1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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, MAY 13, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 19

[ Page 7775 ]

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. G. Clark: It's my privilege to introduce Michael Cooke, who is visiting today from Vancouver. Mr. Cooke is editor-in-chief of the Vancouver Province . He has also worked at the Montreal Gazette and the Edmonton Journal, though his roots stretch back to England and to Fleet Street -- which is readily apparent to all those who read the Province . More recently, he's been assisting Mr. Conrad Black in planning Canada's new national newspaper, which launches this fall. We wish Mr. Black all success in this endeavour, and I ask all members to welcome Michael Cooke to the chamber today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today visiting from Switzerland is Mr. Walter Suter, the new consul general from Switzerland to Vancouver. He's on his first trip to North America and to Victoria, so would the House please make him most welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: Today we have in the members' gallery a special visitor from Punjab, India. Mr. Inderjit Singh Zira is the Minister of Health, Justice and Family Welfare for the State of Punjab. He is visiting British Columbia and staying with Naunihal Singh Sandhu, who is present in the members' gallery as well. Please join me in welcoming the minister to this House and to our province.

S. Hawkins: On behalf of the official opposition, we too would like to add our greetings to Mr. Inderjit Singh Zira and Mr. Sandhu, who are visiting in the House. We look forward to visiting with them after this sitting. Would the House please help us make them welcome.

L. Reid: In the gallery today are five individuals who are concerned by the lack of speech therapy for adult stroke survivors. The move to regionalize health care simply hasn't put those services in communities. May is Speech and Hearing Month, and I'm delighted to introduce five individuals in the gallery today who have come to advocate on behalf of this issue.

They are Phyllis Delaney, who is the president of the Stroke Recovery Association of B.C.; Meralin Young, the coordinator of speech pathology at Gorge Road Hospital, Royal Jubilee Hospital and Victoria General Hospital; Allan Robertson, a stroke survivor who is on the executive of the Stroke Recovery Association of B.C.; Gayl Hutchison, another stroke survivor and a member of the Langley Stroke Recovery Centre; and Barbara Mollon, president of the Richmond Stroke Recovery Centre. I ask this House to please make them very welcome.

J. Weisbeck: It's my pleasure today to introduce 17 post-secondary students -- very timely, I might add, as it's just before the estimates for Advanced Education come up. They are Sophia Wong, Ken Wong, Rita Amisano, Jamie Gilles, George Pringle, Valerie McLean, Holly Yau, Matthew Kroekar, Joanne Gardiner, Ryan Marshall, Mark Redgwell, Kaveh Namdaran, Dennis Visser, Jennifer Shanse, Aaron Gardiner, Jan Dhaliwal and Chris Heras. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's my pleasure today to introduce my deputy minister's mother, who is visiting from Toronto, Ontario. She is here for Mother's Day, and to see her grandson Sacha Manson Willms in Oak Bay Secondary School's production of The Pajama Game . Would everyone help me make Jean Manson very welcome.

S. Orcherton: Joining us in the gallery today are Larry and Giselle Sloat. They are both former residents of Terrace where, they tell me, they were good friends of the family of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, and they can recall her when she was a very young girl. They are now residents of Victoria; they are both longtime NDP members. Larry was the president of the Kitimat-Terrace and District Labour Council and was a board member of IWA Local 1-71. Giselle is very active in the Canadian Figure Skating Association and volunteered most notably, I think, with the Indigenous Games and the Commonwealth Games.

It's my view that Larry and Giselle Sloat are the epitome of British Columbians: they are active and involved in their communities. I ask the House to make them very welcome.

E. Walsh: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two constituents of mine; but even more importantly, they're two very good friends of mine. Evelyn and Harry Mathias are visiting us here today. They're visiting Victoria in honour of a school reunion and their class reunion. Harry took Evelyn out to Cranbrook for a year to see how she'd like it; that was over 50 years ago. So as you can see, it was a lot longer than one year. Neither of them are strangers to the political world, because a couple of years ago Harry was actually EA to Leo Nimsick, whom I'm sure everybody in this House remembers. So I would ask the House to please make both Evelyn and Harry Mathias welcome.

M. de Jong: Also in the gallery today is a longtime friend. Charan Sidhu is here, and I hope that all members will make him welcome.

Hon. H. Lali: I wasn't actually quite finished with my introductions. Accompanying the minister from India are some friends and relatives living in the lower mainland. [Punjabi spoken.] Their names are Dalip Sandhu, Bakhshish Singh Zira, Surjit Singh Gill, Gurmit Singh Sandhu, Kartar Singh Dhillon, Charan Singh Sidhu and Manjit Singh Dhillon. Would the House please make all of these visitors welcome.

E. Conroy: I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce to the House today two people who had a major influence on my life as a young person as I grew up in Castlegar. It's a real pleasure for me to have them here today. They are Lou and Rita Cummings. At the same time -- I guess it's a double whammy for me -- I have the mayor of the city of Trail, Mr. Dieter Bogs, also in the galleries. Would the House please make these people welcome.

M. Sihota: I too would like, first of all, to welcome Minister Inderjit Singh Zira to the House. Another guest that the Minister of Transportation and Highways asked me to introduce is Renu Bakshi, who is here joining us and watching the proceedings for the first time. Would members give her a warm welcome.

Hon. C. Evans: Somewhere in the galleries, although I don't see him, is B.C.'s most famous tow-truck driver, Al Beix, the mayor of Kaslo. Would the House please make him welcome.

[ Page 7776 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the pleasure of introducing 43 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr. Dougall and Ms. Mary Smith. Would the House please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

REMOVAL OF

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION FEES

Hon. A. Petter: I rise to share with members of the Legislature an important initiative that was announced today with respect to adult basic education in British Columbia. Effective July 1 -- Canada Day -- tuition fees for adult basic education courses at all post-secondary institutions in British Columbia will be removed. This means that students will no longer have to pay fees to complete their high school education at colleges and institutes in the province. It will affect approximately 18,000 students across the province who are now paying tuition.

People who lack a high school education are at a tremendous disadvantage in today's economy. For these people, doorways that are open to others remain shut -- doorways to employment, to advancement, to higher education, to the future. Today's announcement is about opening those doorways, saying to those who have the courage and determination to return to school that we're prepared to help, because it does take courage, it does take determination, for someone who has left the education system to make the decision to go back and see it through. For those who are prepared to take those steps, we want to make sure that this doorway at least stays unlocked and is ready to swing open for them.

[2:15]

In addition to those who haven't completed high school, the removal of these tuition barriers also benefits high school grads who need to upgrade to enter a new field. So an unemployed labourer with a high school diploma, who needs an environmental technology program but needs grade 11 chemistry to enter that program, will now have the barrier for that grade 11 course removed. For the woman with a BA who decides to study electrical engineering to improve her job opportunities but needs a math upgrade to enter the program, those barriers are removed.

Why are we doing this? Because everybody knows that better education leads to better jobs. This initiative is about linking learning to earning, by removing barriers to success. It reflects the commitment of this government to build a province where people have the tools to lead successful lives and contribute to their families and communities. By helping students to help themselves, we help society as a whole. By removing barriers to adult basic education, by making ABE a right, not a privilege, we are also making an important statement about the value of basic education.

In today's society, education is the great equalizer. It is what makes equality of opportunity a reality, not a dream. Education also supports our economy. In the words of Dr. Fraser Mustard, quoted in a recent

article in the Financial Post : "The quality of the population drives an economy." That's why we in B.C. are determined to become known as the education province. That's why we have set a different course from other provinces that are increasing tuition and limiting access to education.

Our efforts are starting to be noticed. In last month's Maclean's magazine, the following was stated with respect to British Columbia: "Cheaper. Closer to home. More accessible. More accommodating. [These] are among the reasons why . . . [B.C.] is gaining attention from the rest of the country . . . . 'B.C. is light-years ahead in terms of . . . the college and university systems.' " Today we are moving yet another light-year in that direction.

J. Weisbeck: I'm pleased that government has finally removed an inequity that has existed in the system. The removal of barriers to adult basic education -- an inequity that existed whereby not all British Columbians had equal access to basic life skills, whereby some had to pay -- allows those students who are considered mature the option to attend in a college environment rather than in a high school.

This could prove to be a motivation to those students to move on to post-secondary education. It certainly will increase their self-esteem and self-worth. I hope that it would also increase participation. My only concern is that government will properly compensate the institutions rather than what has been so common in the past: downloading government's financial responsibilities onto the institutions.

This side of the House fully supports this initiative. It is imperative that all British Columbians receive these skills and education in preparation for the new economy, one based on knowledge and information.

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1998

(GRANDPARENTS' RIGHTS)

L. Reid presented a bill intituled Family Relations Act Amendment Act (No. 2), 1998 (Grandparents' Rights).

L. Reid: A community of grandparents in British Columbia is truly committed to maintaining ties with their grandchildren, for the simple reason that they believe in family. They desire contact with their children's offspring. It is a very good decision on their part and one that I'm pleased to stand in support of today.

These amendments to British Columbia's Family Relations Act would see grandparents included in the deliberations which determine the best interests of the child and, further, may include access by the extended family of the child -- including grandparents. Quebec has had such legislation for a decade and Alberta since May 29 of this year. Preserving the grandparent-to-grandchild relationship is worthy of the support of this Legislature. Denying children access to their grandparents during a time of family disruption may indeed remove the only stability and constancy available to that child.

Hon. Speaker, I'd be pleased to dedicate my remarks today to Nancy Wooldridge, the founder and president of the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

MINISTRY HANDLING OF

"BABY M" CASE

G. Campbell: Yesterday we were presented with the report of the children's commissioner on the case of Baby M.

[ Page 7777 ]

We now know that Baby M was admitted to hospital in the early afternoon of April 27. In the next ten hours, we know that the social worker called the ministry in Vancouver and the area manager, talked with the foster parent but failed to call the police. My question to the Minister for Children and Families is: why does it take ten hours for a social worker to call the police when faced with an abused child?

Hon. L. Boone: Had the member read the paper, which he usually does to get his questions, he would have been aware that I'm unable to comment on this as it is before the courts.

The Speaker: On a supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, this matter is not before the courts. It is a matter of the ministry's policy. This report states quite clearly . . . . I want to quote it: " . . . the police's ability to conduct an appropriate investigation was severely prejudiced by a contaminated crime scene and ongoing discussions between the social workers and [the foster parent]." The ministry didn't just fail to do its job. The ministry prohibited the police from doing their job of protecting children. My question again to the minister is: why on earth don't social workers understand, when they are faced with an abused child, that their first duty is to call the police?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, in case the member didn't hear me the first time, there is a civil case that is before the courts, and I am unable to comment on this court case at this time.

The Speaker: On a second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: The thing that's shocking about this is that this report, if it had been read three years ago, would have shocked all of us. This kind of stonewalling would not have accomplished anything, and people would have been outraged by it. We now know this -- and this has nothing to do with the case . . . . We know that on April 27, in the afternoon, the hospital staff knew. We know that the social worker knew then. The ministry in Vancouver knew; the area manager knew; the media knew. Can the Minister for Children and Families tell me: at what time did the former Minister for Children and Families know the situation with Baby M?

Hon. L. Boone: This is before the courts. It's a civil case before the courts, and I am unable to comment at this time. I don't know how many more times I can tell you this.

C. Clark: When the hospital called the social worker, the social worker did not call the police. He or she called Vancouver; Vancouver didn't tell the worker to call the police. Then the worker called the area manager; the area manager did not tell the worker to call the police. Then the worker went to the hospital and did not call the police but instead went to the home of the prime suspect, where they advised the prime suspect that her story was inconsistent with the doctor's diagnosis.

Can the minister tell me why, when confronted with a serious case of child abuse, her ministry staff feel it is appropriate to go and discuss the case with the prime suspect before they even choose to call the police?

Hon. L. Boone: Changing the questioner does not change my answer. This is before the courts. It is a civil case, and I am unable to comment on any of the particulars around this case.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain on her first supplementary.

C. Clark: My question is about what happened after the child had been admitted to hospital and how ministry staff responded to the criminal investigation or to starting the criminal investigation in the first place. What this worker did was phone her colleagues . . . . He or she phoned the hospital. He or she phoned the prime suspect to discuss the case, and then they finally, at 10:30, decided to inform the family of what was happening. It wasn't until 11:35 that someone thought to call police, and that wasn't until after the media had expressed an interest in the case.

Can the minister tell me why it is that her ministry didn't feel it was appropriate to inform the police of this case until after the media had expressed an interest in what was going on?

Hon. L. Boone: This is your question period. If you choose to keep asking questions where I have to respond that it is before the courts . . . . My legal information is that this is before the courts, and I am unable to comment on the details of this particular case.

G. Plant: Page after page of this report is a damning indictment of a government and a ministry which failed -- not just once, but repeatedly -- to protect this baby and her family. My question is to the Minister for Children and Families: how many more of these damning indictments will we have to read before someone in this government admits accountability and responsibility for its failure to protect children at risk?

Hon. L. Boone: Finally you've asked something that I can respond to. We have in fact responded considerably to this report and to the report that was done by the ministry prior to the children's commissioner's report. We have acted on the issue of the task force on foster parenting. We have implemented a good portion of the recommendations, and the majority of those recommendations will be in place by the end of this year and early next year. We have actually moved on 31 out of the 32. We are moving to make the system better and to make our foster care system better.

We are responding to the concerns that had been addressed by the children's commissioner before this report came down. So we are making considerable changes . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, thank you.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . and I think the children's commissioner recognizes those changes that we've made.

The Speaker: On a supplementary, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: Report after report condemns a government that talks but does not act. Even though the matter is before the courts, the public of British Columbia is entitled to the facts. The question for the minister is: why does it take ten

[ Page 7778 ]

hours to call the police when the ministry is faced with an abused child? Why, as a matter of policy, as a fact . . . ? The public is entitled to know the facts.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

COST OF ARTERIAL ROAD

DEVOLUTION TO MUNICIPALITIES

L. Reid: Two days from now, this government will off-load the cost of arterial roadway maintenance in many municipalities across this province, costing millions of dollars. Tax increases in communities like Lake Cowichan, Vanderhoof, Logan Lake . . . . This minister's own constituents will face a 6 percent tax increase. Will the Minister of Transportation and Highways tell us why he is forcing these tax increases on the families of British Columbia?

Hon. H. Lali: This is coming from an opposition that campaigned in 1996 on the issue of making massive cuts in our budget program, and they were going to off-load in the neighbourhood of $600 million onto municipalities. Here they are, standing up in the Legislature now, crying the blues and saying that we shouldn't be taking these kinds of initiatives.

Interjection.

Hon. H. Lali: That's not true, and you know it.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we do have time for more questions if everyone comes to order. I don't recognize anyone until the House has come to order -- whichever side.

I recognize Richmond East for a supplementary.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will give this minister a quote. John Shields of the BCGEU has stated that the downloading of highways maintenance functions to municipalities will increase local tax burdens. When this minister gets to his feet, I want him to talk to the constituents of Logan Lake and tell the rest of this House when he will sit down and broker a fair deal with municipalities in this province and not download continued costs onto the families of British Columbia.

Hon. H. Lali: We've been consulting with the municipalities for at least the last year and a half, and . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the question was heard in some silence; I expect the answer to be as well.

[2:30]

Hon. H. Lali: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Now, if they're willing to listen up while they're asking questions, they should know that we have protected grants to municipalities. We've got a process in place, through the joint council, with the UBCM and government ministers. We are consulting with them. We have two more days. The letters will go out to the individual municipalities, and they will be informed in due time.

I want to talk about the opposition. Out of one side of their mouths, they talk about making cuts to the budget; out of the other side of their mouths, they want to increase spending.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. minister . . . .

Hon. L. Lali: You can't have it both ways.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. L. Lali: I think the hon. member across the way should know that, the next time they're out visiting in one part of the province promising one thing and then going to another part of the province and promising exactly the opposite.

R. Neufeld: This government is trying to get away with off-loading arterial highways without even mentioning the off-loading of the financial liability for unresolved aboriginal land claims.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

R. Neufeld: This means that local governments will be stuck with the costs of compensation for roads that are subject to land claims. Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs assure municipalities today that the cost of land claims compensation for roadways being downloaded to municipalities will not be borne by local taxpayers?

Hon. J. Kwan: The hon. member across the floor is really concerned about the issue of arterial road devolution. As the Minister of Transportation and Highways has explained, the process around the arterial road devolution has been in discussion with local governments for a number of months now. People have been engaging in discussion on this issue. There has been a process with respect to criteria around that. Any of the roads being devolved to local government will meet the criteria of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The local governments have all the opportunities to engage with the Minister of Transportation and Highways on that.

The Speaker: First supplementary, Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: Well, it's obvious that the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't have a clue about the looming liability that municipalities are going to face -- or could care less. Her response talks about the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who gave just three weeks maximum to municipalities to talk about the costs of this. She doesn't care one whit about the cost municipalities and the local taxpayers are going to face.

The Speaker: Hon. member, your question.

R. Neufeld: If she doesn't care, could the minister at least tell this House whether they have done an analysis of what it's

[ Page 7779 ]

going to cost British Columbian communities that are being downloaded highway rights-of-way? Will she inform the House today of what that cost is?

Hon. J. Kwan: All of the costs with regard to arterial devolution are bring worked on and calculated through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. The criteria very clearly outline what those implications may be for local governments. Through the UBCM, as well, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways have been working with local government on that issue.

L. Reid: The costs are a little more than worked on. In fact, they've been sent out to municipalities: Cowichan, $63,000 annually; Vanderhoof, $62,000; district of Logan Lake, $40,000. Those costs are known. This program has been incompetently handled by this ministry. The off-again, on-again download . . . . Will this minister get to his feet and succinctly say to British Columbians that indeed he's mishandled the job and that the job has not been done well? Municipalities are not going to take this from this minister and this government.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

L. Reid: Hon. minister?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. The minister is ready to reply to the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, interventions are sometimes helpful and sometimes not. I would like to recognize the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Hon. H. Lali: The members of the opposition know that roads are being devolved all of the time. For the first time in history, our government has set criteria, based upon which roads will be devolved to municipalities. In terms of the member for Peace River North asking the question about not giving enough time, the devolution of these roads has been delayed three times since the first announcement took place in 1996.

I would like to have the member opposite know that while he's complaining about issues in here . . . . I was up in his constituency doing his constituency work for him. I went up there, I talked to people up there, and I had his constituents talking to me about northern roads. I went up there and I delivered . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. minister . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Petitions

L. Reid: I rise to table a petition on behalf of the Richmond Stroke Recovery Centre and the stroke recovery victims of this province. There are 5,360 signatures of individuals who understand that speech therapy is necessary for their recovery.

Tabling Documents

Hon. I. Waddell: I have the honour to present the British Columbia liquor distribution branch annual report, 1996-97.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts and will shortly enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Law Clerk:

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1998

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1998

Capital Financing Authority Repeal and Debt Restructuring Act

BC-Alcan Northern Development Fund Act

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Rate Freeze and Profit Sharing Act, 1998

Tuition Fee Freeze Act

Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Small Business Venture Capital Amendment Act, 1998

Mining Rights Amendment Act, 1998

Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1998

Legal Profession Act

Occupiers Liability Amendment Act, 1998

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In this House, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 17.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 17; W. Hartley in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 4 (continued).

[ Page 7780 ]

Hon. C. McGregor: I wish to withdraw the amendment to

section 4, which I moved yesterday and move an amendment to

section 4, subsection 19(4) that is in the hands of the Clerk.

I would just point out to the members on the opposite side that legislative counsel reviewed the amendments that we discussed yesterday and suggested some slight wording changes in order to clarify them. The intent of the amendment and its effect remain the same.

[SECTION 4, by deleting the proposed

section 19(4) and substituting the following:

(4) Before exercising the authority under this section, a regional district must

(

a) undertake consultations with affected stakeholders, and

(

b) indicate its intention to do so in its plan.]

[2:45]

Amendment approved.

section 4 as amended.

M. Coell: I wish to spend a few moments looking at what I would call the regulation or control of companies involved in recycling -- or, indeed, waste haulers. The bill sets out that regional districts have control over many functions that are now the private industry's interest. I'm looking at requiring haulers of municipal solid waste to collect and remit fees from the generators of that waste.

I wonder whether the minister could clarify for me that this bill now directs individual haulers to collect fees set by regional districts. Or will they still have the ability to set the fees themselves as they do in many parts of the province at this point?

Hon. C. McGregor: A private hauler is still able to charge whatever fee they wish for their private business purpose. What this makes reference to is what a regional district may charge a hauler.

M. Coell: I think I need some clarification on that. A private business hauling for another private operator can set their own rates, but if a hauler is working for a regional district, the regional district can set that rate. What I'm interested in is: can the hauler set different rates than that -- over and above or below the rate the regional district has set?

Hon. C. McGregor: That matter would be covered by a contractual agreement between the hauler and the regional district.

M. Coell: One area that I don't believe we've touched on is the area of dispute resolution, where there would be a disagreement on rates as to what a hauler or the regional district would agree on. I'm just wondering whether there is a dispute resolution clause -- I can't find one in the bill -- or whether there's one inherent in other acts that this would relate to.

Hon. C. McGregor: The matter of a dispute over fees would be something that is subject to review by this minister. Obviously the criteria that we would put in place in reviewing such fees would be to reflect the costs of the regional district to operate. This minister gave assurances in yesterday's debate about our interest in making sure that the relationship is such that there's not an opportunity for a regional district to overcharge for some service that they don't need to.

M. Coell: Thank you for that clarification.

The bylaw also allows regional districts significant access, I think, to a business's records and to its weigh scale measurements, its daily records -- a lot more than government would normally have to a business unless they thought something was wrong and had a court order to go in and review records. I'm just wondering whether the minister sees this as overkill in the ability to scrutinize a private company's records without cause.

Possibly, after you answer . . . . What I'm looking for is what would cause a regional district to be able to go in and basically seize records, review records and make its own assumptions as to what a company is doing in the way of volume of business. That, to me, is a very new right that the regional district would have. I'd like to just pursue that for a moment.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

Hon. C. McGregor: The authority of the bylaw would enable the regional district to require a company to submit records. Generally, the purpose of that is to be able to check the weight of the garbage, because fees are by and large based on weight. So they want to be able to verify the amount of waste that's being transported.

M. Coell: I understand that. In

section 4,

section 19.1(2)(d)(iv), it says: " . . . permit an employee or agent of the regional district to inspect and make copies of these records during the waste hauler's normal business hours." In my way of thinking, that is giving the right to a government employee to enter the premises of a hauler or recycler and review their records without cause. I have a great deal of concern about this, in that you're assuming someone has done something wrong, but you don't have legal authority to enter those premises to review the records. I just wonder how this

section got in. Has the minister had legal advice on this section?

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes. As we've made clear in previous discussions on this matter, obviously the regional district will have to fully consult with those businesses that will be affected by the coming into effect of this bylaw. The assumption is, and the requirement will be, that they discuss this matter and how to best manage the issue so that it doesn't become a matter of -- as you point out -- someone feeling that they're being picked on by a regional district and that their premises are being entered unnecessarily, when all it would have required was a phone call to get that information, and so on.

The second point I'd like to make is that this provision is modelled exactly after the same provision that already exists in the GVS&DD Act. So we have this provision already. To my knowledge, it's not being abused. I appreciate what the member says about the potential for what he might describe as abuse of that, and obviously we would avoid that through the consultative process.

M. Coell: I'm pleased to see that there haven't been problems as yet. It does create, I think, a potential problem -- and probably not good legislation -- when the ability of a government, without cause, to enter the premises of any business or any individual and research their records . . . . I suggest we may not be having a problem with it because the legal advice to regional districts is: don't do it, because you don't have the legal authority to do that. That may be the reason we're not having a problem with it. I flag that for the minister and also for consideration by regional districts.

[ Page 7781 ]

The other issue, with regard to this section, is the setting of fees payable by generators of municipal solid waste. At present, I don't think there is any limit on what fees can be levied. In second reading I mentioned that I think the taxpayer doesn't have the ability to pay any more for fees. In this section, there isn't anything about fees or reduction in fees if people take on new recycling initiatives. I'm disappointed that this

section doesn't have something in there to do the opposite of what levelling fees would do. It's saying you could actually be paying less if you do something else. I don't think that this

section gives the regional districts the ability to actually charge less if someone takes on new responsibilities themselves, either as a corporation or as an individual.

I wonder whether the minister could comment on whether it's intended that regional districts would do that but it's just not spelled out, or whether it's not intended, and it's just intended that more fees will be placed for more recycling projects.

Hon. C. McGregor: Generally, fees are set to reflect the cost of the infrastructure and the processes that are in place to deal with the waste. So that's the basis on which regional districts set their fees. But clearly, if a hauler were to recycle more of their product, then their fee would be lower because they would have less material to try to take into a landfill or a transfer station and so on.

M. Coell: I think I understand what the minister is saying. I think I would go even further -- that the fees would be reduced as someone does a better job of recycling. You wouldn't be paying the same fee for an amount; you could actually pay less fee if you started to do less. That's what I think this

section misses, but I suspect that in the regulation it could address that for municipalities.

I just have one more question on

section 4 as amended, with regard to

section 19.1(2)(c): " . . . varying fees by class of persons, operations, activities, industries, trades, businesses, works, sites or municipal solid wastes." I would hope that in some regulation the ministry would not distort the marketplace by saying: "We'll charge more fees for this, because we want to accomplish it." I think the free market is going to be a very helpful tool in recycling, and I see this as a potential for government distorting the market from time to time. I just wonder whether the minister can assure me that that isn't the intent of

section 19.1(2)(c) -- that it's more of a regulation than an intent to regulate the market.

Hon. C. McGregor: In fact, we need this provision overall to enable a local government to vary or change a fee. Without that enabling provision they wouldn't be able to. But let me assure the member that the purpose is basically to make sure that the cost of recycling the material is reflected in the fees, based on the class of wastes. The example I was given by staff here is the difference in cost between dealing with a product like gypsum, say -- what it costs to be able to manage, store, etc., and deal with that waste stream -- as opposed to something like tin or aluminum which might have a much lower cost.

So the idea is to be able to vary the fee, as you say, to reflect market as well. That's clearly part of the framework through which there are fee adjustments. Again, I'd remind the member that there is an opportunity to review, in the minister's office, fees that regional districts would set.

[3:00]

Section 4 as amended approved.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to

section 6 in the hands of the Clerk.

[SECTION 6, in the proposed

section 24.2(1) by striking out "with the regional district," and substituting "with the regional district and affected stakeholders.]

Amendment approved.

section 6 as amended.

M. Coell: We defined the stakeholders in

section 19. I wonder if the minister could assure me that the definition of "stakeholders" will be the same in this

section as it was in the previous amendment.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes.

M. Coell: I'd like to touch on the fines and the numbers of $1 million and $200,000. I'd be interested in knowing where these numbers came from. Was there a study of other provinces or states as to what fines should be set at? I'm looking at subsections 24.1(2)(

a) and (2)(b).

Hon. C. McGregor: The fines are consistent with the fines that would have been levied under the act when the ministry itself levied these fees and are similar to the powers already given to the GVRD under an authority to manage air emissions. I would just point out to the member that the range in fines is significant because of the significant damage that could be caused to the environment should a discharge end up in an aquifer, say, or a water body. Or some other important environmental matter might be threatened through the inadvertent or deliberate release of waste into the environment.

M. Coell: The minister stated that the intent of the bill is to create a level playing field. I want to draw your attention to subsection 24.1(2)(e). That paragraph says: " . . . establish different prohibitions, regulations, rates . . . . " I wonder whether there aren't significant conditions elsewhere in the act for regional districts to control this and whether this is a bit discriminatory. It just seems to me that there are other areas that this could be covered in. I'm not sure why it's in the act. I wonder if the minister could outline the reasoning for the addition of (

e) in

section 24.1.

Hon. C. McGregor: If it were the Ministry of Environment's authority, it would be true that there might be other provisions that we could point to that give us the authority to act in certain ways. But when we are actually delegating the authority to a regional district, we must give them those powers very explicitly, and that's why they're spelled out in this section.

M. Coell: I would just add that it gives some pretty unlimited powers to the GVRD, in particular, to regulate and, I suspect, potentially to discriminate against competing private interests. So it's one that I would flag. I think there are some potential problems with it.

The other area I wish to get the minister's view on is subsection (3)(b), the paragraph starting "appoint officers . . . . " I see a whole new group of employees exercising

[ Page 7782 ]

these powers that the act has given. I don't know whether . . . . The minister can say, "Well, it won't be provincial government employees," but I certainly see regional government employees. I don't know whether that has been discussed in the development of this act or whether there'll be a reduction in provincial employees as a result of (3)(b), as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: On the first point the member made -- his concern around

section 24.1(2)(

e) and the prohibitions, rates of fees and so on -- I point out that

section 24.1(5) makes it clear that the minister may review and revoke powers. That gives a check and balance. In the member's case, if he believes that authority is being used to penalize unfairly any particular class or group, then obviously there's an opportunity for the minister to review and revoke that power if that is the case. Those are the kinds of checks and balances we have throughout this bill in order to address the concerns that have been raised, particularly by those in the private hauling and waste management sector.

On the matter of employees, obviously it is regional government employees that would be enforcing this. Frankly, we don't envision the loss of provincial government employees as a result. We think this is an opportunity for us to work with the regional government on implementing better solid and liquid waste management planning processes and pollution prevention initiatives.

M. Coell: Subsection 24.1(6) -- just a brief comment. It seems that you're giving the greater Vancouver regional district almost invincible powers; that protection against fault is extreme. I can't remember seeing this in the previous act. I draw to the minister's attention that I think that's really limiting their liability by too great an extent.

With regard to the amendment after that, I thank the minister; that amendment makes the act a lot more comfortable for the industry and for individuals as well. That's it for

section

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

section 9.

M. Coell: I know we've had this discussion regarding the retroactive date of May 24, 1996, and there may be some liability reasons for that. But I must admit that when I see that in legislation -- retroactive dates for businesses -- I have some concern about the powers now bestowed on regional districts for going and looking at records, for entering premises of individuals and businesses, and I would hope that that won't be just an open door to do that. I think that would be a way to turn off an entire recycling industry rather than to make a fresh start from today forward.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hawkins: I am very proud this afternoon to introduce Mr. MacArthur and students from the Kelowna Christian School in my constituency of Okanagan West. You can see all their lovely, happy faces up there watching us as we do the government's business here -- the people's business. Will the House please join me in making them welcome.

Hon. C. McGregor: I would also like to welcome the individuals who are here. We're debating a very important bill related to solid waste management. I'm sure the visitors will find it most enlightening.

For the member opposite's interest in terms of his question, the answer is that we obviously don't intend that to have that function.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1998, reported complete with amendments.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. C. McGregor: With leave of the House now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 17, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1998, read a third time and passed.

Hon. A. Petter: I call Committee of Supply on vote 11 -- the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, minister's office.

The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Doyle in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

On vote 11: minister's office, $464,000.

Hon. A. Petter: I thought I'd just start with a few preparatory remarks concerning the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. It is a new ministry and it reflects a new and exciting mandate for this province in terms of putting a focus on advanced education, on training and on the linkage to technology and the new economy. I am just delighted, I might say, to have been given the opportunity to play a role in leading this ministry in terms of providing some direction for the future for education and for the economy in British Columbia.

[3:15]

This is an exciting time for education in British Columbia. Creating a new ministry allows us to focus our energies in the area of advanced education, in training and in technology, and to achieve a linkage and efficiency between our advanced education system and the new economy and the new jobs that are being created. The term is often bandied about: a knowledge-based economy. But truly, our economy is knowledge-based. That tends to be true not just of the high-

[ Page 7783 ]

tech knowledge-based economy but of all aspects of our economy. Knowledge and skills are becoming increasingly important as the world becomes a more competitive place in which to operate.

Post-secondary education programs and skill development programs, plus the Information, Science and Technology Agency, intergovernmental relations secretariat and Crown corporations secretariat, all fall under the mandate of this new ministry. Therefore they provide us with resources to meet some of the very exciting challenges faced by this province.

I want to say how impressed I have been already by the professional abilities and talent of those who have come to this new ministry from the previous Ministry of Education and from the previous Ministry of Employment and Investment, in terms of the information and technology side. I am most impressed not only by their dedication but by their vision, and I am very much looking forward to working with them in the future.

Joining me today in the House, I introduce Gerry Armstrong, who is the new deputy minister of this ministry and who will be providing direction to the ministry from his position as deputy.

This week the Victoria Times Colonist said: "If there is one area in which British Columbia's . . . government deserves some praise" -- and I'm sure there's more than one; that's my comment, not theirs -- "it is its enlightened approach to post-secondary fees . . . freezing tuition for three years . . . [and] about to introduce an innovative program in which students can earn tuition credits through community service." Earlier today in this House I read the quote from Maclean's magazine that referred to how B.C. is now light-years ahead in terms of our college and university systems.

This is high praise, and it is to the credit of my predecessor and of this government that we have established ourselves in this province as having a solid reputation for supporting and understanding the value of advanced education.

It is, I think, quite dramatic how different the approach we have taken as a government is from that of, say, the province of Ontario, which is looking at higher tuition fees and reduced access as a strategy -- presumably with fiscal concerns in mind. But I would argue that short-term concerns that don't translate into long-term gains. An investment in education is an investment in the economy. It is an investment in the future. It's about giving people the tools to get jobs in the new economy and to benefit that economy while benefiting from the education system.

So I'm very proud of the fact that in the last five years, we have increased funding to post-secondary education by some 20 percent in this province -- by some $230 million. In fact, we're the only province that has consistently increased its investment in education. We've done that, as members know, in the face of huge cuts from the federal government. We receive some $100 million less for post-secondary education from the federal government today than we received just three years ago.

We have seen a commitment against a tide that, in some parts of the country, has been running in the other direction. Thankfully, in this province we have not succumbed to that tide. That's why in this year's budget we've seen a $39 million increase in the post-secondary global budget from last year. We've seen an increase of over $26 million in post-secondary initiatives. We've seen an increase of $17.5 million specifically targeted to the creation of some 2,900 new student spaces in post-secondary institutions, which brings the total of new spaces in the last three years to almost 13,000.

This year we also targeted 500 of those spaces to high-tech training, recognizing not only the relationship within the ministry between technology and education but also the relationship within the economy. The fact is that we have an economy right now in which the technology sector is growing by over 20 percent and in which there is a shortage of supply. We want to take advantage of that shortage of supply. We want to solve two problems by not only meeting that shortage of supply but also doing so with B.C. graduates and B.C. students, who will have a future with worthwhile jobs and will stay here with their families as part of the tapestry of this province.

Student financial aid has also increased by over $13 million in this year's budget, reflecting the fact that as we expand spaces and as we keep the doors open to education, we need to make corresponding increases in student financial aid. This year we will provide grants and loans to more than 5,000 new students and increase support for more than 50,000 students who are already receiving financial assistance.

We've also made some strategic investments in terms of the infrastructure of higher education. Let me briefly review some of those, because they're quite exciting. Over six years $123 million is being invested in a new provincial learning network to link up colleges and schools throughout this province not only with each other but with the world, and to create a mini-information network that will be connected to the larger information highway and will enable programs and teaching to take place between and amongst communities.

A student in Nakusp will have access to course materials that previously might have been available only in Vancouver. A student in Vancouver will be able, through one of the community colleges, presumably, to take courses that might be offered out of Kuala Lumpur or some other international capital. It's really very exciting.

In addition, we have reached agreement with software development companies to provide to colleges and schools in this province some of the leading software, which will enable those students to gain access to the best information and the learning tools they need to participate in the information highway, in the library of the Internet, and to acquire the skills necessary if they wish to move into some of these high-tech positions.

We've also targeted some $2 million to assist colleges in getting new computer hardware. There's no point in having all the connections if you don't have the terminals and the software to make use of that information highway. We have made an investment there, as well, beyond that which was made to institutions in the general budget.

We have indeed put the public's money where the priority ought to be and where the public supports it: in education, in students, in services and in the necessary technology that students require in order to gain skills to compete in the modern economy, in order to gain access to the broadest information and in order to have the best opportunities for education.

We also have a major component of the ministry devoted to training and skills development. This too has been a major success story, perhaps not one that's as well recognized nationally as what we have done in education per se. For example, our skills development initiatives have resulted in a 33 percent decline in youth caseload, and the income assistance caseload has been reduced by some 20 percent through the B.C. Benefits program and its relationship with the initiatives of this ministry. In the coming year, we will serve some 80,000 clients and meet these clients' service goal with a budget reduced by 12 percent.

[ Page 7784 ]

There are countless success stories in these programs, but one that I'm particularly proud of -- because, as the member opposite from Saanich North and the Islands will know, it originated in Victoria -- was originally known as the Community at Work project. We have a relationship with the chambers of commerce around the province to provide work-based training programs. Those programs have an 84 percent employment retention rate.

They take people -- youth, principally -- who are on welfare and locate them in work-based training, as part of a work-based training initiative that's a partnership between government and business, pioneered here in Victoria and now being extended across the province.

Youth Options B.C. is one of our most comprehensive initiatives and targeted very much at providing opportunities for youth, in terms of providing youth with opportunities in the labour market. Combined with a tuition freeze, access to education and training, and programs that provide youth work experience and employment, we are making a major commitment to youth -- not to say that there aren't serious difficulties. There are. The rates of youth unemployment across the country and here in B.C., given some of the difficulties experienced in our current economy, are not acceptable.

But this government has responded strongly through Youth Options B.C. and other initiatives to address those concerns.

On the information, science and technology side, I've already referred to the information agency that has been brought into this ministry. But we have a number of major initiatives. The British Columbia electronic highway accord, the part of that accord that is now translated into the linking of educational institutions through PLNet, and the work that has been going on in government to deal with the year 2000 problem are all initiatives that have been undertaken by the Information, Science and Technology Agency, which that now forms part of this new ministry.

I might say we are also very committed to pursuing a new vision for British Columbia based on adding a new perspective on growing our high-tech economy here. The budget was reflective, in many ways, of the concerns of the high-tech sector. Our announcements in education have targeted the need to train more people into high-tech, but there is more that we can do.

One of the things we need to do is to work with the private sector to come up with a provincial framework, a strategy on the information technology opportunities that exist in this province. I have committed to do that. And the sector has committed to work with us and with education institutions to do what other jurisdictions have done with some success -- Oregon in particular -- and that is to form a real partnership, a cooperative environment in which we target the opportunities that exist to grow the knowledge-based economy. To outsiders, over 20 percent growth in that economy may look pretty good.

But insiders who see the potential and know what is happening say we can get 30, 40 or even 50 percent growth in this economy if we make the necessary investments. That's what we're going to do.

The IBM agreement is evidence of this government's commitment to bring a major information technology player into the province to grow the indigenous software industry here and to compete internationally. The announcement we made just two days ago to invest some $100 million over six years in infrastructure for research, partnering with federal programs and with the private sector, will ensure not only that educational institutions have more money for research but that that research will be applied to create jobs in the economy through the partnerships that result.

We've seen many new opportunities arising in this province in areas like biotech and information technology in recent years. But those opportunities are only the beginning of what we can see in the years ahead. Our knowledge-based economy -- the information technology, or the technology side of our knowledge-based economy -- is already about 4 percent of our total economy. It doesn't sound like a lot, but it's more than a third of the forest economy in terms of direct contribution. It's producing many jobs, it's labour-intensive, and it has huge potential -- potential that certainly I, this ministry and this government intend not to ignore.

So that's a sort of very general overview of some of the initiatives and issues. There are other areas. The office for disability issues also falls under this ministry. In addition, I have responsibility for Intergovernmental Relations and for the Provincial Capital Commission, showing that the interests of this ministry and this minister go from the most local to the most national. I think all of that presents a tremendous challenge, but it's a challenge that I and this government are very much up for and are interested in pursuing. And it's one that I look forward to debating through the course of these estimates with members opposite.

J. Weisbeck: First of all, my congratulations to the minister on his new task, and my thanks as well for the opportunity to canvass this new ministry. I'm sure there are going to be growing pains. As the minister once commented, he was in a very steep learning curve, and I certainly can attest to that.

Initially, I was quite surprised at the structure of this new ministry. It seems to be a collection of quite a number of things. But I was surprised, too, because there was a commitment of the government in the past to create this seamless education system to allow a smooth transition from K to post-secondary. So the separation of post-secondary out of the Education ministry is a bit contradictory to that initial commitment.

[3:30]

But I think the separation has been a really positive move, and I think maybe we can take that seamless connection and move it along to connect both post-secondary education and the high-tech industry. High-tech is British Columbia's fastest-growing industry. It's going to require a highly specialized workforce. So it's important that this dialogue with post-secondary be maintained, to keep pace with the rapidly changing demands.

There's been a large increase in staffing with the creation of this new ministry and obviously, as a result, an increase in overhead and the cost of doing business. This is somewhat contrary to this government's initiative of creating a smaller government. But I hope, during these estimates, that we can be assured that this focus of funds will be directed to benefit our students and our economy and not just to create a larger bureaucracy.

I'd like to thank the deputy minister, Gerry Armstrong, for our initial meeting at the new offices. It was good to see the results of years of restoration to St. Ann's Academy. I think they've done a beautiful job. It will be a great place to work in, I'm sure. This initial meeting gave my colleague from Delta North and me some insight into the physical layout of this ministry. It was important for me, because being a former dentist, I'm very concerned with time and motion and the way plants work and how efficiently they can work. So I see there's some work to be done there. I'd also like to thank the ministry for the briefing by both post-secondary and science and technology staff.

[ Page 7785 ]

I think we're living in a time of endless opportunity. We do live in a province that has the potential to be a leader in this new economy. But as government we have the responsibility to make those opportunities available to all British Columbians. We have the responsibility to make education and training accessible to all and to create an environment where that knowledge can be applied.

As we move into the next millennium, we find the need for training and retraining is becoming more and more apparent, both for our domestic well-being and for our international competitiveness. It's estimated that 56 percent of new jobs becoming available between 1995 and the year 2000 will require post-secondary education and/or training as a qualification for employment. This is obviously going to place a huge demand on the system as more and more people must access the system. I think that access will have to be much more flexible as the demands for non-traditional types of education will increase.

The social implications of not creating these opportunities are very obvious. We can see many examples of the relationship between the level of education and the earnings of an individual. Individuals and society at large can point to the impact of low incomes and unemployment on one's lack of self-worth, on family violence and breakdown, and on alcohol and drug abuse.

We're in very, very challenging times for post-secondary education as increased demands are placed on the system. These demands must be addressed if we are to approach the vision all of us have for advancement. As resources have become stretched, institutions have had to look for efficiencies in the system, and there have been costs and shortcomings. The quality of education has declined because of increases to class size; the professional brain drain, as people are attracted to the U.S.; library retrenchment; service cutbacks; equipment obsolescence; and space inadequacies.

Budget cuts have had a huge impact on libraries, for one example. They are falling farther and farther behind not only in their book acquisitions but also in their staffing. Periodicals and journals are being discontinued due to the high inflation rate and static budgets. In a recent survey done by the Council of Post-Secondary Library Directors, a number of inequities are apparent. The colleges have inferior libraries -- particularly in the more rural areas -- and there has been a loss of staff due to budgetary cuts. When one looks at the importance of libraries in the quality of education, this is a very, very serious issue.

Technology is having similar problems, as replacement timetables are not keeping appliances current. For example, at Okanagan University College, the replacement cycle for appliances is ten years, where it really should be half of that. Some of their labs are working on old technology -- 486s, which are certainly not current technology. The institutions feel that equipment replacement should be part of the operating budget, to keep the technology current. The physical facilities have deteriorated, as institutions have placed their priorities on academic needs.

We all know that the cost of delaying maintenance programs will rear its ugly head someday, costing us a great deal more if steps towards prevention are not taken now.

The former minister mandated a task force to look into the critical issues of financing in British Columbia's college and institute system. A review was done in relation to funding, increasing institutional costs, revenue generation, productivity and student access. The task force found that the college and institute system has exhausted its capacity to deliver further economies. They simply couldn't pare down their budgets any further without imploding. We've already seen the impact that the previous two budgets have had on the colleges, universities and institutes.

This year's budget may improve the situation, but the past budget inadequacies have not been met, and these budgets have had a huge impact on the quality of our system.

The task force findings were interesting relative to the education policy, particularly when this minister has accused the opposition of having no direction in post-secondary education. I'd like to remind the minister that his own ministry's study states that there is no public policy framework on the essential education services that are to be maintained at times when institutions are having to do less or cut services.

On another policy issue, I'd like to clarify our position once again so that the minister and the Premier will get it straight and stop misleading the public. We supported the tuition freeze. We felt that with the high youth unemployment rate and the fact that this government had screwed up the economy so badly, students and their parents needed all the help they can get in financing their education.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The minister also criticized me for supporting the colleges, universities and institutes in the education equation. I'm always amazed by this government's inability to work with all the players. They've shown the same direction in philosophy when working with the business community -- this socialist ideology that puts one part against another: business versus labour, students versus institutions. I don't understand why this divide-and-conquer theory is so prevalent in this government's philosophy. Is it just so desperate for votes that when it sees an opportunity to pick up a segment of the population . . . ?

How can this government separate the needs of students from the needs of the facilities?

When we speak of the education system, it requires every segment of that system to be cohesive and to work together. A student cannot receive a quality education without all parts of the institution and the government working together as a team. How can you separate the affordability of students from the affordability of colleges and universities? A balance must be maintained. What you take away from one must be given to the other. Ed Lavalle, from the College-Institute Educators Association, stated this very clearly. He noted that government had not replaced the money lost to the institutions by the freeze.

Just as huge demands are being placed on post-secondary education, every aspect of our economy relies on science and technology. We rely on high-tech industry not only for the creation of new business opportunities but also to replace the old technologies found in our resource sector -- from the bio-tech industry, which can enable us to grow trees faster, to high-tech saw blades, which create less waste.

B.C. has a tremendous opportunity, with its position on the Pacific Rim and next to an economic giant, to become a leader in this new economy. Will we take this opportunity and move with it? Or will we get stuck in an old, outdated ideology and let the rest of the world pass us by? Can we learn a lesson from the state of Washington, whose high-tech industry has grown to $41 billion annually, compared to B.C., which has a $5 billion high-tech industry? Will we be flexible enough to follow Oregon, whose high-tech industry is growing at the rate of 59 percent, compared to our 20 percent?

Can we seriously look at our strengths and weaknesses, and make the appropriate changes to take ownership of this new economic direction?

[ Page 7786 ]

The B.C. Technology Industries Association's perception of this government is -- and I quote -- "disturbing." They believe that in order to be successful, all parties must work together to create a climate where industry can flourish. Canadian governments have traditionally been poor supporters of research and development, and British Columbia has a particularly poor record not only for making the money available for research but also for not giving tax incentives for the private sector to get involved.

I was encouraged by this latest announcement that B.C. is following the federal initiative in the creation of the B.C. knowledge development fund. My only wish is that this is not just another smoke-and-mirrors announcement and that these funds will actually materialize. It is worrisome when the funds are classified as consisting of largely new money.

The Technology Industries Association's 1997 report card states:

"[Their] view of the role of government, at any level, is that it should create the climate and framework within which our industry can flourish with due regard to wider social issues. This means displaying interest and leadership, communicating with the public, encouraging inward investment, and ensuring that publicly funded institutions, particularly in the field of education and training, are responding to industry needs. It means working with other governments to encourage the free flow of trade and ideas.

Of equal importance, it should avoid doing things that inhibit the industry, classic examples in B.C. being the inappropriate aspects of the labour standards act and maintaining a high-tax regime."

It is very, very worrisome to see a commission that is so heavily weighted in favour of labour set up to look at the flexibility of labour in the high-tech industry. I'll be waiting, with a lot of worry, for what the outcome of this commission will actually be.

The TIA further believes that government should avoid short-term interventionist activities, including artificial job programs or special taxpayer-supported initiatives that tend to distort the marketplace. In short, government should stand back and let the industry create wealth that will fund both general economic well-being and job creation in this province.

There are huge opportunities available to all British Columbians. We have the people and the resources to make us number one again. All we ask of this government is that it get out of the face of business and allow economic freedom to flourish, allow them to hire our graduates, allow them to develop their products and allow them to expand their businesses.

Hon. A. Petter: I know we're going to get into questions. I very much appreciate the member's congratulatory remarks. So let me reciprocate by congratulating him on having shifted into his critic responsibilities along with me as minister. I very much appreciate the constructive relationship that we've had to date, and I look forward to building upon it.

Just on a few points that were raised . . . . We'll probably get into more detail, but perhaps I can just give a few general comments. The member raised the question of the seamless nature of the government's commitments to education and asked whether the separation of the ministries was going to compromise that. I certainly want to reassure him that that is not the intention. In fact, I think the announcement today on adult basic education is a good example that it isn't the intention.

By removing the tuition barrier to adult basic education in the college system -- and I think the member himself said this in his comments earlier in the day -- we level the playing field and enable the adult basic education system, K-to-12 and colleges to work in a more coordinated and effective way to meet student needs. The PLNet announcement and the software agreement I referred to were agreements that combined college and K-to-12 elements. It's certainly my intention to continue to maintain good, strong relations with my counterpart. The ministry executive offices are located side by side in St.

Ann's, as the member knows. We want to maintain the strength that came about through the conjunction of K-to-12 and post-secondary within the ministry but use the opportunity we now have to focus energies in both areas without sacrificing that.

[3:45]

On the question of efficiencies, while there are now two ministries and that does increase costs to some extent, we have tried to minimize that increase in costs by, for example, maintaining a combined management services division, by having cooperation between the two communications divisions and by having close relations within the executive.

This little aside: I appreciate the member's comments about St. Ann's Academy, because -- wearing my Provincial Capital Commission hat and my B.C. Buildings Corporation hat as well -- that was a project that I have been personally involved in seeing through. It has been a major restoration of a very significant historical structure, but it's one that has been brought back to life for a very useful purpose. I appreciate the member's remarks in that regard.

On policy -- we will no doubt have time to discuss this in more detail -- let me just say with respect to the critical issues task force that we have already implemented all of the recommendations in phase 1 and are certainly going to be looking at moving on additional recommendations as resources allow. This ministry and its predecessor have worked hard to develop a framework policy around colleges to get them to better combine their efforts in a common vision for education. We hope to do the same with universities.

On the tuition freeze, I'm always perplexed by the member's clarification. I won't engage in any rhetoric here. The member assures us that he's supportive of the tuition freeze, but as I recall during the debate on the legislation, it seemed to me that the one letter he chose to read was from a student who was inalterably opposed to the tuition freeze. Go figure, hon. Chair. I'll leave it for others to figure today, and I'll do my own figuring another time.

I would say, though, that it really is the pot calling the kettle black to suggest that this government is trying to play off the needs of students against the needs of institutions. It's quite the opposite. We've made the point that a tuition freeze and a quality education can co-exist. The opposition has constantly suggested that one comes at the expense of the other and that the needs of students, if they are met in a tuition freeze, could compromise the needs of institutions. So I think the finger was pointing in the wrong direction on that particular allegation.

As for Mr. Ed Lavalle's comments, I believe the comments the member is referring to were made at the time of the announcement of the tuition freeze but before the announcement of the funding lift. So Mr. Lavalle was noting that the tuition freeze and its implications had not, to that point, been met with a corresponding increase in resources for colleges. That was true. But about a week later, the announcement was made on colleges and universities funding, and I think Mr. Lavalle's remarks at that time were extremely laudatory and positive.

In terms of the general comment about the government's attitude towards colleges and institutions and universities, again I guess the member was pointing somewhere else in this

[ Page 7787 ]

room. It ain't me who's trying to take an approach other than that of constructive engagement and cooperation. I invite the member to come with me to some of these announcements, such as the one we made on Monday at UBC, and I think you'll see that partnership is the order of the day and cooperation is the mechanism.

The relationship that this government has, and that I've been able to have, with university presidents, administrators, college faculty and students has been all about building teamwork -- working together, understanding and respecting our respective roles, but joining forces and working in a cooperative and mutually supportive environment. Let me assure the member that I believe that is exactly the way we will make progress, and I am committed to doing that.

On the question of research and development, I appreciate the acknowledgment that we are committing $100 million over six years to develop the necessary infrastructure to ensure that we take advantage of the talent we have in B.C. to do world-class research, to draw new investment into the province to do research and to create jobs. I don't see this as following a federal announcement, though I suppose it does in time.

What it does is ensure that we will lead the country by capturing the maximum number of federal dollars from the Canada Foundation for Innovation and by making sure that those dollars, matched by provincial dollars, are targeted at research that will produce benefits in B.C. That's one of the primary criteria of the provincial program. Again, I appreciate the member's acknowledgment.

In terms of information technology and the opportunities that exist generally in the technology sector, I agree that they have huge opportunities. But I just caution the member to be a little careful in terms of saying that the government should get out of the face of people here. There's no doubt that this is a dynamic sector, a competitive sector, and government shouldn't be in there picking winners or losers.

On the other hand, government has a critical role to play, which the vast majority of people in this sector constantly refer to, in providing educational resources and support, in providing support for research, in providing the infrastructure that's necessary for this opportunity -- whether it's developing human capital through investments in education or developing the research infrastructure, the physical capital, so that research will take place. All of those things require a supportive and committed government.

So it's a question of partnership here, too, and it's a partnership that I'm certainly committed to continuing.

J. Weisbeck: I had a unique experience today. I introduced a number of students prior to question period. Just prior to coming in here, we sat down with them, and I thought: here's an opportunity for them to sit down and write down . . . . Given the opportunity to ask a minister a question, what questions would they ask? I have a number of questions from students at UVIC, UBC, SFU and, I think, Camosun. I will just proceed with those. I have three questions here, and they're from Ryan Marshall, Kaveh Namdaran and Dennis Visser.

Here's the first: what do you propose to do about fourth-year students having to come back for a fifth year to complete their major, due to unavailable classes? Are you recommending that we go to private forms of funding for that, or will government funding be increased?

Hon. A. Petter: Just before I answer the question, let me introduce two other members of the dynamic team in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, who are going to help direct this ministry in the future. Robin Ciceri, seated to my right, is assistant deputy minister in charge of post-secondary education. Seated behind me is someone who comes to us on waivers when we need him, Jim Crone, who is assistant deputy minister of the management services division with the Ministry of Education. Because we are trying to combine resources, he also serves in that role with respect to management services in this ministry. I welcome them here and very much appreciate their support.

I think the answer to the question is that obviously we have a challenge to make sure not only that students have a doorway into post-secondary education but that doorways within those institutions remain open for classes. In the member's introductory comments, he talked about the fact that in the two previous budget years, we did challenge institutions to expand spaces without increasing resources -- through greater efficiencies. We did that because we believed they had the capacity.

Other provinces were reducing funding and expecting colleges and universities to reduce spaces by a lesser amount than the funding cuts would suggest. What we said to institutions was that we had a proposal. That proposal was that we'll maintain funding; we won't decrease it like other provinces have. We won't pass through the cuts from the federal government, but we expect you to maintain services. Colleges and universities did a great job doing that, but it wasn't easy. To some extent that meant that classrooms got larger; to some extent it meant that certain classes became fuller.

Therefore in some cases it became more difficult to get access to certain courses. What the colleges and universities said to us this year was: "We've done that. We've reached the limits of our capacity there, and now we need more resources." What this government said in the budget was: "We agree. Congratulations, you've done a great job.

You now need to have the additional resources if we're going to increase spaces." So we provided them with substantial new resources -- resources which don't only go to fund the new spaces but, because incremental cost of a new space is less than the full cost of funding, will allow them to deal with some of these other stresses and strains they've felt.

Where does that leave us? The short answer to the student's question is no. We must provide adequate funding so that universities and colleges can provide courses to those who need them. That's exactly what we've done in this year's budget.

I appreciate that there have been some stresses, although I'd much rather have the stresses that we've had here -- of colleges and universities trying to make sure students have all the course offerings they want -- as opposed to the stresses in Alberta or Ontario. There, college students or those who wish to become college students haven't had a chance to get any courses, because they haven't been able to get in the door. But in this year's budget, we've recognized that there is need for more resources. We've provided those resources. It'll never be easy; it'll never be as much as they want.

But institutions, colleges and universities will be in a better position this year to deal with some of these stresses, while ensuring that the basic access for new students is provided, so that we see 2,900 new students in the coming year as well.

J. Weisbeck: I was very concerned when I canvassed them at UVic about the loss of courses, particularly in the political science field. They lost quite a number of the high-level courses. The students are very, very concerned. There's not much economy in the fact that you have to go back for an extra year because you couldn't get your courses.

[ Page 7788 ]

His concern, obviously, is: where am I going to get the loans to do this sort of thing? That was the second part of his question. How does that person finance that extra year of his education?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, first of all, I've already indicated that my view is that we must make sure that institutions, universities and colleges have resources so that students aren't faced with the choice of doing an extra year. I would simply note that we have made a substantial increase in our commitment to student financial assistance. We have one of the most generous, if not the most generous, packages in the country. It depends on how you compare us with Ontario, because we have a significant grant component of our program. We've increased that commitment this year by over $14 million.

Clearly, through the tuition freeze and through that support, we are providing support to students that goes beyond that of virtually any other province in the country.

J. Weisbeck: I didn't see anything in the budget that makes up for those inflationary costs that occurred in the two previous years where there was basically a flat budget. If you could answer that, please.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, we didn't go back and try to make up for the past two years. The agreement in the previous years -- and this was done cooperatively by my predecessor with the colleges and universities -- was: we won't cut budgets as others are, if you can increase efficiency and effectiveness by expanding spaces. What we did in this year's budget, though, was fully fund the new positions and add some additional component because of the absence of access to tuition resources.

That not only enables colleges and universities to use those resources for the new students, but because the incremental cost of a new student is less than the full funding, they can then use those resources to deal with other problems.

The clearest evidence of this is that the complaint this year was that colleges and universities weren't getting enough new positions. I had university and college presidents saying to me: "Couldn't you give me some more FTEs?" Every dollar that they got in funding for a new FTE was a dollar that they could then reallocate to meeting some of their other needs.

So we didn't go back, but we did provide full funding for new students at a level that is higher than the incremental cost and therefore benefits the institutions beyond simply the added cost of those new students.

J. Weisbeck: Here is the second question these students had: "B.C. has a great loan remission program, but many students are unaware of it and how it works. What do you propose to do to increase student use of this program?"

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I propose to challenge the Liberal opposition, and this critic in particular, to go around the province and trumpet what a great loan remission program we have, so that the message will be shared in a non-partisan way by all members of this House and so that people in constituencies other than my own will hear that message from their MLA.

J. Weisbeck: Another question:

"At post-secondary schools like UBC, budget cuts have caused the number of high-quality faculty -- tenured and sessional professors -- to decrease because the pay is becoming so low that many of them can't afford to live here. As a result, TAs are forced to deal with larger groups of students, and class sizes are growing steadily. Don't you feel that some course of action should be taken to counteract this detrimental effect on the quality of education?"

[4:00]

Hon. A. Petter: This question came from a student?

J. Weisbeck: The same student.

Hon. A. Petter: I mean, far be it from me to argue against increased faculty salaries, but . . . . Let me just say that in my experience in talking to faculty members, it isn't so much the question of salaries. It's the question of research opportunities and the quality of the educational experience in which they participate that are most determinate of their decision to stay or to not stay.

Certainly at UBC, for example, where we announced this major new research initiative, the degree of enthusiasm for that announcement from faculty members, who can see an opportunity to pursue their research and to have that research translate into opportunities, was much greater than I expect would be the case with any faculty salary increase. But I will leave the question of faculty salaries to the negotiating table.

I believe that at the end of the day, though, the commitment to educate -- not through salaries so much, but through the quality of the educational environment -- is going to be more of a determining factor in attracting and retaining qualified faculty and researchers here in B.C.

J. Weisbeck: This question is from Sophia Wong:

"How do you feel about provincial post-secondary academic regulations? I feel that all post-secondary institutions should have the same academic regulations. At SFU, for example, a student may retake courses five times over her degree. I feel this is harsh, and it wouldn't be fair if this regulation did not apply to other post-secondary institutions."

Hon. A. Petter: I guess it sort of depends on what regulations you're talking about. There's a whole history -- I won't bore the member with it; he's probably aware of it -- of universities and their sense of autonomy and their governance model. It's slightly different with respect to colleges.

What I would say is this: while there is certainly variation, this province, as I understand it, has done more than virtually any other province to try to ensure that students can take their credentials and transfer them from institution to institution, for example, so that academic regulations don't act as a barrier to the integration of the system in terms of encouraging people to move from one institution to another and progress through the system. There will obviously be some variation, and that's in the nature of a university.

It is an institution that has its own senate, its own board of governors and its own governance structure. But to the extent we have, I invite this student and the member opposite to compare what we've done in this province in terms of trying to get cooperation and coordination amongst institutions on issues that are important -- student transfer, for example -- because I think it compares very favourably with other jurisdictions.

J. Weisbeck: This question is from Jan Dhaliwal:

"Education is very limited and it is limited to certain people. Even though there are certain cutbacks, students are still suffering. Only a limited number of students can obtain a post-secondary education. There are not enough spaces available for postgraduate students. There are more students than spaces. What can be done for this? Education is ranked very highly in B.C. and Canada. There is a massive competition. How can there be more spaces created? Many students are being cheated of education because there is not a space for them. These students have much to offer to better our society. Why can the government not create space?"

[ Page 7789 ]

Hon. A. Petter: The answer to the student is that governments can create spaces if they're prepared to make the commitment. This government has done exactly that and has created some 13,000 new spaces in the last three years and 2,900 spaces in this year alone. Let me say that this 2,900 figure is in excess of the demand that's created by growth in population. It means not only that those new students who come into the system through growth in population will be provided for in this system but that there is opportunity to broaden the participation rate.

This province has seen an extraordinary increase in its participation rate, in marked contrast to other provinces that have seen a reduction in their participation rate. The affordability of education and the commitment to funding are part of the answer to that. It's one of the reasons why students in this province pay $1,000 to $1,400 less than they would for a year of university education in Alberta or Ontario. Ontario, of course, is going dramatically in the other direction.

I say to this student: right on! We have to make sure we broaden spaces. But I also invite the student to go back and read the newspapers in the fall of 1991, before we became government. I think you'll find that the issue every fall was that students couldn't get into institutions. By and large in this province, that is not the major concern now. The concern now is: are the resources there once they get into institutions? That's because we have expanded spaces. The wait-lists that used to exist . . . . One of the reasons I ran for office was that I was concerned about those wait-lists.

That meant the students were discouraged, were turned away and were not given the opportunities. Those wait-lists have been reduced and have largely disappeared.

J. Weisbeck: Joanne Gardiner asked these questions: "There are two financial issues: increased students loans and student debt, decreased classes and increased waitlists -- possibly as a result of the tuition fees. What is being done to aid students financially -- more grants? Larger class sizes greatly decrease the quality of education and greatly increase the student failure rate." The question is: what is being done to aid students financially -- more grants?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I have already sort of answered this. About $14 million is being added this year to the student financial aid budget. There has been a significant uptake in fact, because students have been made aware of student financial assistance through the Guarantee for Youth last year and Youth Options B.C. this year. We have made a major increase to student financial assistance, and we have provided student financial assistance by not allowing tuition fees to increase. That has had a hugely beneficial effect in providing access to students.

I can't let the moment pass without saying that today, of course, we added to that substantially by saying that students who require adult basic education at the college level will not have to confront the barrier represented by a tuition fee in that instance either.

In all those ways, plus the opportunities that have been created for students to earn additional dollars through some of the Youth Options B.C. initiatives -- and more to come -- we are very cognizant of the need to make sure that students do have access, support and the resources they need to participate in the education system.

J. Weisbeck: This is from Rita Amisano: "With B.C.'s increasing unemployment rate, which is currently at 19.2 percent, graduates are finding it harder and harder to find employment. Don't you think that job training programs should be put in place that provide an opportunity for youths to utilize their academic skills in a professional environment?"

Hon. A. Petter: I do, and the Student Summer Works program is a response to that. I'd also say that the government has been looking at other mechanisms that might utilize the talents and skills of youth and students in terms of participating with non-profit groups and gaining some benefit from that participation. I hope we'll have more to say on that shortly. Again, I agree strongly with the sentiment that we must ensure that there are opportunities for students to get the training and a bridge from the academic to the practical.

Much of that now takes place in our institutions through co-op programs, for example, which certainly have been a very, very useful mechanism and one that has been expanded by most institutions.

It also has been the case that government has supported that transition in certain sectors. For example, I had the tremendous pleasure of announcing a First Job in Science and Technology program -- $2 million -- which essentially creates a form of apprenticeship for the first six months for a student with technical skills to actually get their first job with a software company, for example, and to make it affordable for that company to hire that student in preference to someone more experienced from outside the jurisdiction. After the six months, more often than not, the student will stay with the company.

That means a B.C. student, instead of someone from somewhere else, gets a long-term job.

J. Weisbeck: This might be a difficult one to answer here. Sophia Wong: "How easy is it for someone to be hired as a teacher's assistant?"

Hon. A. Petter: The answer is: I don't know the answer. But I think it's a decision left to the school districts, and I will defer to my colleague responsible for Education to answer that for the member and for the student in an appropriate forum.

J. Weisbeck: This question is from George Pringle from the University of Victoria.

"I'm a student at UVic, registered in the post-graduate diploma program in public sector management. In 1996, in response to the first tuition freeze act, the school of public administration imposed a course service fee of $50 in addition to the cost of the course material. Prior, some course materials cost $15 and some up to $50. The school claims that they are only covering increased costs, but every course package was raised a flat $50. In addition, over the past two years the course package price has gone up an average of 10 percent. Clearly this is an illegal tuition hike -- by another name -- of over 20 percent."

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I won't comment on the specific situation, because I don't know of it other than through the student's

interpretation. But suffice it to say that if that were the case, if there were an attempt to impose a mandatory fee as a way of increasing tuition by another name, that would no longer be acceptable. The legislation, as the member knows, was amended this year to make it clear that mandatory ancillary fees cannot be used to effectively increase tuition.

J. Weisbeck: This is from Matthew Kroekar from SFU: "Is it possible to maintain a high quality of post-secondary education during a tuition freeze without causing the public debt to massively increase? Are both goals possible to accomplish?"

[ Page 7790 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Absolutely. They are possible to accomplish if you have a government that has the political will to make education a priority and if you have a government that understands that the public debt represented by an underfunding of education -- hence, a deficit of human capital -- is as serious to our future as is the debt in fiscal terms.

The goal here is to make sure that we steward and target our resources to provide access so that students who are in need of assistance to get to university get that assistance; so that students for whom tuition would be a barrier, if it were higher, don't face that barrier; so that that deficit of human capital doesn't contribute to a much greater debt in the future for those students and for this province. That really means tough choices, it means priorities, it means that all the things the opposition asks to be funded every day . . . .

The great luxury of being in opposition is that everything is a priority the moment you state it. All those things have to be put into context, and priorities have to be made. This government has done that. We've made education the priority, and we've funded it in order to show that the answer to this question is unequivocally yes, with political will.

J. Weisbeck: The next question is: "You've now had the opportunity, with the tuition freeze, to relook at the sort of impact that this freeze has had. So after two years -- and obviously it is a barrier to post-secondary education -- how much of a barrier do you think it is?"

Hon. A. Petter: I assume that the question is: to what extent is tuition, not the tuition freeze, a barrier to education? I think it varies as to how much the tuition that is charged is a barrier. The problem is, of course, that it represents a very substantial barrier to those people for whom education is probably the greatest priority -- the people who have not had the opportunity or who come from families with backgrounds that have not had the opportunity to benefit from education.

More often than not, it is those people who are suffering the most in our economy for whom tuition then represents the greatest barrier. The barrier represented by tuition tends to create a vicious circle for those who we most need to ensure are not caught in that vicious circle. By constraining tuition, therefore, you make sure that that group of students, whom tuition could keep in that cycle of frustration and lack of opportunity, break out of that cycle. When you break out of that cycle, that break tends to last into the future.

It means not only that those students get that opportunity but that they also then have the opportunity to create better lives for themselves, for their families and for their kids -- and society benefits.

So I don't think it's a barrier for everyone. But I think it is a barrier that is substantial for those who most need our support. I think the alternative might be to try to target, somehow, relief to the poor. We do some of that within our student financial aid package. But the trouble with trying to design programs for the poor is that too often you get poor programs. That's because they don't enjoy the universality and the support. So, anticipating where the member might go with this, I believe the tuition freeze is very important in terms of dealing with the barrier that it poses to that very important segment of society. Beyond that, though, it's a psychological barrier.

The fact is this: post-secondary education today is as essential to getting an opportunity in today's economy as a high school education was when I went to high school -- those not too many years ago.

If we really believe in public education and we believe that public education is fundamental and that government has a responsibility, then we should be looking at reducing tuition, either by freezing it against rising costs of living or actually bringing it down in our post-secondary sector, just in order to make it clear that we are retaining our commitment to public education and that that commitment is keeping up with the realities of the changing marketplace and the demands that are placed upon people.

[4:15]

J. Weisbeck: You bring in a policy, and there are obviously some expected outcomes of this policy. I'd like to know: have you achieved the desired results, and how were they measured?

Hon. A. Petter: The way I measure it, in my short duration as minister, is by seeing what a difference it has made to the students that I talk to when I go to universities, colleges, institutes and various campuses around this province. Students come up to me, unsolicited, and say: "This freeze has really meant that my parents are going to have the opportunity to enable me to continue education that I wouldn't otherwise have.

It's made the difference in terms of my ability to be able to continue my education." So I don't know how you measure those things, but I have no difficulty measuring it against the experiences that I hear from people every day, for whom this government's commitment to keeping tuition lower than other provinces has made huge differences in their lives and in their outlooks. That's measurement enough for me.

J. Weisbeck: I realize that it would be difficult to implement, but we know that it doesn't affect all of the student population. There are certain ones that are more needy than others, and I guess that's what I'm trying to get at. Have you seen any change in the participation rate because of this tuition freeze?

Hon. A. Petter: It's hard to correlate why changes in participation rate take place -- whether it's the tuition freeze or increased funding -- but the numbers are pretty dramatic. Between 1993-94 and 1996-97, which spans the period of the tuition freeze, B.C.'s rate of participation increased by a total of 7 percent, while the rest of Canada actually decreased by 2.5 percent. Some of that is because we increased the number of spaces, but I think some of it is because we did not increase tuition in the way that other provinces did. I suspect that the continuation of the tuition freeze will continue that fairly dramatic trend.

J. Weisbeck: I would like to know where all this is going. What is the government's policy for tuition? Are we now looking toward freezing it for the next several years? Are we looking to decrease it?

An Hon. Member: They won't be there that long.

J. Weisbeck: That's right; that's true enough.

Is this the direction you're going? Do you think that this should basically be a tuition-free society?

Hon. A. Petter: This is an opportunity for the member opposite to share his philosophy and views on this. The opposition often comments that they don't have a chance to engage constructively and influence the government. I would be very, very interested if he wants to put his position on the record.

My position is quite clear. I believe, philosophically . . . . You have to measure philosophy and one's goals against the

[ Page 7791 ]

fiscal realities that ministers face and that the Minister of Finance faces -- although we have a much more progressive Minister of Finance now than we had in the past couple of years. [Laughter.] Philosophically, I've been very clear: I think that post-secondary education today is as foundational as high school education was 20 or 30 years ago. If we're really serious about saying to students that we support public education, then we should be moving in the direction of reducing barriers. It's a matter of where to start.

I'll tell you where we started today. We started with adults and young people who need and are prepared to put in the effort to get a high school diploma or high school credentials, and we took away the barrier for those students in the college system. That's a very important announcement, because it does signal the direction and the priority. I believe that's where we start: right at the high school level.

If it's within my capacities and the resources of government -- and all the other priorities of government and the other priorities of the opposition -- to move beyond that and give students greater access than they now have to first year, for example, and get those students for whom that first step from high school to post-secondary education is psychologically and financially a major one -- maybe because they come from families that have not had that experience -- boy, I'll do what I can to bring those barriers down. You bet I will. I believe this government will, too, because it's too important.

It's fundamental.

When we set up public education, not just in this country but in other countries, we did it because we believed education was a right; it was a right that enabled people to move from their position into a position of real equality of opportunity to participate. If we still believe that, against an increasingly competitive marketplace -- and the opposition always talks about how competitive it is -- then we'd better be prepared to measure up when it comes to providing students, young and old, with the opportunities they need to actually realize what equality of opportunity is and to participate.

You bet I'm prepared to move whatever I can to reduce those barriers, within the limits we have and recognizing that these things are always going to be balanced against other priorities. That's my answer, hon. member. What's yours?

J. Weisbeck: I think that if you're talking about affordability of education for students, you can't have one-size-fits-all. I alluded to that earlier. Some families can afford to pay, and in some situations, the job opportunities are there, where students can finance their own education. I've always felt that having a value on something -- a student having to pay for something -- is not a bad thing. I'm obviously very concerned about the economics of the whole process. If a student is being held back from university because they can't afford to go, then that's obviously a concern of mine as well.

But I think that there are different situations. It's very difficult to say that you could freeze or have free tuition for everybody. That's not necessary. You have to have funds and loans and access to education, and make those funds available to students so that everybody has access to the system. But there are so many things regarding affordability; obviously tuition is only one of them.

Having had the opportunity to speak to the students just an hour and a half ago . . . . They're very concerned about housing, and that's the major part of their expense. What is it -- $9,000 a year it's costing a student now to go to school? You know the tuition fee is a very small part of that, compared to housing up there. What are we doing about that? I spoke to an SFU student, who said that there's inadequate housing at SFU. What is government doing about trying to supply more student housing?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all, I'm intrigued by the member's answer about affordability. I don't want to discount the fact that, yes, we do have limits on our ability to always act in the direction we want. But the member's argument could be applied to the K-to-12 system. There are many families in this province who, I'm sure, could afford to pay to send their kids through the K-to-12 system. But I kind of thought that we had a commitment to public, universally accessible education which transcended that and which said that that value is more important.

I'm intrigued that the member doesn't see that this argument now applies in terms of the direction we should be headed in post-secondary, given the changes in the economy that he and other members of his caucus often reference and the need to get a job, which he cited in his own introductory remarks for post-secondary education. You can't have it both ways, it seems to me. If the argument is its affordability, then why don't we apply that in K-to-12? If the argument is that there is some kind of entitlement for basic education, then is his argument, too, that the post-secondary system is not basic?

It's pretty hard, it seems to me, in light of his own statistics, to maintain that.

Outside of tuition, the member is obviously right, particularly for students as they graduate from high school and leave, very often, the home in which they may have been raised and have to worry about living allowances. Other costs come into play -- books and living -- and that is where we do have a very progressive student financial aid package, comprising loans and grants, which is designed to provide living allowances and support for students. We are very committed to continuing and enhancing that.

It's regrettable that the federal government in its recent budget decided not to broaden that basic program based on need, but decided instead to create some new program that really works outside of the existing system and that will create all sorts of conflicts and difficulties for it. Those new resources could have gone into some of these needs the member is referencing. Indeed, I'm hoping, through discussions with my federal counterpart, that we can still persuade the federal government to put them in that direction.

In addition, on the particular question of housing, I might say that we also have done much in this province -- this has not just been a question of this administration, but of the last number of years -- to move educational opportunities closer to people's homes so that they don't have to leave their communities in order to get education. That's one of the reasons why the college system has been the focus of much of the expansion of the system: to bring education closer to people's communities and homes and, in addition, to provide people with the support they need to have the necessary housing when they require it, when they do move or have to relocate.

J. Weisbeck: I have some more questions here. From Stephanie Bryson, the first question is: "Can student fare discounts apply to all students, regardless of age -- for example, B.C. Ferries, 15 to 20 years . . . ? "

Hon. A. Petter: Happily, I'm not responsible for B.C. Ferries, and I don't know their policy or the answer to that. It's an interesting question, and I'd be happy to follow it up. I'm curious, actually -- but not for the purpose of this debate -- to find out what the definition of student means to different agencies. I'm not familiar with the information.

[ Page 7792 ]

J. Weisbeck: "Many students and TAs are concerned about large class sizes. More TAs, more classes . . . . " I know they were discussing the fact that they had these very large classes. "It was difficult to get questions in to the TAs -- there were very few of them -- and they felt that they couldn't make that connection. What would your suggestion be there?"

Hon. A. Petter: As I say, in this year's budget we have provided funding for all of the new spaces we're asking colleges and universities to create. That should help provide additional resources not only for the new students but also for existing students. To the extent that class size is a barrier to learning . . . . And it isn't always; it depends on the nature of the course. Large classes may be appropriate in some cases, and the use of technology can also help in other cases. But to the extent that it is, the funding we've provided in this year's budget should be most helpful to institutions in meeting these concerns.

[4:30]

J. Weisbeck: This question is from Mark Redgwell from Camosun. He's talking about tenure. "Job security for bad teachers is no security for an education. I know we've talked about high costs . . . . Royal Roads, for example, has created a new act that has basically eliminated tenure. I believe the Technical University of B.C. has done the same thing. Is this a movement by this ministry to move into more university acts, decreasing tenure?"

Hon. A. Petter: No. The value that's being sought to be protected through the system of tenure is that of academic freedom and that of promoting independent and critical research. Certainly that's a value that we don't want to see undermined. In the case of the Technical University, for example, there were some strong objections, initially, from the CAUT and others. Those have been worked out by addressing the concern of academic freedom substantively, through consultations and discussions. I don't propose that we would tell existing universities how they are to deal with these issues.

They are well-equipped to do that and, within their governing structures, to deal with professors who aren't measuring up. The purpose of a system of tenure is not to protect -- never has been nor should it be -- people who are not measuring up in terms of their abilities as teachers, researchers or whatever. It's there to protect academic freedom. It's up to the institutions to make sure that it is doing the one but not doing the other -- that is, protecting academic freedom and the ability to research but not protecting those who are not living up to their contractual obligations.

J. Weisbeck: The extra costs a single-parent student faces by having to take on a lower course load -- this means more time to finish a degree and therefore a larger student loan. I guess he's looking at what sort of allowances, if any, could be made for single parents.

Hon. A. Petter: This in an area I'm not familiar with in detail. In general, students with dependents do have their additional costs recognized and acknowledged within the student financial assistance programs that exist, and that's reflected in the degree of support that's provided to them.

J. Weisbeck: "The debate on campus involving the university's role in vocational training . . . . " And they say it should be addressed at colleges. "Universities are primarily research-oriented. Where are new researchers going to come from? Where do new ideas come from?" That gives a whole philosophical approach here about the role of colleges and universities.

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I'm not sure exactly what the term "vocational training" means in this context. But there is this debate. I think it's as false a debate as saying that protecting tuition necessarily puts you in conflict with the needs of colleges and universities -- to say that one has to choose here. The fact is that universities have done a pretty good job of showing that they can attend to the practical application of the skills they teach their students, through things like co-op programs, for example. In certain areas, practicums and things are provided for teachers. Is that vocational?

I'm not sure how vocational is being used here. But there's no reason why research cannot coexist with training that can take academic skills and make them usable by students in ways that are relevant to the workplace. It's not either-or; it should be both. I think universities and colleges are good at providing both.

J. Weisbeck: There's been quite a bit of concern about corporate sponsorship and advertising at the universities. I know that recently in the Vancouver Sun they showed Coca-Cola having this huge impact at UBC. I recently received a newsletter from BCIT, where there were also some concerns about the privatization of public post-secondary education in British Columbia. They had a number of concerns, and I'd like the minister to address those, please.

This is the BCIT Faculty and Staff Association in their association newsletter -- I just think that it raises some interesting questions: "does accepting major donations from private organizations result in expectations for contracts [or] product purchase that might not be beneficial to [this particular institution]?"

Hon. A. Petter: Again, I won't address the specific; I'll address the general. My view is that institutions looking for new resources will look to the private sector to form partnerships, to make agreements. If they're providing food services and they can get a more efficient and cost-effective form of food service by signing an agreement with one contractor or one company as opposed to another, I think the public would expect them to do that.

What mustn't occur -- it shouldn't occur -- is for those relationships to compromise the objectives of the institution, certainly in terms of its educational programming but also in terms of its other objectives. Providing food that is nutritious would be an example.

So again, I think that the issue is not whether there should be corporate sponsorships or corporate relationships. I think that inevitably there will be, and they may well help institutions to meet some of their financial goals. The question is: is the institution making sure that those relationships are achieving the benefits they're designed to achieve while not compromising either the academic educational goals or other important goals of the institution? And that, of course, for educational institutions -- as for government, the private sector and everyone else -- requires judgment. But it is judgment that I am hopeful and confident that institutions are capable of exercising.

J. Weisbeck: The second question they have is: "Does the strong imperative for all levels of the organization to be entrepreneurial and profit-making take too much attention away from the provision of effective education and learning opportunities for students?"

[ Page 7793 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I think this is a good issue for faculty members who are concerned to take up with the administration within the institutions. I mean, that's how these things need to be resolved. These kinds of concerns should be addressed through the governing structures of the institutions. There needs to be a dialogue around them to make sure that concerns are measured.

What I'd say is that there will always be pressure to get more resources. But if governments provide funding at the level this government has, it means that this pressure is less likely to be the kind of pressure that could lead to compromising the values and standards of the institution. So I expect that institutions will go out and try to get additional dollars to meet additional needs. But I am less concerned that it will compromise their objectives -- because I am confident that we are providing them with an adequate measure of funding -- than I would be if it were the case that we weren't providing that adequate measure of funding.

J. Weisbeck: The final question they have in their newsletter is: "Do partnerships that involve private organizations providing instructors and/or curriculum materials allow for effective quality control?"

Hon. A. Petter: Like everythi