1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7779 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Expo evictions. Mr. Barnes –– 7779

Quesnel sexual assault case. Ms. Brown –– 7780

Mr. Nicolson

B.C. Telephone Co. layoffs. Mr. Nicolson –– 7781

Permit to use cyanide issued to Grand Forks mine. Mrs. Wallace –– 7781

Government advertising. Mr. Hanson –– 7782

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Post-Secondary Education estimates. (Hon. R. Fraser)

On vote 62: minister's office –– 7782

Mr. Nicolson

Mrs. Johnston, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Williams, Ms. Brown, Mr. Ree

Mr. Cocke

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Segarty)

On vote 54: minister's office –– 7797

Hon. Mr. Segarty

Mr. Cocke, Mr. Williams, Mr. Michael

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to

join me in welcoming four people from Vancouver, mainly Vancouver

Centre. They are Suzie Kilgour of the Tenants' Rights Coalition; Phil

McCormack, spokesperson for the Zen tenants in Vancouver; Sue Harris

from the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association; and David Lane from

the Tenants' Rights Coalition.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have a group

of women who represent the north Vancouver Island B.C. Social Credit

Women's Auxiliary. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to welcome in the precincts Harold

Allison, president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, who is

leading a number of the province's farmers in a delegation that is

meeting with various MLAs. I hope the members of the assembly heed

their words of concern. With that, I hope everyone will give them a

warm welcome.

MR. HOWARD: Visiting with us today, certainly in the

precincts…would like the House to join me in welcoming the mayor of

Terrace, Jack Talstra, and the city administrator for Terrace, E.R.

Hallsor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, today one of our members of the Legislative

Assembly is celebrating a wedding anniversary. Because it is a very special

year for them, being Expo 86 year and a year when so many things are happening

in the province of British Columbia, I would like to ask my colleagues in the

House to wish the Premier of our province and Audrey a very happy anniversary.

Oral Questions

EXPO EVICTIONS

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs. A few days ago the tenants of an apartment

building at 1531 Barclay in Vancouver had their heat shut off by the

landlord, who was trying to evict them for Expo visitors. Such

situations are becoming a continuing daily occurrence in Vancouver

Centre and throughout the province. Has the minister decided to take

any action to allow the city of Vancouver to protect tenants from

arbitrary Expo evictions?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Speaking to the specific incident, I'm sure

the member is quite aware of the process that we have. The tenants went

through the arbitration process. The arbitrator ruled in favour of the

tenants, who were told they would not be evicted. The landlord was

alleged to have turned off the heat and intercom system. My officials

were in contact with him, I understand the problem has been rectified,

and that's the end of that one.

MR. BARNES: I thank the minister for his partial response. He

did not respond to my question about whether or not he was going to

assist the city of Vancouver in any way. I'm told that yesterday 15

more Expo eviction notices were issued. People are being left homeless

and in desperate circumstances. When is the minister going to act

responsibly and provide support for the city of Vancouver and the

Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, who are desperately trying to

correct the situation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will provide

the specific instance, if indeed the people who are aggrieved will get

in touch with our consumer office, and if there is an arbitration in

place, we'll ensure that it's expedited forthwith.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I still am unable to relate the

responses of the minister to my specific question. As the minister

knows, the city of Vancouver has applied to the cabinet for an

amendment to the Vancouver Charter giving them the power to do the job

that this government refuses to do. That's point one that hasn't been

answered.

I would like to address a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Premier told the news media in

eastern Canada that there is no problem with Expo evictions — that

everyone has been taken care of. Now I reluctantly must say that with

all due respect it appears to me that that can be nothing other than a

lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Nothing other than a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, clearly the statement by the

member must be asked to be withdrawn. I would ask the member in the

interests of parliament to withdraw the statement that he made. A

simple withdrawal, hon. member, is all that is required, and we will

continue with business.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, the only problem I have with that is that it's not my statement. I'm quoting.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: I'm quoting, Mr. Speaker. It's not a statement that I have made.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Be seated. This is

not a time for debate. I have asked the member to withdraw a statement

— one of the most unparliamentary statements that can be made in our

House. It applies equally to members on all side of the House, and I

would ask the member in the interest of maintaining the dignity of the

chamber to withdraw the statement unequivocally.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[ Page 7780 ]

MR. BARNES: I appreciate your indulgence and, as you know, this is not something that I'm accustomed to doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Just withdraw the statement, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: There is one possible remedy to the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly the member has been given every

opportunity to withdraw the statement. The Chair will ask him one more

time to stand in his place, withdraw the statement, and we'll resume

the proceedings that are before us. The member is an honourable member

of this House, and I'm sure will do the honourable thing. I ask the

member now to withdraw the statement.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, with great disappointment, really, I have no other option but to leave the statement as it stands.

[2:15]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair also has no other option, hon. member.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Emery Barnes, in accordance with provisions

of standing orders, I name you, and I would ask the House Leader for

the appropriate motion.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the first member

for Vancouver Centre be suspended from the service of the House for two

sitting days.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Brummet

Waterland

McClelland

Segarty

Kempf

Heinrich

Veitch

Richmond

Pelton

R. Fraser

Passarell

Michael

Davis

Mowat

McCarthy

A. Fraser

Nielsen

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

McGeer

Hewitt

Rogers

Reid

Johnston

Strachan

Ree

Reynolds

NAYS — 14

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Williams

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Wallace

Blencoe

MR. SPEAKER: I must now ask the hon. member to leave the chamber.

Hon. members, three minutes of question period have expired.

QUESNEL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Attorney-General. It concerns a recent court case in Quesnel, in which

a provincial court judge sentenced two young men involved in a brutal

sexual assault on a native Indian woman. He gave one of them a

conditional discharge and the other a suspended sentence. Has the

Attorney-General decided to appeal this decision on behalf of the Crown?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no, and we don't appeal on the

basis of the first newspaper report of a trial either. Recommendations

to appeal are made by Crown counsel in appropriate cases. Appeals are

launched, but never before the sentence of the judge, the circumstances

and, in this case, the reduced charges that were pleaded guilty to are

also considered. But it most certainly will be one of those cases

considered.

MS. BROWN: I have a supplementary. I wonder if the

Attorney-General would take into account the comments of the judge in

passing sentence, in which he said, if you read the newspapers, that

this kind of thing happens all the time, probably indicating that this

is nothing unusual for a native woman to be treated this way by men. In

view of the serious nature of the offence and the statements made by

the judge, will he decide to use his authority under

section 14 of the

Provincial Court Act and start an inquiry?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm really surprised and disappointed to hear

a suggestion of that kind arising from someone perusing the morning

paper's account of a trial that took place in Quesnel. If I were to

accede to what she has just put, then what do I become? I become the

sanitizer of the comments of every free and independent judge in this

country. Judges often make remarks from the bench that are taken out of

context, remarks that may offend; in fact, they sometimes make remarks

which are offensive. But the fact is that under our system they're

independent of this place, independent of me, and they do their duty

unfettered and not in fear that some minion of mine will go and

sanitize retrospectively everything they say. So I say no to her.

MS. BROWN: It would be really wonderful if the

Attorney-General took that kind of attitude to everybody, rather than

just zeroing in on offensive remarks which involve members of the

native community.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Question!

MS. BROWN: You'll get your question in time.

[ Page 7781 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is question period, hon. members.

MS. BROWN: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is uncomfortable.

I would hope that the Attorney-General is going to investigate this

matter and find out whether or not the newspaper reports about this

offensive and racist comment are accurate, and if the Attorney-General

finds that they are accurate, that he will move to censure that judge,

because certainly those kinds of statements contravene not just that

native woman's rights under the Charter, but contravene the hate

literature legislation in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, once again the Chair must advise

members that this is question period. It is not a time to make

statements or carry forward in estimates. Questions should be brief,

and they should at least elicit some kind of an answer.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm tempted to ask a supplementary

to the Attorney-General, too, but I will go on to the Minister of

Labour and ask....

Well, I will ask him a supplementary. Is the Attorney-General

familiar with the decision and the statements made by the late Mr.

Justice Washington in a rape case in which a young woman's complaint

was dismissed, whereupon that person went out and eventually murdered

two more women, and in which totally gratuitous remarks were made? Is

the Attorney-General aware of the seriousness of the gratuitous remarks

made in the specific instance of Mr. Justice Washington?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is that I am not specifically

aware of Judge Washington's comments, but again the thrust that you are

putting to me is that every time a judge is reported to say something

offensive, without any kind of consideration, investigation or

examination of context you want some sort of instant comment from a

person in my office about remarks made from the bench. If there are

complaints about judges, those complaints are dealt with under our

system in this province by the Judicial Council, a body set up by

statute that is independent from the government and the Legislature and

can't go on political witch-hunts. That body examines comments that are

thought to be offensive or behaviour by a judge that is thought not to

be correct. I don't go around investigating them, sanitizing them or

laundering them. I'm sorry to tell you that.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it's about time we had a public inquiry and listened

to the public instead of just the judiciary.

B.C. TELEPHONE CO. LAYOFFS

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of Labour.

Has the minister summoned the chief executive officer or one of the

leading officers of B.C. Tel into his office to see whether an

agreement can be reached to prevent the elimination of some 70 more

B.C. Tel jobs in Cranbrook?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't. The matter lies

government of British Columbia has been seeking access to the

telecommunications industry, but the matter lies clearly within the

take it up with his federal Member of Parliament.

MR. NICOLSON: New question to the same minister. The minister

previously announced that he had broken cabinet solidarity on not

communicating with the CRTC on this issue, as put forth by the Minister

of Communications. What representation has the minister made at the

McKnight, Minister of Labour? Has he spoken to Flora MacDonald,

Minister of Employment, or to Marcel Masse in Communications, to obtain

some kind of political solution?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, the matter does not come under

the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, and any actions that I

took, I took as the MLA for Kootenay because the matter affects the

constituents of Kootenay.

MR. NICOLSON: New question to the same minister. In the last

seven years B.C. Tel phone rates have gone up 56 percent, and B.C.

Tel's assets and profits have doubled. Is there anything else that this

government is prepared to do to save jobs — the responsibility of the

Minister of Labour — in Cranbrook?

MRS. WALLACE: Obviously the Minister of Labour is not prepared to answer my colleague's question.

PERMIT TO USE CYANIDE

ISSUED TO GRAND FORKS MINE

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. A permit to use

cyanide to extract gold from mine tailings in the Grand Forks area was

granted under the Waste Management Act to Pearl Resources Ltd. This

permit was issued on the basis of no cyanide solution being discharged.

The B.C. Environmental Appeal Board has now found that there will be

cyanide discharged. However, they have amended the permit, and, on top

of that, they have cancelled the public hearing which they had promised

in writing. Can the minister tell me whether or not that hearing was

cancelled on his advice?

[2:30]

HON. MR. PELTON: In answer to the member's question, we issue

many permits, and I'm not familiar with the particular one she

mentions. But I know that it will be recorded, and I will bring back an

answer to her question as quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't know what that minister has been doing.

This is nothing new. This has been around for months and it's a major

issue up there. It's not a new issue. Can the minister tell me whether

he has decided that he will ensure that this decision is reversed and

that a public hearing is allowed up there, inasmuch as the permit has

been changed?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, a supplemental question to a question taken on notice is....

MRS. WALLACE: It's a new question. I'm asking him if he's decided that he will....

[ Page 7782 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if a minister takes a question on notice, how can a new question...?

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Perhaps the minister would like to make a commitment that he will do that.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial

Secretary. The taxpayers of British Columbia are becoming sick and

tired of becoming partners in political propaganda with the Social

Credit Party with the political advertising in this province. On March

21, Mr. Speaker, the minister took on notice a question regarding the

cost of political advertising. Has the minister found time, during the

last 24 days, to determine the cost of this blatant misuse of

taxpayers' money? Will she report it now to the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question is out of order on at least three different areas, and the bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

POST SECONDARY EDUCATION

(continued)

On vote 62: minister's office, $141,717.

MR. NICOLSON: Yesterday I asked the minister whether he could

supply us with the information on what was going to happen with the

baseline budgeting for the universities: whether it was going to

continue to be 95 percent of the previous year's as has been the recent

history, whether it would be frozen, or whether it was going to be

increased. I got no answer out of the minister, but I have been

informed now by the universities that university operating budgets are

at 75 percent of last year's level, and that the 5 percent shortfall

will have to be made up by the excellence fund, which will be including

some of the commitments made many years ago for ongoing programs and

expansions at SFU and UVic and UBC. Will the minister now explain to

this House what the basis is of the funding in his ministry to the

three major public universities?

HON. R. FRASER: Through the Chair to the member, if I heard

your question correctly, your percentages are totally wrong. Secondly,

post-secondary educational institutions can apply to the excellence

fund for funding for projects they think are in the interest of the

student.

MR. NICOLSON: I guess that the member for Nelson-Creston can

continue to rely for reliable information on the universities, and not

on asking the minister, until the minister wants to take charge of his

ministry. I hope, and I would recommend, that the minister watch that

great PBS program, "Yes, Minister." I think there's a great deal that

can be learned by watching the machinations of Sir Humphrey. I think

you might have one or two Sir Humphreys in your department, and I think

that the sooner you take charge and look a little bit beyond and get

into some direct communication, the better we will be.

The minister talked in his remarks yesterday as if there was some

lifting of the lid, as if there was some reason for optimism. But when

the baseline budgets have been cut a further 5 percent this year and

we've talked about the Excellence in Education fund having to make up

that difference before you even get started, it really isn't going to

allow for any kind of growth. It isn't even going to allow for a

maintenance budget, a hold-the-line budget. Inflation, competition and

the fact that we have fallen further and further behind in the last

three or four years means that it is going to take a dramatic effort.

Usually what happens in these cases is that you have to lift the lid

off so doggone high to turn things around that it turns around to be

absolutely counterproductive in terms of any economies you might have

effected over the last three or four years. In fact, it's going to cost

us more money now to make up for some of that cost-cutting which has

taken place in the last three to five years than anything we ever

saved, if we are to once again establish excellence in the educational

field.

This might be the last Post-Secondary Education estimates that I

have the opportunity to talk to in this House, but I really very

sincerely....

AN HON. MEMBER: You could change your mind.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'll tell you, when my replacement gets

here, some of you will wish that I had changed my mind, because he's

going to be a darned sight tougher on some of you folks than anything

you've ever seen.

But, Mr. Chairman, I very sincerely say this to an old.... We

weren't bosom buddies at university, but we were acquaintances, and

he's somebody I never forgot. I wish the minister success, and I give

the heartfelt advice that when you get a chance to.... I won't

express this to you in some of the vernacular that engineers might have

used face to face, but maybe privately I might. I would hope that you

really do take charge, because there are real problems. I'm sure you

have as many friends on campus as I have. I hope that you'll listen to

them. They are not all self-serving remarks. These are, I think, very

heartfelt concerns. Especially, a lot of the people who are saying

these things to us are the people who are staying and trying to stick

it out and trying to fight for the universities.

There are serious concerns about academic freedom. There is a very

serious concern on my part that we continue to erode the baseline

budgets, and therefore as the so-called Excellence in Education fund

becomes a greater and greater percentage of the university budgets,

autonomy is going to be eroded. Decisions will be made at a whim.

I think enough irrational decisions have been made by the Premier

and the former minister about the educational priorities, made sort of

on a whim and ad hoc basis. We can absorb them. Some of those ideas

will work out. People will make them work. But if we continue to

interfere with universities — and by this I mean getting into the

absolute day-to-day priorities of the university — I think we are

really taking away their autonomy. When we take away the fiscal

autonomy, we're going to do something to the universities now which we

have already accomplished with the K to 12 education system.

[ Page 7783 ]

As a high school teacher, I don't suppose that I needed any sort of

academic immunity. I could take a certain amount of that kind of

direction, but I'll tell you, when that gets into our universities,

fiscal control will mean academic control. This is definitely the wrong

way to go. It's going to have some very serious implications, which I

think some of my colleagues will be speaking to in a moment. If you

people are looking for any political gain from this, you're not going

to get it. You're going in the wrong direction. This is a very

dangerous area that you're playing with.

British Columbia is going to need the creative energy of these

people if we're going to pull out of this prolonged depression that we

have been in. We aren't going to get that creative energy if these

people are insecure, fighting for their survival, fighting for the

rights of academic freedom, which have been the hallmark of democratic

societies, and which I think separate us....

I don't know how much mythology there is in what we see in some

parts of the academic and creative worlds of, say, the U.S.S.R.

Certainly we see people like Sakharov and others, and we tend sometimes

to poke fun. Well, I'll tell you, if we were to look from the outside

at this, as we sometimes tend to look at the U.S.S.R. and some of their

academic and creative limitations on the arts and so on, I think that

we would see something that looks just about as ridiculous, just about

as inexplicable, just about as distasteful, starting to emerge — only

starting. You, Mr. Minister, can stop it, but you're going to have to

fight. If you can't win that fight, you should put your job behind your

principles — stick by your principles. I wish you the best of luck.

HON. R. FRASER: I thank him for his good wishes and will

assure him of my greatest effort. We will also be relying on the

creative and imaginative capacity of the people in post-secondary.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would also add my very sincere

congratulations to the new minister. I'm very pleased with the creation

of the new ministry. It certainly emphasizes the importance that this

government places on post-secondary education. I would like to once

again thank the minister for visiting Surrey very recently — since he was appointed — and

for touring our Kwantlen College facility, the one that I know he's

going to work very hard to obtain funding to have replaced. Certainly

the work done within those walls is excellent, but I don't know how

much longer those walls are going to stand up. We're really very

serious about the importance and the need for the replacement.

[2:45]

Just to review some of the statistics, and to once again emphasize

the need for the new permanent Kwantlen College campus in our area,

Kwantlen College offers post-secondary education, and the region

covered includes Richmond, Delta, Surrey, White Rock and Langley.

According to the most recent census, the region had a population of

392,000 persons. It's certainly a growing region, and it is anticipated

that by 2001 we will have 722,000 people in that particular region, so

a permanent campus is certainly warranted with the population that

we're looking at.

The campuses in Surrey have full-time equivalent students totalling

just under 2,000, with 1,122 at the Richmond campus, which, of course,

as I mentioned, is all part of the Kwantlen College region. As the

population increases in the future, the number of persons attending

Kwantlen will also increase.

MR. REID: Everybody wants to come to Surrey.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Everybody wants to come to Surrey, and it is

necessary for us to provide space for at least an additional 2,500

full-time equivalent students by the year 2001. The Kwantlen region, as

we all know, has the highest percentage of grade 12 enrolments in the

province, and the percentage will increase by 1989.

So once again, Mr. Minister, I'm asking you to look very seriously

at our request for something in the neighbourhood of $54 million to

provide us with the funding required for the establishment of the

permanent campus. The petition that was presented to you when you

visited our area is a very strong indication of the community support

for this expenditure.

You will recall, Mr. Minister, that close to 12,000 people signed

those petitions in a two-month period. I think this certainly warrants

and indicates the strong support for the establishment of the college

in Surrey.

We really wouldn't mind, Mr. Minister, if it was phased out over a

period of two or three years. It doesn't have to be approved of all at

one time.

MR. REID: You mean phased in. You said phased out.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Did I say phased out? That's all right. I have

such a positive attitude about the approval being obtained almost

imminently that sometime I get a little bit too excited.

We're looking forward to a very positive response from the minister

and the Treasury Board. We certainly have worked for the permanent

campus, and we will work very hard to see that it is properly

established there with the support of the community.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the thrust

from the constituents of Surrey for the Kwantlen College. I have

accepted the petitions from both of you, and certainly I have no doubt

in my mind that there is great community support for the Kwantlen

College.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the University of Victoria is a

very important part of our local economy, and the people in this region

are asking why the number of young people attending university in this

province is second to the bottom. Would the minister please get his

pencil out and tell us why British Columbia is next only to

Newfoundland, the lowest participation rate in post-secondary education

in all of Canada?

Look at the funding numbers over the last few years. Cast your mind

back to 1982-83, when the University of Victoria's operating grant was

$55.3 million. The following year the grant was cut by approximately

2.7 percent. In 1984-85 it was cut by 5 percent. In 1985-86 it was cut

by 4.9 percent, even though at the same time the federal transfer

payments were going up. There's been too much politics around

post-secondary education in this province and not enough attention to

quality public instruction at the post-secondary level. These decreases

have occurred in spite of successive increases in the federal

established programs financing transfers.

[ Page 7784 ]

It is estimated that in 1984-85 the federal government passed more

money to the province than was transferred over to the universities. A

lot of people are not aware that the province doesn't put any money

into universities in British Columbia. That may come as a surprise. The

money for financing universities in this province comes from the

federal government in established programs financing and from student

fees, which are among the highest in the country. It is estimated that

a person who has to borrow through the student loan program to get a

bachelor of arts or a bachelor of science degree will go $22,000 into

debt in this province, to make a contribution to this society.

So I would like to ask the minister why we are second from the

bottom. Why are only 17.3 percent of students full-time? The way the

participation rate is calculated.... Please don't give me that Gyro

Gearloose formula that he used to present to this House. The same

formula is presented to everyone, to every province in this country.

The participation rate is defined as: "the full-time post-secondary

education enrolment expressed as a percentage of the population age 18

to 24." Of young people 18 to 24 in British Columbia, only 17.03 out of

100 go to university. Do you know what the highest one is? That's a

question for the minister. What province gives its people the best

chance of higher education? Quebec. Quebec is almost 32 percent — almost

double British Columbia. The national average is 25 percent. At very

least, we should be shooting for the national average of 25 percent.

We're 17 out of every 100; Canada is 25 out of every 100; Quebec is

almost 32 out of every 100; and Ontario is almost 25. So Ontario is the

Canadian average. It's not rhetoric in this House. It's Statistics

Canada — it's the hard numbers.

Why are we at the bottom? Because smart businesses go and invest and

situate themselves where there is a strong public education system.

That's clear in California. That's clear — as the member for Vancouver East was pointing out — in

Massachusetts. That's why MIT and all those other postgraduate

educational institutes are there. They are drawing in all sorts of

industries that want the kinds of quality instruction and skills that a

world-class university system provides. Washington state is miles ahead

of us. The Seattle area greatly encourages and supports its

post-secondary education.

Over the last few years we've had continual cuts in funding to our

universities by this government, and it's cutting the future options of

our children short. It has always played politics with what should be

beyond politics in this province. The real disgrace is that the

province has made a profit from educational transfer funds. They've

actually come from Ottawa in the established programs financing, and

some of those moneys have been deflected away. Rather than going to the

universities where they were earmarked to go, those moneys have been

used for other purposes. What kind of an operation is this, when the

money that is earmarked for education ends up in some other budget of

government?

There are also a number of reports that have been done which

indicate that it makes good, sound financial and economic sense to fund

universities. First of all, you know, it's not good enough to say to

young people: "What's the point in getting a master's degree? What's

the point of being a chemist or an engineer? What's the point of doing

post-doctoral work? You can't get a job and you'll just drive a cab."

Well, that's a falsehood. Do you know, Mr. Minister, that a person's

educational level...? The higher the level of education achieved, the

less the likelihood of being unemployed. Those are facts, and I have

with me a part of a report from which I just want to point out to

you.... The B.C. unemployment rate, for example: those individuals with

high school have more than double the chance of being unemployed of

those individuals who have a university education. These are statistics

from "Labour Force Annual Averages," Statistics Canada catalogue No.

71-529.

I know you can't see this graph from there, Mr. Minister, but this graph indicates — and it's a scale....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Well, I'll just show you what it says. This graph

is a scale of percentage points of unemployment from zero to 18. The

upper level is 18; this is the level of unemployment of individuals

with high school education. This bottom one is the unemployment level,

by year, for individuals with university education. So a person with

university education has this percentage likelihood of being

unemployed, and a person with a high school education has this one up

here. If we want to reduce unemployment in this province, one of the

best things we could do is offer post-secondary education to individuals

who want it. That's point number one. I'd like the minister to explain

this particular graph and, if he disagrees with the graph — and I've given him the citation — I'd

like him to tell me whether he believes that people with university

education have less likelihood of being unemployed in British Columbia

or not.

I'd also like to point out that the growth in new job creation in

B.C. from 1971 to 1981.... Where do you think the growth has been?

Is it blue collar growth? Is it white collar? Is it teaching? Is it

medicine? The percentage of growth — and again this is Statistics Canada catalogue No. 92-920 — indicates

that the B.C. employment growth from 1971 to 1981, a ten-year period,

is 170 percent increase in managerial, administrative and financial.

That is the highest growth category of employment in this province, the

kind of employment that would naturally flow from university education.

Managerial, administrative and financial, and just behind it, with a

169 percent increase, are social science, law and related areas — not

blue collar, not sweeping up around computers, not serving hot dogs;

but managerial, social sciences, law related skills are the skill

growth areas in our economy. Those are the areas that have to be

funded. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that there has been too much

politics around funding of universities, and too much stealing from

established programs financing that should have been deflected back to

the universities. These graphs indicate that the best money spent is

money invested in post-secondary education.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

As the minister is probably aware, the University of Victoria is a

catchment area for rural British Columbia. A great number of students

from the interior of B.C., from the north, from the rest of Vancouver

Island, come to the University of Victoria. The fees are a little less,

accommodation is a little less, the cost of living and so on. Also the

jump between coming from a rural area and going right to University of

British Columbia is sometimes a more difficult transition, so

[ Page 7785 ]

they tend to come and stay with family or friends on the Island.

[3:00]

What this says, Mr. Chairman, is that the University of Victoria has

special needs because it is a catchment area. It deserves special

funding for students from rural areas. As the minister is probably

aware, rural British Columbians have less than half the chance of going

to university than people in the metropolitan area have. Even given the

fact that we have less chance than anybody else in the country, other

than Newfoundland, to go to university — and that's a fact — people in

the interior and rural B.C., whether it's Lillooet or Cache Creek or

Quesnel or Dawson Creek or Ladysmith, have half the chance of going to

university of their metropolitan counterparts. Is there any extra

consideration given or real encouragement given to support fair access

to universities? No.

I have a chart here, and I guess the minister may not be able to see

it, but here is the percentage of enrolment over years. This is

non-metropolitan British Columbia, rural British Columbia. Here's the

attendance at universities. Here's the metropolitan: consistently 7

percent higher all the way through.

These are serious numbers. We have a serious problem in

post-secondary education financing in this province. It's really got to

end. It's selling out our future. I've been up to the University of

Victoria engineering school, and I think that's a good start. The

electrical engineering school is a good start, and I'm looking forward

to the funding for the mechanical side. I think that that is a

department that could directly benefit the economy. There has to be

employment for engineers, because we've recently read engineers in the

paper saying: "If you want a job in engineering in British Columbia,

forget it." I disagree with that.

We've got to provide employment for the people that have skills and

training in the engineering area. The electrical side.... I know

that they're right on the vanguard of computer-assisted design and all

sorts of things that could spin off into very important industrial

applications. The co-op work program there, where students work one

semester and go to university the next, is a good program.

What we've got to have is online budgeting, where they're not

looking for some political gimme every year. They have to know, in

advance, what the financing is going to be for the university and what

faculty they can hire and for how long, and how many students they can

bring in, and how they can gradually build the department.

The mechanical side is something I would like to ask the minister

about. When does the minister expect to fund the mechanical engineering

school, to get that off the ground, at the University of Victoria.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry the member missed

some of the debate yesterday, for many of the questions were answered

then, but for the benefit of those in the audience, I'll answer them

again.

Firstly, more cash goes out of B.C. to the federal government than

comes back, so we'll start with that one. Secondly, when it comes to

program funding, which includes health care and education, in the net

form, if you want to look at that way, I'm advised that we pay about 55

percent of the total, and the feds pay about 45. That should indicate

to you that the province is doing a great deal of work in the fields of

post-secondary education and health care.

When it comes to statistics about who goes where, and age groups and

things, depending upon which age group you pick, your numbers, of

course, will change. You mentioned the 18 to 24 group, which is the

StatsCan guideline. In fact, many of the students in our post-secondary

system are older than that. Many of the colleges tell me their average

age is around 26, which is rather a good sign, in a way, I think,

because it means that many of our older students are going back to

school to either upgrade or retrain, which I think is a very positive

move on their part.

Now we talk about university enrolments being constant, that's true.

And one of the reasons for that, of course, is that we have a very

extensive network of colleges in the province which are put around the

province to support educational opportunities for those who do not live

in the metropolitan areas of the lower mainland or the lower end of

Vancouver Island — which is a conscious decision.

Talking about drawing world-class industries or world class

research, if you look at organizations like TRIUMF, which are doing

that very thing, or organizations like MDA or MDI or Vortek or Moll

Battery, you'll find that there are a number of companies in the

British Columbia area that are spinoffs from research done in the

universities, which, of course, we would all support.

We would, of course, anticipate that those with a higher education

would remain employed longer, or at a higher rate of pay, which is one

of the reasons why we're so supportive of post-secondary education in

the first place. Secondly, you talked about extra benefits for students

from the rural areas. You are aware, I am sure, that the remission of

fees for students outside the metropolitan areas is higher than for

those in urban areas. There is a recognition of the extra cost for

students from outside heavily populated areas.

On to funding stability: in recognition of the request from

post-secondary institutions, all of them now have multi-year funding,

for the very reason that they can do better long-term planning.

MR. HANSON: One thing that a minister in this particular portfolio should have is ears. You really have to listen to the....

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Well, it's obvious from your answers that you

didn't listen. Why is British Columbia...? Let's just take 18 to 24.

What is your reason for the people of British Columbia, aged 18 to

24...? Why do they have less chance than 18- to 24-year-olds in any

other province in Canada, other than Newfoundland, of going to

university? What is your answer?

HON. R. FRASER: I can advise the member that there have been

a number of studies done on that, and there is no definitive answer

today. However, if you want to look at what I would like to see as the

Minister of Post-Secondary Education, I would like to see a continuing

upward trend of enrolment in post-secondary institutions.

MR. HANSON: Well, then, the next question is: what are you prepared to do financially to make that happen?

Interjections.

[ Page 7786 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 62 pass?

The first member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking a question. The minister

indicated that he wanted to bring us out of the basement in terms of

the number of people attending university in this province. We're less

than the national average. The national average is 25 percent of 18- to

24-year-olds. We're at 17 percent; Quebec is 32 percent; Ontario is the

national average. My question to him is: what are you prepared to do

concretely to raise our percentage?

HON. R. FRASER: To the member, I think you have to understand

that there is already an upward trend in enrolment in academic courses

in the province of British Columbia throughout the system in colleges

and universities. We are doing a number of things to increase the

enrolment, such as upgrading the facilities, such as scholarship

programs, such as remission programs for loans. There are a number of

programs underway.

MR. HANSON: Is the minister aware that our bursary program,

our non-existent bursary program...? We're one of the few provinces in

the country that doesn't really have a proper bursary program for

students, and it's largely on loans that people have to fund their

education. Is he prepared to bring in a bursary program to bring us in

line with other provinces in Canada?

HON. R. FRASER: I'm prepared to respond to certain requests

from the universities. That is the whole purpose of the Excellence

fund, as we pointed out yesterday. We have something in the order of

$600 million going into education in total in the next three years,

which is a significant increase in the financing and funding of

post-secondary institutions, which I suggest to you is significant and

worthy of your notice.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at the numbers for the

operating funds for the '86-87 year, which are only going to be 95

percent of the previous year's, which were 95 percent of the year

before that. How can you fund post-secondary education when every year

the funding amounts to 95 percent of what it was in the previous year?

HON. R. FRASER: I answered that already.

MR. HANSON: Let's hear it.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: How can you get us out of the basement in terms

of access to post-secondary education when you give the universities

less each year than you gave the previous year, and you keep doing it

year after year? How does that work? It sounds like Dr. Gearloose's

style of formula. Could you explain it to me?

HON. R. FRASER: If I spoke more slowly, I think the member

for Vancouver East might go to sleep. However, what I should tell you

is that the funding to post-secondary institutes at the moment is

initial. There is no final funding, of course, because they haven't

completed proposals to the excellence fund. And beyond that, your

numbers for last year weren't correct, because they didn't include

special adjustment funds which were forwarded to universities. So what

we say is that, depending on the submissions that come from them, we're

being very responsive to the specific needs and requests of the

institutions. That's the whole idea of that opportunity: to give them

more input than they might otherwise have wished for.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, to have a top-quality university

system involves stability, confidence and an absence of cheap politics

— setting up little special funds that they have to apply for, and they

play one university off against the other, and so on. We need solid

baseline operating projections that go year after year so they know who

they can hire and so they can acquire the talent around the world so

that they can make it a place where academics are not berated or made

to feel that their contribution is insignificant. We should be going

after good people and saying: "British Columbia is a place where we

acknowledge the contribution you can make to our young people, and

we're willing to fund it on an ongoing basis with some stability. We're

going to move you out of the political punching bag for a while, and

we're going to let the universities settle down and get on with the

job." They spend most of their time trying to sharpen up their pencils

to figure out who's going to be laid off or what university program is

going to be cut or to continue. That's the problem with the

post-secondary education in this province, and from the tone of your

remarks, you're going to continue the same kind of program that we've

had in previous universities ministers. If that's what we're going to

have, then we're worse off than before, because you haven't been in

there long enough to even know what you're doing. The universities want

stability and they want the money that should be earmarked from the

federal government to come to them.

[3:15]

A specific question to the minister: when can the University of

Victoria expect some kind of decision on initial funding for the school

of mechanical engineering?

HON. R. FRASER: I'll respond to your more philosophical points first, Mr. Member, which seem to me to be more significant than that one item.

First, the ongoing budgeting that they can count on is what we're

doing. It's called multi-year funding, and it has been done by this

government because they were listening. Secondly, I agree with you, we

have good faculty here. I think if you've been listening or watching or

reading anything I've ever said about post-secondary educational

institutions, I've been very complimentary of the efforts made by the

institutions, by the administration, by the faculty and by the

students. There was no doubt about the fact that when times were a

little tougher a few years ago the public post-secondary education

system was called on to play their role, and that they did, and so they

should have. I don't see any difficulty with that, I'm sure you don't

either. But the fact is that because of the work that was done, things

are now looking better, and there's more money available. That's where

the excellence fund comes in, because of the good work done by

everybody in the province. And that's everybody.

[ Page 7787 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Because of the good work done by everybody in

the province? You mean in swallowing your phony restraint program? Is

that what you're talking about?

I just wonder if the minister has read the Hebert report on youth

published in February from the Senate. Senator Hebert, you know? Well,

he looks at education, among other things, in terms of the problems of

youth. And a quarter of the youth in this province are unemployed — officially; it's probably much worse than that unofficially.

Again the member for Victoria pointed out the numbers in terms of

what expectations there are for employment based on education, and the

pattern is pretty clear. What he failed to mention is what happens with

those with only elementary education, as to their employment prospects.

There, 28 percent are unemployed. Hebert tells us that in high school

it's the 18 that the member mentioned, in colleges it is 9.8; a

tremendous difference. You're really consigning huge regions of this

province to a life of poverty and unemployment, given the policies

you.... You bet you are. You are consigning the Kootenays to higher

levels of unemployment than any other region of the province. You're

consigning Prince George and the northern interior to higher levels of

unemployment than anywhere else in the province. You're condemning the

people, the children of those regions to a life that will be

economically tougher than for people in the metropolitan regions. It is

abundantly clear. The statistics are there and can't be denied. When 6

percent of the kids from high school are going to college from those

interior regions, and 16 from the lower mainland, you've set the

pattern. The kids from the lower mainland and greater Victoria have the

better economic prospects in this province. The kids in the north

don't. In the north coast, in the Okanagan, in the Kootenays, it isn't

there.

I just wonder if you ever pull yourself back.... I know you've

only been minister a few months, but as the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson) said, work at being your own man. Think about the

regional towns of this province and in a broader way about how we lift

them up to be more significant communities and cities. How do we

improve the lifestyle, the opportunities, the range of discussion and

enterprise and transfer of ideas and so on, in communities like

Kamloops, in communities like Prince George, Nelson, Cranbrook and so

on?

It seems to me that clearly one of the ways you transform the way of

life in those communities is to do something more in your particular

field — that you can do more. In Prince George, just right off the top,

if you thought of say transportation as a significant issue, or land

management and forests, I think it is nothing short of extraordinary

that our only forestry school in British Columbia should be at UBC. I

don't think it makes any sense not to have significant forestry schools

around the province, in terms of land management questions, in these

very different regions.

The regions of B.C. are like countries in Europe. You have a

tremendously different region in the interior wet belt of the Kootenays

versus the interior plateau of Prince George and the Cariboo and so on.

They are tremendously different. If you have thought, as Hebert

suggests, in terms of more cooperative education involving both the

public and the private sector groups outside academic circles but tied

to new institutions in those regions, then we might be generating a

whole new range of employment opportunities for the people in those

regions, not to mention the employment in the institutions themselves

that would be mutually beneficial and move us into greater

wealth-creation. It seems to me this is one of the levers we have for

creating wealth.

You've got such a narrow-minded group of colleagues over there, they

rarely think.... You've got my sympathy. There's a heavy

anti-intellectual, anti-education bias within that group over there. It

is their tradition. It is, my God, the tradition of your leader in

spades. The Premier of this province, I say unequivocally, has an

anti-education bias. He thinks he is a self-made man — and why, if he

can do it, anybody can do it. That's where he is coming from, and

that's what you're stuck with. I say it is nonsense. If my dad was a

millionaire, I could have handled a lot of things too. It just doesn't

work. It just doesn't wash.

I think we should have significant post-secondary educational

institutions in Prince George, in Kamloops and in the Kootenays. I

think it is nothing short of shameful that our major institutions are

just down here in Victoria and greater Vancouver. It just doesn't add

up.

Hebert tells us what all of us really know as well. He says that

wealthy families make sure that their kids go to college, and the

opportunities are generally there for them. So the system is biased. It

is biased in terms of income: the people with income tend to get their

kids into college and get them on a better economic track than the

others. It is biased in terms of regions because it is tougher in those

other regions to get out there and do these things.

You said you thought it was really significant that older students

are making up more and more of the clientele of our universities. The

reason they're back there is because our unemployment levels are so

scandalously high.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should go back, Bob.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

Transfer payments. Look at the historical pattern of the transfer

payments for higher education. Again, Hebert looks at these in terms of

the transfer payments historically. If you look at B.C. since 1977-78,

federal transfer payments then were about 78 to 79 percent of the total

amount spent on post-secondary education. But now they're up at the

104-plus percent level.

HON. A. FRASER: You got that from one of John Turner's speeches.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, no. The old member from the Cariboo, where

unemployment levels are desperately bad again, really could be serving

his constituents more by pushing for a senior institution in Prince

George. It's all very nice for the member for Surrey to talk about

$50-odd million for another college in the lower mainland. But in any

set of priorities a town like Prince George should have a significant

post-secondary institution on some scale that changes the nature of

that town, that affects settlement, that affects decisions....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Have you ever been to Prince George?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, ma'am, I've even been to Surrey — I've had to go through it to go somewhere else.

At any rate, towns like Prince George and Kamloops clearly should have significant senior institutions that change

[ Page 7788 ]

the way employers look at those communities. The

underemployment of women in the Kamloops region historically has been

grim. The way to change the underemployment of women and the lack of

training for them in these towns is through these institutions, and

upgrading and expanding them. If I had your job, these would be the

priorities I would set.

The regions of the province have historically — ironically, under this Premier from the interior — been

sacrificed in virtually every policy, including this one. The

hinterland of the province has suffered. He has been suckered by the

big city boys every time: a billion dollars on Expo, a billion dollars

on SkyTrain — the works. And then you squeeze all these institutions in

towns like Prince George; you squeeze the institutions in Kamloops. And

what you did in Nelson, in terms of removing the arts school and the

David Thompson University Centre, is nothing short of scandalous. The

hinterland has suffered under you people, and the opportunities for

youth have deteriorated under you people. Your ministry, small as it

is, relative to some of the others, can play a significant role in

changing the way of life for many of these towns in the interior and

the north. So I urge the minister to look seriously at major expansion

in the hinterland, and not in the lower mainland or Victoria.

HON. R. FRASER: First of all, one of the things we've done is

establish multi-campuses, which, of course, serve the hinterland. We

have forestry programs at Selkirk and CNC, which are, of course, in the

outlying regions which you talked about. And I would agree with you

that.... I see this ministry as a force in economic renewal.

MR. HANSON: Looking at the numbers of students attending

university in B.C. over the last couple of years, there is an absolute

decline in the number of students 18-24 years of age who.... I

commend Stats Canada 1981, pages 91-210 and 220.... Let me give you

the numbers. In '83-84 there were 37,247 full-time university students

18-24 years of age.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I've got the college numbers as well. The number

of full-time university students dropped by almost 2,000. Colleges

dropped as well: in '83-84, 22,661; in '85-86, 21,750. There was a drop

in the number of students going to university and a drop in college

enrolment for students 18-24 years of age.

[3:30]

The real tragedy is that rather than looking at the recession as an

opportunity to cushion students — to give them a chance to get higher

training, upgrade skills, prepare themselves for a new job market, the

new technology, new options, whatever you want to call it — you

curtailed spending, you cut back. You hurt the economy of southern

Vancouver Island. You hurt our kids' futures. That is the real tragedy

of the mismanagement of post-secondary education and public instruction

from K right through to post-doctoral in this province. You precluded

options for them when you should have been taking initiatives to open

up the doors. You didn't do it. But when we're government, after the

next election, we're going to provide a solid public instruction system

that is responsive to the people, that has ears, that has people who

listen, that allows for the kinds of things that are happening and that

allows rural or non-metropolitan British Columbia to be a part of the

action so that we can build on the kind of resource base that we have

and the options for our people for employment.

From what I've heard in this estimate, you are part of the tradition

on that side of the House: you get your political lines from the

government information service, from Mr. Kinsella, Mr. Spector, Mr.

Smith and others; you stand up and support cuts every year — 95 percent

of previous funding. We'll never have a proper university system in

this province unless we break that mould, unless we break away from

that old idea.

I remember there was a debate in one of the towns in this province

where the people wanted a library. It's a major city in this province,

and there was a mayor who said: "Why do they want a library? I've got

books in my basement; they can come and read them if they want." That

was the approach to education, and that's very much the mainstream

Bennett government approach to post-secondary education. We'll never

break away and never give our kids a chance until we get rid of those

folks on that side of the House.

HON. R. FRASER: With respect to your comments, in fact,

because of the program of this government, there is now money available

for health care and education;

whereas I believe you would have taxed

the kids out of their future and the old seniors out of their homes.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: I would like to raise just a couple of questions

dealing with two groups of people to whom I think — and I'm sure the

minister would agree with me — education is very important. One has to

do with people who are in receipt of income assistance in the province,

the people who are victimized by the Ministry of Human Resources; and

the other, of course, has to do with women.

Now there are two ways of breaking the poverty cycle. There are

actually three. The third one is you can win a lottery, I guess, and

that's the fastest way of getting out of it, although it's been proven

that you can get back in just as fast as soon as the lottery money is

gone. But certainly one way of dealing with getting off income

assistance is through the education system, and more and more people

are trying to use education and skill training as a means of getting

out of poverty and getting off the income assistance roll. The problem

with it is that the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education doesn't have

enough control over establishing the criteria for what happens in terms

of people who want to use their programs.

MHR and CEIC — the federal employment commission — decide what the

criteria are in terms of whether people can get a post-secondary

education or not, and also decide how long they can attend either the

community college or university in terms of getting this post-secondary

education. What this means is that there is a certain inflexibility in

course offerings and in eligibility requirements; that the ministry is

not really taking enough of a leadership role in establishing criteria

and in deciding who can use these programs and how they can be funded,

so that the programs can really be a route for them off the poverty

cycle.

I want to give a couple of examples of that. The adult basic

education program.... People referred to this course are referred

by Unemployment Insurance or by MHR. UIC

[ Page 7789 ]

will not sponsor, in particular, women for this

course if there is other work available for them at their present level

of education. Funds are channelled through the Ministry of Education,

and the adult basic education funding has in fact been cut by 50

percent.

Now an example of what happens is a woman who wanted to take one of

these courses in adult basic education and was refused. She was told

she couldn't take this program because there were jobs available for

her at her educational level, which was grade 8 and grade 9. There were

waitress and chambermaid jobs available, and as long as those jobs were

available they were not prepared to give her permission to take the

adult basic education course or even to take the technical and trade

courses which are supposed to be operating. I'm talking about

tech-works for women, the trades immersion courses, which are supposed

to be operating to help women get out of the poverty cycle and become

independent, self-sufficient, and able to support themselves.

Clearly grade 8 and grade 9 education is not good enough in this

world in which we live today. You're never going to be able, as I said,

other than winning a lottery ticket, to get out of welfare and off

income assistance with grade 8 and grade 9 education. A large number,

as a matter of fact most, of the people in this province on income

assistance and on welfare are single mothers. Most of these women have

not completed their high school. A number of them are willing to go

back to school, to complete their high school education, if the

opportunity is there, and then are willing to go on to post-secondary

education.

This is where the ministry could be of invaluable service, not just to these

women but to the community at large. Once they've got the job skills, then they

can go on to seek employment, gain employment, and start paying taxes and making

an economic contribution to the society in which they live. But because CEIC

and MHR call the shots, because they really control what happens in the ministry,

in terms of who can and cannot take these programs, the ministry fails this

particular group of people in our society. The ministry does not operate in

their best interests. It cannot be used to assist them to become independent

and contributing members of society.

I want to give another example, and that's in the diploma courses:

the computer technology and the business administration courses. Again,

most of the women who apply to these courses are referred through MHR.

These are women who are on income assistance, again, primarily because

they are single parents, and they see that with training in computer

technology or in business administration they can get off income

assistance. However, the problem with that is that MHR insists that

they must complete these programs within two years; that's the absolute

maximum that MHR is prepared to finance their education for. Unless

you've ever tried to be a single-parent mother and go to school and

raise a family at the same time, you know how difficult this is going

to be. In fact, men who are on the program and studying full-time say

that they find it difficult to complete the program in three years; yet

MHR insists that the program be completed in two years. MHR becomes so

angry when these women fail to complete the program in two years that

they refuse to give them an extension or to make it possible for them

to reapply and get financial assistance to complete the program, even

though once they've completed the program they're in a position to get

employment and get off welfare. That's how shortsighted MHR is in these

matters.

But that's not the responsibility of the minister here. What the

minister here has to do is to take responsibility for how his ministry

is being used. Rather than allowing MHR and UIC and CEIC, and all these

other people, to call the tune that he dances to, he should take full

responsibility and say: "I am going to establish criteria. I am going

to establish eligibility requirements. And we are going to become

flexible enough so that people really are aided by these programs,

rather than the programs existing as an obstacle which so many people

find it impossible to overcome."

Mr. Chairman, I understand that Joan Mason is the name of the young

woman who has just been appointed within the ministry to be responsible

for employment alternatives for women; she's the coordinator. Maybe the

minister, in responding, can tell me exactly what it is that Joan's

going to do — describe her job to me and also outline ways in which she

is going to be able to remove the roadblocks which women presently run

into when they're referred by MHR or UIC onto some of these programs.

The other real problem that women have to deal with is a decision by

the government in March 1984 to change the provincial student aid

grant: to abolish it and turn it into provincial loans; also, to change

the criterion for eligibility and raise it from 60 percent to 80

percent in order to qualify as a full-time student. Again, that is a

real hardship for women who are single parents. I've just completed

teaching a course at the University of Victoria, and many of the women

in that program were single-parent mothers. Trying to carry a full load

and raise a family at the same time in order to qualify not for a

bursary but for a loan constitutes so much of a hardship that fewer and

fewer women are able to take advantage of these educational

opportunities.

By the time they graduate — if they manage to survive until

graduation, Mr. Chairman — they find themselves weighted down with this

incredible debt which the student aid loan constitutes. A large number

of them go into female ghetto jobs that do not pay high salaries. A

number of them go into social work, child care — those kinds of

traditional jobs which women continue to gravitate to, presumably

because we do it better than most other people; I don't know. I don't

want to go into all of the reasons for that here. But it means they are

going to be working, but not at high-priced jobs; and instead of being

aided by bursaries, they have the double whammy of dealing with loans

instead, and at the same time they have to carry an 80 percent load in

order to qualify. So that's another obstacle that women and people on

income assistance.... Again, most of the people on income

assistance are single-parent mothers, so we're talking about women

again. Anyway, whenever we talk about poverty we talk about women. So

instead of its being access to a future out of welfare, we find it's an

obstacle that locks them onto the welfare roll and into income

assistance.

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of

Women — CRIAW — just completed a report on women's participation in

B.C. universities, and the figures show that B.C. women, both full-time

and part-time, participate at below the national rate. My colleague

from Victoria spoke about 18- to 24-year-olds participating below the

national rate. That's also true of women. I pointed out that one of the

reasons I think that's so is the changes in the eligibility

requirements for student loans. The report goes on to say that the

trend is for B.C. women to continue to fall below the national level.

There's been no turnaround. In fact, what we see is not a plateau; the

decline is increasing. Unless

[ Page 7790 ]

something dramatic is done by the ministry, specifically in the area of removing the roadblocks — reinstating

bursaries and going back to the old criteria for eligibility, dropping

it back to 60 percent of student study load rather than 80 percent — these

figures are going to continue to decline. We're going to continue in

the opposite direction and see the figures go up for women on welfare

and in receipt of income assistance, because they're not going to be

able to use education as one of their means of breaking the poverty

cycle.

[3:45]

The other figure which this report showed, of course, was the very

small percentage of women who make it into either tenure positions or

positions of leadership in the university. My other question then to

the minister is: to what extent is the ministry using suasion or

encouragement or whatever to introduce the affirmative action concept

into the post-secondary institutions? I'm not suggesting that he should

introduce legislation at this time; I just want to know what he's doing

— if anything — in terms of trying to undo the imbalance which

presently exists in terms of leadership in the university. In case he's

not sure about the figures, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell him that at

UBC, for example, 74.8 percent of the male professors were tenured in

1977,

whereas in 1982 that figure had increased to 81 percent. At the

same time, in 1977 only 48 percent of the women faculty were tenured,

and in 1982 there was an increase of 2 percent; and that's now up to

50.8 percent. I don't know if he's aware of these figures, or if he has

seen the report produced by the Canadian Research Institute for the

Advancement of Women; but if he hasn't, I'd be very happy to loan him

my copy. If he's unsure about ways and means in which he can help to

undo this imbalance, I would be very happy to help him with that too.

HON. R. FRASER: I was pleased to note that the member

understands that many of the parts of her submission were nothing to do

with the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education. In fact, there are some

correct statements in there: the federal government is cutting down on

some of the support that adult basic education is getting; but, again,

due to the great work of this government, we are increasing support for

people in that category.

I would also remind everybody that we aren't just here to advance

the cause of women; we're here to advance the cause of all British

Columbians equally. I think that would be considered fair. We know, of

course, that there are increasing numbers of women attending

university. I'm advised that more than half of the students at the

University of Victoria are women. That should give you some idea of the

status of women at universities.

With respect to men or women on faculty, you would have to believe,

of course, that you would want to hire your professional staff on the

basis of their individual merit, whether they are male or female. I

suspect, of course, that the number of female faculty members will

increase as more and more women become available to teach. I would also

submit, for her consideration — she probably already understands — that

tenure or lack of it has a great deal to do with the number of years

one has taught.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MS. BROWN: I'm still doing my questioning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Debate really does reciprocate, hon. members,

and the debate leader had a lot of opportunity, plus the fact that this

is the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and I think he should be

recognized now.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, it's nice when Chairmen stick together.

The opportunity to stand here on the minister's estimates....

Mr. Chairman, if you listen to the debate here, particularly coming

from the opposition, I've been listening to that same debate for seven

years in this chamber. I meet with students from colleges and

universities. A great number of them espouse the same need for

education, the same access for education that the opposition is posing

here today. I usually turn to most of them and say: how much education

is a young person, or a person of our province, entitled to? In other

words, how much do the public, the taxpayers of this province, have to

pay for before that person has to contribute himself?

It's a question that you rarely hear asked. I don't hear too many

other people asking it. But I've asked it many times. I get various

answers. Basically they go from about grade 10 to a degree in

university, or as long as the person can continue to perform at

university or wishes to go to university — the full ambit. That, in

some instances, could be years and years. My father used to tell me of

a gentleman that went to McGill University when he was there, who had

about seven different degrees; he stayed at university because he was a

band leader, and he made more money leading the band at McGill

University than he would have by going out to work, so he stayed at

university in order to do that, and he took nearly all the courses that

were there.

I don't think we as taxpayers can afford to contribute that to the

population of the province. As I say, I've heard from grade 10 up. I've

had school principals tell me grade 10; others tell me grade 12, which

seems sort of a logical area, because it seems to be the next step for

a young person towards maturity; or maybe what we used to call a

first-year matriculation, grade 13. I don't have the answer, but I

guess the people that do have the answer are the taxpayers of this

province. It's we as government that have to come up with that answer.

We are elected to govern. We are given the responsibility to designate

a certain number of dollars that may be available to us, depending upon

the income or the quantum that our taxpayers, or public, can pay. It

would be ideal to provide everybody with education to doctoral degrees.

We would be extremely rich. But I don't know if it would be

advantageous to our community.

If you go to Bermuda, it has the highest grade 12 graduation

population of any island in the Caribbean; and economically they're

starving because nobody will go out and work in the fields. They're

having to look for aid from somewhere else. People are actually on

welfare that have the high education. We have to have a break of

education....

MS. BROWN: You have to have your hewers of wood and drawers of water?

MR. REE: You have to have some hewers of wood and drawers of

water, and you have to have the professors, the academics and the rest

of it. At any rate, the question I have asked.... In the past I

think we have been very generous to our population here in the

province. I think we have all benefited from the educational system we

have.

[ Page 7791 ]

A few weeks ago, I was in a school in my riding talking to students,

and took a great number of questions from them. A lot of the questions

were, "Why can't we have this in the province? Why can't we have that?

What assistance do we have in the post-secondary education?" and things

like this. You know, I turned to those students and said, "I want to

thank you." They sort of looked at me as if to say: "Why are you

thanking us?" I said: "I want to thank you for all of the benefits that

I am receiving and will receive in the future that you students are

paying for, and are going to pay for in the future."

Our present budget has a deficit; it has increased our provincial

deficit. We are paying over $400 million a year in interest, which

could provide a great deal of education. I think we have to take

responsibility in trying to decide how much education our young people

are entitled to and how much we can help subsidize those that can

qualify for or effectively utilize additional education. We cannot just

give carte blanche education to everybody.

I think we have in some colleges some courses that are nice, good

and pleasant, but I don't see where a college should be in the business

of teaching macrame or some sort of thing like this. That, I

understand, may be available in certain colleges. I think there are

some courses like that that should not be there. I think there are some

courses in the colleges which should be in the actual K to 12, the

people who have been in the educational K to 12 system that didn't

qualify sufficiently, or the new Canadians. I think that should be in

our school system and not in the post-secondary educational system.

I think it's a question that has to be considered, and it's a

question that's got to be decided somewhere and, as elected government,

we have the responsibility. What education are people entitled to?

We had comments the other day from the member for North Okanagan

(Mr. MacWilliam) about the last Commonwealth parliamentary conference

in Regina, where I had the pleasure to be the delegate from British

Columbia and where the member from Okanagan, my colleague, was an

observer. I participated in the discussion with respect to education

among other countries, whether it be taking in foreign students or

taking in students from members of the Commonwealth. A great deal of

conversation in those conferences was much the same as we've had from

the opposition, particularly from Third World countries who are wanting

to have us educate their young people. I'm not averse to that; I think

that is desirable. But through the whole conference nobody, until I

spoke at the end, said: "How much do you subsidize them? How much do

you expect us to pay for your students coming to our country? Are we to

subsidize them 100 percent not only for education but for costs of

living? Should we give them the whole bit, maybe to the detriment of

our own students in our own country? Where do you draw the line?" At

the moment, we are subsidizing Commonwealth students a great deal in

their fees. They are not paying 100 percent of the cost.

I couldn't get an answer. None of them had an answer. Certainly they

would like to see 100 percent, but they all agreed it should not be 100

percent. It's a difficulty. We have to contribute our share to the

Third World countries, to young people, in order to improve the world,

but do we have to do it to the detriment of our own students when we

have limited dollars? Also, should there not be some incentive for that

country or the students coming from that country to contribute a bit

themselves? Maybe it's old-time philosophy, but they might appreciate

what they get an awful lot more if they have to pay for some of it

themselves.

It is something that I believe in and I believe in with respect to

our own students here in Canada, in British Columbia. I don't think we

can give them a free ride. That is why I supported the loan remission

program in doing away with bursaries. Students that can make the mark,

be good in studies, attend the full courses and that sort of thing

should possibly get some remission. They earned something in doing it.

When you gave it to them for nothing before.... My son at UVic used

to tell me stories of students who would apply for the aid or the

bursaries, saying they weren't going to make any money this year.

They'd apply in May or June or something like that. "I won't have a job

this summer." They would then take off for Europe for the summer, where

they didn't work, and come back to university in the fall. They hadn't

made any money, so they got student aid, bursaries. There are others

who didn't report it. I think it was misused.

I even wrote a letter to the president of the student body at UVic

when he wrote saying: "Hey, don't do away with these bursaries." I

wrote back and said: "How can you stop the abuses? When you students

get together on it, I'll support you." But until all these abuses — and

there were a great many abuses.... I'd suggest at least 40 percent of

them were abuses.

MR. NICOLSON: Did you file that information?

MR. REE: File that information with what? I was not given

names. My sons wouldn't.... My son said: "Can I apply, Dad?" I

said: "No, you can't. I'm providing accommodation for you."

[4:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Next time file that information if someone is breaking the law.

MR. REE: We will.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, a lot of that has gone on. To give them

some sort of incentive to get a remission of the loan I think is good.

But I'm not too sure whether that same system applies to post-graduate

studies. I think possibly it does not, but I stand to be corrected. I

think that should be extended to post-graduate students at university

degree level, those who are working on their masters or their

doctorates or some sort of thing in various different disciplines.

I believe it applies say to medicine or to dentistry, those that

take additional courses, but there are others that may take a masters

in some sort of a discipline in economics or something like this. I

don't know whether this remission program does apply to them, and I

think it should. Again, if these people can perform, can get the marks

to show they are deserving, they're worth going to university, they're

the people who are worth helping. I suggest that that could be looked

at by the minister.

I have one other item, Mr. Chairman, and that's dealing with what I

would call international students. Students of British Columbia may be

going to other countries. We have found out here in British Columbia

that we can no longer be parochial like the opposition believe we are.

We are not self-sufficient within this province, whether it be in our

own

[ Page 7792 ]

production, our own goods or education or the rest

of it. We have to educate students in British Columbia, I think, in the

ways of other parts of the world and in particular the Pacific Rim,

those countries.

If we wish to trade, whether it be buying or selling with these

countries, I think we have to have people who are knowledgeable of

those countries and also possibly raised within our own country here.

I'm not too sure just to what extent the minister or the ministry has

gone in this in assisting students to go to foreign countries, to learn

their languages, to learn their ways, to then be available to our

merchants, our traders here in British Columbia.

As a possibility, maybe the government could enter into partnership

with some of the merchants, some of the traders of British Columbia,

and there could be a joint funding of worthwhile students to go to

foreign countries, to learn the languages and learn the ways and come

back and work with that merchant that might be helping.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that possibly the minister might look at

this or consider some of this. I thank you for the opportunity of

speaking at this time.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his

contribution to the debate on the estimates. There are a number of

things that we might want to think about doing.

With respect to loans remission, it is my personal feeling that it

is a very good thing to help the students who need financial aid. While

it doesn't exist in the post-graduate area, we might well think about

doing that. Obviously, as you pointed out, we are a nation that trades

with other nations — and us probably more so than any other parts of

Canada — and we really should encourage better understanding of other

countries and other customs. That's one thing we certainly should do.

I in fact have a great deal of faith in the future of B.C. with

respect to post-secondary education and the students and the faculty. I

have said it before, and I'll say it again, and I thank the member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I hope the first thing the minister

does is take a course in speech therapy. His mumbling is really driving

us crazy.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Probably not, but it would be nice if we could

understand what he is saying half the time, instead of that low rumble,

which we are seriously thinking of taping and selling to Sominex,

because aside from mumbling, he is also the best tranquilizer around.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), who has now left

— oh, no, he hasn't left the room; he has just changed seats — stood

up and told us some more about people who are cheating on the system.

It always puzzles me how these government members know so many cheats

and crooks and people who are ripping off the system. It's just

amazing. There can't be as many people out there who are doing that bad

a job in terms of taking advantage and abusing the system as the

government members tell us about. The only thing I can conclude is that

government members move in a different kind of circle.

I was also interested in his comments about Third World countries

wanting their students to be subsidized by Canada. I guess sometime

we're going to have an opportunity to talk about the ways in which

Third World cheap labour and Third World resources subsidize this

country; also the way in which Canada decides to use Third World

professionals in medicine and other areas because it's cheaper to do

that than to educate our own Canadian students. It's not a one-way

street, believe me. Before going to a parliamentary session the next

time, I hope that member will read up on the facts and try to find out

ways in which Third World countries have in the past subsidized — and continue to subsidize — first

world countries with their cheap labour and resources, the way in which

first world countries rip off their professionals and encourage them to

come here and work because it's cheaper to have doctors and nurses and

physiotherapists and other people who have been trained in Third World

countries, rather than to pay to educate our own people in those fields.

MR. MOWAT: And social workers.

MS. BROWN: And social workers as well. That's right. The

government budgets for it in its decision to keep down the number of

students, whether it's in veterinary — we haven't even got a veterinary college here in British Columbia — or

in medicine and the other professions. It's much cheaper to bring

doctors, social workers, physiotherapists and other health

professionals from other parts of the world to work here rather than to

educate them ourselves, but then to turn around in the next breath and

complain about the cost involved in subsidizing a handful of Third

World students who come to this country! I think it's time we started

looking at the history of our relationship with Third World countries.

It's nothing to brag about.

I've never been to Bermuda and I don't know why educated Bermudians don't want to work in the field —

maybe for the same reasons that educated Canadians don't want to work

in the field. But the member has been to Bermuda, so he knows a lot

more about it than I do. I just want to correct one point. He said they

have the highest literacy rate in the Caribbean, and that's not true.

Barbados does.

I really want to respond to the minister's comments about treating

all people equally; educating all people and not specifically women. I

thought we had passed the stage of those kinds of pious, empty

mouthings, even from the government ministers. I am incredibly

disappointed that the minister responsible for post-secondary education

stands on the floor of this House and makes those kinds of comments.

How can we deal with the disproportionate...?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: If the minister would stop interrupting me, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it.

How can we deal with the disproportionate number of women who are

poor, on welfare, who have not completed their education, who are

locked into low-paying job ghettos, unless we look at them as a group

and try to introduce affirmative action programs in the educational

system to meet their needs? When we refuse to do that, when we have a

minister who stands on the floor of this House and makes pious comments

about treating people equally when it's been proven that the system

does not operate equally for all of

[ Page 7793 ]

these people, then we continue condemning women to

live in poverty in this affluent province and affluent country of ours.

There is no excuse, Mr. Chairman, for that minister to continue making

those kinds of statements, because the statistics are in. The research

has been done; the information is there. We now know that you cannot

treat every single person in the educational system exactly the same,

because the system doesn't work, and hasn't worked, for all people the

same. If it had, we would have the same number of single parent men on

welfare, the same number of men living in poverty, the same number of

illiterate men with incomplete educations; but it doesn't work that way.

All I'm suggesting to the minister is that once we have identified a

group.... And I identified two groups. I identified the people who are

victimized by the Ministry of Human Resources, the people who are

locked in poverty on income assistance, and I identified women as two

groups who maybe, for a short period of time anyway, need to have some

kind of special attention paid to their educational needs if they are

going to become independent, self-sufficient, contributing members of

our community.

It seems to me that if the minister responsible for education in

this province would use half of his brain cells, he would find that

everyone benefits when everyone contributes, that poverty doesn't help

anyone. It doesn't help our society; it doesn't help the people

themselves who are poor. Poverty impoverishes all of us, not just

people who are poor. We are all being deprived of the contribution that

poor people could make if they had the skills or the jobs or the income

to make them independent and contributing members of our society.

You shouldn't lead and you shouldn't be allowed to be responsible

for education in this province if you can't understand that simple

fact. It is the minister's inability to understand that simple fact and

the inability of ministers before him to understand that simple fact

that is the reason why the number of women on income assistance is

escalating and the number of women who can avail themselves of

post-secondary education in this province is declining. That's all that

I tried to bring to this minister's attention, and I ask that he

introduce some kind of aggressive policy to right this inequality. What

is the point of treating unequal people equally? When you treat people

who are unequal equally, you ensure that the inequality continues.

That's all that you do, and you don't need a PhD, a master's or a

bachelor of arts or science to understand that. Even a child — any of

the Pages on the floor of this House — can understand that simple fact.

The failure of the minister responsible for post-secondary education

in this province to grasp that is a disaster, an absolute disaster.

What it means is that women are going to continue to be penalized as a

direct result of his ignorance; that's what that means. Rather than

introducing policy to help them get the additional education that they

need and want and are seeking, rather than introducing policy that will

help them get the tools and the skills to become independent and to

become self-sufficient.... They're going to get smug, empty

statements from the minister as they continue to be locked into their

poverty cycle.

[4:15]

Education enriches us all. Education benefits everyone, not just the

people who, Mr. Chairman, when you were speaking earlier and presented

your elitist concept of who should be educated and who shouldn't....

Nobody is hurt when everybody is educated. How can it hurt us to have

a community of educated people? How can we suffer because people can

read and are intelligent and can understand what's going on? How can

that hurt us? We are moving into a society in which not just the globe

is shrinking, but in which technology and communication and everything

— the work world — demand more of us.

We can't make it in this world anymore with a grade 8 education and

a strong back. Even the fields in Bermuda, Mr. Chairman, which you

talked about, where people were refusing to work, now are being worked

by machines, and you have to be able to understand the technology to

run those machines. When we condemn people to illiteracy and ignorance,

we are condemning them to poverty, and poverty is a burden on all of

us, not just on the poor. I just want to repeat again....

MRS. JOHNSTON: And again and again.

MS. BROWN: Listen, there isn't anyone, including the member for Surrey — not

the male member for Surrey, but the other.... I don't know whether

she is the first or second member for Surrey, Mr. Chairman; I'm sorry.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Number one.

MR. REID: She's a lady, and she's number one.

MS. BROWN: The number one member for Surrey. I want to assure

you that I know that I'm wasting my time. I know that. I know that I'm

wasting my breath trying to speak to the minister and to speak to the

government about this, but I'm going to continue to do it. I'm going to

continue every time these estimates come up prior to the next election

to raise the issue of the ways in which obstacles are placed in the

path of people on income assistance and women; to raise the issue of

the failure of this government to meet their academic needs and their

needs for additional training and skills, and the ways in which the

policies of this government condemn them to poverty. I am going to

continue to raise those issues until either the minister comes to his

senses or the people of British Columbia change that government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair would like to take the

liberty of thanking the member for Burnaby Edmonds for bringing to the

attention of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano that it was not

Bermuda but Barbados.

MR. NICOLSON: You know, Mr. Chairman, my colleague makes, I

think, a very valid point. For instance, in the student assistance

criteria the definition of "full-time" and the requirement of full-time

attendance at a post-secondary institution really works against

single-parent mothers, many of whom we have had.... I am sure both

sides of the House have had delegations come here. I remember one

person from Kamloops who made a very favourable impression. She was a

living example of the kind of a person who is struggling and ready to

take the benefit of a training program and post-secondary education — to

the benefit of all of us. When we preclude someone like that doing that

— and this person happened to have one child — we're

doing not just her a disservice; we're doing her child a disservice and

we're doing the province a disservice. I was quite impressed and felt

that she would be able to contribute much more to society

[ Page 7794 ]

after she had completed her post-secondary studies.

That is just one very visible example that the member brought up in her

speech, and I think that her speech should be looked at very seriously

and very soon, because these are things that can be done.

Well, there is one other thing I would like to say in concluding. I

would like to commend the minister for getting up and responding almost

immediately to every speaker in the House. I happen to feel that that's

the way estimates should be done — not letting people build up, waiting

to leave upon the minister making a response. That's a good start, and

I hope the minister will make a good start by looking over these

comments very carefully, particularly the comments of the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, and see that some changes are brought about,

particularly in student assistance programs.

HON. R. FRASER: I thank the member for his comments. He can

be assured, as can everyone in the House, that this minister and this

ministry will be responding with the greatest care and concern.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise something for my

colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), who is

not with us today. It is a very important case, and it bears directly

on the kind of support that students get, not only in British Columbia

but also outside British Columbia. Because the minister himself is, I

believe, an engineer, this is an example that he might find

interesting. A 23-year old British Columbian who took the engineering

diploma course at Kwantlen College then went to take a program at

Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. He is one of several B.C. students

who have been denied student assistance from the B.C. Ministry of

Education while pursuing studies outside the province.

Let me just give you a little background. He graduated from the

electronics engineering program at Kwantlen Technology Centre in June

1985. He decided to attend Lakehead University because it offers the

only post-diploma engineering program in Canada. It allows graduates

from engineering diploma programs to transfer directly into fourth-year

engineering after completing a summer transition program. UBC offers no

such transfer option, because it does not recognize the Kwantlen

diploma.

Let me just back up here. If a person goes to Lakehead University

and takes the post-diploma course after the Kwantlen College course, he

can then go directly into the fourth year. If this individual had

wanted to attend UBC after Kwantlen and graduate in engineering, he

would have had to take the full four-year program. In other words, he

recognized that if he took the Kwantlen diploma course and the Lakehead

post-diploma course, he could then go into fourth year engineering at

UBC. But he can't go directly from Kwantlen into UBC without taking the

full four-year engineering program.

So he opted for the Lakehead program, as it would save him a great

deal of time and money in comparison to attending UBC. Lakehead

University accepted him into their post diploma engineering program,

and by the end of July 1985 he was enrolled in a summer transition

program. After arriving in Ontario, he applied for B.C. student

assistance as an out-of-province student. He mentioned in his

application that the Lakehead program was a unique program. He

completed the summer transition program and was well into the fall

semester before he received one-third of the aid he requested in the

form of a Canada student loan. At this time he also received a polite

note stating that his B.C. student loan was being withheld until the

Lakehead program was determined to be eligible for such a loan.

On October 18, 1985, he phoned the student services branch, B.C.

Ministry of Education. He was told that there should be no problem.

Tony mentioned that other B.C. students in identical programs were

denied B.C. loans. He was told that they would call him back on October

22, and they also recommended that he should call or write to other

universities to inquire re their possible post-diploma programs.

On October 30, 1985, Tony called the same number as above to inquire

about his loan. He tried to speak to a Ms. Grimmer, who is

out-of-province student supervisor. She was not available, but he spoke

with another individual and was told that they would get back to him.

He was called on November 20. She quoted sections from the portability

policy of the B.C. student loan act, and he was told that a student

living on the B.C.-Alberta border was eligible for funds since it would

be cheaper to travel to Alberta than to the lower mainland, but the

policy did not extend to students taking programs offered in B.C. but

of a shorter duration elsewhere.

It was suggested to him that he ask Lakehead University to give

documentation regarding the uniqueness of their program. This

documentation must show that their program in its entirety is unlike

any in B.C. This individual requested a copy of the portability policy

to be sent to him. He then approached the dean of engineering at

Lakehead and asked them to contact Victoria.

Lakehead's student services said that the only two provinces from

which students have trouble receiving aid are British Columbia and Nova

Scotia. The B.C. situation is the most serious due to the large number

of B.C. students attending Lakehead. In fourth-year engineering the

B.C. students account for 10 to 15 percent of the class, forming the

largest out-of-province group.

So what we have then is a large group of B.C. students studying

engineering at the post-diploma engineering faculty at Lakehead

University and not getting any out-of-province assistance. He received

a photocopy of B.C.'s portability policy on December 6, and he was also

notified that he was ineligible for the B.C. student loan he had

requested.

On December 31 he asked the Vancouver Public Library for a photocopy

of the B.C. student loan act. They had no such document, but offered to

contact the Ministry of Education to get one.

On January 2, 1986, a Vancouver library employee called the student

in question to say that he had learned that there was no legislation

governing B.C. student loans, just an interoffice manual that could not

be released.

On January 9 the individual wrote a letter to Mr. Emery Barnes, in

which he described the B.C. student loan situation for out-of-province

students. On January 9 he tried to get the rest of his Canada student

loan, second disbursement. Also student services at Lakehead informed

him that a B.C. student did receive a loan from B.C., but they were

trying to get through to Victoria to confirm this.

The individual then asked for and received an emergency loan of $90

on January 13 to buy texts. On January 17 Victoria told Lakehead

student services to send a list of all B.C. engineering students in

fourth year so that their claims could be reassessed. Based on this

information, Mr. David

[ Page 7795 ]

Criste, the head of accounting at Lakehead

University, agreed to give the individual a promissory note and signed

over the Canada loan disbursement in case the B.C. loan didn't come

through for the student.

This situation is desperate and tragic. He gave up everything to

pursue his education in a way which he feels is saving himself and the

B.C. government both time and money. He fully intends to return to live

and work in B.C. as an engineer. He has been given no help financially

or emotionally by the Ministry of Education, but instead has had to

endure six months of constant conflict and financial hardship when

instead he should be putting his time and energy into his studies.

[4:30]

The questions that conic out of this situation are as follows. I'd

just like to list the questions to the minister. Why does Kwantlen

Technology Centre offer a two-year diploma program in electronics

engineering technologies if advanced standing cannot be granted by UBC — if

they don't accept it for credit? It appears to me that if a student is

basically saving time and money for himself and the B.C. government by

attending an out-of-province educational institution, why should his

B.C. student loan request be denied? Why hasn't the B.C. government

made available to the public the interoffice manual which pertains to

the policies and procedures of B.C. student loans? What is the B.C.

government's definition of a unique program — that is, one that would

give eligibility for an out-of-province student loan? That seems to be

key, Mr. Chairman. Why was there such a drastic delay between the time

of application for the B.C. loan that was made on July 10, 1985, and

the subsequent issuing of the loan refusal on November 26, 1985?

Quoting from the B.C. School Act, page 13, why is it that UBC seems to

have preferential status in the School Act?

HON. R. FRASER: Let's begin with telling you that manuals are

available. Second, I didn't hear in your submission that the student

had contacted the ministry. That might have been useful. Three, there

is a student aid appeal body that is outside the confines of the

ministry. Four, if you'd like to give us the file, we'll see what we

can do to help this student sort out his problems.

MR. HANSON: I'm sure that this particular individual would

welcome any assistance and advice that he could get from the ministry.

It also points to the fact that there are a large number of B.C.

students that for one reason or another are attending educational

institutions out of the province. It would be very helpful if there was

a clear policy statement for eligibility for B.C. student loans and so

on that would be made available, because it appears that the arguments

being made with respect to a student taking a post-diploma or some

other undergraduate level of instruction that allows that individual to

come back and then plug himself or herself into post-secondary

education...is of benefit to the province of B.C. I see no reason why

they should be denied loan assistance, particularly when they're

prepared to give an undertaking that they're going to come back and

reside in B.C., seek employment and want to live and apply their skills

here. I don't see why we should deny them that access to funds.

I would appreciate the minister looking at this case, and perhaps

contacting the institution where he's a resident for similar assistance

to the other B.C. students who may be in identical circumstances.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Fine, I'll make that available to him in due course.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, each year I do a trip on Douglas

College, my favourite post-secondary education institution in New

Westminster. Today it's all going to be positive.

First let me say that I am so pleased with the aggressive attitude

of Bill Day, the president of Douglas College. He is a person who has

made it his business to get out and around the community, getting

people interested in utilizing Douglas College as a community college.

I'm just delighted with the attitude, and the respect that the

community has built for Douglas College over the years. Once in a while

I get a little bit perturbed. I don't feel they quite get the support

that they should, but in any event, that's certainly not what I want to

talk about today.

I want to give them a real pat on the back about a program that's

going to happen there. It's not really part of the education program,

it's going to happen while Douglas College is in recess. I'm talking

about the Space Station concept that's going to be running concurrent

with Expo. It's very apropos in this respect: that Expo's on one side

of the ALRT and Douglas College is on the other end. The transportation

between the two would seem to me to be quite useful, as long as ALRT is

still running at that time. Having said that, I'm sure there'll be

buses, or some other way that people can get back and forth.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The Space Station concept is going to be doing a number of programs.

I would just like to talk about one of them in particular. But just

before I do, just to give you an idea of the different programs that

are going to occur at Douglas at this particular time: from July I to

July 5 is the opening week, and the Space Station intends to be "a

vehicle for ideas and options," and so on. That's just the opening

week, and it will just be looking over the area.

The second week will be July 6 to July 12, and it will be Living in

Space. They are going to have an extensive teleconference network, and

they'll be "focusing the attention of scientists, politicians,

businessmen, psychologists and the clergy alike on what life could be

like in space." I think that's very appropriate at this point.

Then there are going to be, from July 13 to 19, space business

seminars, they're going to be talking about harvesting resources from

space, technologies, and so on and so forth. Very interesting. But it

will be sort of the industrialization and exploration of space.

Then — and I'm sure the first member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr.

McGeer), the Minister of International Trade now, will be interested —

it's

going to be all on high-tech business seminars. That will be seminars

on marketing high-tech products, inventors, copyright seminars,

high-tech management, and so on. That, as far as I'm concerned, will be

very interesting.

July 27 to August 2 is on business opportunities, these are business opportunities

in B.C., Japan, China, so on and so forth. It's going to be sort of an international

conference on business opportunities. August 3 to 9 is electronic music, and

that's going to be something. Then there's computer graphics

[ Page 7796 ]

from August 10 to 13; then from August 14 to 16

educational software. Then from August 17 to 23 is an environmental

conference. That's going to be talking about the earth as sort of the

mother ship, the last treasure: "The new frontier will give us a second

chance to learn from our past mistakes."

Then the piece de resistance, as far as I'm concerned: from August

19 to 23 is going to be a World Youth Peace Initiative. I think that

that's thrilling. They've got kids coming from countries all over the

world. They're going to have kids from Kenya, Canada, the United

States, Australia, France, Mexico, People's Republic of China, Soviet

Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Japan, Norway, Philippines, Belgium,

Costa Rica, Hungary, Bulgaria, East Germany, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece,

India, Israel, Malta, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Poland and Turkey.

They're not sure yet whether they're going to get people from

Nicaragua, Cuba, South Africa, Salvador, Korea, Argentina, Panama and

Cambodia, but those are areas that they are discussing and areas that

they've been talking about.

I think that this peace initiative is absolutely splendid. They're

going to have four programs in this peace initiative. What they're

trying to do.... We've got a world that spends its whole time

preoccupied with war and warlike activities. I think, particularly

today, when we've been looking at what's been going on in Libya, we

have a world just on the brink of its own self-destruction, if we're

not careful. One of the things that we can do certainly is to educate

children towards a more peaceful world; they, ultimately, will be the

leaders of the world, providing there's one left for them.

Anyway, one of the first activities will be the 1986 International

Children's Peace Awards. That's sponsored by the Children as the

Peacemakers Foundation, and this ceremony honours children ages 6 to 11

for their efforts on behalf of peace. Since 1983 a total of 55 children

from 33 countries have received these awards. The presenters have

included Mme. Sadat of Egypt, Dr. Linus Pauling of the U.S.A., and Rev.

Kiyoshi Tanimoto of Japan. These awards will be held in conjunction

with an international youth conference, and it will be centred at the

Space Station site.

PeacePals is another very interesting concept. This is an electronic

pen-pal service that will enable young people to interact on a personal

level with others from widely different geographical locations and

cultures. Here you're going to have an opportunity, say, for an

American kid to be communicating electronically with a Russian child or

a Chinese child, or maybe someone from Panama, etc. — a really good

opportunity for a mix of ideas and thoughts. I just feel that this is

the kind of initiative that is very important.

I hope that there is going to be some adult observation, and I also

hope that there are going to be maybe some seniors taking

part in this

initiative as well. I'm not sure that they've put that together, but

they are endeavouring to, so that children can get an idea from — when

I say seniors, I mean seniors — people who were through the last war,

etc., and the seniors can have an opportunity to have a discussion with

kids.

Don't forget that these children have to have a bit of motivation in

order to get there in the first place. Hopefully there is going to be

enough assistance to make sure that they are sheltered, housed and

provided for.

They are also going to have as part of the program a peace network.

This is a network of media that will initiate and promote discussions

of peace and future conflict resolution strategies. In other words,

they are going to be asked: "How would you get out of this crazy box

that we're in?" It's a very, very thoughtful — in my mind — way of

getting kids interested in the way mankind should be seeking to go, and

in the kinds of things mankind should be seeking to achieve.

They are also going to have PeaceGames. It's interesting to me that

all you have to do is go to a department store or whatever,

particularly at Christmas time, and you can find war games coming out

your ears. But here we are going to have peace games. That's going to

include the interactive computer simulations and games that teach

strategies for international cooperation, in other words, they are not

going to be trying to shoot one another down; they are going to be

trying, in these peace games, to work out ways and strategies of giving

peace a chance. I think that that's a great idea. The games will be

played at the Station site and through electronic linkage by

participants around the world — not just there, but they will link up

with computers all around the world. What an exciting opportunity for

kids. What an exciting opportunity for some of us also to observe

what's happening, there, and maybe get out of our headspace that tells

us that the kind of world that we're living in need always be the same

as it is now.

I would just like to quote the objective that they have:

"The objective of this peace initiative is to open

communication lines between young people on either side of cultural,

linguistic, ideological and political barriers. It will use the power

of today's micro-electronic technology to focus world youth on issues

of world importance while giving them the opportunity to communicate on

a personal and private level. Because it will be set up in terms of a

festival or a tournament, it will be recreational as well as

educational, pleasurable as well as serious. Through establishing an

easy channel of exchange and conversation, it will reveal to the

participants that those young people on the other side are just like

themselves, with friends and families and disappointments and fears and

hopes for their personal futures. It will reveal that similarities of

experience are more important than differences."

I think this is just a marvellous program and, incidentally, the

chap who's really putting it all together is Alan Clapp, and he is

noted for his imagination, noted for doing things in a rather

spectacular way. I'm really pleased with the way this thing is going

and the way it's being put together, and I just hope that members here

in the government and everyone else will cooperate in every way

possible. As I said, my pet project there is the children's peace

initiative, but there are other very interesting initiatives.

[4:45]

I'm really doing this more for advertisement for what I see as being

a really good, positive way of utilizing Douglas College. That campus

is going to have an opportunity to do a little experimenting, and I

believe that this is an opportunity that most of us should take

advantage of. If we can get around to see it or give it any kind of

cooperation, my suggestion is let's do so, because it is so nice to

have something happening that we feel is constructive and positive and

that we can all participate in equally, because Lord knows, the last

few days have taught us — in the last number of years I suppose history, for that matter, has taught us — the

total frustration with man destroying man, people destroying people,

etc. It is just something very positive that I hope people will take a

[ Page 7797 ]

look at and take advantage of and cooperate with in every way they possibly can.

HON. R. FRASER: I thank the member for his very positive statement on the very vital Ministry of Post-Secondary Education.

Vote 62 approved.

Vote 63: ministry and council operations, $7,701,503 — approved.

Vote 64: universities, colleges and institutes, $609,352,656 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 54: minister's office, $205,714.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure for

me to rise in debate today in support of the estimates of the operation

of the Ministry of Labour, which as members know encompasses a wide

variety of areas such as the Workers' Compensation Board, human rights,

women's programs and the British Columbia youth council.

Since I presented my first estimates in debate this time last year,

Mr. Chairman, it has been a pretty busy and exciting year for me. We

have had an interesting year in industrial relations in the province of

British Columbia, and I spent a lot of my time visiting with employers

and employees in the workplace, discussing with them ways in which we

could improve the industrial relations climate. I got many worthwhile

ideas from both parties in discussion, particularly at the plant level.

That is not to say that I haven't had a lot of discussion and

communication with the chief executive officers of companies and people

involved in the industrial relations and personnel field with companies

large and small and indeed with many trade union officials and indeed

many non-union organizations as well.

The big area on assuming my responsibility as Minister of Labour

last year was the very difficult area dealing with the Workers'

Compensation Board. Needless to say, a lot of my time and energy was

spent in talking to the parties of interest with respect to industrial

health and safety and getting their advice on how we could improve the

areas dealing with the operation of the Review Board. As the members

know, during the course of debate in the Legislature last year we

presented a bill that would see the streamlining of the operation of

the Review Board, and I am happy to report to the members of the

assembly that the majority of the boards are now in place under the

chairmanship of Bud Gallagher, who accepted the responsibility of

administrative chairman of the Review Board, along with receiving

nominations from both union and the management community with respect

to their par