

individuals to teach the upper-level and professional courses, and are

going to be actively involved in the selection process for those

faculty members.

I recognize that the minister has to

respect the autonomy of these institutions. But at the same time, it

seems to me that when we have a variety of these kinds of negotiations

going on around the province, there is a leadership role for the

minister to take in order to provide guidance so that there is a

balance of power in these negotiations and the fairest kinds of

arrangements can be reached between the colleges and the universities.

I'm

not completely aware where these agreements are at the present time. I

do know that at Malaspina there is a considerable problem and positions

being put in dispute by the faculty association there. I'd like to ask

the minister how he sees his role and his ministry's role in these

kinds of arrangements that are taking place between the universities

and the colleges.

[2:30]

HON. S. HAGEN :

The role that I play is, first of all, to make sure that these

arrangements and agreements take place fairly. I have appointed Dr.

Lloyd Morin to be the individual who can be called upon by the colleges

and universities if any assistance is needed. I'm sure you're aware

that the board of the college selects which university or universities

they wish to enter into an agreement with. The faculty ends up as....

They are employees of the college but, as I think you mentioned, are

assisted by the universities in the selection process. This is

important, of course, because one of the things we as a government

wanted to assure is the finest quality, and we want to maintain the

quality that our universities are known for around the world.

MR. JONES :

I'd just like to leave the minister with a question and defer to the

first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) with regard to the situation

there Perhaps in response the minister could incorporate the remarks of

the member for Nanaimo.

The minister suggests that there is

a leadership role being played by the ministry, and that role is to

ensure that these arrangements are fair. Is the minister satisfied that

the arrangements are going ahead and that there is not a preponderance

of favour given to the large universities, particularly UBC, in these

arrangements? Is the minister satisfied that these arrangements are

fair, particularly in reference to the situation at Malaspina, where

there are staff positions in dispute? I won't say anything further on

that. I know my colleague from Nanaimo wishes to speak on that matter.

HON. S. HAGEN : The answer to the question is yes.

MR. LOVICK :

I listened with interest to the response of the Minister of Advance

Education to my colleague's question regarding the situation in Nanaimo

at Malaspina College and what happened when we finally achieved the

agenda that people have been pursuing for some time now; namely, the

granting of degree-conferring status to the community colleges.

is sad to relate that an otherwise very good plan and proposal is

unfortunately flawed, insofar as it would appear that there wasn't the

consultation or advance planning that ought to have been undertaken.

I'm referring specifically to the fact that we now have rather an

anomalous and unfortunate situation in Nanaimo, where we have a

grievance procedure being undertaken because the faculty association,

the bargaining unit at Malaspina College, is beginning to perceive that

somebody else is trying to get in the way of their proper activity.

The

question, obviously, is: why couldn't that rather simple problem have

been dealt with in advance? Why did it happen that the college now

finds itself in this position, spending money and going through an

incredible amount of wasted time sorting out this jurisdictional

battle, when it ought not to be the case? All I'm asking the minister

to report to this House is what he did in anticipation of those kinds

of problems. Did you do anything?

HON. S. HAGEN : To

the first member for Nanaimo, who I know has a very short attention

span and who I would encourage to read my lips for the answer, and also

to talk to his colleague the member for Burnaby North, who was

chastising and tearing the minister apart this morning for taking too

long to implement this program.... He said I sat there and had this

plan on my desk: "Why did it take so long to put the plan into being?"

I explained that not only did we have the "Access" report to deal with

but we also had stacks of correspondence, the chamber of commerce

report, the MLAs' reports and the Interior University Society report,

and we wanted not only to announce this program but also to have an

implementation plan. That is exactly what we did. We did not take too

long; we did not implement it too soon. We did it in exactly the right

amount of time. It is a well-received program around the province.

know there are some negotiations taking place in Nanaimo which I will

not interfere with or involve myself with. I respect the fact that the

member may be under some conflict by teaching there, but I will not get

involved in that. That is something that has to be negotiated at the

local level between the board of the college and the faculty

association, and I'm very confident that will be achieved.

MR. LOVICK :

I began with a certain amount of equanimity and reasonableness oozing

from every pore, but when I listen to somebody of the stature of the

Minister of Advanced Education telling me I

[ Page 8361 ]

don't

listen carefully enough, I'm afraid it begins to rattle a little bit.

If ever there were manifestation, a paradigm case revealed, of somebody

who ought not to accuse others of those weaknesses, it is he, sans

question. However, I won't beat up on him at this point. After all, one

hates to hit a defenceless target.

I would just make the

point to the minister that if indeed you want to pride yourself on the

fact that the program was introduced just right, that it didn't take

too long and that it wasn’t too rushed, why do we have the problem in

Nanaimo that you just referred to? We have it because the preliminary

work was not done; that's why. I'm merely asking the minister to tell

me something about what was done in the name of advance work. Don't

just give us all of this fluff and assurance that everything was nicely

done when I'm presenting you with an exact and specific example to

suggest that in fact everything wasn't done Will you try again — better luck this time — to answer the question I posed to you a few moments ago? What did you do in advance?

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Chairman, through you to my hon. colleague the first member for

Nanaimo, who certainly always does listen attentively to everything I

say, let me point out that a considerable amount of groundwork was done

at all three places: Nanaimo, Kamloops and Kelowna. In fact, all three

of those institutions — the three colleges in those cities —

arrived at conclusions of negotiations with the individual universities

they were dealing with at different times, because their needs are

different; they're dealing with three different universities. In the

case of Malaspina, they're dealing with the University of Victoria. A

considerable amount of negotiation took place; a considerable amount of

correspondence was traded back and forth over a period of several

months. As I said, I'm aware that there's a small difficulty at

Malaspina, but I am sure — and I've been assured by the president there — that

it will be overcome. I'm sure that they will want to progress to the

same stage that Okanagan College and Cariboo College are at.

MR. LOVICK :

I'd like to pursue briefly another matter on the same subject of the

change in status of Malaspina College, my old place of employ. This one

strikes rather close to my heart as well as my head, having been a

college instructor for a number of years.

One of the things

that all of us in the profession of academic or intellectual exercise

hold absolutely sacrosanct is the facility of the library. Clearly,

without an adequate facility of that kind, no college or university can

do what it is designed to do. I have raised the matter of funding for

college libraries for some time. Indeed, with this particular minister,

I pointed out before that I had some concern about conferring

degree-granting status on a place like Malaspina College because for a

number of years now that particular institution has been bemoaning its

fate, insofar as the majority of faculty members there, and indeed

students, argued that they didn't have adequate library resources.

fact, Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate this parenthetical aside, when

I tell you that it's a bit of an in-joke at Malaspina College in

Nanaimo. A number of my colleagues who taught there for any length of

time all said: "Isn't it curious that we don't seem to have any good

books since 1975?"— in other words, the date of publication. We had

this wonderful library up to about 1975, and then curiously, thereafter

we suddenly discover there haven't been the same infusions of new

material. In any event, that's the context. We haven't had the kinds of

resources that we claim are absolutely required and necessary. I'm

wondering if the minister will tell me and the members of this House

how much money was allocated for library purchases to accommodate the

new status — the addition of third- and fourth-year courses at the

college, What preliminary work was undertaken to determine how much

ought to be spent for that purpose?

HON. S. HAGEN : I

share the concern that the member for Nanaimo has with regard to

libraries. I recognize that this is the focal point of any institution

of learning, and a very important one. We have been encouraging all of

the colleges — with the increase in budget particularly that they've had this year; I think it's 18 percent or something like that —

to concentrate on upgrading the paper holdings in their libraries. At

the same time, we announced as a part of the access program a sum of

$350, 000 to start an electronic library.

Right now the colleges all are on a one-day service — or a one-day turnaround —

with the UBC library. As a matter of fact, with the new UBC library,

they're going to have an extensive electronic database, which will then

be available to the other universities and also the university

colleges. We are encouraging the colleges and in particular the

university colleges to focus on building up not only the electronic

part of it but also the paper-holdings part of it. This is not, as I

know the member well knows, without a problem. One of the areas of

concern in the whole library picture has been the increase in cost of

periodicals, for instance. There is not only the increase in the number

of periodicals, but the cost per periodical has been staggering, to say

the least. I know that even UBC, as probably a last resort, has had to

start limiting the number. I think they have even made arrangements

with the professors to encourage professors to subscribe to periodicals

that the library doesn't. Then I think they give the professor a bit of

a discount or something if they put it in there a week after they've

read it. It's a problem for them to deal with, and I acknowledge that.

But one of the things that we've asked them to do with the increase

this year is to address the library.

[2:45]

MR. LOVICK :

Well, I appreciate that detailed answer. I'm wondering if I might get a

little more specificity, however, in terms of how much, first, for

[ Page 8362 ]

the hard collection of books, and then, for increases in the periodical collection.

HON. S. HAGEN : As the member knows, we allocate the total dollar amount to each college and what we can do — we are very persuasive at doing this sometimes —

is suggest to the college areas that they should be targeting. We have

not specifically line-targeted the library. Perhaps we should, but we

haven't. I believe that the college administrations are just as

cognizant of the need to spend money on the library as you are and as

we are. We have not specifically line-targeted a budget amount except

for the $350,000 for the electronic library, which is above and beyond

what they get, but I am confident that they will address those needs.

MR. LOVICK : Then the rumour of a sum of $25,000 going to Malaspina College for its library collection is just that —

simply a rumour? Demonstrably, that would not be sufficient to do very

much in terms of a print collection. Unfortunately, we are also in that

institution playing catch-up and have been doing so for a long time.

That's the predicament

The reason I am posing the question

is not to castigate this ministry or this government for not putting in

enough money, but rather to simply see if I can determine whether the

preliminary analysis, consultation and discussion that the minister

alluded to did happen when we decided that we could offer the service

of third- and fourth-year courses at those institutions. When I hear

only a vague response to the questions about library facilities, then I

am afraid I hear the little alarm bells go off inside the cranial

cavity, Mr. Chairman, and I begin to wonder if we did the work that we

ought to have done.

I would therefore come back to the

question I began with: what kind of study or analysis was done in

determining what those three institutions required by way of library

facilities in order to be able to function as bona fide providers of

third- and fourth year university courses?

HON. S. HAGEN : I just want to reiterate the process that took place —

and the member is targeting in on Malaspina, obviously, because it's in

his riding. Prior to the announcement dated March 20, the board of

Malaspina had in fact selected that they would go into partnership with

the University of Victoria, which I think was a wise choice. Most of

the students from that area — and you can answer this better than I — go to the University of Victoria.

They

had decided on the programs and the degrees that they were going to

offer. They had several working meetings between the staff and

administration at Malaspina and the staff and administration at the

University of Victoria. They had agreed in principle, and the

concluding of the agreement was then up to those two — the college and the university — to complete.

The

amount of expenditures they would have to make on the library would

depend on the degrees that they were going to offer. They did not make

that choice until the spring of this year, so they would not have known

until then what areas they were going to have to beef up in their

library. They now know that.

They have been given what I

consider to be a very appropriate budget this fiscal year to assist

them in dealing with the purchases that are going to have to be made.

They will be dealing with those purchases by specific disciplines and

courses.

MR. LOVICK : I will leave that subject.

Again I appreciate the forthrightness of the answer. It is moot whether

that will satisfy all the people who are posing the questions. I think

there are some who are predisposed to believe that we were precipitate

in the judgment; but again, let history decide.

I want to

turn very briefly to another area under the auspices and the aegis of

this ministry; namely, the whole large question of adult literacy. I

had the pleasure and privilege of attending a workshop some months ago

in Nanaimo, invited by the students in the adult literacy program.

Appropriately enough, the students called their organization ALLOW — Adult

Literacy Learners On the Way, which sounds a little elaborate, but the

terminology is absolutely correct: allow. That, of course, is what

literacy is about. It is literally an empowering process. It's a giving

of strength, a giving of ability to people which will then allow them

to play a full and meaningful role within their societies.

the course of that workshop, Mr. Minister, I discovered that a number

of concerns were alive and well in the minds of those attending,

insofar as the question occurred of whether we were providing the

support service to people who have somehow been left out of the

mainstream of education and therefore find themselves in that

incredibly and authentically disadvantaged position of not having

literacy skills. I might just ask the minister to give me, if he will,

a brief report on what we do in the province in terms of fostering

adult literacy.

HON. S. HAGEN : This is, I think, an

area where we are in agreement as far as its importance is concerned.

It gives me an opportunity to give some accolades to those who work in

the college system, the instructors and people who help to deliver the

programs. This is an area where lives are changed, where outlooks are

changed, where people can see a light at the end of a tunnel. I suspect

that the member opposite has had a more direct involvement with it than

I have.

I'm sure you know that I appointed the literacy

committee, and we did canvass that this morning. It's under the

chairmanship of Dr. Paul Gallagher. That committee has been working and

meeting regularly. I've had some verbal contact with Dr. Gallagher, and

he tells me they're moving along at a good pace. I expect an interim

report from them in September.

We have set a priority on

literacy. As you know, the Southam poll indicated that British

Columbia, although it was the best in the country, still showed an

illiteracy rate of 17 percent. On the one hand, you tend to be a bit

smug when you look at that, and you

[ Page 8363 ]

say:

'We're the best in Canada." On the other hand, I said publicly that 17

percent is nothing to write home about. In fact, we must strive to

reduce that percentage drastically. When the report comes in to me from

the Gallagher committee, I expect to act on it. I did indicate that the

report would be made public. We have approximately $5 million in our

budget this year to use on adult basic education and literacy training

throughout the province.

MR. LOVICK : I wonder

whether the minister might be able to give me a little more specific

information in terms of how that $5 million is allocated: whether we're

talking about a particular number of positions or programs, or those

kinds of things. Certainly I know that it goes to adult basic education

activities and so forth. Anything more specific than that to report,

Mr. Minister?

HON. S. HAGEN : I've just checked to

see whether we could be more specific, and I'm told we could go to each

college and get what they had allocated in each of their budgets. I

will do that, if you wish; I don't have any difficulty with that. But I

can't extract it from this 12-line budget.

MR. LOVICK :

One more brief question, Mr. Chairman. Do I understand from the

minister's response to my last question that the model we have set up

to deal with the problem of illiteracy, otherwise known as the crisis

of illiteracy, is a decentralized one; that we are in fact deferring

the responsibility to particular colleges and other institutions? Could

you explain that for me, please.

HON. S. HAGEN :

That's a very legitimate question. No, you should not read that into

it. What I'm waiting for is the Gallagher report. I expect, knowing Dr.

Gallagher, that he and his committee will be suggesting how the

province can deal with this question more effectively. Whether he will

recommend a more centralized approach or a decentralized approach, I

really don't have any idea. But don't read into that that we're going

to continue in the same way.

MR. LOVICK : I

appreciate the clarification. I'm pleased to hear that this is the

case, because if ever there were a crisis a building or a crisis

extant, surely this must qualify as one. I'm delighted to learn that

this is a temporary measure until such time as the report comes down.

understand also that 1990 is the International Literacy Year, and I

would dearly hope that we might celebrate that by being able to say

within a very short time that the figure is no longer 17 percent in

this province, but is somewhat less. I believe that 17 percent

translates into about 360,000 persons; that's scandalous and something

that we're all embarrassed by in a society as rich and prosperous as

ours.

I thank the minister for answering the questions; have no further for the moment.

MR. SERWA :

I'd just like to take a few minutes of the time during the minister's

estimates to convey my heartfelt feelings from the central Okanagan and

Okanagan South and, I think, from the entire Okanagan community about

the action that the minister initiated earlier this year.

was back in 1965 that the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, suggested

that the Okanagan would be a wonderful site for a university, and that

fell by the wayside because of a great deal of conflict. We did develop

a vocational school, and that vocational school evolved into Okanagan

College, which was a combination of vocational, technical and academic

opportunities for some of our young people in the Okanagan.

spoke to this in my nomination address, and it was obviously

exceedingly important to the people of the Okanagan. Right from the

first time that we met the minister, I and all Okanagan MLAs

endeavoured to convince him of the necessity for this opportunity. That

necessity was certainly strengthened by the member for Prince George

North (Mrs. Boone) entering into the discussions with her concerns

about a university concept for Prince George and by the member for

Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who also supported us in the

university concept.

Two hundred and fifty thousand people

live, work and play in the Okanagan Valley, and this has given us an

opportunity to enter the twenty-first century with well-educated

students who can take their full and rightful place in our community.

This action on the part of the Minister of Advanced Education has

assured job opportunities and prosperity for the people of the entire

Okanagan region.

I would like to commend the Minister of

Advanced Education, our Premier and our government for giving the

people of the Okanagan the opportunity to start matching the percentage

of students getting university diplomas and moving towards

opportunities to that in the lower mainland or southern Vancouver

Island. I just want to convey the heartfelt gratitude of that entire

Okanagan community.

[3:00]

1 wish that all members of the Legislature could have been in the

theatre at Okanagan College when the announcement was made. We had

professors, students, parents and members from the community. We had

the Friends of Okanagan College there who had worked so hard, and the

amount of applause and the splendid feeling of warmth were incredible.

This was the first issue in the 44 years that I've lived in the

Okanagan community about which all sections in all communities in the

Okanagan were truly united with one common purpose and vision. So I

thank the minister for that tremendous opportunity.

MR. JONES :

There are a couple of areas of concern I'd like to raise with the

minister before we leave the whole area having to do with the access

report and the Access for All program — which has been the ministry's major focus or major accomplishment in this last year since the last set of estimates.

[ Page 8364 ]

The

minister established a provincial access committee and eight regional

committees. The purpose of those regional committees, of course, was to

elicit opinion from the various regions of the province and to have

input from the various communities. Those committees were hand-picked,

and I think were very sincere in their efforts in trying to do a good

job in representing the communities. I notice, however, that the

minister had placed a representative from the OLA on each of those

individual committees.

I don't want to get into the debate

on open learning that we've had before in this House, and the minister

is aware of our support for and our concerns about open learning and

distance learning. The anomaly that I see and would like to raise with

the minister with respect to that process is that while there was a

member of the Open Learning Agency on each of those eight regional

committees, when I reviewed the reports of each of those committees,

the concept of open learning or distance education played a very small

role in terms of those reports Several of the reports indicated nothing

about open learning, and the remainder said very little about open

learning as far as the regional access reports go. Yet when we see the

provincial access report and their recommendations, something like

one-quarter of the recommendations that made it to the provincial

access report had to do with open learning and distance education.

very clearly it was of greater concern to the provincial committee and,

I assume, to the minister and the ministry than it was actually to

those people who I would have expected to be most concerned about open

learning and distance education, the people in the regions of the

province. I was quite surprised to see that that wasn't reflected in

their reports while it was reflected in the provincial report.

guess I can conclude that the push for open learning and distance

education continues from the ministry, and I see that reflected in the

improved degree-granting status in the regions of the province As I

understand it, while we just had a debate in question period and a

debate here about the importance of the autonomy of those individual

institutions, those institutions have been instructed to involve the

Open Learning Agency in all their planning for degree-granting status

in Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo.

So very clearly those things are being pushed, and they are coming, as I see it, from the top down rather from the bottom up.

Does

the minister not trust those people in the field? Does he not respect

the autonomy of the individual institutions? Why is it that as part of

this degree-granting program in the regions he is instructing these

local autonomous institutions to include the Open Learning Agency in

all their programs?

HON. S. HAGEN : This province is

recognized in this country and, indeed, around the world as having the

best delivery system in distance education. That is why the

Commonwealth of Learning, the only agency of the commonwealth located

outside of England, is located in British Columbia. I doubt that there

is a person who lives in this province who isn't aware of the Knowledge

Network, who isn't aware of the great opportunities of achieving

education and having access to education even though you may not live

near a college, university or institute.

I look upon the

Open Learning Agency as an integral part of the delivery system of

education in this province. It is as integral a part as the

universities, colleges and institutes. I believe that the OLA has a

very important role to play in many areas of the province.

The

role that the Open Learning Agency plays I think will vary from region

to region. The role that it plays is interesting. There are a lot of

people who subscribe to the open college or open university in the

lower mainland, even though they are close to one of the walk-in

facilities. But it may just not fit with their schedule. The amount of

involvement of OLA, as I say, will vary not only according to region

but I think from individual to individual.

If a student

enrolled in a college can get four out of five courses but the fifth

one conflicts with their working schedule, bearing in mind that I think

over 50 percent of the students in our college system are part-time

students for one reason or another — they may have family responsibilities or employment responsibilities — they may want to take that fifth program through Open Learning if they want to take it that same year.

Yes,

the OLA has an integral part to play, and they are, in fact, an

integral part of the establishment of the programs. I think that OLA

will continue to play an expanded role as we move along in enlarging

our system of education in the province. I know my wife, for one, is

very thankful for the Open Learning Agency and for being able to get

her degree from a great university like Simon Fraser while still

residing in Courtenay.

MR. JONES : I thank the

minister, although I indicated I didn't want to get into the debate on

the merits and the demerits. I guess by doing that the minister has

confirmed that the ministry and the minister are pushing open learning

at a greater pace than is appreciated by the regions, as indicated by

the regional access reports.

Seeing as the minister got

into that debate that I didn't want to get into, I will ask one further

question. I appreciate all that the minister says, and I think there

certainly are areas where distance learning is of tremendous benefit to

people in the regions for a variety of reasons. However, I know that

the budgets of that agency are increasing at a great rate. So I would

like to ask the minister: has there been any cost-benefit analysis of

distance education and the Open Learning Agency in B.C. under his

ministry?

HON. S. HAGEN : No, we have not commissioned a cost-benefit analysis, but I will say that the enroll-

[ Page 8365 ]

ment under open learning is increasing at 12 percent a year.

also want to read into the record.... I should know better than to

quote dollar amounts that I don't know, but I was given incorrect

information before. I did indicate that the amount spent on adult basic

education and literacy this year was $5 million; in fact, it is an

increase of $5 million, and the expenditure figure is $40 million.

MR. JONES :

While the minister is on dollar figures, let me repeat a question that

I asked earlier and the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Perry) has asked. I have before me a number of ads. One is a full-page

ad appearing in the Times-Colonist

on Monday, June 12, 1989, with a heading: "There's a New Vision for the

Future of Advanced Education in B.C." and a picture of the minister.

The minister is not a bad-looking person, and it adds to the page, I

suppose.

I have the eight-page Provincial Report , and this picture of the minister — this is when he had his bad attack of slipped disc, I suppose, and he's grimacing a bit — went out to every residence in the province of British Columbia at the taxpayers' expense. Then we have this one — and I think it's very important that this kind of advertising take place — which is a full-page ad in the Sun on

Wednesday, June 28, 1989, headed: "New Degrees of Excellence for

University Students in British Columbia." I think it's very appropriate

that these worthy programs are being advertised, and I don't think

that's a bad use of tax dollars. However, again there is a rather large

picture of the minister on that page.

The second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey also indicated the tremendous number of television

advertising spots that the government is promoting at this time. So as

part of our estimates debate, I think it would be good to get some

response from the minister in terms of the amount of taxpayers' dollars

being spent on this advertising. Some cynics might say that it is

political advertising, and I suppose everything that governments do can

be construed that way. But the big picture of the minister is part of

those ads. The ministry is putting out good information. The minister

is putting out his picture, and he will be running again in the next

provincial election, I hope, and that kind of advertising never hurts.

So I am curious — and I hope the minister will respond with at

least some idea of the amount of funding on the part of the taxpayer

that goes into the advertising of those good programs.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I was hoping to be asked that question, and I just happen to have the

figures. The amount of money spent to advertise the Access for All

program is $210,000. 1 can break that down to print: $141,000. I can

break that down to the Vancouver Sun :

$12,000; regional papers: $129,000; radio ads: $53,000; and production

costs: $16,000. 1 didn't have much input into the size of the

minister's picture, but nobody in the province knows who I am, and it's

because we never advertise. So for the first time in two and a half

years, people in the province will now put a name to a face or a face

to a name. We don't get the exposure that sometimes you get on the

other side.

MR. JONES : Well, I've been trying to

keep a low profile myself actually. I know the minister doesn't have

any leadership aspirations or anything like that, so I know that

advertising has nothing to do with that. I appreciate that answer.

Obviously the minister's staff is briefing him very effectively, and I

appreciate that. It was the third time we asked the question, but I

still appreciate the answer.

Let me wind up the access part

of this discussion with one of the concerns I have about the report.

There were some 36 recommendations in that report, and a number of them

were acted on. The minister has indicated, at least in one area, that

although there wasn't an announcement about action on those

recommendations, there is movement in areas of the report other than

the major ones announced on March 22. I assume that some of those

recommendations were rejected, some are being acted on behind the

scenes and some were approved.

[3:15]

1 wonder about a couple in particular that I think are important.

Let me list four: firstly, counselling services being more readily

available — I think everybody recognizes the importance of people

being properly counselled so that they fit into programs appropriately;

secondly, a similar one — that there be a higher emphasis on

guidance and student services, a strong recommendation from the

regional access reports; thirdly, that there be more provision for

sports, cultural and extracurricular activities at colleges and

institutes; and fourthly, the recommendation that would allow colleges

to grant associate degrees. These certainly weren't the highest

priorities, but I don't think they were unimportant. I'd like to get

the minister's response to those areas.

HON. S. HAGEN : Mr. Chairman, could I ask for No. 2 again? I missed it.

MR. JONES :

No. 2 is similar to No. 1. It was the recommendation that suggested

that there be a higher emphasis on guidance and student services.

HON. S. HAGEN :

On the first two, if you want to group them together, the colleges make

those allocations in their budgeting process. But again, I say that by

the increase in their budgets this year, we know that they're going to

focus more on the counselling aspect. We did target counselling for

special needs students, with a doubling of that budget from $500,000 to

$1 million, which will deal with handicapped individuals; they have

been targeted specifically.

Point 3, more provision for

sports, is something that we have not spent a great deal of time on,

although there are some colleges that are now looking at doing some

joint facility provisions with local communities, in the way of

theatres or sports facili-

[ Page 8366 ]

ties.

Interestingly enough, in some colleges sports have not been a major

aspect of their program, while in other colleges they have. I suppose

that may sometimes relate to the people they've brought on stream. We

are also expanding sports scholarships in British Columbia in the

post-secondary ministry.

The question of associate degrees

is under consideration; I think it would involve legislative changes. I

happen to think it's a good idea, but we will not be dealing with that

this session. Let me put it this way: we are working towards a plan to

deal with associate degrees at the college level.

MR. JONES :

Thank you to the minister for that answer. I happen to agree, in that I

think there is room for an associate degree in this province. I think

it could add considerably to the stature of the colleges to grant

something that represents a step and an added area of achievement in

post-secondary education.

just to wind up the access

business, I must say that the minister's response and the positive

steps he has taken to improve access to education in British Columbia

are most appreciated. Although, as I suggested earlier, the achievement

was reached at a slow pace, what we have achieved at this point is

still modest, but it is a very important first step in a very positive

direction.

I must add again that it's a recognition of the

years of neglect of post-secondary education by previous

administrations. However, in terms of the achievement of the promises,

the sincerity of this government and the political will to carry

through with that long-term commitment, the jury is still out. But it

is very much appreciated in going part-way to at least solving the

quantitative problems of post-secondary education. I'm sure the

minister is aware of, and I don't have to reiterate, the importance of

continuing to improve the qualitative aspects of post-secondary

education as well as the quantitative.

I'd like to go to

another area of post-secondary education at a particular institution. I

think the minister will accuse me of going back in history, but I think

it was important for me to do this and come to an assessment of my view

and express some of my concerns about the approach of the minister and

the ministry in dealing with at least one institution that I'm aware

of. I hope it's not symptomatic of the treatment of institutions in

general, although I think there is danger of abuse in terms of

government interference, underfunding, excessive control, lack of

vision and convoluted planning.

BCIT is probably the best

example of all those problems that I see in the Ministry of Advanced

Education. One would need a program to follow the different directions

BCIT has taken over the last few years. If we look back in history to

the origins.... It was a Social Credit government under W.A.C. Bennett

that established that institution, and I think they were most prescient

and proper in seeing the need for a centre of technology training for

the province that would assist this province in its economic

development; the graduates there have certainly made an important

contribution. However, to take that vision of a flagship of technology

training and put it through the wringer of government

mismanagement — as I see it in my review of that institution — is a crime.

was only a few years ago that the government decided to merge PVI and

BCIT. Although I'm sure it looked easy on paper, those kinds of changes

to institutions are most difficult. We're merging a high-tech centre

with a trade centre. I think you can imagine how difficult it would be

on the staff and the administration. Institutions and the working

relationships and the emotions that go on there to contribute to the

human process of teaching are very fragile. That merger was very

difficult, and the people in the institution worked very hard to make

the situation work.

Following that, we saw a series of

broken promises in terms of appropriate funding for the institution to

make it work and years of underfunding that led to deficit situations

there. The institution, in its debate with government, decided to

conduct the Price Waterhouse study to confirm or deny whether they were

appropriately funded. The Price Waterhouse study determined that there

were increased costs at the institution, but those increased costs were

due to the unique program mix that existed at BCIT; and that in terms

of technology training, BCIT was not only in line with other

institutions but in most instances operated more efficiently in terms

of cost than other institutions. But the response of the government,

this ministry and this minister in particular was more budget cuts and

a promise that BCIT — despite the Price Waterhouse study — should be funded like the colleges, which the Price Waterhouse study clearly indicated would not be appropriate.

Not long after the merger took place — where we have this merging of high tech and, if you like, low tech —

the institution was told that it had too many soft programs, such as

the food training program, for example. What we see is a roller-coaster

ride taking place at that institution.

The government then

thought another study would be appropriate, and the David Park study

was commissioned by the government. I think that study was the

twentieth study in 15 years. Can you imagine how the Ministry of

Advanced Education would operate if it had been studied as an

organization 20 times in 15 years? There are times when studies are

appropriate, but there is such a situation as being over studied.

The

Park study indicated that there should be a move in this province

towards a centre of applied research and technology transfer and that

that should take place at a new centre and not at the BCIT site. So you

can imagine the feelings of the people at that institution that they

had had the rug pulled out from under them.

It goes on and on, with budget cuts. The minister certainly remembers — not that long ago —

that in March '88, after all this had taken place, the institution

received a 5 percent budget cut. Only after all kinds of sectors — the business community, the staff,

[ Page 8367 ]

the students, the public at large —

protested very strongly did the minister relent, to restore some of

those cut funds, all but three-quarters of a million dollars.

May 1988 the government reversed its position on the Park report, and

indicated that it did accept what was really the BCIT submission in

that report, and that that should be the centre of advanced technology

and training. The minister had a bold announcement, and the Centre of

Advanced Technology and Training.... CATT was the acronym; it was in

capitals, and that implied that that would be a new name for BCIT, and

the headlines indicated as such. I have the newspaper clippings: "BCIT

Given New Budget, New Name." Obviously, the fourth estate was confused

again. It's those left-leaning socialists in the media that confused

the message.

HON. S. HAGEN : There's no picture.

MR. JONES : And no picture of the minister, either — a serious omission on the part of the media.

Again we talk about institutional autonomy. In that same press release the minister indicated — and I think it was a slap in the face to the administration there —

that his ministry would direct and work with BCIT's administration

during the transition. Direct and work with. I think the word "direct"

there is key.

So then we got into the new mandate and all

the program changes, and some 15 promises of program changes that

clearly left that institution confused. When I visited them shortly

after I was assigned to the critic area, those people were at their

wits' end. They were saying: "What did we do wrong? Why has the

government continued to mistreat us as an institution?"

[3:30]

Interjections.

MR. JONES :

I guess the members opposite don't really understand the kinds of

program changes, which have nothing to do with funding. What this has

to do with is establishing a mandate that's clear and understandable.

It's the parking-lot planning of this government that has put that

institution in particular into serious confusion, and has resulted in a

tremendous morale decline that has produced the kinds of problems that

we see at that institution, most recently last fall with the strike

there. Let me just read a motion or two that were passed by the staff

society there:

"Moved that the staff society

urge the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training to review the

current structure and membership of the BCIT board of governors, to

ensure that the short- and long-term interests of BCIT are served to

the greatest extent possible; and secondly, moved that the staff

society strongly urge the provincial government to amend the BCIT act

to allow for the creation of elected or appointed positions on the BCIT

board of governors that would represent faculty, staff, students,

alumni and advisory committees."

They're saying that out of

frustration, because they see a tremendous amount of government

interference. The staff society newsletter of September 15, 1988: "The

past few years have been fraught with government interference, studies,

budget cuts and, finally, direct intervention by ministry bureaucrats."

terms of the strike, the staff society newsletter indicates that the

concerns of the staff are "symptoms of deeper human-relations problems

at BCIT. Certainly the issues were significant, but the passion of our

protest indicates the cumulative effect of years of difficult times and

neglect at BCIT, years when the needs of the human resource have been

subordinated to other priorities." So what they're really saying is

that that strike was certainly about the salaries that had been

neglected for years. But it was also a result of the mistreatment of

individuals and the lack of planning, the lack of vision, the lack of

leadership in setting the institution on a course that would not be a

litany of broken promises but would give them some hope of being able

to get on track without the sort of convoluted, roller-coaster

emotional ride they had experienced.

I'd like to get on to

another serious situation, one that I consider the epitome of

government interference in the operation of that institution. As the

minister is well aware, Mr. Murray left his position as president of

BCIT effective March 1, 1989. I'd like to go back a little in history

and suggest that the hiring was really a provincial government

appointment. Mr. Murray was originally approached by the government to

accept the responsibility for that institution, which was a new

institution as a result of the merger of PVI and BCIT. He received from

the government and the minister of the day a strong commitment to see

the institution flourish. He was well qualified, a senior administrator

in four other provinces, and he accomplished, I think, a considerable

amount in his stewardship of that institution by initiating a variety

of new programs.

At the same time, Mr. Murray enjoyed the

strong support of the staff, the students and the board at BCIT. He

very clearly brought about improved labour relations during his tenure.

He served on the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology,

so obviously he was well respected by the government. He received a

prestigious appointment to the National Research Council by the Privy

Council of Canada. He very clearly enhanced a reputation that was

already there in terms of the institution being one of high student

demand, high job placement and high employer satisfaction.

At the time of the announcement of Mr. Murray's departure from BCIT, the minister is quoted in the Vancouver Sun of

September 15, 1988, as saying: "These things are always a bit of a

surprise, but there is a lot of movement in the college system...." He

said he was not aware of any recent problems at BCIT, that held had two

good meetings with Mr. Murray that summer. This response on the part of

the minister indicates to me that he was at arm's length from the

causal factors, both direct and indirect, that led to Mr. Murray's

resignation.

[ Page 8368 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired under standing orders.

MR. PERRY :

This is a very important argument that the member is developing. I'm

extremely interested to hear him develop it fully in the fullness of

time.

MR. JONES : The minister's response to Mr.

Murray's resignation indicated that the move was just another career

move and had nothing to do with the provincial government or that

minister, and that relations between the government and Mr. Murray and

BCIT were very positive. As well, there was no lack of support for Mr.

Murray in his role. I'd like to ask the minister whether this is a fair

assessment of the minister's position at the time of Mr. Murray's

resignation.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. S. HAGEN : The answer is yes.

MR. JONES :

So the suggestion that this was just a career move, that relations with

Mr. Murray and BCIT were very positive and that there was no lack of

support for Mr. Murray in his role is a fair assessment of the

minister's position — and anybody who suggested otherwise would not be providing factual information.

HON. S. HAGEN : The answer again is yes.

MR. JONES :

Is it true that the chairman of the board of governors of BCIT asked

for and received permission from the minister to renew Mr. Murray's

contract in January of 1988?

HON. S. HAGEN : I'm not

sure he asked for permission to renew the contract. I know he mentioned

to me that they were renewing Mr. Murray's contract.

MR. JONES :

I assume that if they mentioned it to the minister and that discussion

ensued, then we can assume that the minister felt that Mr. Murray was

doing a good job at that time.

HON. S. HAGEN : As I

was quoted as saying before, I had had some very positive meetings with

Mr. Murray, so I had no reason to question the board's action in

renewing his contract.

MR. JONES : The minister is

suggesting again that there is an autonomy in that institution, as

there is in post-secondary institutions in the province, and that

personnel matters there are the purview of the board of governors,

inasmuch as the PVI and BCIT Amalgamation Act of 1985 would indicate

that the performance evaluations of all the people in positions such as

Mr. Murray held were really the responsibility of the board, not the

provincial government, and in particular, the ministry or the minister.

Is that correct?

HON. S. HAGEN : That's correct.

MR. JONES :

If that's correct, then I assume it would also be correct to suggest

that the minister never discussed Mr. Murray's future in his role as

president of BCIT with his ministry staff.

HON. S. HAGEN : Could you clarify what you mean by Mr. Murray's future?

MR. JONES :

The minister agreed that under the PVI and BCIT Amalgamation Act, the

responsibility for performance evaluation for people in positions like

Mr. Murray's was clearly a responsibility of the board of governors

under that act and hence not the responsibility of the minister or his

staff. The minister agreed with that, so I followed with a question

that asked: would it be correct to say that there were never any

discussions of Mr. Murray's future in his role as president of BCIT

between the minister and his staff?

HON. S. HAGEN : I

am very curious about that line of questioning. Is the member

insinuating that the minister is not responsible for all the colleges,

universities and institutes in this province?

MR. JONES :

I am just asking the question based upon an

interpretation of

an act of

this Legislature. Does the minister consider it his responsibility to

do performance evaluation for presidents of institutes in this

province, or is that, under the act, the responsibility of the board of

governors?

HON. S. HAGEN : I have never done a performance evaluation of the head of any institute, university or college in this province.

MR. JONES :

Is the minister aware that ministry staff discussed with Mr. Murray on

several occasions his future at BCIT and that they stated that these

same discussions had taken place between the minister and his staff?

HON. S. HAGEN : I am not aware — all the time, at least — of the discussions that take place between my staff and the head of an institute.

MR. JONES :

In June 1987, Dr. Jim Hammons won a competition for a vice-president

position at BCIT. The president, Mr. Murray, requested the minister to

review the appointment, as Dr. Hammons was an American seeking landed

immigrant status. The minister, as I understand it, approved the

appointment, and BCIT advised Dr. Hammons. Did the minister

subsequently — in September 1987 — criticize Mr. Murray for hiring an American and then indicate that he would not support the appointment of Dr. Hammons?

[ Page 8369 ]

HON. S. HAGEN : The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JONES :

I am wondering if the minister at any time criticized Mr. Murray for

excessive travel budgets for his personal travel in his role as

president of BCIT.

HON. S. HAGEN : Mr. Chairman, I

would like to say that I did speak to Mr. Murray once about what I felt

were excessive off-continent trips and mentioned that possibly he

should plan on spending a little more time on the responsibility he was

being paid for.

MR. JONES : I guess we are into the

realm of performance evaluation on the part of the minister of

presidents of autonomous institutions in this province, even down to

specific minor items in the budget.

I indicated earlier the

kind of esteem in which Mr. Murray was held in four provinces in this

country as a senior administrator — appointments to the Premier's

advisory council and to the National Research Council. The minister

indicated that he spoke once with Mr. Murray with respect to that.

That, I expect, was in June 1987. Did the minister speak again with Mr.

Murray on the subject of travel in, roughly, December 1988, some 18

months after the original conversation?

[3:45]

HON. S. HAGEN : Not that I recall, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JONES :

In December 1987, did the minister directly, or through his officials,

accuse Mr. Murray of making derogatory comments about the Premier and

about the government at a meeting of BCIT administrative staff? As a

result of allegations that those statements were made by Mr. Murray, is

it true that he was told that the government was reconsidering his

contract?

HON. S. HAGEN : I don't believe I ever spoke to Mr. Murray about those items.

MR. JONES :

The minister is suggesting that the question of derogatory remarks at a

BCIT administrative staff meeting was never mentioned either directly

or indirectly, through his officials, to Mr. Murray, and that anybody

who stated otherwise would not be telling the truth.

HON. S. HAGEN : What I stated was that I had not spoken to Mr. Murray about those items.

MR. JONES :

The minister indicates that he did not directly speak with Mr. Murray

with respect to allegations of derogatory remarks. Can he confirm that

such conversations were held between ministry staff and Mr. Murray?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I was informed by ministry staff, who had received a call from one of

the staff members who was at that meeting and was very concerned about

comments attributed to the president of BCIT. I asked that those

comments be checked out to see if they were actually made.

MR. JONES :

My understanding is that subsequently it was concluded that those

derogatory remarks were not made by Mr. Murray. The minister says he

did not speak directly with Mr. Murray about this matter. I wonder why,

after hearing those allegations from a staff member, the minister did

an end run around the president, rather than calling Mr. Murray

directly and checking out the validity of those allegations.

HON. S. HAGEN :

The facts stated are correct, in that it was determined that Mr. Murray

did not make those statements; but I think it was determined that he

did not make the statements by one of my staff speaking to Mr. Murray

and asking him.

MR. JONES : Obviously we are talking about a senior administrator in this province — a highly qualified and respected individual in a senior administrative position —

who was accused incorrectly, as it turned out, of making derogatory

remarks about the Premier and the government. It became such a serious

matter that it appears his position was threatened as a result. Does

the minister consider expressing oneself in a negative way about

government to be grounds for dismissal from a senior position in a

post-secondary institution in this province?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I would just like to go back a bit. The issue arose because one of my

officials received a complaint from an employee of BCIT who felt, in

his opinion, that the president had made some statements that were not

appropriate. Very simply, my request was to follow it up and find out

whether the statements were in fact made. It was followed up; it turned

out that the statements were not made. Would you rather that I had left

it unattended and let the rumour grow and circulate without determining

whether it was true or false?

MR. JONES : The

minister indicated that he or his staff did an investigation into

remarks that he considered not appropriate for a person in that

position. Could the minister clarify the kinds of remarks that he deems

inappropriate for a person in that position?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The scope of that debate is going to be a little bit broad, but I'll let the minister try.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Well, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I did not deem them to be

inappropriate; the employee at BCIT who relayed them to staff in my

ministry deemed them to be inappropriate.

[ Page 8370 ]

MR. JONES :

Given these kinds of investigations and the assumption that a person's

job was on the line, and given the accomplishments that happened under

very difficult circumstances at BCIT, I wonder if the minister would

like to reconsider his earlier comments about support for Mr. Murray in

his role as president of BCIT and the confidence that the ministry, the

government and the minister himself had in Mr. Murray.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I have no difficulty doing that. As a matter of fact, my last meeting

prior to.... I guess it would be September '88 when I learned that Mr.

Murray had resigned. It was about a month before that when my then

deputy, Isabel Kelly, and I had a business lunch with Mr. Murray in

Vancouver. Before coming back to Victoria we had a meeting of about an

hour and a quarter. We discussed the new advanced technology programs

that would be instituted at BCIT and some other program issues. We also

discussed some of the programs that were going to be moved to other

colleges. I felt that it was the type of meeting you have with a

president of an institution who is going to be there the following

year, because we were in fact discussing programs that would be

announced in this fiscal year. I had no difficulty with my relationship

with the president o BCIT.

MR. JONES : I'd like to

ask if the minister, in March 1988, at the time of the 5 percent budget

cut to BCIT and the remaining budget cut of some $750, 000 from

administration.... The minister indicated earlier that his role with

the institution was at arm's length, that he did not get involved in

personnel matters there. Did the minister, either directly or through

his staff, at that point suggest to Mr. Murray that he must drop the

vice-president of administration and several other key positions at

that institute?

HON. S. HAGEN : No, I did not.

would like to clarify that the $700,000-odd that was not included in

the reinstatement of the 5 percent was actually suggested by the

president as an amount that they did not need at that time at BCIT.

MR. JONES :

After the partial budget restoration to that institute in July 1988,

did the minister, either directly or indirectly through his staff,

indicate that the incumbent in the position of vice-president of

education required removal? Did the minister or his staff threaten that

if this did not happen, Mr. Murray would probably go as well?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I'm afraid I don't know who the individual is that you're speaking of.

I would say as a general comment that I have had no involvement with

the structuring. As a matter of fact, I couldn't even tell you now what

the administrative structure is under the president at BCIT. It's not

something that I get involved with.

MR. JONES : Did

the minister suggest either directly or through his staff that BCIT

needed a vice-president of administration and that his ministry had a

candidate in mind who would be an excellent choice for that position?

HON. S. HAGEN :

As I said in the previous answer, Mr. Chairman, I don't get involved in

the administrative structures of either the colleges, the institutes or

the universities. I am afraid that I couldn't tell you what the

administration is under the president of any of the colleges or

institutes at the present time.

MR. JONES : I

appreciate the minister's comment, but I would like to ask a further

question, in any event. If the minister did understand the

administrative structure and if there were an opening in that position

and if there was somebody in the ministry that he had in mind for that

position, would that individual be Mr. John Watson?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I believe that's a rather hypothetical question. The minister might wish to answer.

HON. S. HAGEN : The answer is no.

MR. JONES :

Can the minister advise the House of the details of Mr. Murray's

separation agreement as to severance and any caveats in that separation

agreement?

HON. S. HAGEN : I'm afraid I can't. That would be an arrangement between the board of BCIT and Mr. Murray.

MR. JONES :

I assume then that the minister is not aware of the details of that

contract and could not comment on any of the specifics, such as the

possibility that there be a confidentiality aspect to that severance

agreement. Shortly after Mr. Murray's announcement of his resignation,

the institute established a very broad-based search committee composed

of representatives of the student society, the staff society,

management, the BCGEU, the board of governors and the education

council. The representative body that was established for this search

made an unanimous recommendation to the board of governors for a highly

qualified and highly respected individual to replace Mr. Murray as

president of BCIT.

Despite the fact that there were two

members of the board of governors on the search committee, the board of

governors rejected both the first and second recommendations of that

committee in favour of Mr. John Watson. The minister indicated recently

in the House that he supported that appointment. Can the minister

explain why he supported Mr. Watson's candidacy over two more qualified

candidates that the broad-based search committee determined to be far

superior to Mr. Watson for the position of president of BCIT?

[ Page 8371 ]

HON. S. HAGEN :

First of all, I did not say that I supported the appointment that was

made over the other two. What I said was that I supported the decision

that the board had taken. It has nothing to do with the other two

candidates. As a matter of fact, I suspect that most of the applicants

were good strong applicants. We always do get good strong applicants

applying for positions in British Columbia.

MR. JONES :

I assume, given the kinds of responses that I've had on many of the

questions that I've asked the minister about the internal relations of

BCIT, I might also predict the kind of answer that I would get to this

question, but I will ask it anyway because it does have to do with a

former member of the minister's staff. Can the minister inform this

House as to Mr. Watson's activities in the Social Credit Party,

particularly in Okanagan South, where he was touted to be a potential

candidate in the last provincial election?

[4:00]

HON. S. HAGEN : Well, Mr.

Chairman, I just learned something. I was not aware that Mr. Watson was

touted as a Social Credit candidate in Okanagan, and I had no idea of

his activity with the Social Credit Party in the Okanagan.

MR. JONES :

I take it then from the minister's remarks about Mr. Watson that he had

no communications, directly or indirectly, with the board of governors

at BCIT with respect to the appointment of the new president prior to

that appointment.

HON. S. HAGEN : I had no

communication either with the board chairman or with any member of the

board of BCIT during the selection process and up and to and after the

selection of Mr. John Watson as the president of BCIT.

MR. JONES :

I'm wondering if the minister happened to discuss the negotiations that

went on with the staff society at BCIT with the Finance minister

Specifically, did the minister approve of the Finance minister having

phone conversations with Mr. Wynne Powell during that negotiation

process? Is the minister aware that certain offers had been floated by

the board of governors prior to that phone conversation, and that after

that phone call a lower final offer was made to the staff society at

that institution? It was that lower final offer that precipitated the

very unpleasant strike — the first in the history of BCIT. Does

the minister believe that kind of communication is appropriate between

government officials and boards of governors of institutions at a time

when very delicate negotiations are taking place?

HON. S. HAGEN : I was not involved in the negotiations between the board of BCIT and the faculty association.

MR. JONES : I think I'll leave it at that. Very clearly the minister

has indicated that there were communications with Mr. Murray that clearly led

him to believe that his job there was in jeopardy; that the kind of reaction

the minister had at the time of Mr. Murray's resignation was not totally

the picture; that Mr. Murray was picked by this government and given a commitment

to himself and the institute, and that he underwent harassment and was constantly

criticized on trumped-up accusations and allegations.

The

operation of that institution, which is an autonomous institute in this

province, has a board of governors that should be handling the

day-to-day operations of the institute. Yet we see political

interference on the part of the government in Victoria which, from what

I can gather, viewed it somewhat as a chess game, where people's lives

were involved. They moved the players like pawns in a chess game in

that institute.

After a short three and a half years, it

was very clear that Mr. Murray did not fit the expectations of the

government, and he was chewed up and spat out to make room for a friend

of the ministry. I think this is symptomatic of a very serious problem

at that institute which, even without that kind of interference, went

through a tumultuous period of years that left the staff there in a

very low morale situation.

I see a total failure on the

part of the minister to understand the concepts of planning,

institutional autonomy, academic freedom and even fairness when it came

to Mr. Murray. Those aspects of post-secondary education, institutional

autonomy and academic freedom are so important and necessary to best

serve the interests of the students, staff and public of this province.

I see it as a serious problem. I see the problems of that institution

taking years to overcome and recover from the damage done by this

administration and previous administrations.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I want to say categorically that I reject the innuendo and sleaze that

has just come out of the mouth of the member for Burnaby North. He

should be disgusted with himself — if the rest of us aren't — because I can say categorically that I did not speak....

MR. PERRY :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think the word "sleaze" is

unparliamentary, and I would request that the minister withdraw the

remarks he just made about my colleague.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'd ask the minister to withdraw that remark.

HON. S. HAGEN :

I withdraw the word "sleaze." I have categorically stated that I had no

conversations with the board chairman or any member of the board of

BCIT either during the search or up to and after the appointment of Mr.

Watson as the president. Obviously the board, who you admit are

autonomous and have the final authority, made that decision. I believe

they made it correctly, but they made that decision with no input from

me and certainly no input from my senior staff or any of my staff that

came from me.

[ Page 8372 ]

think you should apologize to me, because you in fact are making

statements and innuendos that fly in the face of my reputation that I

have established over two and a half years as the minister responsible

for the post-secondary system in British Columbia. I object very

strongly that you would make those statements, particularly after I

have said — and I'm prepared to say this anywhere — that I had no input into the selection of the president of BCIT.

MR. CHAIRMAN : That having been said, I will ask both of the members — well, several members have spoken today—

just to add a little levity to committee, to review the Oxford

dictionary, because the words "institute" and "institution" have been

grossly misused this afternoon. I expected the first member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Lovick) to rise on a point of order and correct the grammar. Those

of us who had great difficulty at school and struggled through grammar

would appreciate that there have been some usage problems.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like to change the topic just slightly, dealing with one of the

minister's responsibilities under the secretariat for women. While I

want to concentrate on the report that the minister tabled in the House

last week, I'd like to start off — mainly because I know other members want to participate in the debate and haven't yet returned to the House —

by asking the minister if he could introduce this

section by explaining

to the House any participation he may have had in the plans leading to

the women's ministry, and if he has any further information as to that

ministry's responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair

will take some prerogative and introduce Gerry Zipursky, who is in the

gallery today. Will members please make him feel welcome. He is

accompanied by a number of guests.

HON. S. HAGEN :

Could I clarify your question? Are you referring to the women's

secretariat under my responsibility or the proposed change that was

talked about in the throne speech? I'm not sure which you're talking

about.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm asking the minister

whether he has had any input into the change, and whether he can

enlighten the House as to how the change will relate to your current

responsibilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN : That is beyond the

scope of debate under our standing orders. Sir Erskine May clearly

indicates that the discussion cannot be conducted in Committee of

Supply as to from which ministry or from which department ministry

staff are selected or in which department responsibilities lie. Would

the member like to try another line of questioning that would be

appropriate.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Sure. What I really want

to talk about is the free trade debate. Perhaps I'm second-guessing the

minister. I don't expect to get a great deal of information about the

government's plans, at any rate. But I'll leave that up to the

minister. When he's responding he might want to fill some of the

questions.

The report that the minister tabled is a report

we asked for in the estimates last year. While I'm glad to see that we

finally have something before this House that begins to talk about the

impact of the free trade deal on the citizens of British Columbia, I am

somewhat disappointed in the minister's recommendations that flow from

the report and hope that the minister can provide some more information.

I said, the report was promised last year. The minister said at that

time that he supported the free trade deal and said that his ministry

was engaging in some research and that he expected that research to be

completed in June. The date on the report is February '89. It was

tabled in June of this year. While the recommendations are pretty

loose, I'm hoping that we're going to see some action a little bit

quicker than the time-line that I've just outlined. It took well over a

year to get the study, and we're already beginning to feel the impact

of the free trade deal on British Columbians. We need some action now.

We don't need another delay of a year before the programs are put in

place.

This report that we have in front of us outlines

some of the concerns and echoes some of those that both myself and

other of my colleagues have put to the minister, at which time the

minister assured us, as have other ministers of this government, that

the free trade deal was a good deal for B.C. and a good deal for

Canada, and that if there were any negative effects — and the minister was not prepared to admit that —

they would be minimal. The minister's own report says that the sections

of our economy that will be hardest hit are those where women

predominantly work: the service-producing sector and, to a lesser

extent but including, the goods-producing sector. This report says

those are the areas that will be hardest hit, and it talks about both

the fish-processing as well as agricultural areas. We've already seen

the agricultural industries beginning to, at the farm at least, tear up

some of their crops. We will soon see the impact of the free trade deal

in the processing sector. Basically, while this report recommends

further study and a committee to deal with that dislocation, I don't

see anything in it that deals with the problem realistically.

If we are talking about the agricultural sector — I refer specifically to the Fraser Valley, because that's the area I am most familiar with —

we are talking about both the people who work on the farms.... Large

numbers of farmworkers are women; I would venture to say that in some

areas the majority are women. In the

section that actually processes

fruit and vegetables, many of the people in low-skilled, low-paid jobs

are women.

The minister talks in this report about training

for those dislocated workers. Can he indicate what sort of training

they have in mind for areas such as the Fraser Valley? What kinds of

jobs are available, and

[ Page 8373 ]

what kind of future can these women look forward to?

[4:15]

HON. S. HAGEN :

First of all, it is not my report. You called it "the minister's

report." It's a report done by a consultant for the minister. These are

not my recommendations. You said you were disappointed in "the

minister's recommendations"; these are not my recommendations. They are

recommendations from the consultant who did the report. I just want you

to be clear on that.

You have picked out one

section of the

report which is the labour perspective. I would like to draw your

attention to page 1 of the report, the executive

summary, which is the

business perspective. It says: "In general, literature originating in,

and respondents, from the business sector predict that positive impacts

of the free trade agreement will greatly outweigh any negative

impacts.... Business respondents expect that those who already market

successfully in the United States will continue to do so, aided by a

simplification of import procedures and the removal of tariffs." I

would like to remind the member that this province, since the free

trade agreement took effect, has probably had the largest growth period

in its history. Unemployment has decreased by 2 percent since the

introduction of the free trade agreement.

Her question at

this particular time, as it relates to this particular report, is far

too specific, because what I have said I am going to do with the report

is submit it to the Task Force on Employment and Job Training for a

recommendation on how we will deal with various aspects of it. But to

state that this report insinuates negative impacts on women is I think

a partial statement, and not what the report indicates. I am not sure,

Mr. Chairman, that we are here to debate the free trade agreement.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I would like to remind the minister that you tabled this report and you

subsequently responded publicly to its recommendations If there is any

confusion in this House as to whose report this is, that confusion has

been created by you

I might point out to the minister that

upon tabling this particular document.... We can look at the specific

quote in Hansard. The minister, as I said earlier, promised this report

to the House last year. If the minister is trying to dissociate himself

from the report he tabled, that's one thing. But you can't have it both

ways. Either this is work that your ministry undertook to begin to deal

with the impact of the free trade deal, or it is not.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please address the Chair in the process of your debate. It will make it much more pleasant.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Perhaps, through you, Mr. Chairman, the minister would like to comment

on some of the recommendations. Do you support the recommendations of

the report or do you not?

HON. S. HAGEN : I would

reiterate, just so the member opposite is perfectly clear, that this

report was commissioned as an independent report. It is not a report

done by the minister. You refer to it as "the minister's report." Yes,

I tabled it in the House, but it is not my report. Are you clear on

that? Good.

Now we will deal with the recommendations:

"l.

That the governments provide retraining and adjustment programs for

women in British Columbia who suffer job loss because of the FTA,

taking into account such factors as location, current skills, mobility

factors, cultural background and employment goals of those women

requiring trade adjustment assistance" — which is a federal program.

ministry is working together with the federal government in developing

these trade adjustment opportunities so that we can take advantage of

them when the need arises. I support that recommendation.

"2. That such programs be provided through a cooperative

effort of governments and groups such as major cultural groups, task groups

made up of women who will be or have been affected by the free trade agreement,

and existing services such as training enterprise centres, community futures

and the Open Learning Institute."

I agree with that recommendation.

"3.

That trade adjustment assistance be provided to help women

entrepreneurs who wish to expand their current businesses into markets

made available by the FTA, and to women in the service-producing sector

to maximize their employment opportunities through such mechanisms as

skills upgrading."

I agree with that, assuming that TAA has provision for women entrepreneurs. I don't know for sure whether it has or hasn't.

"4. That long-range research be undertaken to assess the use and effectiveness of this TAA programming."

I agree with that.

"5. That government consult with labour organizations to address concerns about negative effects of the FTA."

I agree with that.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm still unclear as to the little game that the minister indulged in

just a few minutes ago. If you have tabled this report and you agree

with the recommendations, perhaps we can get on to talking about the

actual substance of it. I assume that was the intention when the

minister tabled it and provided copies to members of this House.

Can

I ask the minister how the provincial government, how your ministry,

will be involved in this process as outlined in the recommendations?

HON. S. HAGEN :

The Ministry of Advanced Education and job Training will be involved in

assisting with labour adjustment programs just as we have in the past.

We will be involved through the colleges and institutes and also

through OLA to provide upgrading programs and to assist in any way that

we can, whichever ministry is in charge of and responsible for the

women's secretariat.

[ Page 8374 ]

MS. A. HAGEN :

Now that we're to the substance of the report, I think it would be

worthwhile for us to just look at some of the dimensions of possible

problems. I think it's quite clear that certain sectors of employment

for women are very likely to feel a very severe impact over the

implementation of the free trade agreement. For example, there are

10,000 people in the garment industry. The report projects, from

whichever point of view you happen to be taking, that all but 1,500 of

them may well lose their positions. Many of the people who work in the

garment industry are in fact immigrant women with limited job skills in

the Canadian market and with very limited access to language programs

and other programs which are, if you like, bridging activities that

would be necessary for that group of people to receive retraining.

The

fishing industry and the process part of the fishing industry is

affected not only by the trade agreement but also by GATT agreements.

We shouldn't be talking about these just in terms of any one source of

impact but of any factors that produce change in employment

opportunities for women. Again, about 50 percent of the workers in the

processing field are women. Many of them, again, are women with

marginal skills. Quite often they work in areas where there are very

few job opportunities anyway. So on top of the 8,500 garment workers

who may be affected, we're looking at another 2,500 or 3,000 shore

workers and processing workers, who are women who may be affected.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

When

we look at the Fraser Valley and the Okanagan, and the vegetable and

soft-fruit industry, long ago it was known and stated that those

particular activities were going to be decimated by the trade

agreement. There are approximately 25,000 farmworkers in the province,

and approximately half of those people are women. As my colleague from

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley was just noting, many of those people also

come from communities of people new to our country with limited skills

for jobs in the country at the present time.

We don't see

in those populations, for instance, the entrepreneurial group who might

start small businesses. There may be a few, but not very many. We're

looking at very significant potential dislocations of women whose jobs

are vital to the economic survival of their families.

There is in this report — which is a long time coming —

an urgency for some sense of action that may involve committees and

certainly does involve consultation, but this minister and ministry do

not yet have an admirable record with respect to women in trades and in

job training. That record is still less than satisfactory on a broad

basis, and all of a sudden we're faced with very serious and

challenging problems to this government — to any government — to accommodate the needs of a very significant, fragile and vulnerable group of women.

I'd

like to hear from the minister something more than another committee.

The consultant's report has taken a year to see the light of day. When

I talked to the minister yesterday, there were a lot of things that

were going to happen: a committee is going to happen. It doesn't give

us any sense that the minister is prepared to discuss the potential

crisis in certain communities of the province, something that requires

more than the usual long-term careful planning. That has to be there,

but there is some sense of urgency for these women, their families and

the communities in which they live.

Can the minister give

us some sense that he does recognize the extent of this potential

problem to a group of people who are very vulnerable and who will be

quite difficult to accommodate in job markets in the numbers that this

report defines for us?

HON. S. HAGEN : It is

difficult to deal with these questions when they're about possible

future activities. The member for New Westminster talked about the loss

of women's jobs in the agriculture industry in the Okanagan. Well, the

last report I got was that they couldn't find fruit-pickers in the

Okanagan. That doesn't sound to me like an oversupply of workers.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN : Don't interrupt.

This

government will continue to provide the best labour adjustment programs

in the country. I can tell you that we are working closely with the

federal Minister of Labour to deal with these issues. On the one hand,

we have the opposition here and their negative approach saying, "Look

at all these things that could possibly happen," and yet we have no

proof that they are going to happen.

My intention, as long

as I'm the minister responsible for women's programs, is that we will

consult and work with labour organizations and the federal government

and will continue to talk to industry groups. We had a request

yesterday for a possible labour adjustment program that might be

necessary for some cannery workers, depending on what happens with GATT

and fisheries. Yes, we are examining that proposal and we will deal

with it, just as we've dealt with all the other proposals.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN :

No, we're not a failure, Is a 2 percent reduction in the unemployment

rate a failure? Is that what you're saying? Would you rather see higher

unemployment? No, of course not; neither would any of us. I can tell

you that we take these issues very seriously, but to try and deal with

this report on a possible negative basis is impossible.

[4:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN : The minister seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 8375 ]

HON. S. HAGEN : I'm terribly sorry and I apologize to my colleague to my right. I'm very pleased this afternoon to have with me — besides my deputy minister, Gary Mullins — the assistance of Chris Bullen, director of the women's secretariat and a valued member of our senior staff.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The more we talk about this report, the clearer it becomes that the

minister tabled it in the House purely for publicity reasons. The

minister is no more interested in dealing with the substance of this

report....

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Well, perhaps it didn't produce the effect that the minister was hoping for.

The

members on this side of the House have been trying to deal with the

substance of this report in a very serious manner and with some of the

very serious concerns of the people of this province. The minister

talked about a specific situation where cannery workers may be

displaced and about a meeting that the minister had dealing with that

displacement. Maybe we can use that as a lever, because it's talked

about in this report, to hear from the minister what exactly his

government, and his ministry in particular, is doing to buffer that

possible job loss.

HON. S. HAGEN : I'm very pleased

to respond very specifically to that question, except that the question

is stated incorrectly. I did not say that I met with the cannery

workers. You should listen more closely; I beg of you to do that. The

statement I made was that....

Interjection,

HON. S. HAGEN : It's entirely up to you.

The

statement I made was that a cannery had contacted the women's

secretariat and applied for adjustment assistance. The program will be

analyzed and will be handled in the way that we handle adjustment

assistance programs. If it's a necessary program and if these workers

are going to be displaced, then, of course, there will be funding made

available through the trade adjustment assistance program to retrain

these workers — I think the majority of them are women — so that they can move into another sector of the workforce.

MR. CLARK :

I can't resist making a few remarks on this issue today with this

minister, because if any government has been an unbelievable failure

when it comes to women's issues, it's this administration. No

government has insulted women the way this government and this minister

has.

Let's not talk about what may be. The minister says

there may be negative effects. Let's talk about problems that women

face today. Women today, in British Columbia, face occupational

problems.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK : I'll deal with solutions, Mr. Member for Richmond.

Women

historically occupy low-paid and low skilled jobs. Where has the

minister been in any kind of advocacy? Where has he been to advocate

dealing with the kinds of problems that women have? This is the

minister who has been such a failure that even the Premier — whose record is a disaster on this issue — has created a job for the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran) which is coming up soon, I assume, after the House rises.

This

is absolutely serious, because poverty is a women's issue, In fact, in

my view, it's the biggest women's issue in British Columbia. Women

occupy traditionally low-paid jobs. Women from ethnic minorities occupy

them disproportionately. Older women who have had to re-enter the

workforce have systematically been relegated — in this society generally, and in British Columbia — to

job ghettos that shouldn't be tolerated and wouldn't be tolerated if it

were any other group than the vulnerable and dispossessed group that

women too often are placed in within our society.

The

textile industry, the data-processing industry, service sector jobs,

cannery workers: those jobs aren't hypothetical. Your own report and

every other report shows that they will be negatively impacted by free

trade — not hypothetically; they will be. I will, for the

minister's benefit, acknowledge that there are potential benefits in

certain sectors. There are negative benefits. In my view and in the

view of a majority of Canadians and particularly British Columbians,

the negative consequences outweigh the benefits. A majority of British

Columbians believe that. They voted that way in the federal election,

and they'll vote that way provincially.

Where was this

minister when our Premier did not negotiate a deal on the west coast

fishery, when the Premier in Newfoundland negotiated a deal? Women are

disproportionately represented in the cannery industry in British

Columbia. Where was the minister in any kind of advocacy role for the

women in the cannery industry in British Columbia who will be impacted

by free trade? Nowhere.

I can't think of a time when he has

stood up in this House and advocated an aggressive position on behalf

of women, particularly in those low-paid jobs that are going to be

impacted by free trade.

HON. S. HAGEN : On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, I think we're discussing the minister's estimates

here, not the free trade agreement or the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I thank the minister for his comments. I have been taking this

discussion as having to do with women, which I believe is a

responsibility of the minister. Please continue.

training? I

[ Page 8376 ]

don't

know if the minister has been out in the real world where he sees that

women and homemakers in ethnic minorities.... There are no programs to

deal with those problems that exist, particularly in urban areas. Where

has the minister been when it comes to dealing with free trade

adjustment? He's been silent.

The minister is laughing. I think it's absolutely clear why he won't be long in this portfolio.

I mean this in all sincerity. The impact that women are going to face — not just under the free trade agreement, but every day in British Columbia — should be dealt with. They aren't being dealt with by this ministry. It's a Mickey Mouse ministry —

a kind of mini-ministry part of the Ministry of Advanced Education and

Job Training. There's no serious policy initiative to deal with

problems.

We've had one report on free trade. It's been a

decent report, in some respects, although I think it mutes the negative

consequences. But we've had no action. We've said we agree with the

recommendations, but where is the meat? Where are the trade adjustment

programs with respect to women? Nowhere. Where is the money in the

budget to deal with the kinds of problems that are faced under free

trade? The minister says he agrees. What about women in non-traditional

jobs, in the trades? Do we see anything from the minister responsible

for women that deals substantially with those kinds of issues? No, we

don't, because the government has no commitment to equal rights for

women; that's proven time and time again.

The minister

responsible stays silent in the face of statements from the Premier and

other members of caucus: sexist statements, inadequate policy

responses, superficial Mickey Mouse studies. The minister is a nice

guy; that's probably why he has the job He stands up there and smiles

and says: "Oh, I'm really concerned, and we are responding. We are

working on it. We are studying it. We're going to have a committee."

He's a perfect salesman for a ministry that doesn't want to do

anything. He's better than most of the other cabinet ministers, who

couldn't sell an Eskimo.... Sorry, I won't make that comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. CLARK : There's some concern on the other side. They couldn't sell anything. They're bad salesmen.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Have you ever sold anything?

MR. CLARK : Yes, I've sold lots of things.

The

reality is that they don't have any substance to their policies. They

don't have any substance when it comes to women's issues. That's proven

again and again by this government and this minister, so all they can

do is try to sell an inadequate policy response. This is the minister

who tries to do that.

I wonder if the minister could at

least deal with some specific questions arising out of the free trade

agreement, out of trade adjustment policies. Can the minister tell me

how much extra money he has allocated this year to deal with free trade

adjustment policies with respect specifically to women's issues?

HON. S. HAGEN :

I want to congratulate the member from Vancouver East, who is, I tell

you, a glowing example of the product of our independent school system.

I want to congratulate him, and I want to congratulate his parents,

too, for spending those extra bucks and making sure he got a quality

education.

To reply in all seriousness, it's unfair of the

member from Vancouver East to make all of these general, negative,

derogatory statements about myself as the minister. I should remind him

that I asked for the women's secretariat part of my ministry because I

thought it was an appropriate ministry for it to be in.

want to talk about the programs dealing specifically with women that we

funded last year. I want to read them into the record because I think

it's significant information. Don't you walk out of the chamber while

I'm reading this list.

MR. BLENCOE : Get your hand out of your pocket.

HON. S. HAGEN : Another product of our independent school system. I can't believe you voted against that act.

Let

me start with the B.C. Institute of Family Violence. We sponsored an

international conference on family violence. The B.C. Institute of

Technology has women in trades training. You talked about

non-traditional trades. I don't particularly care to call them

non-traditional trades, because in my view women are capable of doing

anything that men can, and some better.

Camosun College: career training for women in government. We need more women in senior positions in government.

MR. CLARK : Where are they?

HON. S. HAGEN : We have excellent examples throughout government, and we are getting more and more of them.

MR. CLARK : How many deputies?

HON. S. HAGEN : Just be a little more polite. They taught you at independent school to be polite and to listen. You'll have your turn.

sponsored, at a cost of $21,000, this report that I've been trying to

discuss in an intelligent manner this afternoon. The city of Vancouver:

we sponsored the Kingswood management training program to create an

equal employment opportunity workplace. The Federal Business

Development Bank: we co funded the Kelowna conferences on business

ownership for women. Listen to this; there are other places in this

province besides Vancouver East: Kelowna, Vancouver, Prince George,

Victoria, Kamloops, Castlegar. How come we didn't do one in Courtenay?

[ Page 8377 ]

Kwantlen College we've sponsored management training for women faculty

members, and also women in trades training. The Society for Canadian

Women in Science and Technology: for two years running — this is the third year —

we have sponsored the summer science workshop for girls to create an

interest for girls to go into more math and science programs, to then

lead them into careers in math and science. University of British

Columbia: career training for women in government. University of

Victoria: seminars to assist women into principal ships. Women's Skill

Development Society: Open Doors project, phase 1; cross-cultural

bridging program, assessment of offshore qualifications, phase 2; job

seekers' network, foreign credentials and business options for women.

In Fort Nelson we sponsored the Fort Nelson Women's Resource Society: career opportunities and employment skills.

Interjections.

HON. S. HAGEN : Please listen to this. You are going to learn something.

[4:45]

MR. BLENCOE : Smoke and mirrors.

Interjections,

HON. S. HAGEN :

Please listen. Mr. Chairman, could you call this group to order?

They're not listening. I refuse to speak to this group unless they are

going to behave themselves and listen.

Fort Nelson-Liard

Native Women's Group: employment skills training for native women.

Grand Forks: B.C. Women's Institute, education and career options for

teen-age girls. Kitimat: Tamitik Status of Women, career development

opportunities kit for teen-age girls and young women. Nanaimo: Nanaimo

Women's Resource Society, entrepreneurs' directory for business women

and money management workshop for women. The great Kootenays: Kootenay

Women in Trades and Technology, Nararnata. I was in the Kootenays. I

met a young woman taking carpentry training. She was the best carpenter

I ever met.

The national conference for women in trades

technology. The great Okanagan part of our province: training for

native women. Prince George: Immigrant and Multicultural Services

Society, ESL for moms and tots. Vancouver — and listen here, you people from the lower mainland —

Aboriginal People's Business Association, management development

program for native women. I want you to know that I have visited some

of these programs, and I have been touched by the people that I met in

these various facilities. City of Vancouver: native mentorship program.

Dexter Wallace and Associates: non-traditional training for women.

Horizon College: women's employment skills and training. Immigrant

Services Society — I visited there: pre-employment program for immigrant women.

Port

Coquitlam. Where's my friend from Port Coquitlam? He's not even here.

Port Coquitlam Women's Centre, employment skills workshop. Simon Fraser

University — here's one for Burnaby, pay attention: faculty of

economic development, business women's training program. Teknos Career

Institute: ESL for immigrant women. United Chinese community services:

conference for Chinese-Canadian women and work. YMCA conference for

mature women — shouldn't it be YWCA?

Greater Victoria:

Camosun College workshops on economic independence; Inter-Cultural

Association of Greater Victoria, life-skills program for immigrant

women; Edward Milne Community School in Sooke, employment and life

skills for low-income women; Women's Resource Centre Society, money

management for low-income women; women's secretariat, International

Women's Day presentation here right in Victoria to all of the women

employees in government; Victoria Status of Women Action Group, money

management workshop.

Now I want to say to these members

opposite who have been pontificating about what this government hasn't

been doing: that list totals $971,078 spent last year by the women's

secretariat, out of my budget, to assist women.

MR. BLENCOE : No results. Smoke and mirrors.

HON. S. HAGEN :

How do you know that? I have met some of the women who have gone

through these programs, and I'll tell you, they are excelling.

MR. CLARK :

The minister just proved my point. This is the entire program for a

women's ministry in the budget: $971,000. Let's see now, I think his

general budget for everything else is about a billion dollars. Ten

percent of that is $100 million, so 1 percent of that is $10 million,

so almost a million dollars is 0.1 percent of his budget used on

women's issues.

HON. S. HAGEN : On a point of order.... Mr. Chairman, half of the people that my ministry deals with are women.

MR. CLARK :

On a point of order. If he wants to debate, we're certainly debating.

Of his entire budget, 0.1 percent is devoted specifically to women's

issues. That's the reality. The minister just stood there. He can't say

otherwise specifically on women's issues. The minister referred to one

program they were funding, the Chinese-Canadian community In east