[ Page 7779 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Expo evictions. Mr. Barnes –– 7779

Quesnel sexual assault case. Ms. Brown –– 7780

Mr. Nicolson

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

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

Government advertising. Mr. Hanson –– 7782

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

On vote 62: minister's office –– 7782

Mr. Nicolson

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

Mr. Cocke

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

On vote 54: minister's office –– 7797

Hon. Mr. Segarty

Mr. Cocke, Mr. Williams, Mr. Michael

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1986

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming four people from Vancouver, mainly Vancouver Centre. They are Suzie Kilgour of the Tenants' Rights Coalition; Phil McCormack, spokesperson for the Zen tenants in Vancouver; Sue Harris from the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association; and David Lane from the Tenants' Rights Coalition.

MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon we have a group of women who represent the north Vancouver Island B.C. Social Credit Women's Auxiliary. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to welcome in the precincts Harold Allison, president of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, who is leading a number of the province's farmers in a delegation that is meeting with various MLAs. I hope the members of the assembly heed their words of concern. With that, I hope everyone will give them a warm welcome.

MR. HOWARD: Visiting with us today, certainly in the precincts…would like the House to join me in welcoming the mayor of Terrace, Jack Talstra, and the city administrator for Terrace, E.R. Hallsor.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, today one of our members of the Legislative Assembly is celebrating a wedding anniversary. Because it is a very special year for them, being Expo 86 year and a year when so many things are happening in the province of British Columbia, I would like to ask my colleagues in the House to wish the Premier of our province and Audrey a very happy anniversary.

Oral Questions

EXPO EVICTIONS

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A few days ago the tenants of an apartment building at 1531 Barclay in Vancouver had their heat shut off by the landlord, who was trying to evict them for Expo visitors. Such situations are becoming a continuing daily occurrence in Vancouver Centre and throughout the province. Has the minister decided to take any action to allow the city of Vancouver to protect tenants from arbitrary Expo evictions?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Speaking to the specific incident, I'm sure the member is quite aware of the process that we have. The tenants went through the arbitration process. The arbitrator ruled in favour of the tenants, who were told they would not be evicted. The landlord was alleged to have turned off the heat and intercom system. My officials were in contact with him, I understand the problem has been rectified, and that's the end of that one.

MR. BARNES: I thank the minister for his partial response. He did not respond to my question about whether or not he was going to assist the city of Vancouver in any way. I'm told that yesterday 15 more Expo eviction notices were issued. People are being left homeless and in desperate circumstances. When is the minister going to act responsibly and provide support for the city of Vancouver and the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, who are desperately trying to correct the situation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will provide the specific instance, if indeed the people who are aggrieved will get in touch with our consumer office, and if there is an arbitration in place, we'll ensure that it's expedited forthwith.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I still am unable to relate the responses of the minister to my specific question. As the minister knows, the city of Vancouver has applied to the cabinet for an amendment to the Vancouver Charter giving them the power to do the job that this government refuses to do. That's point one that hasn't been answered.

I would like to address a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Premier told the news media in eastern Canada that there is no problem with Expo evictions — that everyone has been taken care of. Now I reluctantly must say that with all due respect it appears to me that that can be nothing other than a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Nothing other than a lie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, clearly the statement by the member must be asked to be withdrawn. I would ask the member in the interests of parliament to withdraw the statement that he made. A simple withdrawal, hon. member, is all that is required, and we will continue with business.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

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

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

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

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Be seated. This is not a time for debate. I have asked the member to withdraw a statement — one of the most unparliamentary statements that can be made in our House. It applies equally to members on all side of the House, and I would ask the member in the interest of maintaining the dignity of the chamber to withdraw the statement unequivocally.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[ Page 7780 ]

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly the member has been given every opportunity to withdraw the statement. The Chair will ask him one more time to stand in his place, withdraw the statement, and we'll resume the proceedings that are before us. The member is an honourable member of this House, and I'm sure will do the honourable thing. I ask the member now to withdraw the statement.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

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

[2:15]

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

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Emery Barnes, in accordance with provisions of standing orders, I name you, and I would ask the House Leader for the appropriate motion.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the first member for Vancouver Centre be suspended from the service of the House for two sitting days.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 14

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

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

QUESNEL SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General. It concerns a recent court case in Quesnel, in which a provincial court judge sentenced two young men involved in a brutal sexual assault on a native Indian woman. He gave one of them a conditional discharge and the other a suspended sentence. Has the Attorney-General decided to appeal this decision on behalf of the Crown?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no, and we don't appeal on the basis of the first newspaper report of a trial either. Recommendations to appeal are made by Crown counsel in appropriate cases. Appeals are launched, but never before the sentence of the judge, the circumstances and, in this case, the reduced charges that were pleaded guilty to are also considered. But it most certainly will be one of those cases considered.

MS. BROWN: I have a supplementary. I wonder if the Attorney-General would take into account the comments of the judge in passing sentence, in which he said, if you read the newspapers, that this kind of thing happens all the time, probably indicating that this is nothing unusual for a native woman to be treated this way by men. In view of the serious nature of the offence and the statements made by the judge, will he decide to use his authority under section 14 of the Provincial Court Act and start an inquiry?

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm really surprised and disappointed to hear a suggestion of that kind arising from someone perusing the morning paper's account of a trial that took place in Quesnel. If I were to accede to what she has just put, then what do I become? I become the sanitizer of the comments of every free and independent judge in this country. Judges often make remarks from the bench that are taken out of context, remarks that may offend; in fact, they sometimes make remarks which are offensive. But the fact is that under our system they're independent of this place, independent of me, and they do their duty unfettered and not in fear that some minion of mine will go and sanitize retrospectively everything they say. So I say no to her.

MS. BROWN: It would be really wonderful if the Attorney-General took that kind of attitude to everybody, rather than just zeroing in on offensive remarks which involve members of the native community.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Question!

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

[ Page 7781 ]

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

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

I would hope that the Attorney-General is going to investigate this matter and find out whether or not the newspaper reports about this offensive and racist comment are accurate, and if the Attorney-General finds that they are accurate, that he will move to censure that judge, because certainly those kinds of statements contravene not just that native woman's rights under the Charter, but contravene the hate literature legislation in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, once again the Chair must advise members that this is question period. It is not a time to make statements or carry forward in estimates. Questions should be brief, and they should at least elicit some kind of an answer.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm tempted to ask a supplementary to the Attorney-General, too, but I will go on to the Minister of Labour and ask....

Well, I will ask him a supplementary. Is the Attorney-General familiar with the decision and the statements made by the late Mr. Justice Washington in a rape case in which a young woman's complaint was dismissed, whereupon that person went out and eventually murdered two more women, and in which totally gratuitous remarks were made? Is the Attorney-General aware of the seriousness of the gratuitous remarks made in the specific instance of Mr. Justice Washington?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is that I am not specifically aware of Judge Washington's comments, but again the thrust that you are putting to me is that every time a judge is reported to say something offensive, without any kind of consideration, investigation or examination of context you want some sort of instant comment from a person in my office about remarks made from the bench. If there are complaints about judges, those complaints are dealt with under our system in this province by the Judicial Council, a body set up by statute that is independent from the government and the Legislature and can't go on political witch-hunts. That body examines comments that are thought to be offensive or behaviour by a judge that is thought not to be correct. I don't go around investigating them, sanitizing them or laundering them. I'm sorry to tell you that.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, it's about time we had a public inquiry and listened to the public instead of just the judiciary.

B.C. TELEPHONE CO. LAYOFFS

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister summoned the chief executive officer or one of the leading officers of B.C. Tel into his office to see whether an agreement can be reached to prevent the elimination of some 70 more B.C. Tel jobs in Cranbrook?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't. The matter lies under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. For many years, the government of British Columbia has been seeking access to the telecommunications industry, but the matter lies clearly within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada. I would urge that member to take it up with his federal Member of Parliament.

MR. NICOLSON: New question to the same minister. The minister previously announced that he had broken cabinet solidarity on not communicating with the CRTC on this issue, as put forth by the Minister of Communications. What representation has the minister made at the political level to the government of Canada? Has he spoken to Mr. McKnight, Minister of Labour? Has he spoken to Flora MacDonald, Minister of Employment, or to Marcel Masse in Communications, to obtain some kind of political solution?

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, the matter does not come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour, and any actions that I took, I took as the MLA for Kootenay because the matter affects the constituents of Kootenay.

MR. NICOLSON: New question to the same minister. In the last seven years B.C. Tel phone rates have gone up 56 percent, and B.C. Tel's assets and profits have doubled. Is there anything else that this government is prepared to do to save jobs — the responsibility of the Minister of Labour — in Cranbrook?

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

PERMIT TO USE CYANIDE
ISSUED TO GRAND FORKS MINE

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. A permit to use cyanide to extract gold from mine tailings in the Grand Forks area was granted under the Waste Management Act to Pearl Resources Ltd. This permit was issued on the basis of no cyanide solution being discharged. The B.C. Environmental Appeal Board has now found that there will be cyanide discharged. However, they have amended the permit, and, on top of that, they have cancelled the public hearing which they had promised in writing. Can the minister tell me whether or not that hearing was cancelled on his advice?

[2:30]

HON. MR. PELTON: In answer to the member's question, we issue many permits, and I'm not familiar with the particular one she mentions. But I know that it will be recorded, and I will bring back an answer to her question as quickly as possible.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't know what that minister has been doing. This is nothing new. This has been around for months and it's a major issue up there. It's not a new issue. Can the minister tell me whether he has decided that he will ensure that this decision is reversed and that a public hearing is allowed up there, inasmuch as the permit has been changed?

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

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

[ Page 7782 ]

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

Interjections.

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

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary. The taxpayers of British Columbia are becoming sick and tired of becoming partners in political propaganda with the Social Credit Party with the political advertising in this province. On March 21, Mr. Speaker, the minister took on notice a question regarding the cost of political advertising. Has the minister found time, during the last 24 days, to determine the cost of this blatant misuse of taxpayers' money? Will she report it now to the House?

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

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
POST SECONDARY EDUCATION

(continued)

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

MR. NICOLSON: Yesterday I asked the minister whether he could supply us with the information on what was going to happen with the baseline budgeting for the universities: whether it was going to continue to be 95 percent of the previous year's as has been the recent history, whether it would be frozen, or whether it was going to be increased. I got no answer out of the minister, but I have been informed now by the universities that university operating budgets are at 75 percent of last year's level, and that the 5 percent shortfall will have to be made up by the excellence fund, which will be including some of the commitments made many years ago for ongoing programs and expansions at SFU and UVic and UBC. Will the minister now explain to this House what the basis is of the funding in his ministry to the three major public universities?

HON. R. FRASER: Through the Chair to the member, if I heard your question correctly, your percentages are totally wrong. Secondly, post-secondary educational institutions can apply to the excellence fund for funding for projects they think are in the interest of the student.

MR. NICOLSON: I guess that the member for Nelson-Creston can continue to rely for reliable information on the universities, and not on asking the minister, until the minister wants to take charge of his ministry. I hope, and I would recommend, that the minister watch that great PBS program, "Yes, Minister." I think there's a great deal that can be learned by watching the machinations of Sir Humphrey. I think you might have one or two Sir Humphreys in your department, and I think that the sooner you take charge and look a little bit beyond and get into some direct communication, the better we will be.

The minister talked in his remarks yesterday as if there was some lifting of the lid, as if there was some reason for optimism. But when the baseline budgets have been cut a further 5 percent this year and we've talked about the Excellence in Education fund having to make up that difference before you even get started, it really isn't going to allow for any kind of growth. It isn't even going to allow for a maintenance budget, a hold-the-line budget. Inflation, competition and the fact that we have fallen further and further behind in the last three or four years means that it is going to take a dramatic effort. Usually what happens in these cases is that you have to lift the lid off so doggone high to turn things around that it turns around to be absolutely counterproductive in terms of any economies you might have effected over the last three or four years. In fact, it's going to cost us more money now to make up for some of that cost-cutting which has taken place in the last three to five years than anything we ever saved, if we are to once again establish excellence in the educational field.

This might be the last Post-Secondary Education estimates that I have the opportunity to talk to in this House, but I really very sincerely....

AN HON. MEMBER: You could change your mind.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'll tell you, when my replacement gets here, some of you will wish that I had changed my mind, because he's going to be a darned sight tougher on some of you folks than anything you've ever seen.

But, Mr. Chairman, I very sincerely say this to an old.... We weren't bosom buddies at university, but we were acquaintances, and he's somebody I never forgot. I wish the minister success, and I give the heartfelt advice that when you get a chance to.... I won't express this to you in some of the vernacular that engineers might have used face to face, but maybe privately I might. I would hope that you really do take charge, because there are real problems. I'm sure you have as many friends on campus as I have. I hope that you'll listen to them. They are not all self-serving remarks. These are, I think, very heartfelt concerns. Especially, a lot of the people who are saying these things to us are the people who are staying and trying to stick it out and trying to fight for the universities.

There are serious concerns about academic freedom. There is a very serious concern on my part that we continue to erode the baseline budgets, and therefore as the so-called Excellence in Education fund becomes a greater and greater percentage of the university budgets, autonomy is going to be eroded. Decisions will be made at a whim.

I think enough irrational decisions have been made by the Premier and the former minister about the educational priorities, made sort of on a whim and ad hoc basis. We can absorb them. Some of those ideas will work out. People will make them work. But if we continue to interfere with universities — and by this I mean getting into the absolute day-to-day priorities of the university — I think we are really taking away their autonomy. When we take away the fiscal autonomy, we're going to do something to the universities now which we have already accomplished with the K to 12 education system.

[ Page 7783 ]

As a high school teacher, I don't suppose that I needed any sort of academic immunity. I could take a certain amount of that kind of direction, but I'll tell you, when that gets into our universities, fiscal control will mean academic control. This is definitely the wrong way to go. It's going to have some very serious implications, which I think some of my colleagues will be speaking to in a moment. If you people are looking for any political gain from this, you're not going to get it. You're going in the wrong direction. This is a very dangerous area that you're playing with.

British Columbia is going to need the creative energy of these people if we're going to pull out of this prolonged depression that we have been in. We aren't going to get that creative energy if these people are insecure, fighting for their survival, fighting for the rights of academic freedom, which have been the hallmark of democratic societies, and which I think separate us....

I don't know how much mythology there is in what we see in some parts of the academic and creative worlds of, say, the U.S.S.R. Certainly we see people like Sakharov and others, and we tend sometimes to poke fun. Well, I'll tell you, if we were to look from the outside at this, as we sometimes tend to look at the U.S.S.R. and some of their academic and creative limitations on the arts and so on, I think that we would see something that looks just about as ridiculous, just about as inexplicable, just about as distasteful, starting to emerge — only starting. You, Mr. Minister, can stop it, but you're going to have to fight. If you can't win that fight, you should put your job behind your principles — stick by your principles. I wish you the best of luck.

HON. R. FRASER: I thank him for his good wishes and will assure him of my greatest effort. We will also be relying on the creative and imaginative capacity of the people in post-secondary.

MRS. JOHNSTON: I would also add my very sincere congratulations to the new minister. I'm very pleased with the creation of the new ministry. It certainly emphasizes the importance that this government places on post-secondary education. I would like to once again thank the minister for visiting Surrey very recently — since he was appointed — and for touring our Kwantlen College facility, the one that I know he's going to work very hard to obtain funding to have replaced. Certainly the work done within those walls is excellent, but I don't know how much longer those walls are going to stand up. We're really very serious about the importance and the need for the replacement.

[2:45]

Just to review some of the statistics, and to once again emphasize the need for the new permanent Kwantlen College campus in our area, Kwantlen College offers post-secondary education, and the region covered includes Richmond, Delta, Surrey, White Rock and Langley. According to the most recent census, the region had a population of 392,000 persons. It's certainly a growing region, and it is anticipated that by 2001 we will have 722,000 people in that particular region, so a permanent campus is certainly warranted with the population that we're looking at.

The campuses in Surrey have full-time equivalent students totalling just under 2,000, with 1,122 at the Richmond campus, which, of course, as I mentioned, is all part of the Kwantlen College region. As the population increases in the future, the number of persons attending Kwantlen will also increase.

MR. REID: Everybody wants to come to Surrey.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Everybody wants to come to Surrey, and it is necessary for us to provide space for at least an additional 2,500 full-time equivalent students by the year 2001. The Kwantlen region, as we all know, has the highest percentage of grade 12 enrolments in the province, and the percentage will increase by 1989.

So once again, Mr. Minister, I'm asking you to look very seriously at our request for something in the neighbourhood of $54 million to provide us with the funding required for the establishment of the permanent campus. The petition that was presented to you when you visited our area is a very strong indication of the community support for this expenditure.

You will recall, Mr. Minister, that close to 12,000 people signed those petitions in a two-month period. I think this certainly warrants and indicates the strong support for the establishment of the college in Surrey.

We really wouldn't mind, Mr. Minister, if it was phased out over a period of two or three years. It doesn't have to be approved of all at one time.

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

MRS. JOHNSTON: Did I say phased out? That's all right. I have such a positive attitude about the approval being obtained almost imminently that sometime I get a little bit too excited.

We're looking forward to a very positive response from the minister and the Treasury Board. We certainly have worked for the permanent campus, and we will work very hard to see that it is properly established there with the support of the community.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the thrust from the constituents of Surrey for the Kwantlen College. I have accepted the petitions from both of you, and certainly I have no doubt in my mind that there is great community support for the Kwantlen College.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the University of Victoria is a very important part of our local economy, and the people in this region are asking why the number of young people attending university in this province is second to the bottom. Would the minister please get his pencil out and tell us why British Columbia is next only to Newfoundland, the lowest participation rate in post-secondary education in all of Canada?

Look at the funding numbers over the last few years. Cast your mind back to 1982-83, when the University of Victoria's operating grant was $55.3 million. The following year the grant was cut by approximately 2.7 percent. In 1984-85 it was cut by 5 percent. In 1985-86 it was cut by 4.9 percent, even though at the same time the federal transfer payments were going up. There's been too much politics around post-secondary education in this province and not enough attention to quality public instruction at the post-secondary level. These decreases have occurred in spite of successive increases in the federal established programs financing transfers.

[ Page 7784 ]

It is estimated that in 1984-85 the federal government passed more money to the province than was transferred over to the universities. A lot of people are not aware that the province doesn't put any money into universities in British Columbia. That may come as a surprise. The money for financing universities in this province comes from the federal government in established programs financing and from student fees, which are among the highest in the country. It is estimated that a person who has to borrow through the student loan program to get a bachelor of arts or a bachelor of science degree will go $22,000 into debt in this province, to make a contribution to this society.

So I would like to ask the minister why we are second from the bottom. Why are only 17.3 percent of students full-time? The way the participation rate is calculated.... Please don't give me that Gyro Gearloose formula that he used to present to this House. The same formula is presented to everyone, to every province in this country. The participation rate is defined as: "the full-time post-secondary education enrolment expressed as a percentage of the population age 18 to 24." Of young people 18 to 24 in British Columbia, only 17.03 out of 100 go to university. Do you know what the highest one is? That's a question for the minister. What province gives its people the best chance of higher education? Quebec. Quebec is almost 32 percent — almost double British Columbia. The national average is 25 percent. At very least, we should be shooting for the national average of 25 percent. We're 17 out of every 100; Canada is 25 out of every 100; Quebec is almost 32 out of every 100; and Ontario is almost 25. So Ontario is the Canadian average. It's not rhetoric in this House. It's Statistics Canada — it's the hard numbers.

Why are we at the bottom? Because smart businesses go and invest and situate themselves where there is a strong public education system. That's clear in California. That's clear — as the member for Vancouver East was pointing out — in Massachusetts. That's why MIT and all those other postgraduate educational institutes are there. They are drawing in all sorts of industries that want the kinds of quality instruction and skills that a world-class university system provides. Washington state is miles ahead of us. The Seattle area greatly encourages and supports its post-secondary education.

Over the last few years we've had continual cuts in funding to our universities by this government, and it's cutting the future options of our children short. It has always played politics with what should be beyond politics in this province. The real disgrace is that the province has made a profit from educational transfer funds. They've actually come from Ottawa in the established programs financing, and some of those moneys have been deflected away. Rather than going to the universities where they were earmarked to go, those moneys have been used for other purposes. What kind of an operation is this, when the money that is earmarked for education ends up in some other budget of government?

There are also a number of reports that have been done which indicate that it makes good, sound financial and economic sense to fund universities. First of all, you know, it's not good enough to say to young people: "What's the point in getting a master's degree? What's the point of being a chemist or an engineer? What's the point of doing post-doctoral work? You can't get a job and you'll just drive a cab." Well, that's a falsehood. Do you know, Mr. Minister, that a person's educational level...? The higher the level of education achieved, the less the likelihood of being unemployed. Those are facts, and I have with me a part of a report from which I just want to point out to you.... The B.C. unemployment rate, for example: those individuals with high school have more than double the chance of being unemployed of those individuals who have a university education. These are statistics from "Labour Force Annual Averages," Statistics Canada catalogue No. 71-529.

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

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Well, I'll just show you what it says. This graph is a scale of percentage points of unemployment from zero to 18. The upper level is 18; this is the level of unemployment of individuals with high school education. This bottom one is the unemployment level, by year, for individuals with university education. So a person with university education has this percentage likelihood of being unemployed, and a person with a high school education has this one up here. If we want to reduce unemployment in this province, one of the best things we could do is offer post-secondary education to individuals who want it. That's point number one. I'd like the minister to explain this particular graph and, if he disagrees with the graph — and I've given him the citation — I'd like him to tell me whether he believes that people with university education have less likelihood of being unemployed in British Columbia or not.

I'd also like to point out that the growth in new job creation in B.C. from 1971 to 1981.... Where do you think the growth has been? Is it blue collar growth? Is it white collar? Is it teaching? Is it medicine? The percentage of growth — and again this is Statistics Canada catalogue No. 92-920 — indicates that the B.C. employment growth from 1971 to 1981, a ten-year period, is 170 percent increase in managerial, administrative and financial. That is the highest growth category of employment in this province, the kind of employment that would naturally flow from university education.

Managerial, administrative and financial, and just behind it, with a 169 percent increase, are social science, law and related areas — not blue collar, not sweeping up around computers, not serving hot dogs; but managerial, social sciences, law related skills are the skill growth areas in our economy. Those are the areas that have to be funded. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that there has been too much politics around funding of universities, and too much stealing from established programs financing that should have been deflected back to the universities. These graphs indicate that the best money spent is money invested in post-secondary education.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

As the minister is probably aware, the University of Victoria is a catchment area for rural British Columbia. A great number of students from the interior of B.C., from the north, from the rest of Vancouver Island, come to the University of Victoria. The fees are a little less, accommodation is a little less, the cost of living and so on. Also the jump between coming from a rural area and going right to University of British Columbia is sometimes a more difficult transition, so

[ Page 7785 ]

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

[3:00]

What this says, Mr. Chairman, is that the University of Victoria has special needs because it is a catchment area. It deserves special funding for students from rural areas. As the minister is probably aware, rural British Columbians have less than half the chance of going to university than people in the metropolitan area have. Even given the fact that we have less chance than anybody else in the country, other than Newfoundland, to go to university — and that's a fact — people in the interior and rural B.C., whether it's Lillooet or Cache Creek or Quesnel or Dawson Creek or Ladysmith, have half the chance of going to university of their metropolitan counterparts. Is there any extra consideration given or real encouragement given to support fair access to universities? No.

I have a chart here, and I guess the minister may not be able to see it, but here is the percentage of enrolment over years. This is non-metropolitan British Columbia, rural British Columbia. Here's the attendance at universities. Here's the metropolitan: consistently 7 percent higher all the way through.

These are serious numbers. We have a serious problem in post-secondary education financing in this province. It's really got to end. It's selling out our future. I've been up to the University of Victoria engineering school, and I think that's a good start. The electrical engineering school is a good start, and I'm looking forward to the funding for the mechanical side. I think that that is a department that could directly benefit the economy. There has to be employment for engineers, because we've recently read engineers in the paper saying: "If you want a job in engineering in British Columbia, forget it." I disagree with that.

We've got to provide employment for the people that have skills and training in the engineering area. The electrical side.... I know that they're right on the vanguard of computer-assisted design and all sorts of things that could spin off into very important industrial applications. The co-op work program there, where students work one semester and go to university the next, is a good program.

What we've got to have is online budgeting, where they're not looking for some political gimme every year. They have to know, in advance, what the financing is going to be for the university and what faculty they can hire and for how long, and how many students they can bring in, and how they can gradually build the department.

The mechanical side is something I would like to ask the minister about. When does the minister expect to fund the mechanical engineering school, to get that off the ground, at the University of Victoria.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry the member missed some of the debate yesterday, for many of the questions were answered then, but for the benefit of those in the audience, I'll answer them again.

Firstly, more cash goes out of B.C. to the federal government than comes back, so we'll start with that one. Secondly, when it comes to program funding, which includes health care and education, in the net form, if you want to look at that way, I'm advised that we pay about 55 percent of the total, and the feds pay about 45. That should indicate to you that the province is doing a great deal of work in the fields of post-secondary education and health care.

When it comes to statistics about who goes where, and age groups and things, depending upon which age group you pick, your numbers, of course, will change. You mentioned the 18 to 24 group, which is the StatsCan guideline. In fact, many of the students in our post-secondary system are older than that. Many of the colleges tell me their average age is around 26, which is rather a good sign, in a way, I think, because it means that many of our older students are going back to school to either upgrade or retrain, which I think is a very positive move on their part.

Now we talk about university enrolments being constant, that's true. And one of the reasons for that, of course, is that we have a very extensive network of colleges in the province which are put around the province to support educational opportunities for those who do not live in the metropolitan areas of the lower mainland or the lower end of Vancouver Island — which is a conscious decision.

Talking about drawing world-class industries or world class research, if you look at organizations like TRIUMF, which are doing that very thing, or organizations like MDA or MDI or Vortek or Moll Battery, you'll find that there are a number of companies in the British Columbia area that are spinoffs from research done in the universities, which, of course, we would all support.

We would, of course, anticipate that those with a higher education would remain employed longer, or at a higher rate of pay, which is one of the reasons why we're so supportive of post-secondary education in the first place. Secondly, you talked about extra benefits for students from the rural areas. You are aware, I am sure, that the remission of fees for students outside the metropolitan areas is higher than for those in urban areas. There is a recognition of the extra cost for students from outside heavily populated areas.

On to funding stability: in recognition of the request from post-secondary institutions, all of them now have multi-year funding, for the very reason that they can do better long-term planning.

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

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Well, it's obvious from your answers that you didn't listen. Why is British Columbia...? Let's just take 18 to 24. What is your reason for the people of British Columbia, aged 18 to 24...? Why do they have less chance than 18- to 24-year-olds in any other province in Canada, other than Newfoundland, of going to university? What is your answer?

HON. R. FRASER: I can advise the member that there have been a number of studies done on that, and there is no definitive answer today. However, if you want to look at what I would like to see as the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, I would like to see a continuing upward trend of enrolment in post-secondary institutions.

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

Interjections.

[ Page 7786 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 62 pass?

The first member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking a question. The minister indicated that he wanted to bring us out of the basement in terms of the number of people attending university in this province. We're less than the national average. The national average is 25 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds. We're at 17 percent; Quebec is 32 percent; Ontario is the national average. My question to him is: what are you prepared to do concretely to raise our percentage?

HON. R. FRASER: To the member, I think you have to understand that there is already an upward trend in enrolment in academic courses in the province of British Columbia throughout the system in colleges and universities. We are doing a number of things to increase the enrolment, such as upgrading the facilities, such as scholarship programs, such as remission programs for loans. There are a number of programs underway.

MR. HANSON: Is the minister aware that our bursary program, our non-existent bursary program...? We're one of the few provinces in the country that doesn't really have a proper bursary program for students, and it's largely on loans that people have to fund their education. Is he prepared to bring in a bursary program to bring us in line with other provinces in Canada?

HON. R. FRASER: I'm prepared to respond to certain requests from the universities. That is the whole purpose of the Excellence fund, as we pointed out yesterday. We have something in the order of $600 million going into education in total in the next three years, which is a significant increase in the financing and funding of post-secondary institutions, which I suggest to you is significant and worthy of your notice.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at the numbers for the operating funds for the '86-87 year, which are only going to be 95 percent of the previous year's, which were 95 percent of the year before that. How can you fund post-secondary education when every year the funding amounts to 95 percent of what it was in the previous year?

HON. R. FRASER: I answered that already.

MR. HANSON: Let's hear it.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: How can you get us out of the basement in terms of access to post-secondary education when you give the universities less each year than you gave the previous year, and you keep doing it year after year? How does that work? It sounds like Dr. Gearloose's style of formula. Could you explain it to me?

HON. R. FRASER: If I spoke more slowly, I think the member for Vancouver East might go to sleep. However, what I should tell you is that the funding to post-secondary institutes at the moment is initial. There is no final funding, of course, because they haven't completed proposals to the excellence fund. And beyond that, your numbers for last year weren't correct, because they didn't include special adjustment funds which were forwarded to universities. So what we say is that, depending on the submissions that come from them, we're being very responsive to the specific needs and requests of the institutions. That's the whole idea of that opportunity: to give them more input than they might otherwise have wished for.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, to have a top-quality university system involves stability, confidence and an absence of cheap politics — setting up little special funds that they have to apply for, and they play one university off against the other, and so on. We need solid baseline operating projections that go year after year so they know who they can hire and so they can acquire the talent around the world so that they can make it a place where academics are not berated or made to feel that their contribution is insignificant. We should be going after good people and saying: "British Columbia is a place where we acknowledge the contribution you can make to our young people, and we're willing to fund it on an ongoing basis with some stability. We're going to move you out of the political punching bag for a while, and we're going to let the universities settle down and get on with the job." They spend most of their time trying to sharpen up their pencils to figure out who's going to be laid off or what university program is going to be cut or to continue. That's the problem with the post-secondary education in this province, and from the tone of your remarks, you're going to continue the same kind of program that we've had in previous universities ministers. If that's what we're going to have, then we're worse off than before, because you haven't been in there long enough to even know what you're doing. The universities want stability and they want the money that should be earmarked from the federal government to come to them.

[3:15]

A specific question to the minister: when can the University of Victoria expect some kind of decision on initial funding for the school of mechanical engineering?

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

First, the ongoing budgeting that they can count on is what we're doing. It's called multi-year funding, and it has been done by this government because they were listening. Secondly, I agree with you, we have good faculty here. I think if you've been listening or watching or reading anything I've ever said about post-secondary educational institutions, I've been very complimentary of the efforts made by the institutions, by the administration, by the faculty and by the students. There was no doubt about the fact that when times were a little tougher a few years ago the public post-secondary education system was called on to play their role, and that they did, and so they should have. I don't see any difficulty with that, I'm sure you don't either. But the fact is that because of the work that was done, things are now looking better, and there's more money available. That's where the excellence fund comes in, because of the good work done by everybody in the province. And that's everybody.

[ Page 7787 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: Because of the good work done by everybody in the province? You mean in swallowing your phony restraint program? Is that what you're talking about?

I just wonder if the minister has read the Hebert report on youth published in February from the Senate. Senator Hebert, you know? Well, he looks at education, among other things, in terms of the problems of youth. And a quarter of the youth in this province are unemployed — officially; it's probably much worse than that unofficially.

Again the member for Victoria pointed out the numbers in terms of what expectations there are for employment based on education, and the pattern is pretty clear. What he failed to mention is what happens with those with only elementary education, as to their employment prospects. There, 28 percent are unemployed. Hebert tells us that in high school it's the 18 that the member mentioned, in colleges it is 9.8; a tremendous difference. You're really consigning huge regions of this province to a life of poverty and unemployment, given the policies you.... You bet you are. You are consigning the Kootenays to higher levels of unemployment than any other region of the province. You're consigning Prince George and the northern interior to higher levels of unemployment than anywhere else in the province. You're condemning the people, the children of those regions to a life that will be economically tougher than for people in the metropolitan regions. It is abundantly clear. The statistics are there and can't be denied. When 6 percent of the kids from high school are going to college from those interior regions, and 16 from the lower mainland, you've set the pattern. The kids from the lower mainland and greater Victoria have the better economic prospects in this province. The kids in the north don't. In the north coast, in the Okanagan, in the Kootenays, it isn't there.

I just wonder if you ever pull yourself back.... I know you've only been minister a few months, but as the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) said, work at being your own man. Think about the regional towns of this province and in a broader way about how we lift them up to be more significant communities and cities. How do we improve the lifestyle, the opportunities, the range of discussion and enterprise and transfer of ideas and so on, in communities like Kamloops, in communities like Prince George, Nelson, Cranbrook and so on?

It seems to me that clearly one of the ways you transform the way of life in those communities is to do something more in your particular field — that you can do more. In Prince George, just right off the top, if you thought of say transportation as a significant issue, or land management and forests, I think it is nothing short of extraordinary that our only forestry school in British Columbia should be at UBC. I don't think it makes any sense not to have significant forestry schools around the province, in terms of land management questions, in these very different regions.

The regions of B.C. are like countries in Europe. You have a tremendously different region in the interior wet belt of the Kootenays versus the interior plateau of Prince George and the Cariboo and so on. They are tremendously different. If you have thought, as Hebert suggests, in terms of more cooperative education involving both the public and the private sector groups outside academic circles but tied to new institutions in those regions, then we might be generating a whole new range of employment opportunities for the people in those regions, not to mention the employment in the institutions themselves that would be mutually beneficial and move us into greater wealth-creation. It seems to me this is one of the levers we have for creating wealth.

You've got such a narrow-minded group of colleagues over there, they rarely think.... You've got my sympathy. There's a heavy anti-intellectual, anti-education bias within that group over there. It is their tradition. It is, my God, the tradition of your leader in spades. The Premier of this province, I say unequivocally, has an anti-education bias. He thinks he is a self-made man — and why, if he can do it, anybody can do it. That's where he is coming from, and that's what you're stuck with. I say it is nonsense. If my dad was a millionaire, I could have handled a lot of things too. It just doesn't work. It just doesn't wash.

I think we should have significant post-secondary educational institutions in Prince George, in Kamloops and in the Kootenays. I think it is nothing short of shameful that our major institutions are just down here in Victoria and greater Vancouver. It just doesn't add up.

Hebert tells us what all of us really know as well. He says that wealthy families make sure that their kids go to college, and the opportunities are generally there for them. So the system is biased. It is biased in terms of income: the people with income tend to get their kids into college and get them on a better economic track than the others. It is biased in terms of regions because it is tougher in those other regions to get out there and do these things.

You said you thought it was really significant that older students are making up more and more of the clientele of our universities. The reason they're back there is because our unemployment levels are so scandalously high.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

Transfer payments. Look at the historical pattern of the transfer payments for higher education. Again, Hebert looks at these in terms of the transfer payments historically. If you look at B.C. since 1977-78, federal transfer payments then were about 78 to 79 percent of the total amount spent on post-secondary education. But now they're up at the 104-plus percent level.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, no. The old member from the Cariboo, where unemployment levels are desperately bad again, really could be serving his constituents more by pushing for a senior institution in Prince George. It's all very nice for the member for Surrey to talk about $50-odd million for another college in the lower mainland. But in any set of priorities a town like Prince George should have a significant post-secondary institution on some scale that changes the nature of that town, that affects settlement, that affects decisions....

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

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

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

[ Page 7788 ]

the way employers look at those communities. The underemployment of women in the Kamloops region historically has been grim. The way to change the underemployment of women and the lack of training for them in these towns is through these institutions, and upgrading and expanding them. If I had your job, these would be the priorities I would set.

The regions of the province have historically — ironically, under this Premier from the interior — been sacrificed in virtually every policy, including this one. The hinterland of the province has suffered. He has been suckered by the big city boys every time: a billion dollars on Expo, a billion dollars on SkyTrain — the works. And then you squeeze all these institutions in towns like Prince George; you squeeze the institutions in Kamloops. And what you did in Nelson, in terms of removing the arts school and the David Thompson University Centre, is nothing short of scandalous. The hinterland has suffered under you people, and the opportunities for youth have deteriorated under you people. Your ministry, small as it is, relative to some of the others, can play a significant role in changing the way of life for many of these towns in the interior and the north. So I urge the minister to look seriously at major expansion in the hinterland, and not in the lower mainland or Victoria.

HON. R. FRASER: First of all, one of the things we've done is establish multi-campuses, which, of course, serve the hinterland. We have forestry programs at Selkirk and CNC, which are, of course, in the outlying regions which you talked about. And I would agree with you that.... I see this ministry as a force in economic renewal.

MR. HANSON: Looking at the numbers of students attending university in B.C. over the last couple of years, there is an absolute decline in the number of students 18-24 years of age who.... I commend Stats Canada 1981, pages 91-210 and 220.... Let me give you the numbers. In '83-84 there were 37,247 full-time university students 18-24 years of age.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I've got the college numbers as well. The number of full-time university students dropped by almost 2,000. Colleges dropped as well: in '83-84, 22,661; in '85-86, 21,750. There was a drop in the number of students going to university and a drop in college enrolment for students 18-24 years of age.

[3:30]

The real tragedy is that rather than looking at the recession as an opportunity to cushion students — to give them a chance to get higher training, upgrade skills, prepare themselves for a new job market, the new technology, new options, whatever you want to call it — you curtailed spending, you cut back. You hurt the economy of southern Vancouver Island. You hurt our kids' futures. That is the real tragedy of the mismanagement of post-secondary education and public instruction from K right through to post-doctoral in this province. You precluded options for them when you should have been taking initiatives to open up the doors. You didn't do it. But when we're government, after the next election, we're going to provide a solid public instruction system that is responsive to the people, that has ears, that has people who listen, that allows for the kinds of things that are happening and that allows rural or non-metropolitan British Columbia to be a part of the action so that we can build on the kind of resource base that we have and the options for our people for employment.

From what I've heard in this estimate, you are part of the tradition on that side of the House: you get your political lines from the government information service, from Mr. Kinsella, Mr. Spector, Mr. Smith and others; you stand up and support cuts every year — 95 percent of previous funding. We'll never have a proper university system in this province unless we break that mould, unless we break away from that old idea.

I remember there was a debate in one of the towns in this province where the people wanted a library. It's a major city in this province, and there was a mayor who said: "Why do they want a library? I've got books in my basement; they can come and read them if they want." That was the approach to education, and that's very much the mainstream Bennett government approach to post-secondary education. We'll never break away and never give our kids a chance until we get rid of those folks on that side of the House.

HON. R. FRASER: With respect to your comments, in fact, because of the program of this government, there is now money available for health care and education; whereas I believe you would have taxed the kids out of their future and the old seniors out of their homes.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: I would like to raise just a couple of questions dealing with two groups of people to whom I think — and I'm sure the minister would agree with me — education is very important. One has to do with people who are in receipt of income assistance in the province, the people who are victimized by the Ministry of Human Resources; and the other, of course, has to do with women.

Now there are two ways of breaking the poverty cycle. There are actually three. The third one is you can win a lottery, I guess, and that's the fastest way of getting out of it, although it's been proven that you can get back in just as fast as soon as the lottery money is gone. But certainly one way of dealing with getting off income assistance is through the education system, and more and more people are trying to use education and skill training as a means of getting out of poverty and getting off the income assistance roll. The problem with it is that the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education doesn't have enough control over establishing the criteria for what happens in terms of people who want to use their programs.

MHR and CEIC — the federal employment commission — decide what the criteria are in terms of whether people can get a post-secondary education or not, and also decide how long they can attend either the community college or university in terms of getting this post-secondary education. What this means is that there is a certain inflexibility in course offerings and in eligibility requirements; that the ministry is not really taking enough of a leadership role in establishing criteria and in deciding who can use these programs and how they can be funded, so that the programs can really be a route for them off the poverty cycle.

I want to give a couple of examples of that. The adult basic education program.... People referred to this course are referred by Unemployment Insurance or by MHR. UIC

[ Page 7789 ]

will not sponsor, in particular, women for this course if there is other work available for them at their present level of education. Funds are channelled through the Ministry of Education, and the adult basic education funding has in fact been cut by 50 percent.

Now an example of what happens is a woman who wanted to take one of these courses in adult basic education and was refused. She was told she couldn't take this program because there were jobs available for her at her educational level, which was grade 8 and grade 9. There were waitress and chambermaid jobs available, and as long as those jobs were available they were not prepared to give her permission to take the adult basic education course or even to take the technical and trade courses which are supposed to be operating. I'm talking about tech-works for women, the trades immersion courses, which are supposed to be operating to help women get out of the poverty cycle and become independent, self-sufficient, and able to support themselves.

Clearly grade 8 and grade 9 education is not good enough in this world in which we live today. You're never going to be able, as I said, other than winning a lottery ticket, to get out of welfare and off income assistance with grade 8 and grade 9 education. A large number, as a matter of fact most, of the people in this province on income assistance and on welfare are single mothers. Most of these women have not completed their high school. A number of them are willing to go back to school, to complete their high school education, if the opportunity is there, and then are willing to go on to post-secondary education.

This is where the ministry could be of invaluable service, not just to these women but to the community at large. Once they've got the job skills, then they can go on to seek employment, gain employment, and start paying taxes and making an economic contribution to the society in which they live. But because CEIC and MHR call the shots, because they really control what happens in the ministry, in terms of who can and cannot take these programs, the ministry fails this particular group of people in our society. The ministry does not operate in their best interests. It cannot be used to assist them to become independent and contributing members of society.

I want to give another example, and that's in the diploma courses: the computer technology and the business administration courses. Again, most of the women who apply to these courses are referred through MHR. These are women who are on income assistance, again, primarily because they are single parents, and they see that with training in computer technology or in business administration they can get off income assistance. However, the problem with that is that MHR insists that they must complete these programs within two years; that's the absolute maximum that MHR is prepared to finance their education for. Unless you've ever tried to be a single-parent mother and go to school and raise a family at the same time, you know how difficult this is going to be. In fact, men who are on the program and studying full-time say that they find it difficult to complete the program in three years; yet MHR insists that the program be completed in two years. MHR becomes so angry when these women fail to complete the program in two years that they refuse to give them an extension or to make it possible for them to reapply and get financial assistance to complete the program, even though once they've completed the program they're in a position to get employment and get off welfare. That's how shortsighted MHR is in these matters.

But that's not the responsibility of the minister here. What the minister here has to do is to take responsibility for how his ministry is being used. Rather than allowing MHR and UIC and CEIC, and all these other people, to call the tune that he dances to, he should take full responsibility and say: "I am going to establish criteria. I am going to establish eligibility requirements. And we are going to become flexible enough so that people really are aided by these programs, rather than the programs existing as an obstacle which so many people find it impossible to overcome."

Mr. Chairman, I understand that Joan Mason is the name of the young woman who has just been appointed within the ministry to be responsible for employment alternatives for women; she's the coordinator. Maybe the minister, in responding, can tell me exactly what it is that Joan's going to do — describe her job to me and also outline ways in which she is going to be able to remove the roadblocks which women presently run into when they're referred by MHR or UIC onto some of these programs.

The other real problem that women have to deal with is a decision by the government in March 1984 to change the provincial student aid grant: to abolish it and turn it into provincial loans; also, to change the criterion for eligibility and raise it from 60 percent to 80 percent in order to qualify as a full-time student. Again, that is a real hardship for women who are single parents. I've just completed teaching a course at the University of Victoria, and many of the women in that program were single-parent mothers. Trying to carry a full load and raise a family at the same time in order to qualify not for a bursary but for a loan constitutes so much of a hardship that fewer and fewer women are able to take advantage of these educational opportunities.

By the time they graduate — if they manage to survive until graduation, Mr. Chairman — they find themselves weighted down with this incredible debt which the student aid loan constitutes. A large number of them go into female ghetto jobs that do not pay high salaries. A number of them go into social work, child care — those kinds of traditional jobs which women continue to gravitate to, presumably because we do it better than most other people; I don't know. I don't want to go into all of the reasons for that here. But it means they are going to be working, but not at high-priced jobs; and instead of being aided by bursaries, they have the double whammy of dealing with loans instead, and at the same time they have to carry an 80 percent load in order to qualify. So that's another obstacle that women and people on income assistance.... Again, most of the people on income assistance are single-parent mothers, so we're talking about women again. Anyway, whenever we talk about poverty we talk about women. So instead of its being access to a future out of welfare, we find it's an obstacle that locks them onto the welfare roll and into income assistance.

Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women — CRIAW — just completed a report on women's participation in B.C. universities, and the figures show that B.C. women, both full-time and part-time, participate at below the national rate. My colleague from Victoria spoke about 18- to 24-year-olds participating below the national rate. That's also true of women. I pointed out that one of the reasons I think that's so is the changes in the eligibility requirements for student loans. The report goes on to say that the trend is for B.C. women to continue to fall below the national level. There's been no turnaround. In fact, what we see is not a plateau; the decline is increasing. Unless

[ Page 7790 ]

something dramatic is done by the ministry, specifically in the area of removing the roadblocks — reinstating bursaries and going back to the old criteria for eligibility, dropping it back to 60 percent of student study load rather than 80 percent — these figures are going to continue to decline. We're going to continue in the opposite direction and see the figures go up for women on welfare and in receipt of income assistance, because they're not going to be able to use education as one of their means of breaking the poverty cycle.

[3:45]

The other figure which this report showed, of course, was the very small percentage of women who make it into either tenure positions or positions of leadership in the university. My other question then to the minister is: to what extent is the ministry using suasion or encouragement or whatever to introduce the affirmative action concept into the post-secondary institutions? I'm not suggesting that he should introduce legislation at this time; I just want to know what he's doing — if anything — in terms of trying to undo the imbalance which presently exists in terms of leadership in the university. In case he's not sure about the figures, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell him that at UBC, for example, 74.8 percent of the male professors were tenured in 1977, whereas in 1982 that figure had increased to 81 percent. At the same time, in 1977 only 48 percent of the women faculty were tenured, and in 1982 there was an increase of 2 percent; and that's now up to 50.8 percent. I don't know if he's aware of these figures, or if he has seen the report produced by the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women; but if he hasn't, I'd be very happy to loan him my copy. If he's unsure about ways and means in which he can help to undo this imbalance, I would be very happy to help him with that too.

HON. R. FRASER: I was pleased to note that the member understands that many of the parts of her submission were nothing to do with the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education. In fact, there are some correct statements in there: the federal government is cutting down on some of the support that adult basic education is getting; but, again, due to the great work of this government, we are increasing support for people in that category.

I would also remind everybody that we aren't just here to advance the cause of women; we're here to advance the cause of all British Columbians equally. I think that would be considered fair. We know, of course, that there are increasing numbers of women attending university. I'm advised that more than half of the students at the University of Victoria are women. That should give you some idea of the status of women at universities.

With respect to men or women on faculty, you would have to believe, of course, that you would want to hire your professional staff on the basis of their individual merit, whether they are male or female. I suspect, of course, that the number of female faculty members will increase as more and more women become available to teach. I would also submit, for her consideration — she probably already understands — that tenure or lack of it has a great deal to do with the number of years one has taught.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MS. BROWN: I'm still doing my questioning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Debate really does reciprocate, hon. members, and the debate leader had a lot of opportunity, plus the fact that this is the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and I think he should be recognized now.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, it's nice when Chairmen stick together.

The opportunity to stand here on the minister's estimates.... Mr. Chairman, if you listen to the debate here, particularly coming from the opposition, I've been listening to that same debate for seven years in this chamber. I meet with students from colleges and universities. A great number of them espouse the same need for education, the same access for education that the opposition is posing here today. I usually turn to most of them and say: how much education is a young person, or a person of our province, entitled to? In other words, how much do the public, the taxpayers of this province, have to pay for before that person has to contribute himself?

It's a question that you rarely hear asked. I don't hear too many other people asking it. But I've asked it many times. I get various answers. Basically they go from about grade 10 to a degree in university, or as long as the person can continue to perform at university or wishes to go to university — the full ambit. That, in some instances, could be years and years. My father used to tell me of a gentleman that went to McGill University when he was there, who had about seven different degrees; he stayed at university because he was a band leader, and he made more money leading the band at McGill University than he would have by going out to work, so he stayed at university in order to do that, and he took nearly all the courses that were there.

I don't think we as taxpayers can afford to contribute that to the population of the province. As I say, I've heard from grade 10 up. I've had school principals tell me grade 10; others tell me grade 12, which seems sort of a logical area, because it seems to be the next step for a young person towards maturity; or maybe what we used to call a first-year matriculation, grade 13. I don't have the answer, but I guess the people that do have the answer are the taxpayers of this province. It's we as government that have to come up with that answer. We are elected to govern. We are given the responsibility to designate a certain number of dollars that may be available to us, depending upon the income or the quantum that our taxpayers, or public, can pay. It would be ideal to provide everybody with education to doctoral degrees. We would be extremely rich. But I don't know if it would be advantageous to our community.

If you go to Bermuda, it has the highest grade 12 graduation population of any island in the Caribbean; and economically they're starving because nobody will go out and work in the fields. They're having to look for aid from somewhere else. People are actually on welfare that have the high education. We have to have a break of education....

MS. BROWN: You have to have your hewers of wood and drawers of water?

MR. REE: You have to have some hewers of wood and drawers of water, and you have to have the professors, the academics and the rest of it. At any rate, the question I have asked.... In the past I think we have been very generous to our population here in the province. I think we have all benefited from the educational system we have.

[ Page 7791 ]

A few weeks ago, I was in a school in my riding talking to students, and took a great number of questions from them. A lot of the questions were, "Why can't we have this in the province? Why can't we have that? What assistance do we have in the post-secondary education?" and things like this. You know, I turned to those students and said, "I want to thank you." They sort of looked at me as if to say: "Why are you thanking us?" I said: "I want to thank you for all of the benefits that I am receiving and will receive in the future that you students are paying for, and are going to pay for in the future."

Our present budget has a deficit; it has increased our provincial deficit. We are paying over $400 million a year in interest, which could provide a great deal of education. I think we have to take responsibility in trying to decide how much education our young people are entitled to and how much we can help subsidize those that can qualify for or effectively utilize additional education. We cannot just give carte blanche education to everybody.

I think we have in some colleges some courses that are nice, good and pleasant, but I don't see where a college should be in the business of teaching macrame or some sort of thing like this. That, I understand, may be available in certain colleges. I think there are some courses like that that should not be there. I think there are some courses in the colleges which should be in the actual K to 12, the Ministry of Education, such as some of the English language courses. I think our colleges are taking on teaching an English language course to people who have been in the educational K to 12 system that didn't qualify sufficiently, or the new Canadians. I think that should be in our school system and not in the post-secondary educational system.

I think it's a question that has to be considered, and it's a question that's got to be decided somewhere and, as elected government, we have the responsibility. What education are people entitled to?

We had comments the other day from the member for North Okanagan (Mr. MacWilliam) about the last Commonwealth parliamentary conference in Regina, where I had the pleasure to be the delegate from British Columbia and where the member from Okanagan, my colleague, was an observer. I participated in the discussion with respect to education among other countries, whether it be taking in foreign students or taking in students from members of the Commonwealth. A great deal of conversation in those conferences was much the same as we've had from the opposition, particularly from Third World countries who are wanting to have us educate their young people. I'm not averse to that; I think that is desirable. But through the whole conference nobody, until I spoke at the end, said: "How much do you subsidize them? How much do you expect us to pay for your students coming to our country? Are we to subsidize them 100 percent not only for education but for costs of living? Should we give them the whole bit, maybe to the detriment of our own students in our own country? Where do you draw the line?" At the moment, we are subsidizing Commonwealth students a great deal in their fees. They are not paying 100 percent of the cost.

I couldn't get an answer. None of them had an answer. Certainly they would like to see 100 percent, but they all agreed it should not be 100 percent. It's a difficulty. We have to contribute our share to the Third World countries, to young people, in order to improve the world, but do we have to do it to the detriment of our own students when we have limited dollars? Also, should there not be some incentive for that country or the students coming from that country to contribute a bit themselves? Maybe it's old-time philosophy, but they might appreciate what they get an awful lot more if they have to pay for some of it themselves.

It is something that I believe in and I believe in with respect to our own students here in Canada, in British Columbia. I don't think we can give them a free ride. That is why I supported the loan remission program in doing away with bursaries. Students that can make the mark, be good in studies, attend the full courses and that sort of thing should possibly get some remission. They earned something in doing it. When you gave it to them for nothing before.... My son at UVic used to tell me stories of students who would apply for the aid or the bursaries, saying they weren't going to make any money this year. They'd apply in May or June or something like that. "I won't have a job this summer." They would then take off for Europe for the summer, where they didn't work, and come back to university in the fall. They hadn't made any money, so they got student aid, bursaries. There are others who didn't report it. I think it was misused.

I even wrote a letter to the president of the student body at UVic when he wrote saying: "Hey, don't do away with these bursaries." I wrote back and said: "How can you stop the abuses? When you students get together on it, I'll support you." But until all these abuses — and there were a great many abuses.... I'd suggest at least 40 percent of them were abuses.

MR. NICOLSON: Did you file that information?

MR. REE: File that information with what? I was not given names. My sons wouldn't.... My son said: "Can I apply, Dad?" I said: "No, you can't. I'm providing accommodation for you."

[4:00]

MR. NICOLSON: Next time file that information if someone is breaking the law.

MR. REE: We will.

But you know, Mr. Chairman, a lot of that has gone on. To give them some sort of incentive to get a remission of the loan I think is good. But I'm not too sure whether that same system applies to post-graduate studies. I think possibly it does not, but I stand to be corrected. I think that should be extended to post-graduate students at university degree level, those who are working on their masters or their doctorates or some sort of thing in various different disciplines.

I believe it applies say to medicine or to dentistry, those that take additional courses, but there are others that may take a masters in some sort of a discipline in economics or something like this. I don't know whether this remission program does apply to them, and I think it should. Again, if these people can perform, can get the marks to show they are deserving, they're worth going to university, they're the people who are worth helping. I suggest that that could be looked at by the minister.

I have one other item, Mr. Chairman, and that's dealing with what I would call international students. Students of British Columbia may be going to other countries. We have found out here in British Columbia that we can no longer be parochial like the opposition believe we are. We are not self-sufficient within this province, whether it be in our own

[ Page 7792 ]

production, our own goods or education or the rest of it. We have to educate students in British Columbia, I think, in the ways of other parts of the world and in particular the Pacific Rim, those countries.

If we wish to trade, whether it be buying or selling with these countries, I think we have to have people who are knowledgeable of those countries and also possibly raised within our own country here. I'm not too sure just to what extent the minister or the ministry has gone in this in assisting students to go to foreign countries, to learn their languages, to learn their ways, to then be available to our merchants, our traders here in British Columbia.

As a possibility, maybe the government could enter into partnership with some of the merchants, some of the traders of British Columbia, and there could be a joint funding of worthwhile students to go to foreign countries, to learn the languages and learn the ways and come back and work with that merchant that might be helping.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that possibly the minister might look at this or consider some of this. I thank you for the opportunity of speaking at this time.

HON. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his contribution to the debate on the estimates. There are a number of things that we might want to think about doing.

With respect to loans remission, it is my personal feeling that it is a very good thing to help the students who need financial aid. While it doesn't exist in the post-graduate area, we might well think about doing that. Obviously, as you pointed out, we are a nation that trades with other nations — and us probably more so than any other parts of Canada — and we really should encourage better understanding of other countries and other customs. That's one thing we certainly should do.

I in fact have a great deal of faith in the future of B.C. with respect to post-secondary education and the students and the faculty. I have said it before, and I'll say it again, and I thank the member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I hope the first thing the minister does is take a course in speech therapy. His mumbling is really driving us crazy.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Probably not, but it would be nice if we could understand what he is saying half the time, instead of that low rumble, which we are seriously thinking of taping and selling to Sominex, because aside from mumbling, he is also the best tranquilizer around.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), who has now left — oh, no, he hasn't left the room; he has just changed seats — stood up and told us some more about people who are cheating on the system. It always puzzles me how these government members know so many cheats and crooks and people who are ripping off the system. It's just amazing. There can't be as many people out there who are doing that bad a job in terms of taking advantage and abusing the system as the government members tell us about. The only thing I can conclude is that government members move in a different kind of circle.

I was also interested in his comments about Third World countries wanting their students to be subsidized by Canada. I guess sometime we're going to have an opportunity to talk about the ways in which Third World cheap labour and Third World resources subsidize this country; also the way in which Canada decides to use Third World professionals in medicine and other areas because it's cheaper to do that than to educate our own Canadian students. It's not a one-way street, believe me. Before going to a parliamentary session the next time, I hope that member will read up on the facts and try to find out ways in which Third World countries have in the past subsidized — and continue to subsidize — first world countries with their cheap labour and resources, the way in which first world countries rip off their professionals and encourage them to come here and work because it's cheaper to have doctors and nurses and physiotherapists and other people who have been trained in Third World countries, rather than to pay to educate our own people in those fields.

MR. MOWAT: And social workers.

MS. BROWN: And social workers as well. That's right. The government budgets for it in its decision to keep down the number of students, whether it's in veterinary — we haven't even got a veterinary college here in British Columbia — or in medicine and the other professions. It's much cheaper to bring doctors, social workers, physiotherapists and other health professionals from other parts of the world to work here rather than to educate them ourselves, but then to turn around in the next breath and complain about the cost involved in subsidizing a handful of Third World students who come to this country! I think it's time we started looking at the history of our relationship with Third World countries. It's nothing to brag about.

I've never been to Bermuda and I don't know why educated Bermudians don't want to work in the field — maybe for the same reasons that educated Canadians don't want to work in the field. But the member has been to Bermuda, so he knows a lot more about it than I do. I just want to correct one point. He said they have the highest literacy rate in the Caribbean, and that's not true. Barbados does.

I really want to respond to the minister's comments about treating all people equally; educating all people and not specifically women. I thought we had passed the stage of those kinds of pious, empty mouthings, even from the government ministers. I am incredibly disappointed that the minister responsible for post-secondary education stands on the floor of this House and makes those kinds of comments. How can we deal with the disproportionate...?

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: If the minister would stop interrupting me, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate it.

How can we deal with the disproportionate number of women who are poor, on welfare, who have not completed their education, who are locked into low-paying job ghettos, unless we look at them as a group and try to introduce affirmative action programs in the educational system to meet their needs? When we refuse to do that, when we have a minister who stands on the floor of this House and makes pious comments about treating people equally when it's been proven that the system does not operate equally for all of

[ Page 7793 ]

these people, then we continue condemning women to live in poverty in this affluent province and affluent country of ours. There is no excuse, Mr. Chairman, for that minister to continue making those kinds of statements, because the statistics are in. The research has been done; the information is there. We now know that you cannot treat every single person in the educational system exactly the same, because the system doesn't work, and hasn't worked, for all people the same. If it had, we would have the same number of single parent men on welfare, the same number of men living in poverty, the same number of illiterate men with incomplete educations; but it doesn't work that way.

All I'm suggesting to the minister is that once we have identified a group.... And I identified two groups. I identified the people who are victimized by the Ministry of Human Resources, the people who are locked in poverty on income assistance, and I identified women as two groups who maybe, for a short period of time anyway, need to have some kind of special attention paid to their educational needs if they are going to become independent, self-sufficient, contributing members of our community.

It seems to me that if the minister responsible for education in this province would use half of his brain cells, he would find that everyone benefits when everyone contributes, that poverty doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help our society; it doesn't help the people themselves who are poor. Poverty impoverishes all of us, not just people who are poor. We are all being deprived of the contribution that poor people could make if they had the skills or the jobs or the income to make them independent and contributing members of our society.

You shouldn't lead and you shouldn't be allowed to be responsible for education in this province if you can't understand that simple fact. It is the minister's inability to understand that simple fact and the inability of ministers before him to understand that simple fact that is the reason why the number of women on income assistance is escalating and the number of women who can avail themselves of post-secondary education in this province is declining. That's all that I tried to bring to this minister's attention, and I ask that he introduce some kind of aggressive policy to right this inequality. What is the point of treating unequal people equally? When you treat people who are unequal equally, you ensure that the inequality continues. That's all that you do, and you don't need a PhD, a master's or a bachelor of arts or science to understand that. Even a child — any of the Pages on the floor of this House — can understand that simple fact.

The failure of the minister responsible for post-secondary education in this province to grasp that is a disaster, an absolute disaster. What it means is that women are going to continue to be penalized as a direct result of his ignorance; that's what that means. Rather than introducing policy to help them get the additional education that they need and want and are seeking, rather than introducing policy that will help them get the tools and the skills to become independent and to become self-sufficient.... They're going to get smug, empty statements from the minister as they continue to be locked into their poverty cycle.

[4:15]

Education enriches us all. Education benefits everyone, not just the people who, Mr. Chairman, when you were speaking earlier and presented your elitist concept of who should be educated and who shouldn't.... Nobody is hurt when everybody is educated. How can it hurt us to have a community of educated people? How can we suffer because people can read and are intelligent and can understand what's going on? How can that hurt us? We are moving into a society in which not just the globe is shrinking, but in which technology and communication and everything — the work world — demand more of us.

We can't make it in this world anymore with a grade 8 education and a strong back. Even the fields in Bermuda, Mr. Chairman, which you talked about, where people were refusing to work, now are being worked by machines, and you have to be able to understand the technology to run those machines. When we condemn people to illiteracy and ignorance, we are condemning them to poverty, and poverty is a burden on all of us, not just on the poor. I just want to repeat again....

MRS. JOHNSTON: And again and again.

MS. BROWN: Listen, there isn't anyone, including the member for Surrey — not the male member for Surrey, but the other.... I don't know whether she is the first or second member for Surrey, Mr. Chairman; I'm sorry.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Number one.

MR. REID: She's a lady, and she's number one.

MS. BROWN: The number one member for Surrey. I want to assure you that I know that I'm wasting my time. I know that. I know that I'm wasting my breath trying to speak to the minister and to speak to the government about this, but I'm going to continue to do it. I'm going to continue every time these estimates come up prior to the next election to raise the issue of the ways in which obstacles are placed in the path of people on income assistance and women; to raise the issue of the failure of this government to meet their academic needs and their needs for additional training and skills, and the ways in which the policies of this government condemn them to poverty. I am going to continue to raise those issues until either the minister comes to his senses or the people of British Columbia change that government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair would like to take the liberty of thanking the member for Burnaby Edmonds for bringing to the attention of the member for North Vancouver–Capilano that it was not Bermuda but Barbados.

MR. NICOLSON: You know, Mr. Chairman, my colleague makes, I think, a very valid point. For instance, in the student assistance criteria the definition of "full-time" and the requirement of full-time attendance at a post-secondary institution really works against single-parent mothers, many of whom we have had.... I am sure both sides of the House have had delegations come here. I remember one person from Kamloops who made a very favourable impression. She was a living example of the kind of a person who is struggling and ready to take the benefit of a training program and post-secondary education — to the benefit of all of us. When we preclude someone like that doing that — and this person happened to have one child — we're doing not just her a disservice; we're doing her child a disservice and we're doing the province a disservice. I was quite impressed and felt that she would be able to contribute much more to society

[ Page 7794 ]

after she had completed her post-secondary studies. That is just one very visible example that the member brought up in her speech, and I think that her speech should be looked at very seriously and very soon, because these are things that can be done.

Well, there is one other thing I would like to say in concluding. I would like to commend the minister for getting up and responding almost immediately to every speaker in the House. I happen to feel that that's the way estimates should be done — not letting people build up, waiting to leave upon the minister making a response. That's a good start, and I hope the minister will make a good start by looking over these comments very carefully, particularly the comments of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, and see that some changes are brought about, particularly in student assistance programs.

HON. R. FRASER: I thank the member for his comments. He can be assured, as can everyone in the House, that this minister and this ministry will be responding with the greatest care and concern.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise something for my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), who is not with us today. It is a very important case, and it bears directly on the kind of support that students get, not only in British Columbia but also outside British Columbia. Because the minister himself is, I believe, an engineer, this is an example that he might find interesting. A 23-year old British Columbian who took the engineering diploma course at Kwantlen College then went to take a program at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. He is one of several B.C. students who have been denied student assistance from the B.C. Ministry of Education while pursuing studies outside the province.

Let me just give you a little background. He graduated from the electronics engineering program at Kwantlen Technology Centre in June 1985. He decided to attend Lakehead University because it offers the only post-diploma engineering program in Canada. It allows graduates from engineering diploma programs to transfer directly into fourth-year engineering after completing a summer transition program. UBC offers no such transfer option, because it does not recognize the Kwantlen diploma.

Let me just back up here. If a person goes to Lakehead University and takes the post-diploma course after the Kwantlen College course, he can then go directly into the fourth year. If this individual had wanted to attend UBC after Kwantlen and graduate in engineering, he would have had to take the full four-year program. In other words, he recognized that if he took the Kwantlen diploma course and the Lakehead post-diploma course, he could then go into fourth year engineering at UBC. But he can't go directly from Kwantlen into UBC without taking the full four-year engineering program.

So he opted for the Lakehead program, as it would save him a great deal of time and money in comparison to attending UBC. Lakehead University accepted him into their post diploma engineering program, and by the end of July 1985 he was enrolled in a summer transition program. After arriving in Ontario, he applied for B.C. student assistance as an out-of-province student. He mentioned in his application that the Lakehead program was a unique program. He completed the summer transition program and was well into the fall semester before he received one-third of the aid he requested in the form of a Canada student loan. At this time he also received a polite note stating that his B.C. student loan was being withheld until the Lakehead program was determined to be eligible for such a loan.

On October 18, 1985, he phoned the student services branch, B.C. Ministry of Education. He was told that there should be no problem. Tony mentioned that other B.C. students in identical programs were denied B.C. loans. He was told that they would call him back on October 22, and they also recommended that he should call or write to other universities to inquire re their possible post-diploma programs.

On October 30, 1985, Tony called the same number as above to inquire about his loan. He tried to speak to a Ms. Grimmer, who is out-of-province student supervisor. She was not available, but he spoke with another individual and was told that they would get back to him. He was called on November 20. She quoted sections from the portability policy of the B.C. student loan act, and he was told that a student living on the B.C.-Alberta border was eligible for funds since it would be cheaper to travel to Alberta than to the lower mainland, but the policy did not extend to students taking programs offered in B.C. but of a shorter duration elsewhere.

It was suggested to him that he ask Lakehead University to give documentation regarding the uniqueness of their program. This documentation must show that their program in its entirety is unlike any in B.C. This individual requested a copy of the portability policy to be sent to him. He then approached the dean of engineering at Lakehead and asked them to contact Victoria.

Lakehead's student services said that the only two provinces from which students have trouble receiving aid are British Columbia and Nova Scotia. The B.C. situation is the most serious due to the large number of B.C. students attending Lakehead. In fourth-year engineering the B.C. students account for 10 to 15 percent of the class, forming the largest out-of-province group.

So what we have then is a large group of B.C. students studying engineering at the post-diploma engineering faculty at Lakehead University and not getting any out-of-province assistance. He received a photocopy of B.C.'s portability policy on December 6, and he was also notified that he was ineligible for the B.C. student loan he had requested.

On December 31 he asked the Vancouver Public Library for a photocopy of the B.C. student loan act. They had no such document, but offered to contact the Ministry of Education to get one.

On January 2, 1986, a Vancouver library employee called the student in question to say that he had learned that there was no legislation governing B.C. student loans, just an interoffice manual that could not be released.

On January 9 the individual wrote a letter to Mr. Emery Barnes, in which he described the B.C. student loan situation for out-of-province students. On January 9 he tried to get the rest of his Canada student loan, second disbursement. Also student services at Lakehead informed him that a B.C. student did receive a loan from B.C., but they were trying to get through to Victoria to confirm this.

The individual then asked for and received an emergency loan of $90 on January 13 to buy texts. On January 17 Victoria told Lakehead student services to send a list of all B.C. engineering students in fourth year so that their claims could be reassessed. Based on this information, Mr. David

[ Page 7795 ]

Criste, the head of accounting at Lakehead University, agreed to give the individual a promissory note and signed over the Canada loan disbursement in case the B.C. loan didn't come through for the student.

This situation is desperate and tragic. He gave up everything to pursue his education in a way which he feels is saving himself and the B.C. government both time and money. He fully intends to return to live and work in B.C. as an engineer. He has been given no help financially or emotionally by the Ministry of Education, but instead has had to endure six months of constant conflict and financial hardship when instead he should be putting his time and energy into his studies.

[4:30]

The questions that conic out of this situation are as follows. I'd just like to list the questions to the minister. Why does Kwantlen Technology Centre offer a two-year diploma program in electronics engineering technologies if advanced standing cannot be granted by UBC — if they don't accept it for credit? It appears to me that if a student is basically saving time and money for himself and the B.C. government by attending an out-of-province educational institution, why should his B.C. student loan request be denied? Why hasn't the B.C. government made available to the public the interoffice manual which pertains to the policies and procedures of B.C. student loans? What is the B.C. government's definition of a unique program — that is, one that would give eligibility for an out-of-province student loan? That seems to be key, Mr. Chairman. Why was there such a drastic delay between the time of application for the B.C. loan that was made on July 10, 1985, and the subsequent issuing of the loan refusal on November 26, 1985? Quoting from the B.C. School Act, page 13, why is it that UBC seems to have preferential status in the School Act?

HON. R. FRASER: Let's begin with telling you that manuals are available. Second, I didn't hear in your submission that the student had contacted the ministry. That might have been useful. Three, there is a student aid appeal body that is outside the confines of the ministry. Four, if you'd like to give us the file, we'll see what we can do to help this student sort out his problems.

MR. HANSON: I'm sure that this particular individual would welcome any assistance and advice that he could get from the ministry. It also points to the fact that there are a large number of B.C. students that for one reason or another are attending educational institutions out of the province. It would be very helpful if there was a clear policy statement for eligibility for B.C. student loans and so on that would be made available, because it appears that the arguments being made with respect to a student taking a post-diploma or some other undergraduate level of instruction that allows that individual to come back and then plug himself or herself into post-secondary education...is of benefit to the province of B.C. I see no reason why they should be denied loan assistance, particularly when they're prepared to give an undertaking that they're going to come back and reside in B.C., seek employment and want to live and apply their skills here. I don't see why we should deny them that access to funds.

I would appreciate the minister looking at this case, and perhaps contacting the institution where he's a resident for similar assistance to the other B.C. students who may be in identical circumstances.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Fine, I'll make that available to him in due course.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, each year I do a trip on Douglas College, my favourite post-secondary education institution in New Westminster. Today it's all going to be positive.

First let me say that I am so pleased with the aggressive attitude of Bill Day, the president of Douglas College. He is a person who has made it his business to get out and around the community, getting people interested in utilizing Douglas College as a community college. I'm just delighted with the attitude, and the respect that the community has built for Douglas College over the years. Once in a while I get a little bit perturbed. I don't feel they quite get the support that they should, but in any event, that's certainly not what I want to talk about today.

I want to give them a real pat on the back about a program that's going to happen there. It's not really part of the education program, it's going to happen while Douglas College is in recess. I'm talking about the Space Station concept that's going to be running concurrent with Expo. It's very apropos in this respect: that Expo's on one side of the ALRT and Douglas College is on the other end. The transportation between the two would seem to me to be quite useful, as long as ALRT is still running at that time. Having said that, I'm sure there'll be buses, or some other way that people can get back and forth.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The Space Station concept is going to be doing a number of programs. I would just like to talk about one of them in particular. But just before I do, just to give you an idea of the different programs that are going to occur at Douglas at this particular time: from July I to July 5 is the opening week, and the Space Station intends to be "a vehicle for ideas and options," and so on. That's just the opening week, and it will just be looking over the area.

The second week will be July 6 to July 12, and it will be Living in Space. They are going to have an extensive teleconference network, and they'll be "focusing the attention of scientists, politicians, businessmen, psychologists and the clergy alike on what life could be like in space." I think that's very appropriate at this point.

Then there are going to be, from July 13 to 19, space business seminars, they're going to be talking about harvesting resources from space, technologies, and so on and so forth. Very interesting. But it will be sort of the industrialization and exploration of space.

Then — and I'm sure the first member for Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the Minister of International Trade now, will be interested — it's going to be all on high-tech business seminars. That will be seminars on marketing high-tech products, inventors, copyright seminars, high-tech management, and so on. That, as far as I'm concerned, will be very interesting.

July 27 to August 2 is on business opportunities, these are business opportunities in B.C., Japan, China, so on and so forth. It's going to be sort of an international conference on business opportunities. August 3 to 9 is electronic music, and that's going to be something. Then there's computer graphics

[ Page 7796 ]

from August 10 to 13; then from August 14 to 16 educational software. Then from August 17 to 23 is an environmental conference. That's going to be talking about the earth as sort of the mother ship, the last treasure: "The new frontier will give us a second chance to learn from our past mistakes."

Then the piece de resistance, as far as I'm concerned: from August 19 to 23 is going to be a World Youth Peace Initiative. I think that that's thrilling. They've got kids coming from countries all over the world. They're going to have kids from Kenya, Canada, the United States, Australia, France, Mexico, People's Republic of China, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Japan, Norway, Philippines, Belgium, Costa Rica, Hungary, Bulgaria, East Germany, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Israel, Malta, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Poland and Turkey. They're not sure yet whether they're going to get people from Nicaragua, Cuba, South Africa, Salvador, Korea, Argentina, Panama and Cambodia, but those are areas that they are discussing and areas that they've been talking about.

I think that this peace initiative is absolutely splendid. They're going to have four programs in this peace initiative. What they're trying to do.... We've got a world that spends its whole time preoccupied with war and warlike activities. I think, particularly today, when we've been looking at what's been going on in Libya, we have a world just on the brink of its own self-destruction, if we're not careful. One of the things that we can do certainly is to educate children towards a more peaceful world; they, ultimately, will be the leaders of the world, providing there's one left for them.

Anyway, one of the first activities will be the 1986 International Children's Peace Awards. That's sponsored by the Children as the Peacemakers Foundation, and this ceremony honours children ages 6 to 11 for their efforts on behalf of peace. Since 1983 a total of 55 children from 33 countries have received these awards. The presenters have included Mme. Sadat of Egypt, Dr. Linus Pauling of the U.S.A., and Rev. Kiyoshi Tanimoto of Japan. These awards will be held in conjunction with an international youth conference, and it will be centred at the Space Station site.

PeacePals is another very interesting concept. This is an electronic pen-pal service that will enable young people to interact on a personal level with others from widely different geographical locations and cultures. Here you're going to have an opportunity, say, for an American kid to be communicating electronically with a Russian child or a Chinese child, or maybe someone from Panama, etc. — a really good opportunity for a mix of ideas and thoughts. I just feel that this is the kind of initiative that is very important.

I hope that there is going to be some adult observation, and I also hope that there are going to be maybe some seniors taking part in this initiative as well. I'm not sure that they've put that together, but they are endeavouring to, so that children can get an idea from — when I say seniors, I mean seniors — people who were through the last war, etc., and the seniors can have an opportunity to have a discussion with kids.

Don't forget that these children have to have a bit of motivation in order to get there in the first place. Hopefully there is going to be enough assistance to make sure that they are sheltered, housed and provided for.

They are also going to have as part of the program a peace network. This is a network of media that will initiate and promote discussions of peace and future conflict resolution strategies. In other words, they are going to be asked: "How would you get out of this crazy box that we're in?" It's a very, very thoughtful — in my mind — way of getting kids interested in the way mankind should be seeking to go, and in the kinds of things mankind should be seeking to achieve.

They are also going to have PeaceGames. It's interesting to me that all you have to do is go to a department store or whatever, particularly at Christmas time, and you can find war games coming out your ears. But here we are going to have peace games. That's going to include the interactive computer simulations and games that teach strategies for international cooperation, in other words, they are not going to be trying to shoot one another down; they are going to be trying, in these peace games, to work out ways and strategies of giving peace a chance. I think that that's a great idea. The games will be played at the Station site and through electronic linkage by participants around the world — not just there, but they will link up with computers all around the world. What an exciting opportunity for kids. What an exciting opportunity for some of us also to observe what's happening, there, and maybe get out of our headspace that tells us that the kind of world that we're living in need always be the same as it is now.

I would just like to quote the objective that they have:

"The objective of this peace initiative is to open communication lines between young people on either side of cultural, linguistic, ideological and political barriers. It will use the power of today's micro-electronic technology to focus world youth on issues of world importance while giving them the opportunity to communicate on a personal and private level. Because it will be set up in terms of a festival or a tournament, it will be recreational as well as educational, pleasurable as well as serious. Through establishing an easy channel of exchange and conversation, it will reveal to the participants that those young people on the other side are just like themselves, with friends and families and disappointments and fears and hopes for their personal futures. It will reveal that similarities of experience are more important than differences."

I think this is just a marvellous program and, incidentally, the chap who's really putting it all together is Alan Clapp, and he is noted for his imagination, noted for doing things in a rather spectacular way. I'm really pleased with the way this thing is going and the way it's being put together, and I just hope that members here in the government and everyone else will cooperate in every way possible. As I said, my pet project there is the children's peace initiative, but there are other very interesting initiatives.

[4:45]

I'm really doing this more for advertisement for what I see as being a really good, positive way of utilizing Douglas College. That campus is going to have an opportunity to do a little experimenting, and I believe that this is an opportunity that most of us should take advantage of. If we can get around to see it or give it any kind of cooperation, my suggestion is let's do so, because it is so nice to have something happening that we feel is constructive and positive and that we can all participate in equally, because Lord knows, the last few days have taught us — in the last number of years I suppose history, for that matter, has taught us — the total frustration with man destroying man, people destroying people, etc. It is just something very positive that I hope people will take a

[ Page 7797 ]

look at and take advantage of and cooperate with in every way they possibly can.

HON. R. FRASER: I thank the member for his very positive statement on the very vital Ministry of Post-Secondary Education.

Vote 62 approved.

Vote 63: ministry and council operations, $7,701,503 — approved.

Vote 64: universities, colleges and institutes, $609,352,656 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 54: minister's office, $205,714.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in debate today in support of the estimates of the operation of the Ministry of Labour, which as members know encompasses a wide variety of areas such as the Workers' Compensation Board, human rights, women's programs and the British Columbia youth council.

Since I presented my first estimates in debate this time last year, Mr. Chairman, it has been a pretty busy and exciting year for me. We have had an interesting year in industrial relations in the province of British Columbia, and I spent a lot of my time visiting with employers and employees in the workplace, discussing with them ways in which we could improve the industrial relations climate. I got many worthwhile ideas from both parties in discussion, particularly at the plant level. That is not to say that I haven't had a lot of discussion and communication with the chief executive officers of companies and people involved in the industrial relations and personnel field with companies large and small and indeed with many trade union officials and indeed many non-union organizations as well.

The big area on assuming my responsibility as Minister of Labour last year was the very difficult area dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board. Needless to say, a lot of my time and energy was spent in talking to the parties of interest with respect to industrial health and safety and getting their advice on how we could improve the areas dealing with the operation of the Review Board. As the members know, during the course of debate in the Legislature last year we presented a bill that would see the streamlining of the operation of the Review Board, and I am happy to report to the members of the assembly that the majority of the boards are now in place under the chairmanship of Bud Gallagher, who accepted the responsibility of administrative chairman of the Review Board, along with receiving nominations from both union and the management community with respect to their particular interest being represented on three-member panels and some excellent candidates whose names were put forward in terms of being able to participate as neutral vice chairmen on those panels.

Members will be interested to know too that during the discussion on the debate on that bill, we brought forward the idea of expanding the operation of the Review Board and the worker advisory and employer advisory service into the interior of British Columbia, particularly the Kamloops-Okanagan area, the northern interior and the southern interior, along with Vancouver Island, where we suggested that we would be able to utilize the expertise of the employer and employee community in those regions to be able to participate as panel members on the Review Board, along with independent neutral people who would assist them in reviewing the applications brought forward to them. We should be able to finalize that process in the next period of time. In fact, I had a meeting today with the administrative chairman, Bud Gallagher, who presented me with a plan for that particular structure. There are still a couple of panels to be appointed in the lower mainland, and it is my hope that we will be able to complete those panels in the next week, and then out of Vancouver you will have a full complement of boards of review operating under the new system.

I thought that we would go through a difficult period of time with a whole pile of new people coming into the system that would require training and other initiatives. But, speaking frankly, the calibre of people brought forward by the community to participate on the boards of review is exceptional, and they will require a minimal amount of training. Already you can see a decline in the graph for the number of people who have to be processed by the system. Last year we were talking about 4,500, and it's gradually declining now because of the new panel that has been put in place. I know the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will be interested in that.

There were also some changes made with respect to section 90(3)s. There was a lot of discussion about it at the time, and the new policy is now in place. I asked the assistance of the employer and employee communities in policing the system, and that they continue to advise me on how those section 90(3)s were being administered. I told them at the time that if there was further difficulty with those decisions on section 90(3)s, we would be pleased to review it again at that time.

The other area of difficulty is still the medical review panels at the Workers' Compensation Board. We now have a number of people who have come forward and volunteered to sit on the medical review panels. We will be able to put them in place over the course of the next two weeks.

The outstanding area then is the area dealing with the new chairman of the boards of review and what role the commissioners will play in the future of the Workers' Compensation Board. Members will be pleased to note that a few months ago we appointed Kevin McBurney from Caldwell Partners International, and asked him to meet with the constituents of interest, the employer and employee communities, and seek their advice on ways in which we could streamline the structure at the commissioner level and on the role of the chairman and commissioners, and to report back to me on the suggestions that are made by the employer-employee community. So I look forward to receiving Kevin McBurney's report in that area.

The other area in which we've had a lot of discussion over the years is industrial relations. I see industrial health and safety as a major stepping-stone to improving the industrial relations climate in British Columbia. We've had a lot of discussions with the parties. It's at the plant level where both parties can come together on common ground and discuss matters of mutual interest to each other, and....

Interjection.

[ Page 7798 ]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I almost have as many people here today as you had in Sparwood, Mr. Member. It just didn't cost me as much to get here.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, following through, I see the area of industrial health and safety as one that can provide a great stepping-stone to improving the industrial relations climate in British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: As I was saying earlier on, before the member for Vancouver East so rudely interrupted, I see great hope in that area. It can move....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please — both sides. Let's have a little order. Let's have at least the minister's opening remarks go through without too much interruption. There'll be lots of opportunity for everyone else to speak in this debate.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I expect that from that $80,000 ten-pack, and I know that I'm going to have that over the course of the debate of my estimates, and I expect it. Blessed are those who expect nothing, for they shall not be disappointed.

We can move from the area of industrial health and safety into the area of drug and alcohol abuse, bereavement and other areas that affect the employer and employee communities alike, and move from there into the administration of the collective bargaining process. I was pleased that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) included in our estimates for this fiscal year the development of a preventive mediation program, which will, of course, be a voluntary program, leaving the Ministry of Labour professional staff in a position where they will be able to respond to the legitimate needs of the employer and employee communities at the plant level, in an effort to provide a good preventive mediation program and work out ways that we hope in the long run will be able to change attitudes, particularly in the area of union management relationships. As I said, Mr. Chairman, it will be a voluntary program, not one imposed on the parties, and it will be available to the parties to assist them in resolving outstanding issues.

Another area that we've dealt with over the course of the year was the threatened work stoppage with respect to the British Columbia Railway. Last year in the House we brought in a bill called the British Columbia Railway Dispute Settlement Act, and I was pleased to be able to pass an order-incouncil rescinding the act earlier this year. Following the passage of that order-in-council, the council and the railway signed an agreement that was of their own making. I was pleased that we were able to provide to the parties the assistance of Vince Ready, a very capable mediator in that dispute. So we'll be looking forward to working further with the B.C. Railway and its council of unions in an attempt to find new ways to help them improve the industrial relations process in that company.

[5:00]

We also had the pulp and paper dispute, and we've seen a resolution of the dispute in that area, along with the Saanich police. All in all last year, in terms of the industrial relations climate in British Columbia, we had a pretty good year.

That's a tribute to the individuals who have participated, both union and management communities, and their recognition of the difficult times that all of us are in in terms of our ability to trade in the international marketplace.

As I go around the province, I sense a genuine recognition on the part of both communities that if they don't have the ability to work together, in short, they won't succeed. They're to be congratulated for the effort that they have put into the development of a strong industrial relations climate and labour peace in B.C. In 1985. Indeed all of the prospects for 1986 look the same, because the parties have, without question, buckled in. They have resisted the temptation to use the media to resolve their disputes. They have relied on each other, and they're to be commended for that. We will provide, as the Ministry of Labour, any assistance that we can to the parties in an effort to help them help themselves in any dispute that they should find themselves in.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The backlog in the Council of Human Rights has all but disappeared, and the council is working exceptionally well. Although it's not provided for in legislation, I hope to be able to present to the assembly the first annual report of the B.C. Council of Human Rights. I did instruct them last year to prepare an annual report, and that will be presented in the Legislature, I hope, pretty quickly.

The other area that I spent a lot of time and energy on over the course of the year was the area dealing with women's programs — the other side of my ministry, and a very important part of my ministry. I spent a lot of time meeting with women's groups across the province and attempting to provide an advocacy role for women in B.C. I have to say that I have met a lot of women across the province, who, yes, have had difficulty, and we have been able to recognize those particular areas of difficulty. We've announced the development of a five-year plan where all of the programs and concerns that were brought to me around the province by a variety of women's organizations were put into a Plan for Progress and were able to make a major policy statement earlier this year on a five-year plan for the development and improvement of the status of women in B.C. over the course of the next five years.

I had the pleasure recently, too, of meeting with a group of women in Vancouver at a conference in preparation for a ministers' conference on the status of women that will take place at Fairmont Hot Springs in June of this year. I got a lot of good information from them on how we can best represent them at that conference. It too will be followed up later this year in October with a Conference on Economic Development in B.C. That will be in preparation for a first ministers' conference, we hope, in November.

The other area that was assigned to me in October, 1985, and again a very important area, is the area responsible for youth. I was pleased to be able to appoint a B.C. Youth Advisory Council over the course of the year. In selecting the Youth Council we tried to identify outstanding young British Columbians from a variety of backgrounds, different cultural and community backgrounds and different regions of B.C. It's a new young council, very enthusiastic, and already we have received some good ideas from them on how we can assist in helping young British Columbians achieve their common goals and objectives.

[ Page 7799 ]

All in all, that is a rundown of some of the activities of the Ministry of Labour over the course of the past year. I look forward to debating my estimates in the House with the members opposite. I look forward to constructive suggestions and ideas on how we can continue to improve the delivery service in many of the areas that I have a responsibility for, mandated under the legislation and programs of the Ministry of Labour.

In closing, I would like to introduce my staff, Mr. Chairman. Deputy Minister Graham Leslie is responsible for the administration of the Ministry of Labour. Deputy Minister Isabel Kelly is responsible for women's programs and youth services in the Ministry of Labour. Claude Heywood, my assistant deputy minister, is responsible for labour relations. Claude was just appointed to that position recently. Stephen Stackhouse is responsible for finance and administration in the Ministry of Labour. All have provided, for me, excellent advice throughout the course of the year.

I would like to pay tribute to Bob Gray, who retired from the Ministry of Labour after a long career of service to the people of British Columbia — not significant in terms of his employment with the provincial government and Ministry of Labour, but Bob had an outstanding career in the field of labour relations and did an exceptional job for us and will be missed by the ministry. Claude has fitted in quite well and will do a good job for us.

Mr. Chairman, that is a brief report on the activities of the ministry over the course of the past year.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just for Hansard's edification, I will not be requiring the 30 minutes. I'll reserve that for the critic for Labour, who isn't here. A very nice time to bring up the estimates, when our critic is away.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: The member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who's on a very short tenure, knows full well that we were informed last night at 6 o'clock that we would be back here today.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I would wonder at any of you people opening your mouths about attendance in this chamber. It makes me smile.

I would like to comment a little bit on what the minister had to say. I'm reserving WCB probably until next week or the week after, depending on how we get along with the estimate. I'm sure that there are others that will be reserving their discussions in different areas that the minister is responsible for.

I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has too many i's. It's not Westminster; it's Westminster. Everybody back home is going to know that you don't know how to pronounce the name of our town. That's not to suggest that most of the people in the world do, but I can't understand that they don't.... They invent that other "i," I gather.

I suggest that when the minister says that we're in difficult times, he is absolutely bang on. He can give a great deal of the credit for those difficult times to his colleagues in the cabinet: his colleagues, who made a decision in 1982, carried on in 1983 and with a vengeance in late 1983 and 1984, and have placed us in a very unenviable position respecting where we stand in the rest of our own country, let alone the rest of the world. Our economy is in desperate shape. It's in desperate shape because that government made a decision that the engine that would run this economy would be that of private enterprise, so therefore they should get out of the business of employing people and cut down their staffs as tight as they possibly could. In so doing they have placed us in this position.

Mr. Chairman, one other comment on the minister's earlier discussion. He said that one of the ways to keep the pot from boiling over is to have no interference in bargaining. When his colleague the moneybags of the cabinet, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), interposed himself, gratuitously, in the negotiations that were going on between the government and their employees, the BCGEU.... Any of you who forget that have a very short memory. It was the very thing a finance minister should not do. Therefore the way one could describe it would be to say that it was uncouth to the greatest extent one could imagine, because if there had been any hope in that early stage of getting something together in terms of negotiations, it was certainly inhibited by that minister saying there was no money and therefore the negotiations were irrelevant. He didn't say those last words, but in saying there was no money he may as well have said those last words.

Let's get on with another thought that the minister came up with, and that's this conference for economic development. We sure need a conference on economic development. The problem is, we didn't have the conference before that cabinet made the decisions that have put us into such a dive that here we are today, looking at labour statistics in our province that put us in line with Newfoundland. I suggest that it's just part of the whole area of lack of concern for the economic development of this province which has put us into this place.

In March 1985 we had 217,000 people unemployed; that was 15.3 percent. In February 1986 it improved somewhat; 13.8 percent, 198,000. In March 1986, 195,000 unemployed at 13.4 percent. We get the seasonal adjusted, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're out of work, whether you're seasonally adjusted or not, you're out of work.

Mr. Chairman, that's our position today. We have too many people out of work in this province, and the reason they're out of work is because the government saw fit to really damage the economy. They damaged the economy beyond words, not only in their own firing of public servants right, left and centre, but also squeezing the school system, squeezing the health system. All of these people who are out of work are no longer consumers. Just putting people out of work and showing how tough and tight-fisted we are doesn't do the job. I'll tell you what does the job. If there had been some discussion, if there had been some planning ....

[5:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: More money.

MR. COCKE: Listen to that wastrel over there. Listen to northeast coal. More money, he says. Up in his bailiwick, not in his riding.... The waste of money up there could have employed half the people who were knocked off down here and all over the rest of the province. It could even have looked after the Minister of Labour, who's going to lose his seat on

[ Page 7800 ]

account of that stupid decision in the north. Wastrels all! But not wastrels when it comes to taking care of the needs of our economic development.

AN HON. MEMBER: NDP economics.

MR. COCKE: The good NDP economics are thus. As a matter of fact, I think the minister needs a little bit of a lesson. In 1975, when we left government, there was no deficit; no $400 million being paid out in interest, as you have now. We owed a total in this province, including all Crown corporations and everybody else, of $4 billion. Now that was from the beginning of history. We owe now some $20 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's management for you!

MR. COCKE: That's great management. This is the gang that said we couldn't run a peanut stand. Well, I'll tell you something: they can't run anything, because they run us into the ground.

I'm here to tell you one thing, and I can say it very objectively because I'm not running again: I'll be standing there watching the Socreds go down to defeat in the next election. There are no people more deserving of going down to defeat in the next election. I'm here to tell you that it doesn't matter now what you do. You could promise the moon; you could promise anything. You have crossed the line of demarcation. You have lost credibility. It doesn't matter what you do now; you can't get re-elected. You can have all these....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on the administrative estimates of the Minister of Labour.

MR. COCKE: Am I off the estimates? Well, I'll be darned. I'm sorry, I get off the....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not a very good predictor.

MR. COCKE: Am I not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Our track record is better than yours has been.

MR. COCKE: Your track record is great to date. As a matter of fact, I'll go one step further. There will not be a Social Credit Party after the next election. You guys will disintegrate. You'll fall apart and go back to where you came from — little Conservatives, little Liberals, and so on and so forth. There might be the odd.... I think that with the passing of the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), I think that's all over for the real Socreds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the minister's estimates.

MR. COCKE: Yes, getting back to the minister's estimates, when we look at these unemployment figures and when we see that the minister has said that we are going to have to have a conference on economic development.... Where the blazes have you been? Where have they been? The only way an economic development conference can help them now is maybe to bail themselves out a little bit, but it's so late in the day. It's so late.

Interjection,

MR. COCKE: I predicted what?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You predicted Expo wouldn't work, too.

MR. COCKE: I never predicted any such thing. Expo is going to work. Now we're onto Expo. No, Expo is going to be a disaster in terms of traffic; it's going to be a disaster in terms of bucks; but it's going to be a success because it's going to bring a lot of people here, but just for a short period.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's your death wish.

MR. COCKE: I have no death wish for Expo. I have no….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the...?

MR. COCKE: I have not had a death wish. Listen, Expo isn't one bit of help to you, and I knew it from the outset.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: You people have gone beyond the line of demarcation. It doesn't matter what you do. You could have three Expos going on at the same time, and you're going to lose the election.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Brummet) will have their opportunity to stand in their place and debate the Minister of Labour's estimates. At the moment, the Chair has recognized the member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Okay, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Where are you going to have these economic development conferences? Are you going up immediately to the east Kootenays? Are you going to be going to the Okanagan valley? No. You're going to have it down here in Victoria? Where is it going to be?

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: New Westminster. Well, unfortunately Douglas College is being used this summer for a very important program. What I'll do is lend you my rumpus room.

I would just like to hear the minister say something about what he, as a member of that cabinet, is going to do about this labour situation — this unemployment situation. I heard the minister this afternoon answer a question in this House where he indicated that he had had no communication with his federal counterpart in terms of people in the communications business that were being dumped.

Mr. Chairman, he has an obligation as Minister of Labour to be on top of this whole question of employment. He has to be on top of the whole question of workers and their needs. I would just like to hear him say that he understands that obligation. I've noticed that he has spent a lot of time talking to us about the WCB and the great things of the future. I

[ Page 7801 ]

haven't seen any of them happen yet, but, nonetheless, let's hope that some of them do transpire someday.

But in any event, unemployment is here, unemployment is a disaster. Our economy is a disaster, because people aren't out there buying things, keeping small business going — all those things that happen when people are fully employed. It is a bit of a disaster. The minister knows it, and they know that this government is the author of that disaster. I don't know if one little minister can do very much about it, but surely he'd better get to work on it.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I would like to thank the member for New Westminster. I'm trying to figure it out. The member talked about the economic conferences, and I think the member misunderstood. I am the minister responsible for the status of women, and what I meant was that we were going to have an economic conference in British Columbia in October where we would bring women from around British Columbia to a central location where we could discuss with them and seek their advice on women's participation in the economy.

There are some good statistics available to us today in terms of the number of women going into business. Yes, they have some concerns. What we're doing is scheduling a conference where women can come from across British Columbia to a central location where we can discuss those things and represent their interests and their views.

The member for New Westminster talked about the Minister of Finance and the government of British Columbia as though they were the cause of the economic problems that confront all British Columbians and all Canadians today.

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) talked about government intervention in the economy, as though that would solve all of the problems. You know, there are some good examples around of government involvement in the economy. For example, when the member for Vancouver East was a minister of the government of British Columbia, he directed a pulp mill that should have gone to Castlegar to go up to northwestern British Columbia, a place where it would be best.... Castlegar would have been the best location for that pulp mill, in terms of fibre, in terms of all of the transportation network and everything else that would be available to operate that pulp mill. Yes, he made a political direction to the company involved in the pulp mill, made them build it at Prince Rupert. And it hasn't been a success.

There are all sorts of good examples around of ministers of the Crown, just because they occupy an office of minister, pretending that they know everything from natural resource development and natural resource extraction, to the processing, distribution and marketing of the products that are traditionally the responsibility of the private sector. Mr. Chairman, I would put my faith and trust in those individuals who work in those enterprises, and those people who have shares in the enterprises, and those people who have a direct stake in whether or not that company is going to succeed or fail in the international marketplace, before I would put it in the member for Vancouver East any day of the week.

In 1983, Mr. Chairman, the government of British Columbia recognized the difficult times that the province was in in terms of our ability to compete in the international marketplace. So we brought in a policy and program at that period of time, in an effort to reduce the size and the cost of government, bearing in mind that all of those costs were going to be transferred, somewhere along the line, to the private sector or to those businesses who wanted to do business in the international marketplace. The customer was saying that there was a limit to what they could absorb in terms of the price they would pay for our products that are manufactured and sold from British Columbia. The opposition at that time opposed all of those economic development programs. But last year, when we brought in tax reductions as a result of those measures, the opposition were there saying: "Yes, we support that. Yes, we support that." They became a "me too" opposition during that period of time.

Over the course of the past year we've seen some good success in terms of job creation in British Columbia. I would agree with the member for New Westminster that more needs to be done. Certainly nobody likes to see 12 percent of our population unemployed, or 14 or 16 or whatever the percentage is going to be, whether it's in British Columbia, Canada, Newfoundland or other parts of our country. All of us have a contribution to make. But above all, for the people who sell the resources from British Columbia, and the goods and services that we manufacture in British Columbia, in the final analysis, our ability to help them secure new products in the international marketplace is what will guarantee our success or our failure in the long run.

A few years ago we got into a situation where the economy was good, and we had the feeling that we were the only ones in the world who were selling lumber, pulp, coal, potash and other resources from British Columbia. So we set out on a policy of buying solutions to our problems. I'm pleased to say that over the course of the past few years, particularly in the last two, both union and the management community have sat down in genuine recognition of the difficult times that they're in, particularly those unions and companies in the private sector. They have said that we must develop new skills and new tools to solve problems, as opposed to buying solutions. They are to be commended for taking that approach.

Labour peace and industrial stability in British Columbia, along with being the most competitive place in the world to do business, will determine our success or our failure in the long run. Unless we develop the ability to work together to eliminate old attitudes and break down old barriers, we will not succeed. Our goals and objectives must be to break down those attitudinal barriers in the workplace, make British Columbia a great place to do business, and guarantee the people to whom we sell our products that they can count on us in terms of reliability, supply and service, and our ability to get our product to their market. We may have loyalties to one company or another in terms of who we buy our products from, but when competition is as tough as it is, we all want to go to the people or to the business that's providing the specials for us. We will go to the place where it can be supplied at the least possible cost. That must be the goal and objective of the people of British Columbia.

[5:30]

It's not just up to government alone, although it would be nice for some people to say, and for some people to deliver that message to the people of British Columbia — that it's all the government's fault. The members of the opposition, particularly the member for Vancouver East, have been attempting to do that since my estimates began, and indeed, since the House began this session. To continue that attitude is like hiding our head in the sand. We can't survive unless there's a genuine recognition that we're all in it together and that we all

[ Page 7802 ]

have a role to play and a contribution to make to British Columbia and our economy.

So we will develop the tools for every set of bargaining circumstances in British Columbia. We will provide the personnel to the parties of interest in an effort to help them resolve their problems. But in the final analysis, how they use those tools and how they use those services is entirely up to the parties. We will provide the tools. They will determine the success or the failure.

MR. WILLIAMS: There are levels of abysmal ignorance that we face in this House, but we have reached the lowest levels right now from this new minister. It's just plain ordinary ignorance. The minister talks about the export of potash from B.C. Does the minister know that we do not produce potash in B.C.? No, he doesn't. That's the kind of minister we've got. Then the minister says that when this member was responsible for the company that was known as Canadian Cellulose we didn't build a pulp mill in Castlegar, we built one in Prince Rupert. Again the ignorance of this minister knows no bounds. There are simply no bounds. He doesn't know that there was a pulp mill in Castlegar long before we were government. There was a pulp mill in Prince Rupert long before we were government.

I was talking to an Irishman from Montreal just in the last couple of weeks. He said: "You know, there are Irishmen and there are Irishmen in this world. There are some who say: 'If you want an answer, I'll give you an answer. It doesn't have to be true. It doesn't have to be honest. It doesn't have to be the facts. But by God, you've got an answer."' Well, we've got that kind of minister over there. You want an answer? You get an answer. The facts don't matter at all. The validity doesn't matter at all.

Do you want to talk about intervention? The biggest interventionist step was taken by your government with your support. Intervention in the marketplace? We've got it in spades in northeast coal. It's been a monumental failure. You people give government intervention a bad name. You really do, because you do it so badly. Some $3 billion in investment in the northeast, the largest single economic enterprise in the province, and it is a monumental bust. Potash from British Columbia — where do we begin in trying to educate this kind of dismal talent? I don't know, Mr. Chairman.

He gave us a dry, rattling bureaucratic response about his narrow administrative views of his department, not even any of that phony Irish baloney. The levels of unemployment in this province by region are scandalous in this day and age. The numbers for Prince George are what? The March 1986 figures for Prince George and the northern interior are now 18 percent — official figures of the unemployed, Stats Canada. The figures for the Okanagan come very close: 17.5 percent. The West Kootenays are at 21 percent. That should ring some bells in this junior-level minister. It should ring some bells in your cranium. A 21 percent level of unemployment in any region in British Columbia is simply unacceptable in this day and age. And when you look at those figures, if you ever do when they cross your desk, something should trigger in your mind.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

What can we do in the West Kootenays to deal with the unemployment problem? You might get together with your Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and say: "Hey, let's look at the figures in terms of the annual allowable cut in the West Kootenay region." Because another company that was an interventionist decision by your government, BCRIC Westar.... Remember that one? You know what the shares are trading for today, friend? A dollar thirty-five. I waited for ages for them to reach $1.49 so that I could balance it off against a pair of socks in Woodward's basement. But no, it's at $1.35. But anyway, Westar is the major woods operation in the West Kootenays. They undercut their allowable cut in forests in that region, ranging in the last half dozen years from 20 to 40 percent — that is jobs. Because they're not doing the job in that region, they should step aside. They're not performing as per their contracts with your other minister. There is 20 to 40 percent of the wood in that region that other people could make use of.

There is no reason in the world for those levels of unemployment in the West Kootenays. There are talented people in the West Kootenays. They would readily go to work, given access to the forest, but you so-called free-enterprisers have locked up those forests so that they can't even work in them, by giving incompetent companies like BCRIC and Westar the power of life and death over those regions, by limiting access to the forest. But does anything ever go through that mind of yours, other than this Irish nonsense, in terms of linking things and thinking about things? You look at the figures on youth....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's one region. The same problem in the Okanagan. The same problem in Prince George: shocking official levels of one in five out of work. Then you throw on top of that those on welfare, and those who are underemployed, only part-time employed, and you have shocking numbers. Then you look at things like youth employment in this province, and it gets even worse. Twenty five percent of all the young people between the teenage years and 25 are unemployed across this province — the best and the brightest in terms of talent. They're the ones that suffer the most because of your lack of policy.

Then you look at specific target groups, like natives, and you find 50 percent-plus levels, and getting worse and worse. Has it ever crossed your mind that you might have some responsibility in that area, that you might look at the question of native employment, which is the most serious issue in this province in terms of employment in every region? Has that ever crossed one's mind? It didn't, clearly, from the kind of dry, narrow, bureaucratic little speech we got earlier today. It obviously didn't.

It's a nice, cushy job for this boy from the Kootenays. But he doesn't see it in terms of having to deliver policy. What these things demand are targeted policies, targeting in terms of the greatest problems of unemployment.

So it means you're the minister responsible for youth. Let's put it together: the unemployed youth. Regions like Prince George and the Okanagan and the Kootenays are our toughest unemployment problems, but you can target in those regions. There are people that have carried out analyses in terms of which targeted section 1n the employment sector those regions might best develop. Have you put that together? Have you looked specifically at Powell River, Campbell River, Prince George, the Crowsnest, Cranbrook? Have you done that? I don't think so. It's not there. You've missed countless federal opportunities to do more. You didn't use all

[ Page 7803 ]

of your budgeted money that was available in the last year. If you were serious you would have given us a speech today about what you intend to do about these grotesque problems in youth unemployment, and targeted responses by region and by employment or industrial category. We didn't hear any of that at all.

There's hardly a soul over there who takes their job seriously any more. It's a nice cushy sinecure, and you're all right, Jack, but the rest of the province is in trouble. That's why the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is right. You're not going to dig out of the hole you're in.

Let's not get any more of this Irish stuff: if you want an answer, I'll give you an answer-any answer. We expect and deserve something better here in this chamber.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat surprised that you did not call that member to order. I would ask the Minister of Labour to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Members on both sides of the House are occasionally out of order, and it's at the discretion of the Chair whether or not to allow the debate to continue. My usual guidance is the consideration of the people in Hansard who try to type this debate that goes on. Sometimes the debate goes both ways. If a member is out of order, they will be called to order. There are certain times in the House when it's appropriate, and others when it isn't. Offences have occurred on both sides of the House, but please don't ask the Chair to call someone to order as part of your address.

MR. MICHAEL: I would certainly ask the Minister of Labour to draw to the attention of the Human Rights Council the inflammatory remarks made by that member regarding Irish nonsense, Irish baloney, and the negative remarks having to do with the Irish race in the Dominion of Canada in the province of British Columbia. I think that if there's any one member in this House who has a great percentage of constituents in Vancouver East represented by minority races.... It's shameful for a member to stand on the floor of the House and make derogatory remarks against and about the Irish race. Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to the Minister of Labour to bring those member's remarks to the attention of the Human Rights Council of the province of British Columbia, and perhaps while he's at it he should have that member investigated for child abuse as a result...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MICHAEL: ...of recent articles published in a magazine in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We only have 15 minutes to go, members. Please.

HON. MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, again that $80,000 well-researched — or supposed to be well-researched — ten-pack.... I can't figure out why he believes that we don't export potash from British Columbia, because one of the most important areas in British Columbia is our ports and our ability to move our products from our ports. I'm surprised that that man, who got $80,000 to do all of that research, doesn't recognize that there are ports in British Columbia and that out of those ports is moved potash. I can't figure that out. Eighty thousand dollars and he doesn't know there's a port on the coast.

Now, Mr. Chairman, he talked about unemployment in the West Kootenays. You know, I feel bad about the unemployment rate in the West Kootenays....

MR. MacWILLIAM: And so you should.

[5:45]

HON. MR. SEGARTY: I really do. And I know the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) feels really bad about the unemployment rate in the West Kootenays, but the member for Nelson-Creston should have a good memory with respect to what happened in the West Kootenays, because a good private enterprise company wanted to build a sawmill in Nelson many years ago and that man, when he was a minister of the former NDP government, outbid that good private sector company with taxpayers' money in an effort to socialize forest products in the West Kootenays, thus depriving the people of Nelson of a viable economic unit in that community today. You should hang your head in shame, getting up in this Legislature and talking about things like that.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.