1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 7, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9419 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Privatization subsidies. Mr. Harcourt –– 9419

Customs preclearance of Alaskan cruise visitors. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9420

Privatization subsidies. Mr. Harcourt –– 9420

Mr. Clark

Pension policy at Simon Fraser University. Mr. Rose –– 9421

Federal abortion bill. Ms. Marzari –– 9421

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 9422

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Jones

Mr. Rose

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Clark

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Marzari

MONDAY, MAY 7, 1990

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. DE JONG :

Mr. Speaker, May 5, 1945, is a day that will never be forgotten by

people from the Netherlands. It was Liberation Day, after five years of

German occupation as a result of one man's desire and obsession to

conquer the world. This past Saturday, that historic event was

celebrated in a very real way in the predominantly Dutch town of

Lynden, Washington.

The Premier, Mrs. Vander Zalm, my wife

and I were extended the honour and privilege of celebrating this great

event with some 20,000 people, many of them British Columbians of Dutch

background. Celebrating with the people of Lynden were some 500

legionnaires from all over the lower mainland, together with a

representation and display of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The

joy and enthusiasm of the Dutch people have not diminished at all since

1945; in fact, I believe they have increased. As many legionnaires,

most of whom are now in their sixties and early seventies, paraded

through the main street, there was much joy on people's faces — and

tears of joy as well as sadness, recognizing that freedom for the

people of the Netherlands and many other European countries had cost

the lives of many young Canadians.

conclusion, the

Premier asked me to convey to the House and to all British Columbians

his sincere appreciation to all of those who fought so hard for the

freedom of others. He also asked all members of this House to join him,

although he is absent from the House today, in remembering those who

gave so much of their lives — and, in many instances, their

lives — for the freedom of the people of the Netherlands and many

other European countries.

MR. ROSE :

I am proud to join the second member for Central Fraser Valley in the

tribute he's just expressed to those Canadians who, along with others,

served in the military forces between 1939 and 1945. They deserve our

respect and our gratitude for fighting for the kind of country and

democracy that we enjoy here in Canada, an ideal which other

countries — notably in the East bloc — haven't yet achieved.

We pay our respects to the courageous Canadians who served in Europe

and elsewhere in World War II and who came back; also, our thanks to

those who served but didn't.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr.

Speaker, visiting the precincts today is Gayle Farrell of the Multiple

Sclerosis Society of British Columbia. That is why you see a number of

red carnations today. It's in connection with their annual carnation

fund-raising effort. Will the House please make her welcome.

MR. PELTON : In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, we have three delightful

people visiting us from Sidney: Mr. Irv Lang, and Mr. Mike and Mrs. Judy Millard.

Will you please welcome them to the House.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, it's always nice to welcome a constituent and, in this

case, a neighbour of mine. In the gallery today visiting us is Chris

Devlin.

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today we have a number of grade 5, 6 and 7 students who are the winners

of a science fair competition from the interior of British Columbia.

They are accompanied by a number of parents and teachers, and some

representatives of Fletcher Challenge. Would the House please join me

in making them welcome.

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery this afternoon is a very good friend and confidant of mine,

Mr. Tony Cox, and I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. CHALMERS :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask all the members of the House to join me in

paying tribute to a young grade 12 student from Mount Boucherie high

school in Kelowna. She placed first in the persuasive speech category

week. The grade 12 student was third in debating, made the finals in

impromptu speaking and finished sixth overall among 42 debaters from

ten countries. I'd ask that all members join me in paying tribute to

Tracy Bethune.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Speaker, sitting in

the gallery and wearing her "Vote Yes for the Referendum" sweatshirt is

Alayne Keough from Point Grey, who is the west-side parent

representative to the Vancouver School Board and represents our

interests as parents at the school board.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION SUBSIDIES

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the

B.C. Buildings Corporation, the Minister of Government Management

Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran).

The auditor-general's report

exposes a $13 million subsidy to BCBC to cover the rental shortfall

from privatized highway operators, a cost that was hidden from the

account of the so-called privatization benefits.

Would the

minister not agree that in your government's haste to make

privatization look successful, you made a bad deal and then cooked the

books to cover up a $13 million subsidy to BCBC?

MR. SPEAKER :

The rules actually require that questions put to ministers need only be

answered for that period of time that a minister was responsible for a

particular area of responsibility. The minister

[ Page 9420 ]

may not wish to reply, because it's the Chair's information that this took place prior to this minister's appointment.

CUSTOMS PRECLEARANCE OF

ALASKAN CRUISE VISITORS

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism. U.S. Customs

has announced that it will no longer preclear American passengers

arriving in Vancouver on cruise ships from Alaska. This will cost our

tourism industry many millions of dollars in lost revenue, as arriving

passengers will have to now board buses and go directly to Vancouver

International Airport rather than spending dollars sightseeing and

shopping in the city of Vancouver and the surrounding area. I would

like to ask the minister if he can tell this House what action he is

U.S. Customs.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : It certainly is a

very important and tragic blow to tourism in the lower mainland. The

cost is going to be in the tens of millions of dollars for businesses

in Vancouver. I can assure the member that we have sent a very strong

letter to my federal counterpart, and I expect to see a response to

that soon. I can also assure the member that the tourism industry in

general in the lower mainland has sent similar protests to the federal

minister.

MRS. McCARTHY :

A supplementary. Would the Minister of Tourism assure this House that

if he does not hear back within a very short time — no longer than

seven days —

from the federal administration, he will be prepared to go to Ottawa to

fight on behalf of the tourism industry of this province?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I certainly do expect to hear back shortly. As I said earlier, it's a

very important issue. Failing a satisfactory response from the federal

government, I will certainly be prepared to go back and represent the

tourism industry by a trip to Ottawa.

PRIVATIZATION SUBSIDIES

MR. HARCOURT :

My question, then, is to the Minister of Finance, who was the Minister

of Finance through all these bookkeeping deals. He heard the first

question. On August 14, 1987, the Premier said about privatization:

"There won't be any specials; there won't be any giveaways." Can the

Finance minister tell us how he reconciles his $13 million subsidy with

the Premier's commitment in 1987?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

If the questioner wishes to get into that subject, I think he will find

a mixed bag of answers in the sense that there are a variety of

different situations around the province dealing with the privatization

of some of the highway yards, in particular, which I take it is what

the member is referring to.

[2:15]

If the member is referring to the situation in district No. 1, which I think

is southern Vancouver Island, he will find that the facilities requested by

the Ministry of Highways were, as events proved out, to be far overbuilt, overengineered

and overdesigned. We know that the local contractor took plans for a new garage

off the shelf and was astounded to see that by the standards then in place,

which were far in excess of national or normally required standards, he was

able to cut the cost of building that garage by 25 percent of the capital cost.

Clearly in the instance of that particular highway district, the evidence would

show that the private sector was able to do the job more cheaply and therefore

didn't need to have that outlay.

the other hand, I am aware that there are other districts in the

province where the private contractor, upon taking the highways

contract, was able to use his own yard and facilities and therefore did

not require use of the existing provincial yard. In that process, the

provincial yard or garage became redundant.

So there were a

variety of different circumstances, all of which can be explained. If

the hon. member has a genuine curiosity in this respect, I am confident

that we would be very pleased to provide him with all that detail. All

these valuations and adjustments were vetted by private sector

consultants to verify the sums and ensure that they were treated

impartially and without fear or favour, because the government was well

aware that cynics and critics might choose to zero in on some of these

contentious issues. So we're very comfortable that that documentation

is available upon request.

MR. CLARK : A

supplementary to the Minister of Finance. The minister has agreed that

there is a $13 million subsidy. That fact has been established, and he

has established it again in the House. Why have you hidden it from the

taxpayers by bookkeeping means? Will you now adjust the privatization

benefits fund accordingly to reduce it by $13 million as the

auditor-general suggests?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The

second question really points up the difficulty the members opposite

have when they come into the House with a prearranged sequence of

written questions. They frequently forget the fact that the answer to

the first question means that the second question is unnecessary.

But

in any event, let me just repeat what I said earlier. We have obtained

private estimates of valuations and proper amounts to be calculated in

this privatization issue. So there were outside advisers retained to

assist us with that question, and the explanations for the sum total

would vary depending on the district. But the cumulative effect of all

those valuations and assessments of fact were that they totalled a lump

sum.

The members opposite are incorrect when they

characterize that as a subsidy required. The fact is that, as we

suspected when we embarked on the

[ Page

9421 ]

privatization initiative, the private sector can do

exactly the same service — in many cases, a better service —

for far less money, and the facts support that.

MR. CLARK :

A supplementary to the minister of obfuscation. The minister has stated

in very convoluted language that he has tried to defend his position.

The books show that $13 million was transferred to BCBC to cover the

shortfalls as a result of privatization. Do you agree with the

auditor-general and the books, as you put them forward, that $13

million was transferred? Will you now reduce the privatization benefits

fund accordingly?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, I

don't quite know why the first answer didn't answer all three

questions. I suppose the members opposite have some problem filling the

time available.

In any event, the hon. member must be

careful not to confuse operating costs with capital costs. The hon.

member must recognize the fact that if a private operator does not

require the use of a government yard or garage because he has his own

yard or garage, then that competitor or bidder shouldn't be expected to

have to use the government garage. The government has in some instances

retained ownership of those idle facilities so that in the event that

the current contractor does not win the bid when those contracts are

let out for renewal, the government has a facility to ensure that the

valuable public service is able to be maintained because we will have

our own yard or garage in reserve. That situation prevails in some

highway districts — not all.

The

evidence quite

clearly shows that we have saved significant sums of money not only on

the capital side of the privatization — which, by the way, was not

recorded in the accounts but there are considerable savings on that

side of the ledger — but

our records also show that we saved $100 million by privatizing

highways, and independent outside assessment verifies that fact.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is having another bad week. He has

admitted that they have overdesigned and built facilities that were too

expensive, and they're now losing $13 million that was hidden in the

books.

I would now like to direct a question to the

Minister of Government Management Services, now that we've confirmed

that Socred politics is costing this province big bucks. I would like

to ask the minister responsible for BCBC if she has any assurance that

the Buildings Corporation will continue to receive the money necessary

to cover the built-in cash shortfall on highways privatization. Where

will the money come from?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to take the question on

notice.

PENSION POLICY AT

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Simon Fraser University is a

publicly funded institution, as everyone knows. As the minister

responsible for pension policy, has the minister advised Simon Fraser

University that a pension-contribution holiday, such as the ones the

administrator and support staff are being forced to accept, are

contrary to the long-term interests of the people working there and

contrary to the public policy of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. GRAN : I would be happy to take that question also on notice.

MR. ROSE :

I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the minister's policy that

pension funds in the public sector in British Columbia are the private

preserve of the employer? Or is it the policy of the government that

they are deferred compensation for employees?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, I would say that's part and parcel of the same question I

just answered. I would be happy to bring the answer to the House.

MR. ROSE :

Maybe the minister can answer this question. Is the minister aware that

British Columbia is the only province in Canada without a pension

benefits standards act to protect contributors?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

FEDERAL ABORTION BILL

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. This

week the House of Commons in Ottawa is going to be finalizing debate to

bring forward third reading of bill C-43, the abortion bill. Can the

minister tell the House anything about her recommendations or comments

to the federal Minister of Justice regarding this new abortion bill?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I have not been asked, nor have I offered.

MS. MARZARI :

Would the minister affirm to this House that abortion — and the

fact that abortion is soon to be criminalized in the Criminal Code of

Canada if third reading goes through — is a women's issue?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the opposition won't like my answer, but it's

the answer I've given throughout the province in the six months that

I've been minister. It is a federal issue, and it is a women's issue.

It's a human issue, and it's a women's issue; I acknowledge that. My

ministry can do absolutely nothing about abortion; it is a federal

matter. For me to get involved in the abortion issue would

[ Page 9422 ]

simply mean that I would never have time to do anything else. So I'm leaving it with the federal ministers to deal with.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

On vote 5: minister's office, $270,100.

MR. ROSE : I think on this beautiful spring day — the first day of estimates —

that I'd like to have clarified and confirmed that we won't be rigidly

clinging to a particular vote within a ministry, but that we will deal

with the minister's office in a very general way, and probably the

votes to follow would be approved automatically after we approve the

vote of the minister's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The answer is confirmed, hon. member.

MR. ROSE : I want to have that in writing and in the record forever.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It certainly is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that what the opposition

House Leader has advanced is acceptable to me in terms of my debates of

this portfolio and discussion about my estimates. That is, we will

really run through everything that the committee wishes to discuss.

Then when the committee feels it is time to conclude, we could satisfy

all the votes at one time. I think that is an acceptable arrangement

for the committee and especially for my purposes. I have no problem

with that. If that satisfies the opposition House Leader, with respect

to my position at least, I will carry on forever and ever.

the outset, I welcome all members to this committee. I'd like to

introduce Gary Mullins, who will be with me and who is Deputy Minister

of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Gary has been with the

ministry for about a year and a half now and has done a remarkable job

in putting together what he has characterized as a confederation of

orphans. Advanced Education, Training and Technology is a ministry that

is composed of the post-secondary institutions, the science and

technology work that had been done with another ministry and the

apprenticeship group and their issues. It was rolled into one in the

last little while and has done very well.

To begin with,

I'd like to ramble a bit about the college system, having spent some

time in it and having been both a sort of beginning student in the

early seventies in the college system and, latterly, an employee. I

will begin on a philosophical basis by pointing out what a good thing

it was for B.C. It's a very good, comprehensive community college

system. From what I've learned, it's one of the best in Canada and is

unique in its arrangement.

[2:30]

I can tell you, as someone who entered that system in 1971 as a mature student –– 30 years old —

it was probably the best thing that ever happened to me. If it weren't

for that type of community college system, I doubt if it would have

been at all possible for me to attend any post-secondary education

facility. As one of the consumers of the service, I feel very close to

it and can assure members that I and, I guess, hundreds of thousands of

other students who are now graduates of that system have benefited.

It's

a good system to put in place. It did satisfy a lot of the world needs

of my community of Prince George, and now it serves communities

throughout the province. There really isn't a community large or small

that doesn't have some access to post-secondary education, particularly

at the university transfer level.

I had the good fortune

yesterday, coincidentally, to be at Salmon Arm where I looked at the

new site for their branch of the Okanagan College. I looked at the old

buildings and learned that they had about 250 university transfer

students there. With the new facilities being planned and subsequently

completed, they could probably get that university transfer enrolment

up to about 500 students.

It's a very good system. As I

said earlier, It's a system that doesn't exist anywhere else in Canada.

It's comprehensive and it's throughout the province. Its most important

feature is the fact that it has transferability to our B.C.

universities and this, of course, has made it extremely attractive. So

a student in Prince George, Castlegar, Terrace or really anywhere can

take at least first-year and in many cases second-year university level

work before having to go to one of the larger cities for their 300- and

400-level courses. With the advent of the university college system at

Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo, those cities will have degree-completion

capabilities soon. That, of course, is another advantage to the system.

One

of the things that I was pleasantly surprised with when I accepted this

portfolio on November 1 of last year was the good relationship I found

between the community college principals and presidents, and the

community college system in general. I understand that in other

provinces there is at times animosity, but that certainly doesn't exist

in B.C. My predecessor, the member for Comox, the current Minister of

Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen), is to be credited

for a lot of the good feelings that he brought to the community college

system.

The presidents meet on a regular basis. The

presidents are very much authors of what they want to do. They're very

much the people who determine the direction of not only their

particular institutions but also the system in general — the community-college community. They do get along very well, and

[ Page 9423 ]

that says a lot for those chief executive officers of those various community colleges throughout the province.

The

same thing I also found in the university system. When I heard that I

was going to be appointed to this ministry, I made arrangements to meet

Dr. David Strangway, Dr. Bill Saywell and Dr. Howard Petch in

Vancouver. They didn't know why they were meeting with me, because they

hadn't heard of the portfolio change. But they did know that someone

wanted to see them in Vancouver. That was a couple of days after the

cabinet shuffle.

It was a very pleasant meeting, and I was

delighted to learn.... When I asked them about how they got along

together, they said very well. Howard Petch, I think, was the most

constructive. Of course, he is our current "dean" of university

presidents, but he's soon to retire — regrettably. He'll be leaving UVic in June.

Howard

Petch put it to me this way. He said: "When I first came to British

Columbia, things were not that way. It was a cold war, actually a

heated war, out there. University presidents did not speak to each

other. There was no such thing as good communication between the

universities, no such productive features as inter-library loans or any

sort of arrangements we could make to help each other out and therefore

help our students. It was a very, very bitter and divided scene in

British Columbia."

He said that fortunately has changed.

It's changed considerably. I guess the fact that the three presidents

were all in the same room was indication of that. I found that a very,

very positive feeling — the fact that they did work together and

discussed their respective budgets together. They discussed how they

were going to approach the ministry together, and they talked of many

features that they share — library resource sharing and many other issues. I found that to be very positive.

They

also told me that the good feelings that had just come to exist here in

British Columbia didn't generally exist in other provinces So to see

that type of cooperation was indeed gratifying. To hear those

presidents speak so well of each other and of their community was

gratifying as well. That's good to hear.

The

other good thing I wanted to say about the universities — and we

might get into this more in the debate —

is the centre-of-excellence awards that have been granted to our

British Columbia universities. It was a peer review, essentially, of

various faculties and departments, and of work that's being done

throughout Canada. When all the evaluation was done— we learned of this

in late October — it showed us that British Columbia universities

placed well on top.

you look at a review, particularly in the field of sciences, of the

universities in Canada, all three British Columbia universities rank

right at the top. UBC clearly leads Canadian universities in scientific

endeavour, and in getting first-class marks when any type of peer

review is done. That's been encouraging to know.

It's

always nice to come into a ministry and have a certain constituency

that is regarded as the best in Canada. I can't take any credit for

that, but I certainly do want it acknowledged that we do have a

remarkable university system network in British Columbia and that any

peer review supports that in the strongest terms.

One of

the things I think we're probably going to get to soon in the debate is

student financial assistance, and I did want to make a few remarks

about that. Prior to 1987 and prior to my predecessor taking over this

portfolio, British Columbia ranked tenth in its support of student

assistance in relationship to other provinces.

In November

of 1986 when my predecessor was appointed to cabinet, he appointed at

the same time an advisory committee to review all aspects of financial

assistance available to British Columbia students and to make

recommendations for improvements. An advisory committee was appointed.

It was comprised of representatives of the public, students in

university, college student services personnel and ministry officials,

and it presented its first report in March of 1987. A new, improved

program resulted, and the first year of a three-year phase-in occurred

in the '87-88 academic year.

The result is this: overall,

British Columbia has today reached a mid-point in comparison with

assistance programs in other provinces. Specifically we have moved to

fourth place in maximum annual assistance to single parents and to

single independent students, and to third place for married students

with dependents.

I think that's an important priority. I

think married students with dependents, having been one myself when I

went to school, certainly should have priority, and it's nice to know

that we are ranked in third place for those people.

The

Standing Committee on Student Financial Assistance is, by its very

name, a standing committee. It is charged with reviewing all aspects of

student financial assistance and is the appropriate body to consider

those concerns. As a matter of interest to the committee, Pamela Frache

of the Canadian Federation of Students is a member of this committee,

and they have done very good work. I just wanted to get that on the

record right at the beginning because it is an important point. I know

that my critic — and I'm sure other interested members of this

committee — will be discussing student financial aid. It's a

pretty critical item to our constituents throughout the province.

The

other aspect of the ministry that's taking me a bit more time to learn

about and to understand the vocabulary and the alphabet soup that goes

with it is the science and technology side. That's a very exciting

aspect of this ministry. It involves some very good relationships with

some very good committees. It involves understanding a very

sophisticated — and I would say leading — group in British

Columbia. We can't take a back seat to any province in Canada, in terms

of what we've done on a per capita basis in research and in leading

science. We have some remarkable contributors: John MacDonald, Vern

Dett-

[ Page 9424 ]

wiler, the Eppich Brothers and others, who have really led and are internationally known for their research development and scientific advancements.

know I can't discuss legislation, so I won't, Mr. Chairman. But I'll

look forward to a certain bill that has arisen out of the budget when

it is debated; it deals with the science and technology funding. I will

discuss more about science and technology at that point. I think that's

a good initiative, and it does point out that this province is clearly

interested — in a large way — in bettering the science and technology

development in our province.

There's no question that we

have to do more. I know my critics and others are going to point this

out. But in terms of research and development, scientific advancement

and an attitude, Canada really doesn't fare well in the world. Recently

at a major conference, John MacDonald said that too many Canadians

still feel that they are simply hewers of wood and drawers of water and

can't accept in their minds that Canada can in any way lead in

high-tech advances and research. That is regrettable.

For

example, when we look at MacDonald Dettwiler, the Canadarm and some of

the major scientific advances that have taken place in Canada by

Canadians, we really have nothing to be ashamed of. As a matter of

fact, we should be quite proud of what we have done as a country.

Regrettably, we are not. Many of us still don't feel that because you're

Canadian, you can be the best in the world. That's an attitude we have

to change.

Clearly we do not have enough students going

into the sciences; we're working on that. But there's a lot more work

to be done. We do not have enough women going into the sciences. I

don't think anyone in this committee is going to deny that we need far

more women doing nontraditional work, or what have been considered

nontraditional studies: engineering, the hard sciences and mathematics.

There just isn't enough at this point. I think that in engineering

schools, about 11 percent of their students are female. That should be

increased considerably, because we do need more people with scientific

training. If more young ladies in elementary and junior or senior

secondary schools would consider the sciences as a legitimate

profession and a legitimate enterprise, our country would be far better

served.

It's interesting that where you have an engineering

school with a higher profile, you'll have a greater percentage of

females participating. One such an example, which I found out about in

January when I visited the Technical University of Nova Scotia.... This

is a school in Halifax that graduates all the engineers for the

province of Nova Scotia; it has an excellent reputation and is well

known in the Halifax community. It has a higher participation rate of

females than the Canadian average.

When I asked the student

president — who by the way is a woman — her reply to me was: "It's

because this university itself has a very high profile in Halifax, and

students, like myself, take an interest in engineering when we're in

elementary school. We just consider it a natural thing to do. We don't

consider it to be unladylike. We don't consider it to be a totally male

domain. We know that it's a good school. We know that other girls go

there and that it's something we should legitimately consider and

study for when we are in high school." The result has been that the

Technical University of Nova Scotia does have a higher participation

rate of women in their engineering faculty. That is good to hear.

[2:45]

I'm

going to close shortly. I would just like to end with a couple of

things. The budget, as you know, was pretty cheery in terms of what we

wanted to do: going from $963 million to $1.1 billion and showing a 13

percent increase. It's clear that our cabinet and our Treasury Board do

see advanced education as a real priority for this government. Since

this administration formed government in 1986, it has seen some

remarkable increases in our capital financing. It has increased sixfold

since 1986. We've seen some remarkable increases in the funding of

contributions to the universities and to the colleges.

Also,

the matching program that was introduced by my predecessor has met with

remarkable success. The Access for All initiative — again a remarkable

success. Many other initiatives.... The native studies — a report that

was recently filed with me — is a very good initiative. The literacy

program, a report chaired by Dr. Paul Gallagher of VCC, was first-class

work and really leads Advanced Education into some very exciting times

and initiatives. I will be delighted to speak to more about those later.

With

that said, I will take my place. I am sure my critic has many

constructive thoughts to offer, and I am sure other members of the

committee have too.

MR. JONES : I would like, on

behalf of this side of the House, to welcome the deputy minister. I

appreciate his contribution to this debate. I am sure that it will be

significant. I would like to thank the minister and to repeat what I

wrote to him when he assumed this portfolio; that is, I wish him very

well in his responsibility. I am sure he is enjoying working in

Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and knows that it is a

critically important area to British Columbia and that it is staffed

with thousands of very dedicated, talented individuals.

is very clearly one of the areas of provincial responsibility that have

a major contribution to make in assisting and creating the future

prosperity of British Columbia. We in this province have a long history

of wealth based on resource industries. As the minister indicated in

his remarks, we have been known to be hewers of wood and drawers of

water. However, I think the future of British Columbia will be

sustained if we do more than that, because of the question of

sustainability and renewability; and there is no question about our

vulnerability to world market fluctuations of those resource

industries. So we must do more.

That's nothing new. British

Columbians have known that; British Columbians have said that;

governments have promised that decade after decade.

[ Page 9425 ]

But

it's more important than ever that we rise to that challenge to produce

a more stable, more productive, more self-reliant and more diversified

economy for this province.

The post-secondary education

area of provincial responsibility has a major role to play in advancing

our economy. In addition to the traditional role of conserving and

advancing knowledge that our post-secondary sector traditionally fills,

we have the opportunity and the challenge to produce graduates whose

skills and values can make British Columbia a more attractive place,

both socially and culturally. It can at the same time create the

economic opportunity that will create wealth and produce prosperity, so

that we don't have to depend upon resource industries and be victims of

fluctuating world markets.

In the future we are going to

need the knowledge, skills and abilities of the graduates of our

post-secondary sector. We are going to need those skills to help save

our environment. The current minister was formerly the Minister of

Environment, and I am sure he understands that.

Those

graduates are going to help develop the non-polluting knowledge

industries that are going to help add depth to our economy. Those same

graduates will find ways of adding value to our natural resources so we

can take our place as world economic leaders, as we should. And those

graduates are going to improve the efficiency and productivity of both

our public and private sectors so that we can enjoy the prosperity of

our natural and human resources, leading more fulfilled lives as

British Columbians, with greater opportunity for all.

The

minister has indicated some of the good people in post-secondary

education he is working with. I have found the same thing myself. I

speak very highly of the officials in the ministry and in the

administration of our institutions, and of the faculty, the students,

of course, and the support staff.

I would just like to

mention the support staff. It's interesting that there was a question

in question period today relative to support staff. It's often the

support staff — and I think we appreciate this, working with our

support staff in the Legislature — who go that extra mile, who take on

extra responsibilities in the post-secondary sector. When enrolment

increases, there are adjustments made in a variety of areas, and often

the support staff are left out. They are a very talented and capable

group of individuals, and we should never forget the important

contribution that they make. I am hopeful that the pension situation at

Simon Fraser, where it appears that they have been misled concerning

their pension contributions, will be quickly resolved to the

satisfaction of that support staff.

We have all those

talented people and a post-secondary system that we can be proud of,

despite succession of Social Credit governments. If there's one lesson

we can learn from our experience in the eighties, it would be that we

cannot treat our education system as shabbily as we did in that decade.

Californians

learned that a decade earlier, when they brought in Proposition 13, and

they are working very hard to overcome the deficiencies created by that

black period in their education history. We are doing the same to some

degree, as a result of the cutbacks, squeezes and confrontations that

took place during the eighties. The lesson is that unless we are

willing to sacrifice a generation of young people and risk the

long-term prosperity of British Columbia, and unless we want to remain

in the backwater, the cellar of education, then we should never again

treat our education system as we did during the so-called restraint

period.

In the past I have been rather lavish, for an

opposition member, in my praise of the previous minister, and I did so

in reflecting the views of the educational community that he served.

Clearly, following Dr. McGeer and the current Solicitor-General (Hon.

Mr. Fraser), it was not a hard act to follow. The previous Minister of

Advanced Education was recognized as an advocate for post-secondary

education, and that was greatly appreciated by the educational

community.

As the current minister indicated when he was

appointed, he took on the two major challenges of improving access and

improving the student financial aid program, and I think he has made a

good start on addressing those very serious concerns. But I did

criticize that minister for not having the vision, nor providing the

overall leadership that would do the necessary planning work and

provide the necessary vision to take post-secondary education into the

next decade and the next century. There was no overall vision nor

leadership in terms of a comprehensive review of post-secondary

education in this province. There was no comprehensive approach to how

to seriously address the issue of quality at the same time as expanding

the system to accommodate for the past shortcomings in access and

participation, or to how we accomplish the absolutely essential

quantitative growth.

The minister mentioned the cooperation

between university presidents, which is a welcome and new aspect to

post-secondary education in this province, but at the same time there

is no ongoing forum for debate on post-secondary issues. There is no

broadbased group that sits, studies and reviews the post-secondary

issues of the day and plans for the post-secondary education that

students will get in the future.

To leave it up to those

chief executive officers, as implied in the minister's remarks, is not

good enough. As valued as those chief executive officers are, they

represent only one perspective of the many that need to be brought to

bear through ongoing debate on post-secondary education.

The

minister mentioned awards for centres of excellence. It's an important

question that needs to be answered. What specific centres of excellence

are going to be developed in this province, and where are they going to

be developed? We are proud of the accomplishments of the University of

British Columbia, but there needs to be an overall rationalization and

review of our system. We need to focus on those areas where we shine,

where we can do best, and to

[ Page 9426 ]

establish

centres of excellence in those areas. Or should we focus on one main

centre at the University of British Columbia, as the president of that

institution has suggested?

How are we going to address the

serious question of an aging faculty? I don't know if the minister has

had an opportunity to review the demographics of the faculty in our

universities and colleges, but very clearly, in a few years a major

number of faculty members are going to retire. They are not being

replaced by the young and energetic, those younger faculty members who

bring fresh knowledge, ideas and experience to bear on the faculties in

this province.

I was very pleased that the minister

mentioned the role of women in post-secondary education, but when he

was making his remarks I couldn't help being struck by the fact that he

sounded like the opposition. He was lamenting the shortcomings of our

post-secondary education system in not providing the kinds of

opportunities for young women in this province that they so richly

deserve.

That minister and that government have the levers

of power, and they're not using them in terms of increasing the

opportunities for young women in British Columbia. Lamenting year after

year about those shortcomings doesn't get us anywhere. There has been

very little progress in terms of women participating to a larger degree

in faculties; something like 80 percent of university faculties are men.

has done nothing as a government to ensure that the graduate schools

have a proportionate number of women students represented as compared

to the population. A very small number of students in graduate schools

in this province are women. They're not in the faculties and graduate

schools, and they're certainly not in administration. A very small

percentage of those in leadership positions in the post-secondary

education system are women. Of the top 200 salary-earners at Simon

Fraser something like 13 are women and, by and large, they're at the

bottom of that 200.

[3:00]

There has also been lack of leadership in terms of determining the

role of the private sector in research in this province. That's a

contentious issue on this side of the House, and it's a concern that we

have. It's an area that needs to be addressed and discussed, and is one

of the topics on the agenda for the forum that needs to be established

to debate the issue of post-secondary education into the next decade

and beyond.

We need to get a clearer picture of the

mandate for our universities and colleges. The minister mentioned in

glowing terms the role of colleges in terms of university transfer. Are

we satisfied with the numbers of students going from our colleges to

the universities in this province? Can the colleges play a larger role?

Could there be more first- and second-year students going on to

university, having taken university transfer programs in the colleges?

Or is that not the way we want to pursue it in this province?

What is the role of the private sector in terms of assuming some of the

roles and responsibilities of public institutions? We are the home to

over a third of all the private training institutions in Canada. I have

raised year after year, with previous Ministers of Advanced Education,

my concern that there is not adequate supervision or monitoring, nor

any assurance of quality. I know the minister is planning to bring in

legislation which I will debate vigorously in this House when the

opportunity arises, because he's going about it in a wrong-headed

manner.

Lastly, the other area of major concern in British

Columbia — and it's not a concern of this government — is that we need

to have a look at the governance structure of our universities and

colleges. The public is not dissatisfied with the individuals that sit,

for example, on our college boards — which should reflect the needs of

the community, not just the chief executive officers as the minister

indicated — but they, the students and the faculties are unhappy with

the method of their appointment.

The public is not

satisfied with order-in-council appointments and the fact that we have

college boards, for example, who represent not the province, their

communities or post-secondary education, but a particular political

philosophy that's certainly not held by the majority of British

Columbians, according to popular opinion polls at this time. So there's

an issue that needs to be put onto the table and debated openly and

publicly, but I don't believe this government wants that kind of open

debate.

Let me take my seat now, just in case there's.... I

noted the minister making notes, and I'd like to give him an

opportunity to respond to some of those remarks.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It was a rambling but pleasant discourse from the member opposite.

The

first note I have is more perspectives, more advice, more direction,

more vision for post-secondary education. I would argue — and I think if

you look at my opening remarks, it's clear to see — that the work of

this ministry since 1986 has been visionary, far more so than it had

been as a ministry for the 75 years we'd had universities in British

Columbia, and probably far more so than the Social Credit

administration at the beginning of 1975, or including your

administration of '72-75.

In terms of Access for All, the

native advisory issue, the literacy issue, the Youth Advisory Council,

the student financial aid standing committee, the centres of

excellence.... That's the next comment I want to make. In terms of

seeking vision and in terms of seeking direction for vision, clearly

the changes and the work that has been done in the last three years

have been quite remarkable and very productive. That's one thing I have

to underscore: it's been most productive. As you know, as an MLA I'm

one of the substantial beneficiaries of that productivity.

would have to discount that we have not been visionary. I would accept

the criticism that we must be more visionary. I would accept that we

can't rest on our laurels and look at the work that we have

[ Page 9427 ]

done

in the last three and a half years and say: "This is fine. We need to

do no more." There's no question, we're always going to be exploring

for better ways of providing the service this minister provides to the

public, and we're going to be continually looking for more ways to

provide that input.

In terms of centres of excellence, I

don't have the list with me, but it is publicly available. I'm sure the

member saw it. I think UBC led in four and participated in 14 areas.

UVic was next, and SFU was last. What's going to happen is.... The

announcement was made on October 26, 1989, when the feds announced the

election of the 14 networks of centres of excellence. British Columbia

universities are partners in 13 of the 14 approved, equalled only by

Ontario. We lead on four: three at UBC and one at UVic.

British

Columbia universities will receive $43.6 million in federal funding

over four years, and the government of British Columbia has been

requested by the three universities to provide $20 million over four

years to support indirect costs associated with the research to be

conducted by these centres. Approximately $1 million of provincial

support is requested for each $2 million of federal funding. We will be

making responses to that later as our budget unfolds, as it will.

want to point out that the member questioned whether or not UBC would

become the centre of excellence. The answer is an unqualified no. There

are going to be centres of excellence wherever they occur. I think one

of the most dangerous things a politician or a minister could do would

be to designate one school where everything is going to happen. Things

just don't happen that way. There's a dynamic that develops within,

which encourages a faculty or a department or a university to become a

centre of excellence in one area or another. To have something

predetermined by a politician is dangerous and not very democratic. I

know the member wasn't suggesting that; he was simply asking the

question. I don't want to say that I'm opposed to what he wants to

know, because he's seeking information, not telling me his opinion on

something. But let me share my opinion with the committee, Mr.

Chairman, that to have a government decide on where a centre of

excellence is going to be and what a centre of excellence will do is

undemocratic and certainly doesn't fit with what normally happens in

education in the free world.

A fast remark about women in

education, both in classrooms and in administrative positions. I'll

point out one thing to the member: in terms of undergraduate enrolment,

females outnumber males. It's not the case, as we both know, in

graduate schools, but there are more women enrolled in undergraduate

programs than men. That doesn't follow through, regrettably, into

graduate programs, but I'm certain the trend is increasing.

Also,

senior administrative positions in universities and colleges are,

regrettably, still a male field. However, there have been some notable

changes made lately. The dean of arts at UBC — I forget the lady's

name...

MR. JONES : Pat Marchak.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Thank you.

...was recently appointed, and I'm sure we'll see more and more appointments like that.

the private institutes, Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you — and the member

knows — that there is a bill coming, so there's not much more I can say

at this point on that, because Committee of Supply does not allow the

discussion of coming legislation or the necessity for legislation. We

will be discussing that when the bill comes forward. If the member has

a contrary opinion to what the bill proposes, I will be more than happy

to hear it when we get into debate.

Coming back to the

member's opening comments about this being a resource province, the

member is absolutely right. We both know that. I don't think that's

necessarily bad, and of course we have to look at it from the point of

view that it's been very good for the science industry to be working so

closely with a province so aligned with resources. That doesn't mean we

have to put all our eggs into that resource bucket, but nevertheless it

has spawned some very interesting developments.

For

example, one of the industrial leaders in R and D in Canada is

MacMillan Bloedel. They have a superb facility. I think it's in your

riding, isn't it? I guess not; I guess it's in my colleague's riding.

Nevertheless, it's in Burnaby, in your community. They are a Canadian

leader. There's a resource company that some people hold a different

opinion of and which sometimes isn't too cheerily regarded by some

members of our British Columbia community; nevertheless Mac-Blo does

remarkable research. They have taken the position that they are going

to spend serious money on research and development, and they do. One of

the better-known results of their endeavours has been the development

of Parallam, a wood-based material that is extruded or pressed and can

make a very strong beam of some length. It was first introduced in

building components at Expo 86 and is coming on the market now — a good

example of how a resource-based company can apply pure research to sort

out a delicate problem, which not only adds tremendous value to the

wood itself but also is quite remarkable in terms of the research it

has done.

MacDonald Dettwiler, of course, which we all hold

out as one of British Columbia's leading companies, in terms of its

research and scientific capacity, is developing as an international

leader in the area of space remote sensing. Again, it is a technique

put in place to enable the resource industry to develop better.

it's from that resource industry that we have seen some significant

scientific advances made in Canada and in British Columbia, ones that

really are international leaders. Post-secondary education has very

much a major role in shaping the way our province is developing, and I

see it doing that ever more.

I want to speak briefly on the restraint period of the 1980s. I was part of it; I was with Bill Bennett

[ Page 9428 ]

during

those years; so I know what it was like. I hope we never have to see

that type of recession again, although with the increasing interest

rates and with some downturns in our economy we are, as we said earlier

in our budget comments, enjoying a very fragile prosperity and one that

we have to watch very carefully. But let's look at restraint and what

we did this way.

First of all, I can't accept that it

sacrificed young people. Students continued to go to school during

those years, in both the public school system and the post-secondary

system, and did well.

Then there's the larger philosophical

debate that the member and I and his party would always have: do you

continue to spend and build up a massive debt during those times of

economic downturn and decreased revenue to the Crown, or do you

restrain yourself so when economic times and your tax base increases,

you don't have a massive debt load to manage, such as the federal

government has, and you can in fact put all your resources into doing

things? I guess that's a philosophical debate that we'll always have.

But I can't characterize the restraint period as being all that

harmful; as a matter of fact, in some cases it probably served us well

in the sense that it gave us a good base to deal with now. It certainly

showed that we were fiscally responsible, and it has allowed us to

carry on in years of prosperity without having a major debt load such

as other governments have.

[3:15]

Just

to give you an example, if you look at budgets this year, you'll see

that those provinces which didn't manage their resources and their

budgets well are having to entertain cutbacks now. For example, I'll

tell you, Mr. Member, that my colleague in Ontario is going to get

about a 2 percent lift this year, and I will get a 13 percent lift.

That's because we were fiscal conservatives in the mid-eighties. There

may have been some pain, but from that short-term pain we now have

long-term gain. That's a good result and one that I would agree with.

Even George Pedersen, on his last visit to British Columbia — you may

recall, Mr. Member, that he was dissatisfied, to say the least, at the

time he left our province — said that we are doing very well and no

doubt leading Canada. I know we're leading Canada in terms of spending

and spending increases. Any Ontario president will tell you that they'd

just love to be in British Columbia, where they're part of a system

that is well financed, well governed and managing itself well.

One

more concern I did want to answer is the question: do just the CEOs get

together, and how is their input to the system...? As I said, I think

there's very good input to the system. There's the British Columbia

Association of Colleges; the Council of Principals; the University

Presidents' Council; JPAC, an association of senior executives; the

Standing Committee on Student Financial Assistance; and the B.C. Youth

Advisory Council, which is another advisory committee to this ministry.

I think there are all sorts of ways that we are responsive to the

general post-secondary institution community in the way that we handle

their concerns and in the way that we as a government and as a ministry

listen to them.

I have met on any occasion with anybody who

wanted to meet with me, even with some students during some very

difficult times of a labour dispute. I have no problem with that, and I

think my predecessor was of the same opinion and had the same feeling.

He would meet at any time with anybody who wanted to meet with him.

One

of the fortunate things I was able to do upon being appointed to this

ministry was to get out and travel. I visited all of the community

colleges and all of the universities just as quickly as I could. I

missed Douglas, because there was a certain labour dispute at the time.

I have to get to Douglas, but it wouldn't have been appropriate for me

to have gone there during November and December. Regrettably, I missed

East Kootenay, and I feel badly about that. But I'll endeavour to do

that — and also Capilano. For whatever reason, I missed Capilano

College.

I have spent a lot of time at the rest of the

colleges and institutes, and I found it most productive. I found it

edifying, to say the least, because there's a far better system out

there than I think a lot of British Columbians realize. Maybe if

there's one thing the institutes can be criticized for, it is that

they're really not blowing their own horn as loudly as they could,

because there are some remarkable stories out there.

I see

that my green light is on, and I am sure that the member wants to rise

and continue the debate and his comments. With that said, I'll take my

place.

MR. JONES : I suppose I started it, but I think there is nothing more boring and futile than rehashing old political battles.

Let

me respond to the minister on the so-called restraint period of the

mid-eighties in the province. We had an election in 1983....

HON. MR. SMITH : Who won?

MR. JONES :

Perhaps the Attorney-General remembers that election. The strategy of

the government at that time was to take the Premier, who was not doing

too well publicly, and create a new image for him — a tough-guy image.

That tough-guy image followed the election in 1983 — to the detriment

of this province, I suggest, in a very serious way that will take

decades to recover from.

Let's make it clear. The minister

suggested that we had to bite the bullet and restrain certain spending

during that period. Education and post-secondary education were just

one of the many areas that had to be cut. We didn't hesitate to spend

millions of dollars in that period, pouring money into wrong holes in

northeast coal and Tumbler Ridge. We didn't hesitate to spend hundreds

of millions of dollars.... In fact, I think the net cost for Expo 86

was $300 million. That would work out to, let's say, $300 for every

family in British Columbia, on top of the money they already spent in

attending the fair. We didn't hesitate to fast-track the Coquihalla

Highway — I am sure the

[ Page 9429 ]

Attorney-General remembers that as well — and we know the half-billion-dollar bill for that.

think the position of the government was epitomized by the statement of

a previous Minister of Advanced Education who is now the

Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), in his famous Marie Antoinette

statement of the day, which basically said: "Well, if students can't

afford to take out a loan for their post-secondary education, then they

should think about postponing it." That was not a period of encouraging

young people to develop their skills and talents so that they could

make a greater contribution to the prosperity of this province and to

their own personal prosperity. It was a period when students were

basically told: "We can't afford you."

this province we

have a very highly trained and highly educated population. But we have

probably imported the vast majority of those people. Annually we are

short something like 3,300 bachelors' degrees, compared to the

national average. In a ten-year period, we imported something like

20,000 university graduates. That's why we have the highly educated

population that we have.

Successive Social Credit

administrations have not made a priority of education or post-secondary

education. We have had to attract those people by importing them,

rather than by taking our own young people, whom we know have the

skills and the talent.... Probably more than any other place in Canada

we have a highly educated and talented population, and they are

producing highly educated and highly talented young people. We know the

results of math and science competitions among 13-year-olds around the

world. British Columbia young people do better than those from other

countries in the world and better than those from many of the

motivated and highly talented pool of young people.

So we

have young people who, at 13 years of age, are skilled in math and

science, and so many of them, when they have an opportunity to

participate in post-secondary education, are turned away. That is our

legacy; that is the legacy of the eighties. There is not the political

will on the part of this government; there is not the institutional

capacity. That is partly because of the so-called restraint period of

the mideighties. Despite the best efforts of this government, it will

take years and years for us to get anywhere near the national average

of participation rates and degree-completion rates.

The

minister did not accept my criticism of the required vision for

planning for the future of post-secondary education in the province. I

listed ten areas where important questions need to be answered and

important planning needs to take place.

The minister quite

rightly said: "It's not for the minister to designate centres of

excellence or make these kinds of decisions from the top down." But I

suggest to the minister that it's not up to a particular faculty

either, or a particular university, or a particular college to provide

the leadership. It is up to the government to provide the leadership,

to set up the processes.

I was suggesting earlier to the

minister that we need a forum, not just an advisory committee on native

Indian education, or on literacy, or on where to develop in the Fraser

Valley. We need a forum with representatives from all the broad-based

interest groups to discuss post-secondary education, to help the

government, to help the minister establish the vision and establish the

plan so that we're not just, as the minister said, "listening."

That

leadership, in conjunction with the broad-interest groups, should be

happening on an ongoing basis. Consensus should be achieved at that

discussion, and the minister would then be free to provide the kind of

leadership that is necessary.

But those ten questions that

I listed aren't being addressed, aren't being discussed. There's no

open debate on those things. There's no forum for debate other than

this Legislature. As the minister is aware, this is not the best forum

to establish resolution of serious issues affecting the province of

British Columbia.

There was some vision, some response. Let

me correct that. There was some response, very clearly, to student

financial aid, and to the question of access. For many, many years,

going back to when I was in university, there was a call for improved

access from the regions of this province. The Macdonald report of 1962

is an example. When the previous minister was appointed, he did address

the question of student financial aid, participation and access. There

has been modest improvement in those areas.

Let's have a

look at the situation as far as student financial aid goes. The

minister mentioned that we went from tenth.... The reason we were tenth

was because of the Social Credit government of the day in the early

eighties — the only province in Canada to respond to the economic

downturn of the time by viciously attacking students through

eliminating student financial aid programs. That's why we were tenth.

But

we have a new administration and they did begin, after serious

criticisms from the opposition, from students and from the public, to

address that very serious situation. The minister said: "We went from

tenth in '87-88 to the point now where we are at fourth place in one of

our maximums and third place in another one of our maximums."

This

is where we're really at: in the first year of the program we moved

from tenth place to eighth place; in the second year of the program we

moved from eighth place to sixth place. In terms of dollars per

full-time-equivalent student — and the figures I have only go up to

'88-89 — my guess is that we are still in sixth. That's an improvement

and I grant the government that.

[3:30]

However, that $673 per full-time-equivalent student still pales in

comparison to the national average. It's slightly more than half of the

national average in terms of financial support for students — $357

below the national average. It's $1,753 below the amount

[ Page 9430 ]

given

to a full-time-equivalent student in the province of Saskatchewan. It's

$1,130 less per full-time-equivalent student per year than is given in

the province of Quebec. It's still $961 less than the amount given to

support a full-time-equivalent student in the province of Alberta.

we're slightly more than half of the national average, and we're not

even half of Alberta. We're about half of what Quebec gives to its

students, and we're a little more than a third of what Saskatchewan

supports their students with in terms of student financial aid.

It's

a good beginning. It's a good start. The direction is right, but I

would suggest that we still have a long way to go even to get to the

national average of financial support per full-time-equivalent student.

I would like to talk more about that later, and I'm sure the minister

will as well. It's an important program, and we've got a long way to go.

addition to financial aid for students, the other question was access.

As I mentioned, it was a long, overdue desire of British Columbians to

have their children educated and able to get a degree in their area, in

Prince George, in Kamloops, in Kelowna, in Nanaimo, to train there and

to hopefully stay there. It must be tragic for parents to have to send

their children far away from home for training, and that will still be

the case in the majority of towns in British Columbia.

have a number of other centres we didn't have before. The previous

minister set up the access committee, and we have those places as a

result of the work of the minister and the work of that committee. I

commend the government for those centres that have been established. At

the same time, as we have increased regional access, the picture in

terms of access for the young people in this province is basically the

same as it was in 1986. Every fall some 30,000 highly qualified,

highly talented, highly capable young people are accepted to the

post-secondary institutions of this province. Another 10,000 students

are turned away. I suspect the minister will want to debate that

figure, and I would be happy to do that.

We waste a

tremendous amount of potential for those young people and for this

province by their not having access. There is no greater misnomer of a

program than the government program Access for All. Even in terms of

the highly qualified — those who expect to get in — we are turning down

one for every three accepted. That's not good enough. We don't need to

waste the talent and the skill that those young people can develop and

bring to the prosperity of this province.

The lucky ones

get in, but even they suffer because of the tremendous overcrowding and

the lack of resources in those institutions. I don't have any figures,

but my guess is that a very high percentage of those young people that

get in don't get the program that they want.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'm sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired.

MR. ROSE :

I don't know whether my hon. colleague was asking me to get up so I

could be an intervening speaking or if he wanted me to say something.

If he could nod one way or the other, it would be very helpful, because

I'm very anxious to hear him continue, because it's fascinating,

exciting and everything. I wish he would. I invite him to continue, and

I'll act only as the intervening speaker, which is perhaps my correct

role in this situation.

MR. JONES : I see that the minister wanted to respond, so I'll just wind up what I was saying here.

was saying that turning away students in tremendous numbers hurts our

young people and hurts the province. I'm saying that those that get

accepted are still hurt in the sense that they end up taking courses

they do not desire. They are not able to get so many of the courses

they would like to take. That's a tremendous waste as well. It's a

waste of their time if they end up taking a Japanese course and they

don't want a Japanese course. If they want a chemistry course and they

have to take a Japanese course, that wastes the time of the instructor,

it wastes their time and it wastes a tremendous amount of institutional

resources.

When I was at university, I don't ever recall

people not getting a course that they wanted. You just signed up, and

you got the courses. It was not all that difficult in those halcyon

days — many years ago — to have the young people that went to university

and college accepted for the particular program they wanted and able to

get those courses.

AN HON. MEMBER : What year was that?

MR. JONES : Probably before you were born, me lad.

That

is a waste, and is the product, I think, of those black days. We have

not built the institutional capacity for those young people to get

those opportunities for space, faculties and resources to accommodate

those young people who want to add to their lives and contribute to

this province. It is a tremendous shortcoming, and given the best will

in the world, it will take many years to address. I'll leave it there

and let the minister respond.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'll respond sort of in the order that the critic presented his last debate.

Back

to the restraint issue — and I'll just be brief. It was mentioned that

in 1982 the issue was restraint. The issue was a seriously declining

economy, and we went to the polls with that as an issue. There was no

question about that. The NDP had one position, we had another and the

people returned us with 38 seats out of a total of 55 in the old House — a remarkable increase over the 31 we'd had in the election of 1979.

Had the election been held ten days later, I think we probably would

have increased by another ten seats over that 38 — well, five.

Interjection.

[ Page 9431 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

That's right. You see, the leader of the day — Dave Barrett — said, "I

am not in favour of restraint, " and that changed things. It totally

changed the attitude.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : He said it in Nelson — yes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That's what the electorate thought, in any event. We were returned in a very healthy fashion.

want to briefly deal with your criticism about some of the economic

development.... You're not going to win any seats or votes for yourself

in Tumbler Ridge or Prince George by saying you're opposed to that.

Probably one of the best benefactors of Tumbler Ridge has been Prince

George, because of the railroad employment. There are 200 more railroad

employees in Prince George because of northeast coal — steady jobs year

in, year out; employees sending their children to school, paying

taxes....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : We'll talk about the Kootenays on another issue. What I'm....

MR. JONES : That's old history.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Yes, I know it is history. What I'm telling you is that the economic

development that has taken place has been balanced and has had to be

done. Also, I can't accept that Expo was not successful — 32 million

visitors, thousands of jobs for students and schoolteachers. I met a

lot of schoolteachers working at Expo as guides, hostesses and that

type of thing.

Let's get back to what you do with

restraint. I'm going to leave this as well because I'm getting a little

bored with it myself, and we should get on to things that are more

current.

Sure, restraint was tough but, as I said, the

short-term pain has resulted in long-term gain. What would you rather

be: a student in the system now in British Columbia or an administrator

or a teacher seeing a 13 percent lift, or living in a province such as

Ontario — and they're all going to be the same — which did not practise

restraint or any sort of fiscal responsibility?, This year those

ministers of post-secondary education will generally be receiving about

a 2 percent lift in their budgets, because those provincial treasuries

just cannot afford to provide a 13 percent increase.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

They've contributed to a deficit. They had lots, and now they've got a

remarkable deficit. The point is, I'd much rather be this minister in

B.C. today than this minister in Ontario today, and I think that's

obvious.

The member also mentioned that a lot of university

graduates came to our province. Well, that's good. They came here

because they saw opportunities.

I guess we're going to get

into access. First of all, the member's enrolment numbers are

incorrect. We did a study in September 1989 — the last heavy enrolment

period — of students who attempted to register at a lower mainland

college or SFU in first-year university or university transfer courses

and were denied admission at any institution. The findings were that of

18,000 successfully registered, 692 — or 3 percent — were unsuccessful.

don't find that number cheery at all — don't think I'm trying to defend

that. There can be a lot of reasons why students were denied admission.

It could be their own inability to meet the prerequisites, course

combinations that didn't work for logistics reasons or whatever or that

the courses were simply full with other students. Nevertheless, in the

study that we did in the lower mainland, which was the most stressed

area, 3.6 percent could not get into the classes they wanted — not one

in three as you indicated earlier.

I guess the most

interesting thing that I have to suggest to you, Mr. Member and members

opposite, is that I was a student and, latterly, an employee of the

community college system when the NDP was government. You talk about

access. Capital funding to post-secondary institutions was slashed by

the New Democrats by 25 percent; it went from $14 million in 1972 to

about $11 million. So I think you're in a very difficult position to

discuss access to education and enrolment pressures as a party when

your party philosophy obviously indicates you are not in favour of

increasing access to post-secondary education. The budget numbers are

clear, and I suggest you read them.

With that said, I do

want to clearly indicate that as we move forward and attempt to develop

better access in the province, we of course are introducing some very

innovative programs. The college-university model, as I indicated

earlier, in Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo, the University of Northern

British Columbia in Prince George, encouraging some of the excellent

programs like the Alaska Highway teacher initiative in the Fort St.

John–Dawson Creek area and the Simon Fraser PD program, which have been

very good.... These are courses of their own initiative, but

nevertheless ones that have encouraged and taught an awful lot of

students outside of the lower mainland.

[3:45]

Nothing

is ever perfect, and we want to do a lot more. As a member for the

central interior, I can assure you that that's one of my first

priorities, and my former colleague from Comox felt the same way, which

is why he did what he did. We are going to continue to be a government

and an administration that encourages access for all. We're not happy

with the participation rates. We will shortly be making a major

announcement in the Fraser Valley — I see my colleague from Chilliwack

is encouraged — with re-

[ Page 9432 ]

spect

to the Fraser Valley College situation and the direction that we are

going to go. I think the member for Burnaby will find that we are

showing vision, that we are seeking public input, that we are

establishing a forum for listening and for advice, and that our

initiatives are really at the forefront and truly in the interest of

the best post-secondary education system that we can offer.

MR. JONES :

I don't think my remarks really need clarification. The minister knows

that when I was talking about Tumbler Ridge I was talking about

economic mismanagement; when I was talking about Expo 86, I was talking

about priorities. The minister knows those things. He knows that what

we will have to do as a government after the next election will be to

clean up a lot of these things. We will carry on with some of the

things that the previous administration initiated, but an Expo party

when we're cutting back millions of dollars from education won't be one

of those things.

The minister, as I anticipated, disputed

the number of students who are turned away. If you check with the

University of British Columbia, you will find that some 2,200

qualified students were not accepted, and at BCIT — also in the lower

mainland — some 4,000 are turned away annually. Right there we have 6,000 just in two institutions.

I want to mention something

that I know the minister is aware of, and it has become an annual

problem: the question of student fees. This year we saw, as we do every

year, students exercising their democratic right to protest increased

financial expenditures that they are forced to make because of the

extremely high tuition fees in British Columbia. Of 23 of the most

prominent universities in Canada only three, all located in the

Maritimes, had higher tuition fees in the 1989-90 school year. We saw

increases again at UBC, SFU and UVic, and at the latter two

institutions we saw vigorous protest by students. We saw students

sleeping on the floor of administration buildings. We saw students

occupying buildings in the institution, reminiscent of the 1960s. That

is a phenomenon of student activity in this province that we have not

seen for a very long time.

The minister, in response to

that serious situation, agreed to meet with the students, and they

ended their protest with that understanding. The minister agreed as

well to study the effects of tuition fee increases, and also to arrange

a meeting with the Premier, as I understand. The minister, while he

agreed to study that serious question, also indicated that he thought

the tuition fee increases were responsible and that fees were not too

high, and that they were not restricting access. Yet at the same time

he was making all those pronouncements and while he was supposed to be

studying the issue, he indicated that any move on the part of a

Minister of Advanced Education to freeze student tuition fees would be

inappropriate. So while we have a study going on, we have some very

strong pronouncements on one side of the issue by the minister who is

supposed to be conducting that study. I don't know whether the meeting

with the Premier ever happened, but I'm certainly not aware of it.

Students

at Simon Fraser, in my community, did quite a magnificent job of

community relations — again, a pretty new phenomenon, as far as I'm

aware. They visited all the school boards and all the municipal

councils and a variety of other public groups in the area and got

support from those groups. The minister is aware that the Burnaby

municipal council provided support for the students of Simon Fraser in

their quest for a freeze on tuition fees. They wrote a letter to the

minister, and the minister responded.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Read the letter.

MR. JONES :

I won't read the letter, but I will certainly read an excerpt. The

minister wrote to His Worship Mayor W.J. Copeland and members of

council on January 25, 1990:

"In my opinion, the Simon Fraser University board of governors

have taken a most responsible attitude in proposing a 5.8 percent tuition fee

increase. This increase is generally reflective of increased inflationary pressures

and, indeed, is similar to the recent mayor and aldermanic stipend increases

approved by your council."

The responses boggle the mind.

First of all, I think it

was tremendously audacious of the minister to bring aldermanic stipend

increases into a debate on student fee increases. However, that by the

board, let's take the statement that, "this increase is generally

reflective of increased inflationary pressures." Bear in mind that in

the 1983-84 school year, the students at Simon Fraser contributed

something like 11.5 percent of the total operating budget in the form

of their fees. Now it's closer to 18 percent, 19 percent or 20 percent,

which is almost a doubling within a seven-year period.

The

minister says it's reflective of inflationary pressures. Due to the

fact that he just became minister in November, he might assume that to

be accurate. I think if you look at the 5.8 percent increase in tuition

fees in a one-year time-frame and compare it to inflation, it's bang

on; no argument.

But the problem the students have that the

minister should be aware of is that in the past nine years at Simon

Fraser University, student tuition fees have gone up by 167 percent.

Inflation during that same period has gone up 45.6 percent. So although

in a one-year snapshot the tuition fee increase may be in line with

inflation, student tuition fees in that nine year period have risen at

roughly triple the rate of inflation.

Not only that, but

the students understand who the real culprit is in this problem, and

it's the funding levels of the provincial government. In that same

nine-year time-frame, the rate of increase in provincial funding, in

terms of grants to universities, has gone up by 26.6 percent. So the

students are paying at triple the rate of inflation and at six times

the rate of increase in terms of funding the operations of those

institutions.

Very clearly, looking at those figures, no wonder the students are upset. I can't believe that merely

[ Page 9433 ]

having

a meeting with the minister, the promise of a study or the promise of a

meeting with the Premier has done anything to assuage their concerns.

In fact, the headline in the Burnaby paper was "Strachan Not Listening,

Students Say."

The minister has prejudiced any study that

might be held — in terms of his responsibilities for looking at student

tuition fee increases — by his statements and actions.

It's

a serious problem, and it's only one factor of many that the economics

of student life impacts on, but it is a major one. It comes in a lump

sum; students struggle with that. Student tuition fee increases very

clearly have an undue impact on student economic life. The reason those

fee increases have taken place — almost doubling in seven years, in

terms of percentage contribution to the operating grants of the

universities — is that they are the most vulnerable target. They have

experienced increases at triple the rate of inflation and at six times

the rate of provincial funding because they're there, and they are the

most accessible source of funds.

When the province

underfund those institutions, the institutions respond not just by

cutting programs, but by increasing student fees. That's what we've

seen for the last decade in this province. The Minister of Advanced

Education cannot judge the response of the students to a fee increase

in one year; you have to take it in context. The increase has been

staggering.

The minister quoted some figures in the budget.

Let's talk about the increase in the universities' budget. My

understanding is that it's something in the order of a 6 percent

increase in operating grants to universities. We now have something

like a 5.8 percent inflation rate, so a 6 percent increase clearly

covers inflation. But it does not cover any of the desired catch-up by

the institutions.

It does not cover enrolment increase. It

really leaves nothing for making up those programs that had to be cut.

It has nothing to offer for the necessary updating of equipment that

very quickly becomes outmoded on the cutting edge of research. It does

nothing to address the important student services that have been lost — to say nothing of the enrolment increase which at some institutions is

as great as 10 percent.

Let me leave it there. I think the minister probably wants to respond to some of those concerns that I raised.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

First of all, I would like to discuss the issue of tuition increases

and the meeting of January 25. First of all, I should tell you that the

meeting of January 25 had been scheduled for some time. It was my

regular meeting with Pam Frache and the Canadian Federation of

Students. I was going to be in Vancouver that day, so it was agreed

that we would have that meeting.

As it happened, the Simon

Fraser students were also in the administration offices at the time. So

a day or two before, knowing I was going to be meeting with the CFS, I

said: "I'll meet with those students as well." I had no problem with

that. We held a reasonably good meeting at our former cabinet offices

in Robson Square.

[4:00]

I'll tell

you exactly...because you don't seem to quite understand what was

discussed at that meeting. First of all, I said: "In my opinion, the

tuition fee increases at SFU and at other institutes are responsible."

They are approximately 17 percent of the cost of that student's

education, which by the way, is down considerably from when you went to

school. In the mid-sixties, when you graduated, you contributed closer

to 30 percent of the cost of your education.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Yes, you did. If you graduated in '65, '66.... I'll admit it went down

in the seventies, but in the mid-sixties, you were contributing

significantly more to the cost of your education. You graduated in '65,

didn't you? I thought I heard you say that.

MR. JONES : I'm older than that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

In any event, I met with the students, and I didn't say I would study

the whole question. I doubted if there was a question. As a matter of

fact, we both know we have a tremendous stress on enrolment; more and

more students want to get into the system. Obviously tuition fees are

not keeping them away.

But what I did discuss — and I'll

make this perfectly clear to you, because I made it perfectly clear to

the students, who did present some argument which obviously you

missed.... If we know that enrolment is increasing every year, we know

that tuition is not a major factor in keeping students away, or we

wouldn't have enrolment increases. However, both the CFS and I agreed

that maybe there were some students who were falling between the

cracks. They indicated single parents may have a certain problem. I

agreed to gather further data to see if there was a group of students

or a class of students who could not afford to attend a post-secondary

institution and find a way of remedying that.

The CFS, the

Simon Fraser students and those of us who met — and there were UBC

students and some staff there as well — agreed that that would be a good

thing to do. We also agreed, at that January 25 meeting, to have a

further meeting, at which time I said I would invite the Premier. I

didn't commit the Premier to attend, as I couldn't. If I'm not

mistaken, the Premier was on vacation at the time or out of the

country. But I did indicate to the students that I would invite the

Premier to attend the subsequent meeting with them. That invitation was

given to the Premier. We were unable to make an arrangement for the

Premier to be with the students the next time I met with them;

nevertheless, I did hold a subsequent meeting. I think it was in the

first part of April.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

[ Page 9434 ]

that point, I agreed that we would expand our database to further

understand if we had a problem. We didn't know if we did. If we did

have a problem, we needed to know what students did not have the

opportunity and why they did not have the opportunity to participate in

post-secondary education. We have done that now. We have staff and

resources working and addressing that expanded database, working on

accessing that problem of access — understanding how we can improve the

system and if there is any class or socio-economic group which is being

disadvantaged and cannot attend. We will identify those people and

develop remedies to assist them.

You

mentioned that British

Columbia compared very poorly, in terms of tuition fees, with the rest

of Canada except the Maritimes. You are partially correct on that,

although I think it's probably worth the committee's benefit to hear

the order of magnitude of some of the tuition fees across Canada. You

are right: we all know the Maritimes has the highest tuition fees in

Canada. I'll give you three examples: University of New Brunswick

undergraduate fees are $1,875 for the year; Waterloo, $1,812 for the

year; and Dalhousie, at Halifax, $1,805. UBC, SFU and UVic are $1,605,

$1,560 and $1,545 respectively, so they are about $300 below the

Maritimes. In Ontario we see a lessening of tuition fees: Western

Ontario, $1 517 that's not that far from UVic; and Wilfrid Laurier,

$1,516 — again, very close to UVic. In the Prairies they get

considerably less: the University of Saskatchewan, $1,344; and the

University of Alberta, $1,069.

The real bargain in the

country is the Quebec universities. They had a tuition freeze some

years ago. Mind you, that's been to the detriment of the system. I have

spoken to students who have attended universities in Quebec, and they

tell me that it's not going very well there at all. Staff cuts, because

of the loss of revenue, have been high; faculty cuts have been high as

well, the result being that it's very difficult just to get a course

changed in a Quebec university. It's very difficult for them to mount

any type of capital program. When you see the lessening impact of some

of the great institutions like McGill, you can understand what's

happening. However, the Quebec government has taken the position that

it's going to have to change that, and it is increasing tuition rates

by 50 percent per year until they get back to the national average.

The

other thing I think I should point out is that in all of the studies we

have done and all of the studies that are available to those of us who

look at post-secondary institutions, there is no correlation between

tuition fees and participation rates. The best work we have is from

Australia; we have before and after numbers from there. Some years ago

Australia eliminated tuition fees. In looking at the participation rate

of Australian students, they found that before and after eliminating

tuition fees, nothing changed. Participation rates were identical, and

the socio-economic backgrounds of the students attending university

before and after tuition elimination did not change at all either. So

there doesn't appear to be any wisdom in cutting off that good source

of revenue.

Finally, although there was a protest at SFU of

some 200 students, tuition is generally not the concern among the

students I meet — and I speak to an awful lot of them, as you can

imagine. They are far more concerned about the high cost of housing in

Vancouver and about other increases far beyond the control of you or I

or the ministry. Tuition is just not a factor at all in their ability

or their desire to go to university.

A lot of other factors

are expressed, but at 17 percent of the cost of their education, it

really is quite a bargain. I will maintain that what I have seen the

university boards of governors do in those operations is responsible,

and I will defend it. If it went extremely high, I would probably have

to take a position; I am sure we all would. But at this point I am

satisfied with what I have seen.

I understand that one of

the members would like to make an introduction, so I am going to take

my place and advise the committee that I am going to be leaving the

chamber for about a minute and a half; but I shall return.

AN HON. MEMBER : For a smoke?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : No, I don't smoke anymore. I gave that up. I'll tell you why later!

HON. MR. DUECK : I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I would like the House to recognize Ken Sawatsky. He is past president

of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association. With him today is

Suzanne Fong, who is in the promotion area for the Greater Vancouver

Home Builders' Association. Also, my assistant deputy is sitting with

them in the gallery. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. JONES :

I suppose I should address my questions to the deputy minister. Now we

see where the real power in post-secondary education is on that side of

the House. I do want the minister to hear my remarks, and I also have

some questions for him.

Very clearly, his response that

because we are oversubscribed at our post-secondary institutions

tuition fees are not keeping students away.... Any study of the

demographics of post-secondary institutions in this or any other

province will clearly demonstrate that those who comprise the student

population are not from the lower socio-economic classes, but from

middle- or upper-income families. What we need in our post-secondary

institutions is a reflection in the demographics of the student

population that reflects the population in general. Because young

people come from a disadvantaged, low socio-economic background does

not mean that they do not

[ Page 9435 ]

have the skills or ability to profit from a post-secondary education, or to make a contribution.

The

minister indicated that it's not a problem, but if we find a problem

we're going to develop remedies. I'd like to ask the minister how he's

going to do that. How is he going to identify those in the potential

student population that are being turned away right now, or are not

even bothering to apply to our post-secondary institutions in this

province? How is this study going to take place?

Secondly,

the minister says that he has regular meetings with the Canadian

Federation of Students. I'd like to know how often those meetings are

held.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I advise the member that I

had one on January 25, which I pointed out to him had taken place. Then

there was one in March; I can't recall the exact date. We will be

meeting again as we develop our programs.

What I wanted to

share with you is the fact that we do have an ongoing standing

committee composed of student representation and others that looks into

the matter of student financial aid.

The database that we

are developing, and the one that I explained to the students — by the

way, it was agreed to by CFS — was essentially that: an expansion of

our database so that we could further identify where there were

deficits, where there was any impediment to any class or group of

students, and any impediment to their attending a post-secondary

institution. Again, as I said, we generally know that there can't be

that much of an impediment if we have increasing enrolments; the

students are there, beating the doors down. But are there a few or are

there a class that aren't making it?

You can't say that it's just all rich kids who go to school, because that's nonsense and you know it.

HON. MR. VEITCH : My son goes to Simon Fraser

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Yes, my colleague's son goes to Simon Fraser, so it can't be that. I

know many personal experiences of families, students from Prince

George. I know their backgrounds, and I know it's not very good at all,

but they have worked very hard and they are attending the lower

mainland universities. You see an awful lot of interior students here

in Victoria because the cost of living is a little less than it would

be at Burnaby or Point Grey. Many are from quite humble backgrounds. So

I will not accept the notion of yours that you have to be wealthy to

attend university in British Columbia, because it's just not true.

MR. JONES :

That was a good non-answer from the minister. I asked two simple

questions. The minister had said that he has regular meetings with the

Canadian Federation of Students' Pam Frache. I asked how many meetings

he has had in the six months he was minister, and he didn't answer

Secondly, I asked how he's going to identify those people who, because

of their economic circumstance, don't apply. They can't afford to go.

They know that the debt load of attendance at a post-secondary

institution is high. I don't know how the minister's going to identify

them.

[4:15]

Let me throw in a

third question. Has the minister looked at the demographics of the

student population in terms of their socio-economic class? If he has,

he knows it is predominantly middle-class and upper-middle-class

families that spawn young people who go on to post-secondary education.

How

many meetings has he had with the CFS? How's he going to identify those

people who clearly have financial impediments to attendance at a

post-secondary institution? Thirdly, has he seen the demographics?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'll repeat my answers. Actually, I've had three meetings with the CFS.

The two I identified were on January 25 and in March. I think I had one

before that, one shortly after the appointment. You're like my

colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) ; you perhaps

need a hearing-aid. I've said quite clearly the dates and the occasions

that I met with Pam.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

No, I haven't met with them as a body. I have met with the CFS and

particularly with Pam, the president, a charming lady, as you know, and

one who never hesitates to inform me of her opinion about financial aid

and the plight of the student in British Columbia.

Secondly,

with your larger question, you asked questions about developing a

database. You asked a question about how we are going to find out who

is not attending. Those are good questions, and we're developing the

database to better understand those things. I'd like to be more

forthcoming at this point, but we're working on that now.

is difficult to know who didn't apply. You always know who did apply,

because there's a record of application, but we don't know who didn't

apply. But I can tell you — and I'm sure you know this already — that

the biggest factor with respect to determining who is going to attend a

post-secondary institution is not finances or proximity to a

university; it's the attitudes that are shaped in a child from ages 12

or 13 to 16. If those attitudes are shaped, if encouragement is given

at home and the expectation is there, the students will attend a

post-secondary institution. If it hasn't happened, the students will

not.

That's another issue I have some serious concern with.

Because of that, at the University of Northern British Columbia I am

advocating an awareness budget that should be built into that

institution's operating budget. It will ensure that there is

considerable awareness by northern students that there is going to be a

university in the north for the north. That is the biggest determining

factor. If you have a parental and a student expectation that

university is the way to go, you will have good participation. If it's

[ Page 9436 ]

not there, we know that the participation rates — we can see it geographically in the province — will decline.

The

participation rates in Vancouver and the lower mainland area within

commuting, biking or bus distance of SFU or UBC are double those in the

rest of the province. It's just because there is the expectation — that

ease, that knowledge — that a post-secondary education is achievable:

it's within reach, within grasp and within commuting distance. It's

something the student seeks. If it becomes a bit more difficult or the

parents have some sort of aversion or lack of interest, you won't have

the participation rate.

One more note I would like to pass

on to you is that the socio-economic profile of students in European

countries where tuition is free is similar to B.C. and Canadian

patterns where tuition is charged.

MR. JONES : I can

see I'm going to make no headway with this minister with regard to the

impediment that the financial situation creates for students in

attendance at post-secondary institutions. The minister believes that

because we've had an oversubscription of places, because we turn away

students every year and don't have any extra spaces left over, the fees

that students pay are not keeping them away. It's a specious argument

that the minister uses. If he studies the demographics of the student

population in British Columbia, he'll know that financial

considerations are a major factor in keeping students away.

do agree with him about attitudes — they are important as well. I don't

dismiss his argument about attitudes, although he dismisses my argument

about economics. It's not just two times that of the lower mainland.

For example, the participation rate in the lower mainland is roughly

three times what it is in Prince George. Hopefully, the University of

Northern British Columbia will be a major step in addressing that one.

Again

we go back to the root cause, and that is the underfunding by this

provincial government of our institutions which has resulted in these

high tuition rates. Very clearly what we see is a government that does

not give the appropriate priority to funding our post-secondary

institutions.

This minister and members opposite love

quoting figures — as the minister did a little while ago — from the 1972

to 1975 period. The operating grants to universities as a percentage of

the total provincial expenditure in 1972-73 were 6.6 percent. In

1986-87 they were 2.7 percent. So they were going down between 1972-73

and 1986-87 when this administration assumed their mandate.

Guess

which direction it's gone since then. Is it going up, or is it going

down? It was 2.7 percent in '86-87, and right now it's down a notch to

2.6 percent. In terms of percentage of the provincial expenditures in

the overall budget, we see post-secondary education becoming smaller

and smaller. We see no commitment or priority there on the part of this

government.

The bottom line is that only Prince Edward

Island pays less in terms of the provincial operating grant per

full-time-equivalent student. On a per capita basis in 1989-90, the

Canadian average was $475 per capita; in B.C. it was $389. That was in

1989-90 — last year. We see the fundamental underpinning is years of

neglect, and years of education not being a priority with this

government.

Still, today, the minister talks about Ontario

and the small increase there. Ontario still contributes far and away a

higher number of dollars per capita to post-secondary education than

does British Columbia. Only Prince Edward Island contributes less.

see turnaways. We see students not being able to get the courses they

want. We see fees going up. We see class sizes going up. We see

students with less opportunity to meet with their professors. We see

less tutorial time. We see less staff support services for those

students. We see more demands on all the employees of the institutions.

We see an aging professoriate. There's only one conclusion we can come

to when we talk about the student experience: they are paying more and

getting less.

We've also seen in recent years the

cancellation of a number of programs for natives and for the women that

the minister talks about. Despite promises, we have seen very little

action on improving the serious problem of literacy in this province.

We see very little action in terms of this government's responsibility

only a couple of weeks ago, one hundred people were turned away from

adult ESL learning experiences in one school. This government is not

living up to its responsibilities to provide new Canadians with the

opportunity to develop language skills. At one school there were one

hundred turned away in my community.

Another disturbing

trend that I would like to discuss at length with the minister as we go

through the estimates is labour disputes. We have enjoyed a long

history of relatively harmonious labour relations in the post-secondary

education sector. The minister talked about the Douglas College

situation, which was quite a turning-point in our history — protracted,

bitter, difficult labour disputes, which for the first time in British

Columbia history put students at serious risk of losing credit for the

programs they had taken.

We see a second instance with the

Vancouver Community College dispute. We see those 1,500 students

sponsored by Employment and Immigration Canada losing their

sponsorship, losing their support for child care, having to take their

children out of child care facilities and perhaps not getting them back

in, having been put on a waiting-list for some two years. It was a very

serious disruption to the lives of those 1,500 students. Had that

strike been settled a week earlier, that would not have happened; those

students would have maintained their sponsorship.

For the

first time in British Columbia history, we see labour disputes

seriously impacting on the lives of students as they never have before.

We see students losing courses. They study hard all semester;

[ Page 9437 ]

they give up jobs. Then they get caught up in a labour dispute and end up suffering greatly.

This

Minister of Advanced Education appoints, through order-in-council, the

employers in the colleges where these disputes are happening. The

minister suggests that it would be inappropriate for him to interfere,

yet we talked about the president of the CFS. It was reported that you

had said to her that you would do what you could to get the talks

rolling again in the Vancouver Community College dispute.

Very

clearly there needs to be something done; some leadership needs to be

brought to bear. We cannot afford to have these disputes carry on to

the lengths they have and to see the students suffer the way they have.

The minister has a responsibility here to design a process for a

quicker resolution to these unfortunate labour disputes.

have some problems. In 1989, despite all the words of the government,

we still see in the participation rates of university enrolment per

capita that British Columbia is still tenth out of ten. In number of

degrees granted per capita British Columbia is still tenth out of ten.

As I mentioned, there has been some improvement in the student

financial aid program, but it's still a long way from those of other

provinces We are at or near the bottom in virtually every category,

except tuition fees.

It's a sad state of affairs in

post-secondary education in British Columbia. I know the minister will

want to respond, and then my colleague from the Cariboo would like to

make a few remarks.

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

At the outset, I'll argue. I don't think any examination whatsoever

will agree with what the member has said. The post-secondary community

in British Columbia is extremely well served by this government. It's

an extremely good system. It's comprehensive in its design, in its

process, the transferability of college students, the ability for it to

deliver programs, and I speak of the Open Learning Agency as well. I

don't think you'll find any credible critic of our system in British

Columbia, and I will put it up to any review that you would care to

suggest. I'm very proud of it, and I think we all should be. As a

matter of fact, my notes from your first comments indicate that you

said it was a good system, and so I would have....

MR. JONES : Despite Social Credit.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

We've been the government since 1975, so if we were going to bring the

system down, I'm sure we would have done it by now. It's a good system

and it's because of it.... Don't forget, you say "Despite Social Credit,

" but which government built Simon Fraser, your alma mater? It was the

Social Credit government. Which government introduced the comprehensive

community college system with university transfer? The Social Credit

government. W.A.C. began that in 1968, and it was a very good process.

MR. JONES : Kicking and screaming.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Oh, nonsense! Listen, I was there. It worked very well, and it's a system unlike any other in Canada — a superb system.

any event, I wanted to discuss a couple of things, and I understand my

colleague for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is going to make an

introduction, so I'll take my place, but I do want to respond with a

few more comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has asked for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I would like to introduce to the House today Mr. Brian Herrin, a

teacher from Hillside Middle School in West Vancouver and 50 of his

students.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : The member introduced

some statistics from Ontario, and I want to comment on those. We spend

the same amount per student as the Ontario government does. They have a

higher per capita cost because they have better participation. I don't

particularly think that's good for British Columbia, but I can assure

the committee that we are spending the same amount per student as that

other province, and I do want to do everything I can — and my colleague

for Comox did that in terms of access — to make every effort to improve

the participation rate.

Let's get down to labour. It's been

strongly suggested during the two labour disputes we've seen in the

post-secondary community in the last six months — Douglas College and

VCC of last week — that government shortage of funding is causing these

disputes. That doesn't answer the question of the very successful

labour negotiations that have gone on. Seven colleges have settled

quietly and quite successfully and with everybody happy, including the

College of New Caledonia in Prince George. They went to negotiation in

the fall of this year. They successfully concluded a very good

settlement, so obviously it's not the funding process that's doing it.

There must be something else. Maybe there's a political agenda

somewhere that I am not aware of, but when I see so many colleges

settling successfully, I have to know that the system is funding

adequately.

It's interesting to note that in the Douglas

College situation most of the students were accommodated. Simon Fraser

was quite accommodating in terms of the transfer students. I know a few

non-credit courses were lost, but for the large part the transfer

students were very well looked after. It's interesting that as the

Douglas College dispute became more and more critical in terms of time

and dragging out, when the Douglas College administration published ads

in the morning Province and in the afternoon Sun stating what the

faculty demands were, a settlement was reached at 7:30 that evening.

The public was finally

[ Page 9438 ]

made

aware of what the demands were. Obviously the faculty themselves felt

the demands were very high, and when they reached the public eye, there

was a decision and a conclusion and a settlement reached at 7:30 that

evening.

So I cannot fault the system. We believe it's

appropriately funded. I think the majority of British Columbians do.

Obviously an awful lot of faculty do, because they've been settling

successfully. For me to, as you suggested, intervene in a labour

dispute.... That may be something your party would do, but I can assure

you that it's not something we would do. There is a labour relations

bill in law in British Columbia and we abide with it, and when an

employer and employee group have a difference of opinion, I think the

last thing government should do is intervene.

With respect

to the last comment you made about my comments to Pam Frache, they were

this: I said I would urge both sides to return to the bargaining table.

That's what I told her, and that's what I've always said. That's

consistent with our position, and I think to do otherwise would be

foolish and not in the best interests of good labour relations

practice, and I'm sure you're aware of that.

I think that covers off just about everything you wanted to discuss, so with that said, I'll take my place again.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

It's now some four weeks — or will be on Wednesday — that I raised a

question with the minister in question period about the closure of the

advanced education and job training centre in Williams Lake. I hope

that he has had time to gather the technical details that he wanted to

provide to me and will provide them when I finish speaking.

would like to underscore the fact that the municipal councils in the

Cariboo have both supported the continuation of an operation there, and

the minister has said, I believe, through the program that it's

somewhat more efficient to provide the service through the office in

Prince George. I would like to ask him if he would provide us with his

definition of efficiency in terms of servicing the population in the

Cariboo, which includes the Bella Coola area and so on. I would also

like him to comment, if he wishes or if he can, on the fact that there

is a large number of native people — 10 percent of the school

population — who have difficulty getting access to higher education and

may find themselves better served by a local office — that is, those who

wish to go into technical training.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

About the only thing we can say at this point is that we have

consolidated our staff into a smaller number of centres, and we believe

that's the efficient way to manage things. I don't think the door is

totally closed on that consolidation, but it is at least for this

budget period.

Apprentices will still have a designated

apprenticeship counsellor, and these counsellors will still visit with

the apprentices. I'm convinced from what I've seen, in terms of these

discussions with staff, that the apprenticeship system will be well

served and so will the apprentices.

I'm glad you asked me

about natives and native education, because I know that's very

important to you. I think it's important to all of us who represent the

central interior and other rural parts of the province. I would commend

to you the report that was published and co-chaired by Gordon Antoine

and Dr. Peter Jones with respect to native education in the province.

It was a first-class work, finished about a year ahead of

schedule

because of the enthusiasm of the committee members, and one which I am

going to be implementing in conjunction with the Premier's task force

on native affairs and the Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs as

quickly as possible. It points out a lot of things, but most

convincingly it points out to me, in its studies, that the best native

education is done by natives. The Nicola Valley Institute is one

example of that; that's a Cariboo College operation. At Cowichan

there's an example of native education going on that is excellent.

Clearly

we see that if we're going to succeed in the area of native education,

if we're going to take a very low and embarrassing participation rate

and improve it, it's going to be done by the natives themselves.

They're clearly the best teachers when it comes to putting programs

together for native people, and they're the best at curriculum design.

Anything they implement seems to work remarkably better than what is

done by the non-native community. That's one of the major thrusts of

the recommendation given to us by the native education advisory

committee. I can assure the member, and all hon. members, that we are

acting on that one just as quickly as we can, and with some enthusiasm,

because we really know that we're in a deficit position here with

respect to native education.

I think what the Gordon

Antoine committee pointed out to us was a remedy. We put a lot of money

and energy into native education prior to this, but it didn't appear to

be all that successful. We feel that we've been given a better recipe.

We feel that the work that has been done is going to be productive, and

we feel that by implementing the programs that have been suggested to

us, we will have a far better participation rate.

I don't

know what more I can say at this point. I'm sure you've read the

Antoine-Jones report; and if you haven't, I will certainly see that one

goes to your office. I would commend it to you, because it contains

some very good suggestions and, as I said, ones that I want to see

implemented as quickly as possible.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I

have read the report, and I have discussed the findings with Mr.

Antoine on the occasion of being in Merritt. I have followed it with

interest, because a lot of students from our area attend that college.

I agree with the principle that the more it's under their control and

the more they're involved in the teaching the more effective it will be.

My second area of concern has to do with the line in the estimates under job training, apprenticeship

[ Page 9439 ]

and

labour market policy programs. I notice a drop of approximately $1.1

million. This line in the budget includes the development of human

resource development strategies. This is also the funding for the

Provincial Apprenticeship and Training Board. I would like to ask the

minister if he could explain what cut in services we can expect from

this decrease in funding.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'm

just trying to get a handle on the technical data that has been

provided to me, if you'll just excuse me for a moment, Mr. Member.

The

change is because of one of the components of that line item in the

estimates, which is the B.C. summer program. It dropped from $10

million to $8 million, which is why you see that decrease. For colleges

and universities, $2 million, which is no change, and support of $5 an

hour, to be topped up by institutions. There was a reduction in the

federal summer program, but not in ours.

The other

components of the program are the tourism component — we support travel

information centres — at $2 million; that's up from 1.4 million in

1990. Support of $6 an hour is up from $5.50 last year, which is a

bonus of 50 cents per hour for those who complete the full contract.

The small business program is a job subsidy for small business. We

support one-third of the cost, to $7.50 an hour, compared to half the

cost, to a maximum of $6 an hour, last year. The total cost is $4

million, down from $6.6 million in 1991, but we also recognize that

unemployment levels are down and the private sector demand is less.

MR. JONES :

I want to pursue for a minute the situation that my colleague from the