Alberta Hansard — 16 September 1993, Evening sitting (18:05) (Legislature 23, Session 1)

19930916

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 1 Title: Thursday, September 16, 1993Designated Subcommittee Date: 1993/09/16 [Chairman: Mr. Magnus] Time: 6:05 p.m. MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe just to start, we'll get everybody at the table to introduce themselves so we all know who's on the committee. I think we've all got the names, but let's just put faces to names now. I'm Richard Magnus; I'm chairman of this committee. Pick a side, guys. I'll start with Bonnie and just whip right around the table. MRS. LAING: Bonnie Laing, Calgary-Bow. MR. FRIEDEL: Gary Friedel, Peace River. MR.

SOHAL: Harry Sohal, Calgary-McCall. MR. RENNER: Rob Renner, Medicine Hat. MR. DOERKSEN: Vic Doerksen, Red Deer-South. MR. ZITTLAU: Reid Zittlau, regional services division. MRS. DUNCAN: Lynne Duncan, deputy. MR. ADY: Jack Ady, MLA for Cardston-Chief Mountain. MR. DA WSON: Bob Dawson, executive assistant to the minister. MR. N. HENRY: Neil Henry, institutional support division. MR. HEMINGW A Y: Fred Hemingway, Students Finance Board. MR. BENIUK: Andrew Beniuk, Edmonton-Norwood. MR. ZARIWNY: Al Zariwny, Edmonton-Strathcona. MR. LANGEVIN: Paul Langevin, Lac La Biche-St. Paul. DR.

MASSEY: Don Massey, Edmonton-Mill Woods. MRS. KAMUCHIK: Louise Kamuchik, Clerk Assistant. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This is the first time this committee has really been in place for I believe something like 16 or 17 years. There are no precedents, really, that anybody can remember or recall. We will be follow- ing certain rules and processes and procedures here. The basis for our understanding is the agreement that two the House leaders, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Kowalski, made up. There are not a lot of rules within those Standing Orders, and that's where they are right at this point in time.

The process that we'd like to follow is to have the questions go back and forth. There are nine members on this committee, plus the chairman. I will not be as king any questi ons; I won't be debating; I'll simply be chairing this committee. We will go back and forth until all nine members have had an opportunity to speak to each program as we go thr ough the programs or however we decide to go through this document. We have two questions that we need to ask and get resolved before we start, and I'll put the questions to the committee. One is about the time that we wish to be in this organizational phase.

I don't think anybody, not anybody in their right mind, wishes to go for four hours arguing about the process before we actually get into the four hours of time that is allotted for the committee to ask questions of the minister. That time, by the way, starts the moment the minister starts to speak and explain his budget. My understanding and the understanding that I believe we have is that he will have a maximum of 20 minutes to discuss that. I have no idea how much time he wishes to use, but once he starts talking, the clock starts running.

We also have one other problem, and that is how we wish to go through the process. We have, as I see it, about three different choices. We can look at the various programs within the docu- ment and jump all over the place within the four programs in the capital budget, we can essentially do it program by program, or we can do it line by line. What I would like to do, in order not to put the cart before the horse, is to get some kind of a reading. I would like to have a motion to do with how much time this committee feels we need in order to get the process we're going to follow in place. Mr. Renner. MR.

RENNER: Well, Mr. Chairman, in light of your comments and in light of the fact that this is the first meeting and there may be some discussion, I don't know if it's in order, but I would like to make a motion that we limit our discussion to half an hour. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a motion on the floor. Is there any debate on that? Would anybody like it shorter or longer? DR. MASSEY: Speaking to the motion, I would hope we could settle it in a matter of minutes. MR. RENNER: That's fine. I'd be happy to amend my motion or change my motion. DR. MASSEY: We're anxious to get on with the business. MR.

RENNER: If that's in order then, Mr. Chairman . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: All I'm looking for is a general consensus here. I do have a motion that asks for half an hour. We can use less time if we ended up not getting into a discussion. MR. ZARIWNY: My preference would be less time than that. Perhaps you should just give each of us an opportunity from each side to say something about a procedure, and then we make a decision on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Friedel you had a comment, or was it Mr. Sohal? MR. FRIEDEL: I was going to ask: is it necessary to take half an hour to answer these two questions? MR.

RENNER: Hopefully not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I have a motion on the floor that asks for half an hour. MR. RENNER: Well, if it's in order, Mr. Chairman, then I'd be happy to change my motion to 15 minutes. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SOHAL: The maximum time.

2 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed? AN HON. MEMBER: Sure. Let's get on with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have 15 minutes, then, to do the organi- zational process, and I suppose that clock will start now. Starting with Mr. Langevin. MR. LANGEVIN: No. I'm voting yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh; sorry. I saw your hand up. Then the other thing to decide in this 15-minute period that we've all agreed upon is: how do we wish to go through the process at this point in time? Mr. Friedel. MR.

FRIEDEL: Well, I might as well make a motion, then, and discuss it: that we go in the order of program. I'm not sure that we're going to sit here and go through this thing line by line, and it would certainly be more orderly than bouncing all over the place. MR. CHAIRMAN: So what you're saying, then, is program by program, not in any particular order but once we get into a program to stay with the program and then move on to another program? Y ou're not saying one, two, three, four, with the fifth program being capital, or any particular order at this point? MR.

FRIEDEL: I had meant in the order that they're sitting there, but I'm not as hung up about that as I am about not bouncing around all over the place. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Massey? DR. MASSEY: Well, I guess I would speak against the motion. My fear with the motion is that we would get hung up on the first program and not get any further if everyone took a turn to speak to that. I would hope we could go at it issue by issue. Four hours isn't much time when you compare how much time municipal councils spend going through budgets and the amount of money here.

So I'll speak against the motion and propose that we go at it issue by issue and get at it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I may be able to help just for a moment here. I am prepared to grant quite a bit of leeway on it if we do do it program by program, but when we're finished with the questions from a speaker, I would definitely like to come back to that program if that's the system we're going to use. Are there any other . . . MR. ZARIWNY: Excuse me; I'd like to say something about it. Perhaps I can speak from the point of view of having been involved in committees like this, where I'm on the side of the civil servant.

What happens is you've got either two ways: program by program – you don't go line by line b ecause it will take too much time and we'll never get to the bottom – or you do like Don Massey is asking and go from issue to issue. I don't see any problem with either of those as long as you maintain your position on cutting us off when we have to be cut off. My position would be that we go issue by issue, because I may not want to comment on every particular program that there is. MR.

CHAIRMAN: It has been a bone of contention between the two House leaders – and I believe I'm within my rights to say that – on how we do that process. I'm at the committee's command. Mr. Renner. MR. RENNER: Well, I would like to speak in support of the motion. I think that it's logical that we would go program by program by program. I agree with you that line by line would seem to be a terrible waste of time, but if we go program by program, everybody is in the same train of thought.

I think we can have a more meaningful discussion if we're all having a group of questions around relatively similar topics, and one question may spin off another question. We can have a more meaningful discussion by doing it that way. To address your concern that we get hung up on one and don't get the rest of them done, I think we're all adults and we all know what time it is. We know we have five programs to cover, so I think it's just incumbent upon an individual when you're getting to the point where you want to move on to the next one that you don't have to talk every time it's your turn.

Y ou can pass and move on to the next one. I think we can get along just fine that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have two more people that wish to speak to this that I'm aware of. I have Mr. Doerksen and Mr. Friedel. The one thing that I did neglect to mention when we first started this is that every speaker will be allotted one main question with two supplementaries, and I want to get that out immediately. Y ou will also be allowed, contrary to what we do in question period, to have a brief

preamble – we hope it's on topic; I'll stop you if it's not – with each of the supplementary questions. Mr. Doerksen. MR. DOERKSEN: Well, it's my objective to get through every program, because I've got questions as well. Are we suggesting that we start at program 1 and then 2 and go to 3, Gary? MR. FRIEDEL: That was my motion. MR. DOERKSEN: Because there may be ones here that are more interesting. Financial Assistance to Students is more interesting to me than . . . MR. FRIEDEL: The comment I was going to make, Mr. Chairman, might clear this up.

I'll amend my motion to: once the minister has finished his presentation, we allocate the remaining portion of what's left of four hours equally to the five sections. That should alleviate any concerns that we're going to run out of time on any one. 6:15 MR. CHAIRMAN: So what is the motion that is on the floor at this point in time? Because frankly, as I say, this has a been a bone of contention between the two House leaders. Our House leader wishes to go program by program in a logical order. Their side would like to be able to move all over the place. MR.

FRIEDEL: My motion is that we go program by program, starting from 1 to 5, allocating approximately equal times for each of the programs in the time remaining after the minister is finished making a presentation. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I also mention that if we get through all four programs plus the capital program and there is still time left, unless we have unanimous consent of this committee, we can't leave early. If we end up in that position, then we will end up at this time – and maybe I'd better get you to add it to the motion

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 3 – that we will then be able to move all over the five programs essentially. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MRS. LAING: I was going to say that perhaps some programs wouldn't take as long. If just we went through the order, I think we would probably cover it quite easily. MR. CHAIRMAN: Our intention is to get as many sharp, concise questions out to get the information. If we end up in long

preambles and discussion, we're not going to get all the questions that we need to have answered. Mr. Zariwny. MR. ZARIWNY: Y eah; I don't see myself going into very long

preambles, and I definitely am not going to have a

preamble for my supplementaries. I would like to have some questions answered. Our questions will be crisp, to the point, and profes- sional, so you're not going to have us taking up much time. If we devote, for example, the same amount of time to program 1 as we do to program 2, I can't see myself spending any time on program 1 or as much time as I would on program number 2. I would speak against the amendment for that reason. MR. BENIUK: Could the chair explain how nine people can each say something – one question, two supplements, plus a

preamble – on each one of these programs in the time allotted? MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe all nine will. MR. BENIUK: Which means that not everybody will be able to say something on the program. MR. CHAIRMAN: Everybody will have an opportunity to say something on the program, all nine people. MR. BENIUK: On each program? MR. CHAIRMAN: On each program. MR. BENIUK: Once again, the time does not allow it. If you have a question with two supplements from nine people, with answers coming back, the time will not allow it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Y ou're assuming that everybody will have two supplementaries or that even everybody will have a main question. MR. BENIUK: Well, I'm assuming everybody will, but then the question would be: what if the time runs out? Some people will be denied the opportunity of addressing something of concern to them. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's exactly why I would like the questions and answers to be sharp and concise so that we all have an opportunity to go through the entire budget of this department. Are there any other questions? There's a motion on the floor.

T o make sure that I'm perfectly clear on this, what the motion says is that you wish to go through this program by program in any particular order? MR. FRIEDEL: I was just sugg esting in the order that they appear, from 1 to 5. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay; in th e order with which they're presented here. That's about it. All those in favour of that motion? MR. LANGEVIN: I have a question. It's not divided in equal time now, just in order? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I don't believe the time was part of that motion that I got.

If this committee wishes to waste the entire four hours on the first program, then so be it, but I wouldn't suggest that's a good idea. That's why I'm saying that the questions should be sharp, concise questions. MR. RENNER: Just a clarification on the motion. As long as we're not saying that it has to be equal time between the pro- grams, then I would be happy to support the motion. MR. FRIEDEL: I'll withdraw that portion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, that was part of the motion. Okay. Has anybody else got any questions? Seeing none, I'll put the question again then.

All those people in favour of doing it program by program through the four programs, counting the capital program as the fifth program, with the intent that if we get through all five programs and the four hours hasn't ended, we will then continue basically scattered throughout the five programs to complete the four hours. Is that pretty well how everybody sees this? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Uh huh. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour? Any opposed there? Three opposed. Should I name them? Okay. Is there anything else on process we want to discuss? Mrs. Laing. MRS.

LAING: I was just going to inquire about how the minister was going to respond. Is he going to do a presentation and then respond on each program, or would he respond at the end? I just wondered what his wishes were. MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding is that the minister has up to 20 minutes to do an initial presentation, no more than 20 minutes, at which point the floor is open for questions. Mr. Renner. MR. RENNER: I just want to clarify. Y ou said that we would go in rotation, so you will invite each person to speak? MR. CHAIRMAN: I can do that if that's the committee's wishes, or we can just go back and forth.

We had talked about this with the House leaders earlier. Now, it was originally suggested that we allow the Liberal side to ask the first question and then the Conservative side. I don't believe we actually reached a consensus on that, but what will happen is th at if all nine people wish to speak to an issue, we will then go Liberal, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative through the first four, at which point you will end up with two questions in a row from the Conservative side.

It doesn't make any difference to me personally as the chairman of this committee as long as all nine members have an opportunity to speak, if they wish, on each program. MR. ZARIWNY: That would be fine with me.

4 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 MR. CHAIRMAN: Does it make any difference who goes first? MR. ZARIWNY: Not to me, but if we could just get a clarifica- tion: upon question, there's an answer? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ady. MR. ADY: It would be my intention to respond to each question as it's asked. I don't have any intention of having you all lay out 20 questions and then try to respond. I think that would defeat what we're trying to do here. MR. CHAIRMAN: We have another four minutes on process, if anybody else has any other questions. Mr. Massey. DR.

MASSEY: I think we're in agreement, and we want to get on with it. Just to make sure that we are clear, if we end up in a procedural wrangle somehow in the middle of all this, is that time deducted? Whether we end up getting them all done tonight or not, we have four full hours of discussion. I don't think we will get into any kind of a procedural wrangle. MR. RENNER: Well, we've got about four minutes left of our 15, so why don't we get out of it now? MR. SOHAL: Y es, if we have resolved this thing, I think they should use these four minutes. DR. MASSEY: I just want to make sure that it's four full hours. MR.

CHAIRMAN: My understanding is that once the clock starts running, the clock is running. If there's a procedural question, as chairman I can either make the decision or put the question to the committee. I think I would be more than tempted to put the question to the committee. I think it would be the more appropri- ate way of looking at this. I'm hoping we don't get into a procedural wrangle after we've got started, but God only knows. So have we reached accord, and we have no other questions on process? Seeing none, Mr. Ady is up. MR. ADY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All of you on the opposite side have been introduced to my staff and have met them, so I won't take time, and you understand what their function is. Okay. I do have an overview for the committee that I hope will be helpful to give you some better understanding of what we do in Advanced Education and Career Development. Advanced Education and Career Development is the government department responsible for adult learning. As a r ecently consolidated department we're in the process of developing a mission statement for ourselves. It will be finalized once our white paper is tabled in 1994.

In the meantime we'll be guided by the following draft: Advanced Education and Career Development is committed to life-long learning for adult Albertans. We will maximize the availability of quality education and training opportunities that are: - responsive to individual, economic and social needs; and - affordable for learners, employers and taxpayers, and we will ensure that providers are accountable for learning outcomes. Fully 81% of our budget is in the form of financial support to institutions.

In a sense the department has the ultimate manage- ment challenge, as in the main we seek to achieve our results through others, namely institutions. Four per cent of our budget is in counseling and information support and skills development and employment services. We deliver many of these programs directly to clients. We use our expertise and the dollars available to counsel students and the unemployed, to share information, facilitate training by groups of employers, and deliver programs to people who have been squeezed out of the labour market and need short-term training or retraining.

Most important of all, 14 per cent of our proposed budget is allocated to ensure that financial need does not preclude adult Albertans who are otherwise motivated and qualified from accessing education and training. 6:25 Mr. Chairman, there are a number of clearly emerging trends in education and training. In the postsecondary area over the past decade we have seen very high growth and enrollments in all sectors, with the total enrollment increasing by 57 per cent between 1981-82 to 1991-92.

Nonetheless, we are not meeting all the demands that are out there today, but the number of potential students who have not found a pl ace is nowhere near what my colleagues across the floor would have you believe. Demand is projected to continue to increase, with several thousands of Albertans looking to enroll by the turn of the century. I do not see how we can accommodate them unless we make our programs more affordable for taxpayers. It is significant that enrollments have grown despite a decline in the 18 to 24 age group.

This tells us that the students of today are not only the typical high school students proceeding on to college; there are also many people returning often for part-time study after a period of time out of the educational system. This trend is particularly true in the area of academic upgrading, where increasing numbers of people are returning to school to complete their high school credentials. There is also pressure for more spaces in degree programs as people continue to place a high value on university level education.

It is significant to policy develop- ment that more and more people want to increase their qualifica- tions but are unwilling or unable to leave their location to do so. How to respond to such varied demands is clearly something that requires careful planning, especially in the time of fiscal restraint. As our economy evolves, the skills needed by employers increase in complexity and diversity. People entering the work force need new or different skills than their predecessors. Those already in jobs need to continually maintain and upgrade their skills.

Today about 42 per cent of the people in the Alberta work force have some postsecondary education, one of the highest levels in Canada. However, even this may not be enough to keep us competitive. It is well known that the level of employer-sponsored training in Canada is well below that of some other countries. This is an area where change is required. Research at our universities plays a unique and important role in training highly qualified personnel and promoting social and economic growth and citizenship.

The University of Alberta and the University of Calgary are among the top 10 universities in Canada in terms of the amount of sponsored research they have conducted. The University of Lethbridge is one of the top research institutions for its size. Mr. Chairman, we need to focus on the learner and to increase student access, and we must continue to promote research of excellence. Even though the economy appears to be recovering, levels of unemployment remain relatively high.

One of the major activities in our department is to assist those who are unemployed to move back into the work force, whether this involves retraining or helping people learn new job-seeking skills. By balancing the provincial budget and reducing our public debt through our economic plan, Alberta will create a climate conducive to invest- ment and job creation in the private sector.

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 5 Mr. Chairman, I believe strongly that we must move to balance our budget. If we do not take care of the deficit now, we will not be able to maintain what is undeniably a first-class system of adult education and training, and we will leave a crushing burden of debt for today's students. Adult learning is a priority, but balancing our budget is a challenge that all of us must meet. The objective is no longer to spend but to spend wisely.

Adult learning is clearly a government priority, as evidenced by the resource allocation decisions made by this government. The share of program expenditures allocated to Advanced Education and Career Development has increased significantly over 1992-93 comparable to the actuals. The department's general revenue fund budget has gone up by $38.9 mi llion. This is comprised of a $46.5 million increase in operating spending and a $7.6 million decrease in capital spending.

Albertans remain one of the strongest supporters of postsecondary education in Canada and one of only two provinces directly involved in a significant way in labour market training. Program 3, Financial Assistance to Students, increased by $51.2 million in this budget. The remaining three programs are lower than comparable 1992-93 actuals by the following amount: program 1, Departmental Support Services, $1.4 million; program 2, Assistance to Higher and Further Educational Institutions, $3 million; program 4, Skills Development and Employment Services, $7.9 million.

We could go through the department's budget line by line; however, I intend to give you my sense of the priorities. My number one priority is student access to learning. Operating grants to institutions have been maintained. This decision is significant when contrasted with the reduction of nearly $700 million in programs elsewhere in the government budget. When combined with tuition revenue, these operating grants totaling $905 million will enable institutions to maintain and increase enroll- ments. To do so will require institutions to set priorities.

Successful student learning is and must be our first objective. Boards are and will be faced with difficult choices, and administra- tors and faculty will have to carefully review their organizations and how learning is delivered. Change is a must. Mr. Chairman, it is significant as well that we have maintained our information and career counseling services. Especially in these difficult times it is important that we give students and the unemployed the best information we have on labour market trends and training options. My second priority is student assistance.

Alberta's system of student assistance is respected and admired across Canada. Included in the budget are appropriations to enable us to pay the interest cost of student loans. These costs will rise $600,000 because a nnual student loan limits will increase by $350 to accommodate a $40 per month increase in living allowances and current tuition levels. The number of students seeking financial assistance is rising, as are their average needs. This budget includes an increase of $17 million to pay for higher average grants to students and the interest costs on a growing volume of outstanding student loans.

This growing volume of outstanding student loans has also been the major contributor to high payments for guarantees on student loans. It was with this concern in mind that a review was initiated to identify options for improving flexibility in the student loan repayment system. Improved flexibility in the repayment process will benefit both students and the government as defaults in costs will be reduced. There will now be one-stop shopping for students seeking financial assistance.

The budget of the Students Finance Board will increase by $32 million to pay grant assistance to some 5,000 students this year who were formerly supported by the Family and Social Services supports for independence program. As well, the Alberta vocational training allowances will be administered by that same board. Funding has been maintained at last year's levels. The Students Finance Board's objective is to ensure that students are not precluded from postsecondary education by reason of financial need. Mr. Chairman, that objective continues to be met. Students are our priority.

Funding for work experience programs, primarily the summer temporary employment program, commonly known as STEP, has been maintained at $10 million. Through program changes we have been able to actually increase the number of students served to over 5,000 in this budget year. Mr. Chairman, the partnership that industry, educators, and government have developed in apprenticeship training is a successful model for the entire education training system. Nonetheless, $1 million has been saved by finding more cost- effective ways to support the administration of this training system.

Training programs in institutions are not effective. Administrative savings have also been made in other areas including regional program delivery, where non staff administrative costs are down by $400,000. 6:35 My fifth priority is to maintain those programs that help social assistance recipients to obtain or maintain an attachment to the labour force by providing them with appropriate counseling, life skills, upgrading, and retraining opportunities. The pre-employ- ment training budget is $13.3 million, essentially the same as last year's estimates.

Finally, I believe it is important that Alberta employers increase on-the-job training. I have therefore maintained the capacity in this area. Funding has been reduced by $2.5 million to $2.8 million, but we will be relying more on creating awareness and acting as a facilitator rather than a funder. We will steer more than we will row and use sector al and regional partnerships to address the issue of training in the private sector. Mr. Chairman, this province ha s invested $4 billion in the physical assets of the postsecondary system.

This is an enormous investment in high-quality buildings and modern equipment for the first-rate campuses at our posts econdary institutions. There is clearly a major challenge facing us in maintaining those facilities in a time of fiscal restraint. I would be the first to acknowledge that this a serious issue that will grow with time. Capital renewal grants have been constrained in recent years and have undergone further reduction in 1993-94. We have endeavoured to protect those funds as much as possible under the circumstances.

There are no simple answers to the question of how to keep our physical facilities in good operating condition. Those solutions will be various and will have to involve both action on the part of the government and on the part of the institutions. Finding solutions for the renewal of buildings and equipment will continue to be a very high priority with this mini ster. Within the limits of the province's financial situation I am developing a strategy that I expect will enable institutions to respond to the challenge of capital renewal over time.

By emphasizing renovation and restoration, by making more efficient use of existing buildings, by some reallocation of operating resources and careful use of existing capital renewal grants I expect institutions to be able to deal with the most pressing challenges in maintaining their impressive capital infrastructure. I do not plan to initiate the construction of any new facilities in the next three years. My priority for budgetary funds is to increase student enrollment in credit programs.

Institutions will be asked to make increasingly efficient use of buildings by extended use on a daily basis, on weekends, and into the summer. If any capital

6 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 requests emerge, they will have to be supported by compelling arguments. Furthermore, I expect to see institutions support their requests for high-priority new facilities by fund-raising campaigns that will help limit the impact on the public purse. I'm proud of the leadership and hard work demonstrated by officials in my department to seek more effective and efficient ways to accomplish the department's responsibilities.

Four million dollars in savings resulted from the take-up of the voluntary options program as well as the elimination of duplication resulting from amalgamation of the two departments. Staffing levels have been reduced by 10 per cent. I've already made reference to other administrative savings within the department of about $1.4 million. Mr. Chairman, two programs of the department have been wound down. Funding for the government apprenticeship program whereby employment of apprentices elsewhere in the government was funded by us has been discontinued.

This program was introduced in 1989-90 to run for four years as a pilot. Funding for my department was intended to encourage government departments to hire apprentices and to train them to journeyman status. I continue to believe that this is an important responsibility for all employers including government departments. While I am withdrawing central support, I will continue to encourage depart- ments where tradespeople are employed to take on apprentices; however, they will have to find dollars within their own budgets to do it. The endowment incentive fund has been closed.

In 1992-93, $2 million was provided for matching donations to colleges, technical institutes, and the Banff Centre. Last fall legislation was passed to permit these institutions to establish foundations to attract donations and receive preferential tax treatment. Mr. Chairman, all public institutions have developed reasonable fund-raising capabilities and with the foundations Act will continue to be successful in attracting private and community donations. The endowment incentive fund moneys can be used more effec- tively to reduce the deficit. Adult learning programming in Alberta has been highly successful.

Perhaps I could highlight a few of the more notable outcomes: a population that is among the most highly educated in Canada, with student participation in postsecondary programming that is amongst the highest in Canada; postsecondary programs highly rated by graduates; graduates enjoy high rates of participa- tion in the labour force and low rates of unemployment; a population with one of the lowest rates of illiteracy in Canada; enrollment growth of 57 per cent accommodated over the past 10 years; an apprenticeship system that trains more apprentices on a per capita basis than any other jurisdiction, almost one-quarter of all apprentices in Canada; employment preparation services including training on the job, work experience, and placement assistance that are serving over 51,000 disadvantaged clients.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe the public purse can sustain the adult learning system we have now, far less meet demands we are facing. We are under pressure to increase access to meet the growing numbers of graduates from our high schools. At the present time adult Albertans, including employers and employees, are recognizing the importance of training and education to our future economic prosperity. We must have a plan for the future and focus on the long term, say where we want to be at the turn of the century.

In May I announced a strategic plan of public consultation, Adult Learning: Access through Innovation. This initiative will be the broadest and possibly the most important public participation process examining our postsecondary system in our province's history. In a nutshell, Adult Learning: Access through Innovation will set a new direction for the future of adult education and training in the province and will design an innovative plan to get there.

The responsibility for serving the needs of adult learners in the future does not lie only with government but with students, institutions, parents, employees, and employers. The most consistent message I have received over the last few months is the high priority Albertans place on education. MR. CHAIRMAN: Y ou have 30 seconds, Mr. Ady. MR. ADY: People strongly believe that to maintain a high standard of living, individuals will require continuing growth in skills and knowledge. Formal postsecondary education is seen as essential to achieving this growth.

I will continue to make strong arguments with my cabinet colleagues to treat our adult learning system as a priority and to retain as much financial support as possible. Students deserve our best performance. My case will be based on showing that instituti ons will plan to substantially improve productivity and to increase access through innovative change. I will argue that the savings from these productivity gains should be reinvested to increase access and improve the relevance of learning opportunities. Mr. Chairman, I'm finished. Am I on time? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't actually have a second hand.

I was completely guessing. It's 44. I think you started at 24 on my watch, so that's 20 minutes. The floor is open for questions. In the new spirit of compro- mise and co-operation I'll go with the first hand that comes up. Mr. Friedel. We are on program 1. AN HON. MEMBER: I thought the Liberals had the first question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we had talked about that. Because of the fact that we have the extra body, we'll end up with two on the end, so I really don't think it's a major point unless we've got a dispute going on this. AN HON. MEMBER: No, it's not a major point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MR. FRIEDEL: Mr.

Minister, if we are in a deficit reduction mode, my question is: why are the 1993-94 estimates in the first portion there, 1.0.1, Minister's Office, greater than the 1992-93 estimates? MR. ADY: I can answer that for you. Realize that two ministers' offices have been combined, and out of that I have one more staff person in my office than the former minister of advanced education had. By the same token, overall we will have reduced by $225,000. Had the two ministers' offices been amalgamated and their budgets amalgamated, we would have a net reduction of $225,000-odd.

So we've actually only increased the single remaining office by some $20,000-odd. I hope that is clear to you. 6:45 MR. FRIEDEL: Actually, it did more than that; it answered my second question too. MR. CHAIRMAN: Supplementary, Mr. Friedel.

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 7 MR. FRIEDEL: My supplementary was: what might have been the saving as you started out? I'll switch that then. Why did the 1992-93 actual exceed the 1992-93 estimates? MR. ADY: On which? MR. FRIEDEL: The same subsection, 1.0.1. MR. ADY: There was a payout under the voluntary options program, those who had the option to take the retirement package. MR. CHAIRMAN: Second supplementary. MR. FRIEDEL: That's all. MR. LANGEVIN: My question is to the minister on 1.0.2.

Minister's Committees is estimated this year with an operating expenditure of $249,700. Last year I understand only $170,000 was spent, and I'm wondering why we will need more money this year if we did it with $170,000 last year. MR. ADY: I should tell you that some of these committees vary in the amount of activity in a given year, and it's very hard to predict their level of activity. It would also be detrimental to curtail their function. If we don't budget enough for them to do what we give them to do, we could find ourselves having a committee nonfunctional for the last quarter of the year.

Consequently, in order to give them flexibility to do what they need to do, we have that much budget in there. Perhaps my deputy – do you have anything we can add to that? MRS. DUNCAN: No, that's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Second question, Mr. Langevin, please. MR. LANGEVIN: How many committees are involved, and very briefly what are they involved in doing? MR. ADY: Okay. We have the Council on Admissions and Transfer, which is a committee that's set up to look at transfer of credits between the institutions, which is a very high-profile committee that we really want to do some important work for us.

I think you've probably heard of the difficulty that students have had from time to time transferring from institutions or within institutions even, and they've had to repeat courses. As a matter of fact, I intend to put more emphasis on that committee to do more work and better work in the coming year. It's that impor- tant. The Private Vocational Schools Advisory Council is responsible for reviewing appeals made by the private vocational schools. Legislation is being recommended to expand eligible appeals to include all private providers.

The legislation may result in even more appeals, but there's a committee there to adjudicate those kinds of things. The other one is the Private Vocational Schools Curriculum Evaluation. This is responsib le for determining the minimum conditions to be met by private colleges that propose to offer programs leading to bachelor degrees. It's centred on the four private colleges that we fund to be sure that they meet the accreditation that they need to. That committee reviews that to give that assurance for students so that they don't take something that's of no value to them.

The Private Colleges Accreditation Board does a similar thing for the colleges. Then the forestry council advises the minister on the needs and the nature of the training required for the forest industry, because that's an emerging industry in the province. They felt they needed to have some liaison between their industry and the educational arm of government to ensure that there were programs in place to train the people they need so they don't get caught out without trained people, and we're anxious to have them trained so they can go to work. I think that's all of them. There are five committees. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Second supplementary. MR. LANGEVIN: What is the average membership of commit- tees? Are they all about the same? MR. ADY: Well, I think the committees would be in the eight to 10 range. There can be some variance on that as well, but nothing more than 12. MRS. DUNCAN: The Council on Admissions and Transfer would be an exception. There is a member from every institution. MR. ADY: Y eah, every institution, and that's necessary to give them the ability to be represented there. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Laing. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Minister, looking at line 1.0.3 under program 1, to what extent is the budgetary reduction in element 1.0.3, General Administration, related to the early voluntary options program? MR. ADY: As a part of continuing efforts to streamline opera- tions, Alberta government employees were offered options to voluntarily leave their jobs or change their work arrangements. The early voluntary options program and departmental amalgam- ation resulted in a $4 million savings to the department. That was the background for it. MRS. LAING: Thank you.

Supplementary question one: How many umployees, then, took the voluntary severance package, and what were their classifica- tions? MR. ADY: One hundred and five employees took the package, and there was one executive manager, three senior managers, and six just managers, with 22 professionals, 10 technical, 20 instruc- tors, and 43 administrative support positions. Six employees chose other options, including a shorter work week or contract work or a bridge to retirement, to make up the 105. MRS. LAING: Thank you very much.

My second supplemental: What impact will the reduction have on programs and services offered by the department in rural Alberta? Will this cutback affect rural Alberta? MR. ADY: By rural Alberta you mean outside of, probably, Calgary and Edmonton? Program delivery areas outside of Calgary and Edmonton have lost a total of 61 staff. The depart- ment will have to assess the impact on the delivery of programs and services, and if there's a problem, we'll have to redeploy staff from somewhere to cover that off.

Bear in mind that when people opted for the voluntary options program, it was very difficult to deny it to them. If they happened to be in a place where it left a

8 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 void, it caused us to have to do some moving and have some flexibility to cover that off, to go on providing the service for the clients. MRS. LAING: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Massey. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quarter of a million dollars seems like a lot of money for committee work when we're short of dollars. Can I have it clarified? How is the bulk of that money spent? It is for honoraria and expenses? How is that money disbursed? MR. ADY: Well, it's for transportation and for accommodation.

Some of the meetings are held in Edmonton; some of the members have to travel quite some distance. There would be all the out-of- pocket expenses for that, plus the meeting room and those kinds of things. There are not honoraria in all cases. Are there honoraria in some of those, Lynne? 6:55 MRS. DUNCAN: The only possibility would probably be the Private Vocational Schools Advisory Council. I'd want to double- check that.

The rest of them have no honorarium, and the major expenses would be for the Council on Admissions and Transfer and the Private Colleges Accreditation Board, each of which has an executive director position and a very small secretariat which they share. So those two committees would have the major expense out of that quarter of a million dollars. DR. MASSEY: Thank you. How much, in addition, will the roundtables be requiring? Are they part of this budget? MR. ADY: No, they're not. They're a separate item in the elements. DR. MASSEY: What's the cost of them projected? MR.

ADY: The budget for the Access renovation initiative is budgeted at $500,000. DR. MASSEY: So $750,000, three-quarters of a million dollars in a year. MR. ADY: If you roll them all in, that's correct. DR. MASSEY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thanks, Dr. Massey. Mr. Renner. MR. RENNER: Okay. I'd like to refer to 1.0.4, Information and Policy Services. If you look at the estimates, it appears that there's a reduction in the budget from 3 and a half million dollars in '92 to 3 and a half million, seventy thousand dollars.

But when you look at the comparable figures for last year, we in fact only spent $3.2 million last year, and then the budget is up to $3.5 million this year. I was wondering why the budget would be higher than what the actual was the year before. MR. ADY: That follows on the question asked by Dr. Massey. The $500,000 is in that element. MRS. DUNCAN: So it was a reallocation from elsewhere in the department. MR. ADY: That's right. MR. RENNER: I guess maybe I should have asked this question first rather than as a supplementary.

I'm a little bit foggy on exactly what Information and Policy Services is, and I couldn't find any reference to it in the descriptives here. Could you maybe just give me a real brief rundown on what that does? MR. ADY: Sure. I think that's a really good thing for my deputy to respond to. MRS. DUNCAN: Information and policy services is one of the divisions of the department. It's people who do policy work, who gather information, do our labour market statistics. For example, they provide policy advice to the minister, provide the support for us federally, provincially.

They're doing work now on facilitating the interprovincial negotiations on labour market mobility. There also is an information services group that produces publications. Y ou've probably seen It's About Time. It tells students where they can get courses and so on. So that's essentially the informa- tion and policy services division of the department. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Beniuk. MR. BENIUK: Okay. The minister made a comment in response to a previous question, and that was dealing with the Private Vocational Schools Advisory Council.

Could the minister forward what the criteria are for approval of the private vocational schools, and also could he forward what the course approval criteria are? Also further down there is a comment of $1,150,000 being given to private vocational schools, which I gather is done by this council. Could he provide the criteria? So I should ask it later on? Okay; I'll flag it, and I'll ask him later on. Could you be so kind as to forward it, because I would like that information. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Beniuk. Did you wish your supplementaries, sir? MR.

DOERKSEN: Just a couple of clarification points. Y ou said there were 105 full-time equivalents that took the voluntary option program, about $4 million, but the estimates only went down by a million and six dollars. MR. ADY: Which element are you on? MR. DOERKSEN: Or is that 105 right across the whole depart- ment? Oh, that's not just program 1. Okay. I'm glad you didn't have 105 in there. How do they get on to these committees? MR. ADY: Well, in various ways. For the forestry council we receive nominations from the forest industry. I think we take all the nominations from them, don't we, Lynne, on that one?

They submit them, and they just get appointed. We don't go outside of their industry for that, to take nominations, nor does the minister bring them forward. It strictly comes from within the industry. Lynne, do you want to deal with those others? MRS. DUNCAN: The Private Colleges Accreditation Board. The minister appoints the chairman and the public members, of which

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 9 I think there are two. The others are specified in the terms of reference for the board as being representatives of universities and private colleges, and they put forward names to the minister, which he virtually routinely appoints. The private vocational schools' curriculum evaluation group currently is not meeting. It doesn't have a membership at this stage. The Private Vocational Schools Advisory Council is appointed by the minister, and in fact it hasn't met in probably a little over a year.

The membership is appointed by the minister. The Council on Admissions and Transfer, as I indicated earlier, has an executive director who is appointed through competition, and the membership is appointed by individual institutions. MR. DOERKSEN: Okay. I wanted to compliment you also in terms of that it's nice to see that you actually came in under budget on your actual versus your estimates. That's a pleasure to see. I didn't think government could do that before I got here. One other simple question, I hope. Y our Capital Investment within that element: it was where? MR. ADY: Where are you looking? MR.

DOERKSEN: The $94,000, I guess it would be, under '93- 94 estimates. MR. CHAIRMAN: If I may just interrupt for a moment, we had agreed originally to deal with the four programs within the operating budget, with a fifth program now being capital budget. MR. DOERKSEN: Okay. I misunderstood. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm willing to allow the leeway if you'd like to put the question and answer, as long as we're all in agreement on it. MR. DOERKSEN: No, that's fine. I wasn't sure that that was what you'd talked about. So I'm okay. We'll leave it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do you have another supplemen- tary then? MR. DOERKSEN: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Zariwny. MR. ZARIWNY: I'd like to look at budget item 1.0.1; that's the Minister's Office. I was wondering whether the minister would be prepared to tell us the number of personnel and who they are that this particular budget covers. MR. ADY: Y es. I have four staff people in my office. The names are readily available. MR. ZARIWNY: I'm not interested in names, just the positions that they hold. MR. ADY: Okay. I have an executive assistant, I have a ministerial secretary, I have an administrative assistant, and I have an office secretary. MR. ZARIWNY: Okay. Thank you.

My supplemental question, then, is directed at 1.0.4, Informa- tion and Policy Services. Perhaps the Deputy Minister has already answered this question but I missed it, so please, if she has, let me know. Who are the people in that particular department, if there is one? Is that a department? 7:05 MRS. DUNCAN: It's a division of the department. MR. ZARIWNY: Okay. Would you mind letting me know who we're dealing with? Is it an ADM position? MRS. DUNCAN: Y es, there's an ADM. Then there's a director of labour market information.

There's a director of postsecondary information services, a director of information and market development, a director of program evaluation, their staffs, and federal/provincial relations. MR. ZARIWNY: If I were to ask what per cent of that amount is devoted to salary, Mr. Chairman, would that be a supplemental, or would it be part of the question I have asked? MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you tying it to your first supplemental? MR. ZARIWNY: Would you mind telling me what per centage of that is devoted to salaries of personnel? MRS. DUNCAN: I don't have that with me, but I'm happy to provide it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Do you have a second supplemental, Mr. Zariwny? Did I say that right that time? MR. ZARIWNY: That's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: I've got it spelled phonetically. MR. ZARIWNY: This is to the minister. I understand that when he was discussing the minister's committees, he indicated there was a Council on Admissions and Transfer. It's my understanding that this council tracks the qualified applicants that may have been turned down by postsecondary institutions. Is that correct? MR. AD Y: W ell, y es .

The y do that as a peripheral o f their mandate, but their main purpose is to try to reach agreement on programs that could be transferable between institutions and within institutions. For instance, in the University of Alberta, oftentimes if a student is moving along in a program and decides he wants to change, he can't even take his credits from the program he's in and transfer them to another program within the University of Alberta. So they're trying to smooth out those kinds of things. Dr. Massey is probably aware of that from his experience there. It is the main reason for them existing. MR.

ZARIWNY: Would you be prepared to tell us some of the results of this tracking of access? MR. ADY: Y es, we could supply some of that information to you. It's extensive and not the sort of thing I can put in my computer. In fact, we have some of that, don't we Lynne? MRS. DUNCAN: Y es. We can give you the transfer guide. MR. ADY: As a matter of fact, we could supply that. There it is.

10 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 MR. ZARIWNY: Right now? Thank you. MRS. DUNCAN: That's their main product. MR. ZARIWNY: Y ou just happen to have it available. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sohal. MR. SOHAL: Mr. Minister, my question is regarding Informa- tion and Policy Services; that's 1.0.4. What is being done to address federal/provincial overlap and duplication in the Alberta labour market? MR. ADY: Well, I'm not sure if you recall that earlier this year there was a meeting held, I think, in Vancouver. It was known as their minisummit. There was discussion there on that issue.

A federal/provincial working group was formed, which is developing a joint data base to address that. There's an admission on all sides that duplication and overlap does exist. They've finally come to the conclusion that it needs to be dealt with. By way of background, I don't know if you recall that was one of the big concerns of the Alberta government in the Meech Lake accord. We were asking for that to be addressed by way of having the federal government vacate the space, leave their money behind, and we would administer labour market training in Alberta.

That was something that was finally agreed to in the Meech Lake accord. The Meech Lake accord failed, so with it went that agreement, which put us back to almost square one other than the admission that it exists. When I was in Ottawa not too long ago, I met with the federal minister on that issue, and we're back on track trying to address it, to eliminate it or at least reduce it and eliminate it over the long term. MR. SOHAL: So do we have any future agreements, arrange- ments to be made with the federal government, any plans regard- ing that? MR.

ADY: Well, we do in that we've agreed to a set of six principles with the federal government to resolve the problem. Although we haven't gotten down to specifics, we're working on our position as a province as to where we think common ground could be found. We realized that in all probability we cannot get back to Meech Lake status, and we're not prepared to stand on principle while the taxpayer goes on paying twice. We're anxious to resolve this on some terms that will reduce it and reduce this double taxation that we experience in this province.

It is also experienced in any other province that has a labour market training force or infrastructure similar to what we have, so we're not the only province that has a problem, but we and Quebec have the biggest problem. MR. SOHAL: Are you saying that presently we don't have a labour force agreement with the federal government? MR. ADY: No, we don't have a la bour force agreement with them. We're each doing our own thing. It's confusing to the client, and it's not cost effective. It's something that has a very high priority with me.

This has to be addressed, and I believe the hon. minister Valcourt has come to realize that it needs to be dealt with. At least in the conversation I had with him about it, it came across to me that he's prepared to deal with it and we can get it taken care of so we don't have this excess cost. MR. BENIUK: Can I make a motion that we go to a different program? Half an hour has expired on this one. MR. CHAIRMAN: We can do that, Mr. Beniuk. It is just under a half hour for this program.

Just so we understand the process, if any member wishes to ask a second set of questions, that opens it up so that all nine members then have the opportunity to do a second set of questions. With that in mind, I don't see anybody's hand up that wants to ask one on program 1. We're on program 2. AN HON. MEMBER: In the same order? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I believe we can be a little bit flexible in this committee. Mr. Zariwny. MR. ZARIWNY: Well, let's start with program 2.1 under vote 2.

If you do an analysis of the change in budget from '93 to '94, you're going to find that 2.1.2, Program Development, has decreased by 13.3 per cent, 2.1.4 has decreased by 13.3 per cent, Adult Development Programs has decreased by 21.4 per cent, and Other Program Support has decreased by 6.3 per cent. If my calculations are correct, your Program Administration, 2.1.1, has decreased by only 7 per cent. It would seem to me that if you're going to decrease those programs I listed by as much you have, then should not 2.1.1 have been equally large? MR. ADY: Y ou spoke quicker than I listened.

Let me see if someone else followed that. MRS. DUNCAN: I think essentially what he is asking is: we have chosen some programs that we have decreased proportionately more than administration. I think it's unfair to select particular programs and compare them to administration, because in fact the administration budget has been reduced by 1 1 per cent throughout the department,

whereas the department's total budget has gone up by more than 3 per cent. So I don't think you can pick a particular item and focus on it. 7:15 MR. ZARIWNY: My supplemental here. It would seem to me, though, that Program Administration is that part of your operations which supports the programs that have been cut. Is that correct? MRS. DUNCAN: That's right. MR. ZARIWNY: Then I'll rephrase my question and ask: what did the 7 per cent decrease in Program Administration cover? MRS.

DUNCAN: Well, it covers decreases in staff, some of which were driven by program considerations; some of it was just driven by a need to live within budgets. However, because one no longer has an endowment and incentive fund, for example, we have other tasks in the department that have to be accomplished. Indeed, we have our access through innovation project that's taking a lot of time to put together and new roles and responsibilities being developed for the department as a result of that policy. I don't think you can draw a direct, proportionate relationship between dollars and the staff that support programs.

MR. ZARIWNY: Well, my last supplemental, then, Mr. Chair- man, would deal with the staff. Y ou said that staff reductions would take up some of that 7 per cent decrease. What are we looking at in terms of reductions? Layoffs? Terminations or attrition? If we are, how much are we looking at?

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 11 MRS. DUNCAN: Some of it was attrition and some of it was the voluntary options program, predominantly the last. MR. ZARIWNY: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have Mr. Friedel and then Mr. Beniuk. MR. FRIEDEL: Y es. Could you explain what is causing the increase in

section 2.3, Private Colleges – Operating? MR. ADY: That has to do with the private colleges that we fund in the province. We had entered into an agreement to move their funding to 75 per cent of the public colleges a number of years ago, and they were moving along in that direction with an increment each year, moving closer to that. Because of the fiscal circumstances we find ourselves in, we put a freeze on that and stopped it for the time being at 71 per cent.

One of the colleges is already at that level, but three were not, so there was money in that budget to move them, which would be an increase over last year because we're moving them toward the 71. They're below it. With this year's funding, it will move three of them to that level and one will be left below it. So next year the budget will only have an increase in the amount that we will give to Union College, which is the one that is still below in the funding. I hope that's clear to you. With those we've moved, we stopped it at 71 per cent. With this year's budget we've moved three of them.

That's what caused the increase over last year, because they all received more to get them up to the 71. Okay? MR. FRIEDEL: Does that mean that that 75 per cent ratio funding has been withdrawn then? MR. ADY: Well, no, we haven't withdrawn it, but what we find ourselves having to do is not move to it in this budget. I don't know when we will be able to do it. The intention is to honour the commitment, but we felt that we were not in a financially sound position to do it at this time, so all of them are being held at 71 per cent until we can accumulate some more funding in the department to let them move to that.

A temporary freeze, I guess, is the best phrase to use. MR. FRIEDEL: My next question. I'm not sure if it's com- pletely fair, but do private colleges represent a better dollar value to the government than the public institutions? MR. ADY: Well, you have to remember that we don't have the investment of the bricks and mortar, so they become a good investment source on a cost per full-time equivalent student, and they help us to address the access problem. Actually, it's a cost- effective way to go as long as they maintain the credentials, and of course we have that monitored.

So we're pleased to have the private colleges part of our infrastructure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now it's Mr. Beniuk and then Mr. Renner. MR. BENIUK: Thank you. To the minister. On 2.4, technical institutes, NAIT is in my riding; therefore, I have a special interest in it. I have been advised that last year over 7,000 applicants who were qualified and who applied couldn't get in. I don't know what the figure is for this year, but it must be equal if not greater.

Now, your department has issued an employment and occupational trends document which was released in February of 1993, which stated that technical skills become obsolete in about seven years and one has to have, as you have also stated during your presenta- tion, an ongoing, lifelong learning process. Unfortunately, you have only allocated .7 per cent in your budget as an increase for NAIT and only .9 per cent for SAIT. Now, considering the importance of technical education, why is the increase so small? Considering inflation is even gr eater than the figure that you've increased it by, it's a decrease. MR.

ADY: Well, I won't dispute what you're saying about the importance of the training that's provided at NAIT and SAIT, because in my mind it's very vital to the la bour force in this province. Bearing in mind that we do have a fiscal problem, we're asking the institutions to maintain enrollment and wherever possible to increase it based on zero-based budgeting. I do have to take some issue with the numbe rs that you're using, because we're finding that students are going to institutions and applying for more than one program. We know that 17 per cent of them applied for two or more programs last year.

This is by a study that's been done. If we took that across the system of 1 15,000 students and took 17 per cent of them, we would generate almost 20,000 extra applications that are floating around out there giving us signals that are incorrect. Now, I don't dispute that there is an access problem at NAIT and SAIT, but I believe that it's overstated with 7,000 in actual program applications. Not to take away from your point, the programs offered there are very important. They deserve to be funded, but so do the other programs.

The department did not have the money to increase the global grants to any of the institutions in this past year, so they all receive a zero-based budget. MR. BENIUK: Just for the minister's information, I had phoned some of the people teaching at NAIT, and as the registrar's office would confirm, some of the classrooms are full. There are more people that have applied than could get into those classrooms, so they can't get into NAIT. There is a fundamental principle here. During the last boom in the late '70s, Alberta lacked skilled workers, so they imported them from other provinces and from other countries.

We now have an opportunity during an economic downturn to re-educate, retrain, upgrade the education of middle-aged people but also make sure that the young people coming through get the maximum education. Over the next four years what are your plans for funding of NAIT, SAIT, and other technical schools? 7:25 MR. ADY: I can't give you that plan in detail because it hasn't been developed yet, but that's part of what will come out of the roundtables and the access through innovation initiative that we have put out there.

We anticipate that our system is going to have to be restruc- tured, and NAIT and SAIT undoubtedly will play a

part in it. It may very well be that increased emphasis will be put on NAIT and SAIT and the training that's required there and decreased emphasis put on some other institution. Through all of this, there will be reallocation of funds, but at this point for me to say that I'm going to take money away from some other institution and give it to NAIT and SAIT ahead of the outcome of that initiative I think would be approaching dishonesty. I'm prepared to wait for that white paper to be developed and see what the stakeholders and Albertans and the students and employers and everyone who has input has to say about it, and we'll take some direction from it.

12 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 We'll see how NAIT and SAIT fare with it, but I expect they'll fare very well. MR. BENIUK: But the students will not because they won't be able to get in, to become students. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Beniuk, can I interrupt for one moment? I should mention – and I apologize for this, sir – that I'm just a little bit deaf in reality, and I can't hear you. I've just asked Dr. Massey and some people over here, and we can't hear you. Can you speak up just a bit, because it's kind of excluding us from this conversation. MR. BENIUK: No problem. I understand. Thank you. I just made a comment that

whereas NAIT and SAIT will survive, the students phat are not given the opportunity right now to get an education may not. Considering that 68.7 per cent of the jobs between now and the year 2002 would require postsecondary qualifications, why are you not ensuring that adequate funding is provided to the postsecondary education institutions that are government-owned, publicly-owned rather than – and I'll raise a question later – on private vocational schools? MR. ADY: Well, let me back up. Y ou're leading everyone to believe that we're doing a terrible job. Let me back up a little bit.

This province trains 25 per cent of the apprentices in Canada. We're the only province that has two technical institutes that equate to NAIT and SAIT. Now, I don't think that's anything that we have to put our head in the sand over. I'm pretty proud of what those institutes are doing and what this province has done with NAIT and SAIT. Y ou can hardly go anywhere that you don't run across someone that has been to NAIT or SAIT, or at least one of their family. So it has had pretty broad coverage and accomplished a lot of good in this province, and it continues to do so.

They're two very well-run, efficient institutions. To move to your second question, if I understand you right, it deals with access. We admit that we have an access problem, but we don't have the money to throw at it anymore. We've got to come up with a different system of delivering our programs in order to deliver programs in a cost-efficient way. The system is going to have to be restructured. It's the only way that I know to do it, and it's going to take a little time to do it. Certainly Alberta on a per capita basis is among the highest of funders of postsecondary education.

We're either first or second, depending on which month you want to read the stats. So we're not doing that badly, but we need to do better. As long as we have a student who wants into one of our postsecondary institutions and can't get in, we've got a problem. I accept that, but I don't accept the fact that we're not doing anything and that we're about the worst there is by any means. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Renner, and then Dr. Massey. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Minister, I would like to refer to 2.5, Public Colleges-Operating budgets.

When you look at these budgets, there have been very minimal increases across the board. I think you have even announced at some point that there was about a 3 per cent increase across the board for public colleges. On the surface that seems reasonable and fair, that everyone got the same increase. I wonder, when you look at the list of colleges that are funded – and coming from Medicine Hat as I do, I of course have leanings towards Medicine Hat College.

I look at this list, and I see that Medicine Hat College in terms of funding ranks second from the bottom in total dollars in operating funds, second only to the Alberta College of Art, yet I know that when I look at some of the other colleges on this list, Medicine Hat College has more students than a number of the other colleges on the list. I'm wondering: is there any correlation of funding dollars to students enrolled in the institution? MR. ADY: The institutions receive a block grant. Well, to back up a little bit, prior to my time there was a study done by Dr.

Stefan Dupré, who came to Alberta and studied the level of funding to each of our institutions in an effort to be sure that they were receiving equitable f unding. Lynne, perhaps you could enlarge on this. Y ou were here then and I wasn't. MRS. DUNCAN: Y ou're doing just fine. MR. ADY: She's not taking this one. At any rate, he gave us a recommendation on where the funding level should be for the postsecondary institutions that we had in the province, and that set the level that each one had. Since then, we've worked with a block funding that has let them move.

If we gave a 3 per cent increase, they all got a 3 per cent increase. The variance with that was that if there was new programming that was approved, in some cases there may be some funding following that. If there was new space built, there would be some funding increase following that. That's the criterion that has been used and that funds Medicine Hat College where it's at today in the mix of funding among the institutions. Now, do you have anything to add, Lynne, or am I still doing all right? MRS. DUNCAN: Y ou're doing fine. MR.

RENNER: Well, I guess, then, for my supplementary question, it sounds to me like it's very similar to a property assessment on a municipal level and property tax. It could equate somewhat the same. If the base changes and you continually make increases on a false assumption, then at some point in time maybe you need to do a reassessment and redistribution on allocation of funds. Medicine Hat College originally had 800 students; now it has 2,200 students. Perhaps this base was established when they were at the 800-student level.

They've grown tremendously, and maybe some of the other colleges haven't grown at the same rate. There's maybe a possibility that you need to have a lhok at the overall budget and redistribute the funds on a different basis, and I wonder if you might consider that. MR. ADY: Well, I hear what you're saying, but in today's world we don't have an institution that doesn't have people virtually waiting at the door. I guess I don't know what level Medicine Hat College was at when the study was done. If any of my staff know, they could perhaps give me some idea of where it was at.

I think every institution has moved as efficiently as they can to deal with the access problem, so within the block funding that they receive annually, they have increased access to the limit. I think they've done a very good job. Medicine Hat perhaps is an excellent example of what they've been able to do with the funding that they had. My understanding is that they're at their limit and can't take any more of the funding than they presently are allocated.

I understand what you're saying, and certainly if we had an institution that dropped dramatically in enrollment of full-time equivalent students, we wouldn't go on blindly funding them at the

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 13 same level. We would do reallocation, but we really don't have that in our system as I speak. 7:35 MR. RENNER: I don't have another question. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Dr. Massey, Mr. Sohal. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you talked about it and you admit that access is really a big problem. I think I've seen it described as a crisis in some places in the province.

My concern is that it's not new, that it's been going on for some time now, and by redefining what a qualified student is – that is, raising the entrance requirements – you've cut off some students. By putting in quotas, we've cut off students. It seems to me that surely there's a need for some kind of short-term plan to accom- modate students today who next January will be trying to get into our institutions. I can't quite understand why that hasn't been done in the past. MR. ADY: Well, it still comes back to the very same things that we have to deal with, Don, and that's the fiscal realities.

We don't have more money to build more infrastructure; we don't have more money to give for operating grants at this point. That leaves us the option of efficiency, and we're going to have to find some efficiencies in our system to address the access problems. Through the access through innovation program we are anxious for the stakeholders and Albertans to give us their input so that we have the advantage of that.

I mean, people like yourself with your background, the university, academic people, administration people, everyone who knows something about the system we hope will tell us what they think we can do, bearing in mind that we've got a fiscal problem that we can't just solve like that. The other departments of this government have continually taken a hit every year in the last seven years in order to maintain or increase funding to postsecondary education, Education, Health, and social services: those four. This department has never taken a reduc- tion, never taken one, so there has been an emphasis there.

It's a priority, but again how much money can we find from other departments without shutting them down? Those four departments now take over 80 per cent of the provincial budget. We're going to have to address it in a different way than money. Money is, of course, the quick fix. We could fix it tomorrow if someone came along and gave us a billion dollars. DR. MASSEY: There were suggestions that there are problems right now, and we had talked about r oundtables.

I saw the University of Alberta's requisition, which was at the 4.5 per cent they suggest they need in terms of funds to maintain the current student body in the next budget. I come back to the operating grants that are in this and wonder how they are supposed to survive. In January there's going to be a group of students that will be excluded. What are they supposed to do? What do you say to those students? I'm sure you're getting the same phone calls I am. MR.

ADY: I'm hearing from some students who are disappointed that they don't get into a particular program, and I'm hearing from students who are disappointed that they don't get into the particular institution of their choice, but I'm also hearing from students who applied to three or four and are getting into one of them. I'm on record as saying that I'd like to see the admittance level at 65 per cent. I think we're missing a lot of talent out there. I'll bet there are a lot of people in this room that would have had a lot of difficulty if they'd had to have 73 per cent to get in back in their day.

As I circulate around, I run into them all the time, a lot of professional people. MR. CHAIRMAN: Some of us would have been happy to get 73 per cent. MR. ADY: Let me say, Don, that through all of this, if you're asking me to do a quick fix, then you have to be suggesting to me that we go for revenue. DR. MASSEY: What I'm saying is that the problem isn't new. It didn't just arrive when you became minister. It's been around for some time. MR. ADY: No, it didn't just arrive when I became minister. DR. MASSEY: That's my point. MR.

ADY: Bear in mind that we've had a revenue and spending problem since 1986, when we lost 3 and a half billion dollars in revenue in this province. It's been quite an exercise to get Albertans' and politicians' and institutions' minds turned around to address this problem. I think that finally everybody's there to address it. I even hear people from the opposition side saying that it's time. DR. MASSEY: Some members of the opposition. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Sohal, Mr. Langevin, and then Mrs. Laing. Mr. Doerksen is last on my list. I'm taking them in the order of hands coming up, by the way. MR. SOHAL: Mr.

Minister, the reference is to 2.1.8, Adult Development Programs. In 1993-94 we have a budget of $13.1 million, and in '92-93 we had $16.8 million, so there's a reduction of $3.7 million. That's a 20 pe r cent reduction. This budget directly affects programs of short-term vocational training and English as a second language. Would you please explain how this program is coping with the growing need for English as a second language and short-term vocational programs. MR. ADY: Just so I'm clear on your question, it has to do with the fact that we've reduced the budget and you want me to focus on ESL? MR.

SOHAL: With particular reference to that. MR. ADY: Well, ESL was part of both of the previous depart- ments. The amalgamation of the two departments has brought us some efficiency in that area and allowed us to reduce the budget to some extent from that. In 1992-93 Adult Development Programs funded some 184 programs or about 5,500 full-time students. The ESL program used to be a priority that's funded under that program, and we believe that we're serving that reasonably well. Lynne, do you have some supplemental on that? MRS.

DUNCAN: Well, I guess I would add that ESL is primarily a federal responsibility, and the reason we reduced that program was that in fact it was a federal/provincial transfer. The federal government put money in our general revenue fund. We requisi- tioned it and spent it on academic upgrading and ESL programs.

14 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 The federal government reduced their transfer to the province, so we reduced what we requisitioned out of the general revenue fund. The federal government is now giving money directly to students, and our sense is that overall the programming level in the province is, at the very least, constant. It's just that the money is now coming from different sources rather than going through the provincial kidneys, if you will. [interjections] Y ou liked that one? The federal government is now putting money directly in the hands of students. MR.

ADY: So where does it come out, Lynne? MRS. DUNCAN: In Hansard. 7:45 MR. SOHAL: My supplementary to the minister. I fully believe and agree with this government's policy of fiscal restraint. We all agree that we an need an able and skilled and educated labour force to compete in the global market. So do we have a commit- ment or a policy towards a program like ESL or does our policy just change on the whims of the federal government? MR. ADY: Well, let's not forget what the deputy said. English as a second language is primarily a federal responsibility.

We have found ourselves quite often in the circumstance of having to jump into the breach when they vacate space, and often the space they vacated is with money. When they reduce f unding in a program and we find ourselves in the fiscal circumstances that we are in, it's very difficult for us to just cover that off, especially when we have to borrow the money to do it. I guess it comes down to an issue of fairness. Is it fair for them to abdicate their responsibility, and then is it fair for us to be expected to be able to pick up a hundred per cent of it? We find that difficult to do.

The minute we do it, it follows that it takes the heat off them, and I don't think that's fair either. MR. SOHAL: Therefore, we don't have a policy about it? MR. ADY: We have a policy to fund it as adequately as we can fund it within our fiscal circumstance. MR. SOHAL: Okay. That makes sense. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Sohal. Mr. Langevin. MR. LANGEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is to the hon. minister.

If you look at the departments, I would like to point out, keeping in mind that we have a budget problem and a financial problem – I'm not asking for more money – that some reduction has occurred here while others have gotten some increase. I would like to know the rationale behind that. Alberta Vocational College in Lac La Biche is a college that caters mostly to the unemployed, the unskilled, the people who have a bare level of education, and the economically disadvantaged people.

They have taken a 3.2 per cent decrease in this year's operating estimate, while if you look at 2.3, private colleges, has had a slight increase; 2.4, technical institutes, has had an increase; 2.5, public colleges an increase; 2.6, universities, an increase; and 2.7, hospital-based nursing education, has remained the same. What would be the rationale not to give them all the same level or, if they had to have a decrease, all the same decrease? Why would Alberta Vocational College be punished more than the others? MR.

ADY: Bear in mind that Alberta vocational colleges are administered by the department differently than those that are board-administered. That's a factor there because some of our overhead costs are different. I'll ask the deputy to enlarge on that. MRS. DUNCAN: Well, the reason that the vocational colleges' budgets were reduced was that they were part of our productivity improvement in the department. They have reduced staffing levels while maintaining or increasing enrollments.

All postsecondary institutions got a zero grant increase this year, and the reason you see some getting a little bit here and others getting nothing has to do largely with differences in fiscal year-ends. The colleges' and the technical institutes' fiscal year-end is June 30,

whereas the government year-end is March 31. So the colleges and technical institutes are still getting 25 per cent of the adjustment last year. It's really a technical reason wh y most of those institutions have an increase. The one exception that stands out is Grant MacEwan College, which got extra operating money because of their new building. MR. LANGEVIN: Thank you. Y ou pointed out in your discussion that the Alberta vocational colleges had become more efficient. Is there a lack of efficiency in the others? They're more efficient compared to the others? MR. ADY: More than they were. MR.

LANGEVIN: More than they were. So they deserve some credit. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mrs. Laing, and then Mr. Doerksen. MRS. LAING: Thank you. Mr. Minister, 2.6, Universities – Operating. While this year's grant adjustment under subprogram 2.6 is zero per cent, universitie s and all other institutions were able to raise significant revenues through tuition fees. What sort of tuition revenue increase do you expect to see in '93-94? MR.

ADY: Well, to just reiterate a little background on the tuition fee policy, as most of you know, there is a cap on it, and there is a cap on the amount that it can be increased each year. Universities can increase theirs $213 per full-time equivalent student in this fiscal year. For colleges and institutes the allowable is $106.50. There's a difference there. Overall the system could generate just over $17 million in new tuition revenue for 1993-94. MRS. LAING: Okay; thank you.

For my first question, given the 20 per cent of operating expenditure cap, how much room remains for the institutions to further increase tuition fees? How close to that 20 per cent are they now? MR. ADY: I'm sorry; the last part again? MRS. LAING: How much room remains for the institutions to increase further tuition fees? MR. ADY: Oh, okay. In 1992-93 the total revenue from regulated tuition fees for the board-governed institutions was about $126 million. This represented 13 per cent of the net operating expenditure of the system, so 13 per cent working towards 20 as the cap.

On an institution-by-institution basis it ranges from as low as 4.3 per cent at Fairview College, where they have lots of room to move towards the 20, to a high of 18.5 at the University

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 15 of Lethbridge. The University of Lethbridge is almost bumping against the cap, and they're the closest to it in the province. MRS. LAING: Okay. Thank you. As the mother of a university student: could you tell me how you feel about how the institutions now spend these tuition fees? What use are the tuition fees being put to? MR. ADY: Well, the tuition fees that the institutions collect just go directly into the revenue of th e institution, to be used at the discretion of the administration and the board. It's not a desig- nated fund.

It just goes to the general revenue of the institution. MRS. LAING: General operation. MR. ADY: General operation; that's right. Well, I would qualify that by saying that it would go into their operating fund. MRS. LAING: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Laing. Mr. Doerksen. MR. DOERKSEN: I want to come back to the point Mr. Zee here raised right off the top.

Under Program Administration – and this is a roundabout question – if you take off the capital fund principal repayment program on both those elements, your Program Administration under '93-94 comes to 8 per cent, and your Program Administration under '92-93 comes to 7.2 per cent. It's my belief you can tie that to a dollar figure, and I wonder if you've got any number you're shooting for. This is actually probably more for the deputy minister than it is for the minister. MRS.

DUNCAN: Well, perhaps I could add that department staffing levels have been reducing consistently for – help me out here – four or five years. If we looked at the old advanced education department, which this program 2 is about, staffing levels are in fact lower than when the department was formed in 1973. So if we were to go back and compare the program dollars here to staffing levels back when the department originated, we would find that the department has in fact become very efficient. Over the last two years our staffing level has been reduced by something like, I don't know, 15, 16 per cent.

I'm not sure it's appropriate to take a one-year snapshot. I don't know that I've got any particular rule of thumb in terms of what proportion of your budget ought to be spent on staff. Certainly, in an overall department, 2, 3 per cent or something like that, I guess. 7:55 MR. DOERKSEN: Okay; just curious. That's a good point about a one-year snapshot. That's right. It's sometimes hard to manage, but I worked in a bank before, and we definitely had productivity targets per employee. If we were not meeting them, we knew what we had to do. MRS. DUNCAN: Mr. Dinning's designing some for us. MR.

DOERKSEN: Good for him. My next question has to do with that same Program Support element. We kept coming back to Harry's thing on ESL. I know it's a federal thing, or partly a federal thing. Can this not be moved into the colleges, letting them operate the program through their funding? MRS. DUNCAN: Do you want to? MR. ADY: No, go ahead. MRS. DUNCAN: In fact, colleges do offer some ESL programs out of their base money. They allocate money for ESL. In the adult development program we have tried to keep a pot of money that we can move from year to year to where programming needs are greater.

If it's in Edmonton, we try to move more money to Edmonton. If it's in Lac La Biche, we try to move more money to Lac La Biche, or to Calgary. That adult development program money is more of an ad hoc nature than the base money that's given to institutions. MR. DOERKSEN: Okay. I met with a number of ESL students during my campaign actually, and they were getting into it. What we're talking about here really is, as Jack said, that we need to do more. That's right, but we need to do more with less, which is really what we're saying – it's a million dollar allocation – as opposed to just throwing more money at it.

So if I could just say that I'd like to see more money allocated to ESL, and you can take it under advisement. My last question has to do with getting back to . . . It's a privilege to be able to go last; you can piggyback on other guys. Rob here talked about efficiencies. I know, Jack, that you and I have had this discussion before. Red Deer College in particular operates very efficiently in terms of dollars per student. Y ou've replied to this question before, but I'll let you have another crack at it.

I'd like to see you again move more to a performance standard much like they do in the other education department, where they're starting to look at how much is spent per student, full-time equivalent. If we move in that direction for all – Mr. Langevin talked about if you have an efficient school, you almost penalize them for being efficient. MR. ADY: What you're talking about is rewarding productivity, I believe. MR. DOERKSEN: Right. MR. ADY: Well, let me say that without a doubt I think that's something we'll have to look at in the future because we're going to have to reward productivity.

Those who do more with less should be given the resources to carry out their mandate. I don't think that we've got enough cards on the table yet to know how best to do that in a fair and equitable way, but I would hope that by next spring we might be able to address that in a more definite way. When I say that, I mean get some direction out of our public consultation that will allow us to move ahead with it, basically. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That's program 2: 47 minutes.

A gentle reminder: if somebody wants to ask another question, we will then open it up to everybody going through unless we wish to move to the next program. Mr. Sohal. MR. SOHAL: Mr. Minister, it's a general question about universities. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sohal, again with the thought in mind that if we do this, then we do open it up. I want that clearly understood before we go into a second round of questions on the same one.

16 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 MR. RENNER: Maybe we'd better agree whether we want to have another round before we go on. DR. MASSEY: Y es, we would like another round. It's a big program. AN HON. MEMBER: Y eah, we'd like another round of this. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sohal. MR. SOHAL: Just a general remark. In the early '70s in Ontario universities, foreign students paid the same fees as Canadian students paid, the philosophy behind it being that foreign students go back to their countries and then they buy Canadian products.

Then in the mid-70s they discovered that foreign students don't go back; they stay in Canada. So they doubled and tripled their fees. Do we have an Alberta-made policy for fee structure for foreign students? MR. ADY: Y es, we do. Presently, foreign students pay double the tuition. It has to do with the philosophy that Canadian taxpayers undoubtedly subsidize postsecondary education to, on average, 85 per cent of the cost. It was felt that oftentimes foreign students that came to Alberta came from a background that could well afford to pay.

On the other side of the coin, it was felt that the taxpayers of Alberta shouldn't be expected to subsidize the education of foreign students to that extent. So double the tuition seemed to be where it settled, and that's where it is today. That's the made-in-Alberta policy and the philosophy behind it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Sohal. No supplementary. Mr. Zariwny, then Mr. Renner. MR. ZARIWNY: Mr. Minister, I have some questions that I can't really pin down to any one particular program.

They probably could be dealt with with all the programs from 2.2 down to the end, so they would be dealing with the postsecondary institutions. It seems to me that the relationship between education and the labour market involves problems of supply and demand, overeducation, underemployment, the way the university students and the institutions view the work and employment trends. My question is really an offshoot of what your deputy minister, I think, mentioned, or perhaps it was yourself. She said you used zero-based budgeting as a planning tool.

I'm wondering whether or not in the process of planning for any of the programs dealing with postsecondary institutions – and that's my first question – you take into consideration criteria like unemployed, underemployed, overeducated, uneducated. I think maybe a good example, if you want, of people that fall in this category would be natives and the immigrants. My question is: do you develop these kind of criteria when you're developing your budget? Do you examine factors like that? MR.

ADY: Well, I think the best way to answer that is to talk about the emphasis that we put on some of our institutions that deal with that type of client. Our A VCs – our Alberta Vocational Colleges – deal with them. People in those categories are able to access those institutions at a very low cost to them and sometimes in fact receive grants to allow them to attend. It goes all the way from upgrading to basic training in some field in our A VCs. I think we address that from the perspective of providing some institutions that are specifically set apart to do that, to deal with that.

Lynne, can you expand on his question? 8:05 MRS. DUNCAN: I think it's fair to say that the colleges and the technical institutes are the ones that are most conscious of labour market indicators and tend to move their program dollars around in response to labour market demand. That's particularly true of the technical institutes, where quite often their quotas are not designed for fiscal reasons; they're designed because they're trying to match the number of students to the labour market.

Universities, of course, are in contrast to that, because universi- ties have not traditionally seen their role as supplying trained people for the labour market. Indeed, the philosophy that's driven funding in institutions to date has been one of trying to meet individual aspirations for postsecondary education. I guess everybody seems to want to go to university, and we should probably convert all our institutions to universities and let them all get degrees.

The labour market information is telling us that a growing number of university graduates are underemployed – a porter, for example – telling us that we in Canada pay too little attention to nondegree programs, telling us that two-thirds of the people in the labour market today are going to be there in the year 2000 and maybe we ought to spend more time and attention worrying about how they get trained and retrained. So I think one of the major policy issues facing us is: when we increase funding, where do we put that funding? I think it's a very knotty problem. MR.

ZARIWNY: My second and last supplemental would be to take off where the deputy minister mentioned the word “policy.” I was just wondering whether the department, knowing that policy's going to lead at some stage to a financial allocation, has actually given any thought to developing – or maybe it already has – policies which would deal with these disparities of racial origin, socioeconomic status. Or are there no policies of that nature being considered? MR. ADY: Well, I think certainly we have some programs that are directed to our native population's needs, especially in northern Alberta.

Our A VCs certainly are, and we have the mobile training units that are specifically designed to move about in the north and give a level of training to those people. We have our immigrant settlcments program, which to some extent addresses the needs of new immigrants into this country, to give them ESL, for instance.

Back to the native thing in northern Alberta – and I shouldn't just say native; let's say disadvantaged people – we have some programs that are specifically targeted to deal with their needs: the Students Finance Board system, because all of that is now administered by the Students Finance Board for assistance to those people, be it by grant or by loan or a combination of the two. I'm not sure that I've answered your question, but I hope I have to some extent. MR. ZARIWNY: I believe you have, but I would just like to throw one other category or disadvantaged group, and that's gender. MR.

CHAIRMAN: That was your second supplementary. MR. ZARIWNY: Well, can I add that as my third one? MR. CHAIRMAN: A little leeway. MR. ZARIWNY: What about gender?

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 17 MR. ADY: What about gender? Are you worried about the fact that there are fewer males in the system than females and we need to do something to get those male numbers up? MR. ZARIWNY: I am worried about it from many points of view, including that I have two daughters who are coming up to that stage where they're going to be wanting a job. In addition to that, many of my constituents and many of my supporters are women. I think this is a serious problem. MR. ADY: Well, just a minute.

In today's statistics in our postsecondary system we have 53 per cent – 53 or 56; I've forgotten – more than half that are women. So the system must be responding. That's full-time and part-time. So the system must be responsive, it would appear, and open to women accessing it. MR. ZARIWNY: I don't want to get into a philosophical disagreement here, but I think most of those 53 per cent are lower level occupational categories. We don't have too many female deputy ministers, do we? MR. ADY: The number's growing.

The other statistic I'd like to give you is that there are more women served by the Students Finance Board than there are men. It's pretty consistent when you look at all the things there that are being accessed and the numbers that are coming out. I'm open to suggestions. If they're being disadvantaged, we certainly don't want that nor want it continue. If something needs to be addressed in some specific way, sure, but I'm not getting any strong signals out of the information that comes to my desk that says there's a problem. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Renner and Mr. Massey.

We have seven speakers left to go, and we're at fully one hour on this program. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to go back to 2.1, Program Support. Specifically, in the description in the estimates book the last sentence reads: Provides final matching grants under the Endowment and Incentive Fund Program which has been terminated. I'd like to know: what is the endowment and incentive fund program, and why has it been terminated? MR. ADY: The endowment and incentive program was a program set up by the government.

Initially it was a matching grants program to postsecondary institutions, and even universities at one time had access to it. Then it was phased out and left only for the colleges, and now it's being phased out for the colleges. It was done in an effort to encourage the institutions to enter into the fund-raising mode, and the dollar-for-dollar matching grant encouraged them to get organized, to get out there into the marketplace and the business sector and wherever they might gain grant money or money that people would be prepared to give them. They could go to them and say: “The government will match this.

If you can give us $10,000, the government will match it with $10,000, and then we can build a library, or we can do something.” The institutions picked up on it, and there was a great deal of infrastructure and improvements done to our postsecondary system through that. Now, for two reasons, it's been discontinued: the first one is that we have a difficult time funding our side; the second one is that they have learned how to do it, and they've all set up foundations.

We enacted some legislation that allowed them to get a tax deduction, those who contribute to their foundations, and we're finding that the universities and colleges are moving along reasonably well. I'm sure they would be happy if we could afford to continue to match it. We would be happy if we could continue to match it, but we find ourselves not in that position. We feel that we gave them a kick-start in how to fund-raise for universities and colleges, so it's been discontinued.

The money we see in this year's budget has to do with, I think, the final commitment that we have to the institutions that were in the program and raised the money that we had committed to match. MR. RENNER: Thank you. It's a good explanation. Actually I was aware that these foundations were being formed, and I wasn't aware of dhe reason why, so I appreciate that. Do you feel there may be a future role for government along this line with these foundations that are now in place? Is there a role down the road for government to play at all, or will we be out of it entirely? MR.

ADY: Well, I think that as far as money, over the next three to five years I would say that the government will be out of it. I think that the government will be happy to assist in any way that they can to enhance the reasons for people to get involved in the foundations and to contribute to them, give encouragement. I guess we would be in the cheering section, but we don't have the money to be there with additional funding to do it. MR. RENNER: Thank you. That's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Renner. Mr. Massey, Mr. Doerksen. 8:15 DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to go back to access again, if I could. What does the department consider a reasonable participation rate for our high school students in postsecondary education? I know that there are comparisons for Canadian provinces, and I am not interested in comparing Alberta with Newfoundland. I have some information on Michigan, for instance, and Kansas state, some that are of comparable size. When you talk about high school students going on to postsecond- ary institutions, what kind of participation and per centage rates do you shoot for or you think are reasonable for this province? MR.

ADY: Well, over the past 10 years – and that takes us back to the time prior to there being the access problems we presently have – it was at about 60 per cent into our universities. Strangely enough, it's been maintained there. Now, I suppose it's difficult for us to know what level it would move to if we didn't have an access problem, but let's also factor in some other things: first of all, the economy and the fact that there are not as many jobs available to people.

That causes them to re-evaluate their circum- stances and say, “Well, if I can't get a job with the training that I've got, if there's nothing for me out there in the labour market, then I'm going to go back to school.” So that causes more of them to go. It also causes high school kids, many of whom in previous years said: “Well, I can go down the road here and make $15 an hour. Why do I want to spend this number of years in university?

I'll never earn it all back, the money that I can make,” back in the days when they could go into the oil industry and work on the rigs and operate the pumping stations and things that paid well. Those oil companies had a benefit package and pensions, and many times those people were making more money than those who had a postsecondary education in those days. I don't think that's so prevalent anymore, and that's causing more interest and

18 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 emphasis on students wanting to get into our postsecondary institutions. There's becoming an awareness on their part that they're going to need that if they're going to compete from age 20 to 65. Don, it's difficult for me to sit here and say that the acceptable number in today's world should be increased from 60, where it historically has been, to something higher. I think we're going to have to learn over the next short time where that really wants to settle out and try to provide the access for them.

The bottom line is that I'm as much interested and maybe even more than you are because of the responsibility that I have of providing that access to those students. I don't know how else I can answer your question. DR. MASSEY: I think in part you have. It isn't really a set kind of goal that we're looking at in terms of the province. One of the concerns that peopl e within the institutions have relayed to me is the notion that programs that can't be directly linked to the job market are going to be in jeopardy.

The notion is that this is really distorting, in the case of universities, the whole notion of students going to universities, where there's an open exploration of ideas, that they're going to be forced to go to universities to take narrower and narrower programs in serving the job market. Are their fears founded in these budget documents? MR. ADY: Well, I suppose they are, b ecause if people spend four to six years in a postsecondary institution taking training that is not marketable when they come out at the other end, then they've got a problem and society's got a problem with that.

Everyone in some way is going to have to make a living. I don't know how you address that. I suppose it's always been around to some extent, but it's probably exaggerated now because of the access problem. Y our concern is that those kinds of programs will be forced out of the institutions and that there won't be programs there for them, even though in their minds – I'm talking about the students now – they want to take that program and they're confident that there will be something there. Is that where you're coming from? DR. MASSEY: Their reasons for going aren't vocational . . . MR.

ADY: And yet the program just wouldn't be there for them. I would hope that our universities, especially our universities, are not going to be put in the circumstance where they would have to become that narrow. With the calibre of universities that we have in this province and have been able to maintain over the years, it would seem to me that we should be encouraging a broad based set of programs for those universities, and hopefully we're going to be able to find a way to maintain that. There should be some priority to it. DR.

MASSEY: All I can say is that it has raised alarms about academic freedom and the notion of what a university is and how a university differs from a technical institute. Even at technical institutes the need for education to help young people develop themselves as human beings first is a very important function along with some kind of vocational training. I guess as I look in terms of the programs in here determining the kinds of activities that go on in institutions I shudder, I have to tell you, when I hear about productivity counts.

I think of people in music programs and fine arts and wonder what they're saying. What portions of the budget are made up of federal funds? Is there just a rough ballpark figure of how much of this money comes from the federal government? MR. ADY: The best way to explain that to you is that the federal government gives money to each province. There's a CAP program for education and health care. They are unconditional grants with the exception of the adult development program and one or two other small ones. But we're talking about the big dollars.

Those funds go to the province, and we have the flexibility to use them within the general revenue. So they are not directly put to postsecondary education unless my deputy is about to tell me something that I . . . DR. MASSEY: So there's no ballpark figure? If federal funds are dramatically decreased, what's going to happen to your department? MR. ADY: It would affect us because our overall budget of the province would be affected. We'd have less money to do things with. We would be affected by that and only protected by the priority that might be put on it by the governors. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Dr. Massey.

Mr. Doerksen and Mr. Langevin. MR. DOERKSEN: I'll skip. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Langevin. MR. LANGEVIN: I just have a couple of questions. I'd like to come back to A VC for a second. In our discussion of my previous question I understood that they report to their minister on a different base than the other institutions. Would you just elaborate on that? MR. ADY: Sure. The A VCs are a child of the government, and I suppose the other institutions are as well. But the other institu- tions are board-governed and those are not. They are administered solely by department and report to the department.

Their employees are government employees, all of them. The president is a government employee, all of the instructors are, all of the staff is. So it is administered differently. We have direct responsibility for them and their operation,

whereas the others – you understand how they function. Does that answer your question? 8:25 MR. LANGEVIN: It does, yes. Thank you, Mr. Minister. My second question is still on A VC. Y our colleague the Hon. Mike Cardinal is trying, in his words, to send employables back to the work force, take them off social assistance and AISH and other programs. A lot of these people are prime candidates for A VC schooling; they are not university-types.

Is there a process in the transition period for some of these people to get some special recognition or access into A VC, or are they going to be on the waiting line: they'll be off assistance, but they won't be accepted? MR. ADY : W ell, as I said earlier, we have some programs that are in place specifically to serve those kinds of clients. As I mentioned earlier, the mobile training program is designed to move to a community in northern Alberta and stay for two years, do some training of the people there locally because they can't afford to move and come to Edmonton or come somewhere else.

Then they can pick up their mobile training unit and move to some other community that has need. Certainly we have a considerable component of native students enrolled in Alberta. If you'd get a map and look at where our offices and institutions are located in northern Alberta, I think you'll gain an appreciation of the effort

September 16, 1993 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee 19 that is being put into making some level of training available to those people. Who from my staff can supplement that? MR. LANGEVIN: The minister asked if somebody would supplement. MR. ADY: I told you the answer, so . . . MR. LANGEVIN: Okay; I understood from that that maybe there was something else that was not answered. MR. ADY: No. We can send you some information that's more specific on where we're doing what, and we'll be happy to do that. MR.

LANGEVIN: I'd be interested in this mobile training units information if you have it available, how they work. MR. ADY: Sure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have Mr. Friedel. I'm trying. Somebody just told me I was pronouncing that name wrong as well, so I'm trying to remember the correct pronunciation here. MR. FRIEDEL: Y ou and half the people here, so don't feel bad. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm absolutely neutral. I got one wrong on both sides. MR. FRIEDEL: I'm not one hundred per cent sure if this is what Dr. Massey alluded to a few moments ago.

It's not really a financial question, but considering today's unemployment situation and the comment that was made just a little bit earlier that the colleges are more flexible towards the current job market, is there a reason or would it be worth considering a bit of a nudge to universities to adopt that type of flexibility to recognize the job markets as they appear? I don't really mean that you'd jump each year, but . . . MR. ADY: I think perhaps you misunderstood Dr. Massey. Dr.

Massey was concerned that the universities and many postsecond- ary – well, I believe his concern was primarily the universities – were going to become preoccupied with cranking out product for the job market and lose sight of the historical and traditional role that universities have played, where there was a broad range of programs, not necessarily job market oriented; that for people who just wanted to go and take some training in an area that's periph- eral to the job market there wouldn't be any program there because the universities are so focused on cranking out job-market- ready clients.

I think you may have misunderstood him, but maybe to pick up on what I think you're driving at, NAIT and SAIT and the private vocational schools are very focused on the job market, I think about as focused as you can get. I don't know how we could encourage them to be any more so. I think they do an excellent job of serving that clientele. MR. FRIEDEL: I realize that I was sort of looking at the other end of the spectrum from the one that Dr.

Massey was alluding to, and that's why I mentioned it, but in our current state of high unemployment might we not be well advised to urge the universi- ties to take a slightly more flexible approach to that? MR. ADY: Who would take a more flexible approach? MR. FRIEDEL: Well, we as the government who fund the universities. Could we not push the universities to be a little bit more responsive? MR. AD Y: W ell, I think we have to be careful when we as a government start tinkering with the directions that universities take.

It's pretty hard for a politician to stride over to the U of A and say: “I think you're out of whack with where you're headed. I want you to move over here and become more focused in a particular direction.” Universities within their own constituency should have the ability from the president on down and with some assistance from their board for direction to be responsive to the needs of the citizens they are mandated to serve. I think we would find a negative distortion if all of a sudden it became my right as the minister to start giving that kind of direction to those institu- tions.

They today develop their own programs and put them in place. As a matter of fact, they have so much autonomy there that Calgary and Edmonton developed separate programs on the same program, if you understand what I'm saying. They have that much autonomy now necessarily to buy a program from each other or borrow it. I really hesitate to make any kind of commitment to become that involved in the direction that universities take.

I suppose if they b ecame totally irresponsible and were way off dreaming of serving something that didn't exist, there would have to be some mechanism, but I surely don't see our univers ities anywhere near that circumstance. I think they do an excellent job. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Sohal. I'm sorry; I thought I saw your hand wave at one point. I have no other speakers on the list. MR. SOHAL: Oh, then I would have a question. MRS. LAING: Y ou start the third round again. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we wish to go on the third program? AN HON. MEMBER: Y es. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Just before we do, I've got two things that I need to say, and then I'll go back to you, Mr. Renner. It's been pointed out to me that Mr. Massey's name is also Dr. Massey. I'm aware that we have a number of doctors, and we also have an hon. minister. In the interests of keeping this reasonably informal, I've been using just simply last names all the way along through here. I hope that's appropriate and I haven't embarrassed anybody by saying “Mr. Massey” or “Mr. Sohal.” Both are doctors. The other thing is that we've now been at this for about two hours since we actually got into our timing.

What if we stop the clock? What kind of break would anybody like? Because frankly my butt is sore. MR. RENNER: That's exactly what I was going to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ten minutes? MR. ADY: All of you go ahead and take a break. I'll stay here and keep going so I can keep the clock going. MR. CHAIRMAN: This will not count in the four-hour time.

20 Advanced Education and Career Development Subcommittee September 16, 1993 [The subcommittee adjourned from 8:34 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.] MR. CHAIRMAN: A very big announcement. Unfortunately, he's unable to escape for an hour and 45 more minutes or thereabouts, but the minister of advanced education has a new granddaughter. [applause] We're off like a herd of turtles on program 3. I'll ask for Mr. Zariwny. MR. ZARIWNY: If you look at item 3.0.7, Rehabilitation Training, my question there is simply: who accesses that particu- lar program? MR.

ADY: It's support for adult Albertans who, as a result of barriers caused by disability, require assistance to enter into or maintain themselves in the work force, so primarily disabled people. MR. ZARIWNY: That's physical disabilities? MR. ADY: Primarily. MR. ZARIWNY: The other question I have relates to 3.0.5, Implementation of Guarantees. I was wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you could just give us an explanation of what that program is all about and what students, in fact, it's serving. MR. ADY: Y es, I can give you some background on that.

It provides for the payment of outstanding student loan balances in the event that the borrowers default on their student loans. That's what it's for. So it covers defaults. MR. ZARIWNY: My third supplemental: would you be able to tell us how many students were in fact served out of that program and how many were turned away? Would you have those figures available here? MR. ADY: We don't have opportunity to turn any away on defaults, because as you know, students go to banks and borrow the money and the government guarantees. If they don't pay the bank, then we pay the bank.

That's where this fund comes in, to pay the bank. We end up with a contract back that we then have to either try to collect or sell to a collection agency or deal with it in some way to get what we can out of that account. We're budgeting $19.3 million a year to pay for defaults. It's students who throu

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19930916
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L23 S1 19930916 1805 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	abc393cc4a7b5222c9161930e8678b4f2b293ea6

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (json).