[ Page 4027 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Enterprise Corporation assets. Mr. Williams –– 4027

Mr. Sihota

BCIT cutbacks. Ms. Marzari –– 4029

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training estimates.

(Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 4029

Hon. S. Hagen

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Guno

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I tell the House that I have some friends here today from Sherwood Park, Alberta: Gerry and Eula Regehr. They have with them their daughter Jane Jensen, who resides in White Rock, B.C. Please bid them welcome.

MR. WILLIAMS: I note that the former Attorney-General, Leslie Peterson, is in the audience. He must feel nostalgic thinking about that leadership convention in Whistler that he chaired, and reflects on that today. Would you welcome the former Attorney-General.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hon. members, it's my pleasure to introduce, on behalf of Mr. Speaker, a constituent from Vancouver-Howe Sound. Would you please welcome Mr. Gordon Ferguson from Pemberton.

MR. GABELMANN: This afternoon I want to welcome a group of students who are here today courtesy of Crown Forest Industries. They are students from four Campbell River high schools: Phoenix, Southgate, Campbell River and Robron. The names of the teachers with them are Greg Liesch and Carol Hilland. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) and myself, I'd like to ask the House to join us in making welcome 23 students and their instructor from the great inner city school of King George Secondary who are in your gallery this afternoon.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today is Mrs. Jean Seiferman. She hails from the township of Ponoka, Alberta, and she's visiting beautiful British Columbia. Everyone knows where Ponoka is; it has also been responsible for breeding a couple of players currently very active in the NHL.

Hosting Mrs. Seaferman are two fine residents from the Victoria area: Joanne Leigh and Kelly Dorin. Would the members of the House please join me in welcoming all three here today.

Oral Questions

B.C. ENTERPRISE CORPORATION ASSETS

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. There have been at least two bidders for the rides left over from the Expo event. Can you explain why those bids were not accepted?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I don't have all the details, but we did consider one bid, and I don't think the other ever proceeded. The one we did look at was also opposed by the regional district. They did not wish to see a part of the area in Surrey used for those particular purposes. There were a number of things with respect to that particular bid.

Of course, we did strive to see whether in fact those rides could not be maintained in British Columbia, and frankly I hope that we won't give up on that if somehow they could be maintained in the province. I think we would certainly be very supportive of that, and we would look to see this happen if at all possible. We'll continue to strive to this end.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Pattison, who headed Expo, says that there were two bids thwarted — one that the Premier mentions and one in September. The staff of the Enterprise Corporation advised that the bidding was thwarted because the rides had been tied to the development of some of the Expo lands. Would the Premier confirm that that was Mr. Peter Toigo's proposal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The bid we considered.... I suppose any other information with respect to the rides has been with the ministry responsible. As well, cabinet has considered this, but no decision has been made. At one point, it looked as though there was a possible opportunity to see the rides located on that particular site, but that was not pursued.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the Premier confirm that that it was Mr. Toigo's festival park proposal that involved that equipment from Expo — the rides?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I believe that bid definitely did provide for those rides to remain on the site.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the Premier confirm that he or his office intervened with respect to that proposal?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, Mr. Speaker. Any decision with respect to how the proposals were dealt with would be by cabinet.

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier saying that the whole cabinet wanted those rides left rusting and costing $700,000 or $800,000 interest annually, and that it was a cabinet decision to pay the interest charges on the borrowed money for that equipment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The matter of how the rides were dealt with, or the idea of keeping them locally, was definitely a decision for cabinet. With respect to interest on the moneys while this transaction was incomplete, I would suggest that any of the proposals that we did see, in effect, did not offer what we thought to be a reasonable return, neither by way of money nor the fact that they could be left where we thought they might be suitably located.

So it's all of those considerations, and I wouldn't expect the member to understand this or to have such information available to him, obviously. As far as the economics are concerned, I can assure you the economics are a little different from the Westwood lands, which you previously commented on. But the economics are certainly something we will consider when we finalize how these rides may best be disposed of.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: No less an expert on finance than Mr. Pattison has indicated that he thinks it's a tragic loss for British Columbia, and I'm willing to accept the financial advice of Mr. Pattison. Would the Premier have us believe that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) wanted these rides saved for Mr. Toigo?

[ Page 4028 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can accept that the hon. member will accept whatever advice appears in the newspaper, as long as it suits his particular purpose. I don't think the accuracy or inaccuracy of it makes any difference to the hon. member that asked the question.

The Minister of Economic Development was certainly at the cabinet meetings where all of this was discussed, and I'm not about to discuss cabinet deliberations at this meeting.

MR. SIHOTA: Shortly after cabinet decided to negotiate with Mr. Li Ka-shing sometime in mid-March, Mr. Toigo was in Hong Kong apparently to visit the gentleman. Will the Premier confirm that he discussed with Mr. Toigo the matter of his presence in Hong Kong?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't quite understand the question — the matter of his presence in Hong Kong. I certainly was aware that he was going to Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, I was called about that two days before he left.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the Premier explain the circumstances of the discussion that he just referred to with respect to Mr. Toigo? How did he find out, and what was the content of that discussion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know the details of the discussion, except to say that how I found out was that he was going.... His son has a venture that apparently is being manufactured by a factory in Hong Kong.

MR. SIHOTA: Another question to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that, at that time or subsequent to that, he had a further discussion with Mr. Toigo, whereupon the Premier expressed his concern that Mr. Toigo might pass himself off as a representative of government?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not quite that, Mr. Speaker. When I became aware that he was going and that he could be seeing Li Ka-shing, I certainly made it known to him that in no way was there any discussion with Li Ka-shing with respect to this, or to suggest that he was in any way involved with it. Definitely yes, because I think there was some concern by all participants that one might be talking to the other when there were confidentiality agreements in place.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says that he wanted to discuss, with respect to this, the matter with Mr. Toigo. The Premier, in the course of his last comment, used the words "with respect to this." Was he talking about the sale of the Expo lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I was talking about his talking to Mr. Li Ka-shing, and Mr. Li Ka-shing's name had been mentioned many times already in the media.

MR. SIHOTA: A question, then, to the Premier: obviously you discussed more than videos. What information had the Premier passed on to Mr. Toigo that would lead the Premier to have some concern that Mr. Toigo might be passing himself off as a representative of government on the matter of the Expo sale?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I didn't say "as a representative of government." But he didn't have any information whatsoever.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier had a discussion with Mr. Toigo, and the Premier has indicated that that discussion was on the matter of the sale of Expo lands. Could the Premier tell this House what the content of that discussion was?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I can't, except to say that Mr. Toigo and many others were well aware of the fact that a number of names had been mentioned of people who might be involved in the bidding process. I think there was speculation on his part, no doubt, that he might be dealing with one of those who could be putting together a successful package. But no decisions had been made, and negotiations were continuing with a number of people at the time.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says that there was a set of discussions with respect to a number of names involved in the bidding process. Will the Premier confirm that he told Mr. Toigo that one of those names was Li Ka-shing?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. I think he and all others were well aware I guess it goes back as far as October, when certain names were mentioned in the media, including Li Ka-shing. I think there's been a lot of speculation about that for a good many months.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the Premier then prepared to deny that at any time he ever told Mr. Toigo about Mr. Li Ka-shing being one of the bidders on the Expo sweepstakes?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Toigo did not ask me for those particulars, and I have not provided particulars.

MR. SIHOTA: There were obviously a host of discussions between Mr. Toigo and the Premier. The Premier has reflected on some of those in the past few days. We know, for example, that the Premier discussed the matter of tax advantages to Mr. Toigo. Mr. Toigo knew that Mr. Li Ka-shing was one of the bidders. We know that there were some telephone conversations between Mr. Toigo and the Premier with respect to Hong Kong. We know that there was some contact and perhaps interference in the matter of the Expo lands. We know the whole scenario with respect to the Attorney General's ministry and the matter of the press release that relates to Mr. Toigo. We know that Mr. Toigo was asked twice to extend his offer, and it appears that the Premier's office played some role in that.

The question to the Premier — because I'm sure he will want to clear the record on this matter — is: will he assure the House that there are no personal or corporate financial obligations — loans, guarantees, debentures and the like — between himself and Mr. Toigo, or between their respective companies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I have no obligations to Mr. Toigo. I think perhaps if the member is indicating that I had a host of discussions, yes, I have talked to Mr. Toigo, and I've talked to a lot of other people. I've not talked to Mr. Toigo any more than I've spoken to this member across the floor; but given the choice, I would much prefer to speak to Mr. Toigo than I would to that member. But that's a personal choice.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the Premier replied "I have no...." I just want to again, for the sake of the Premier's

[ Page 4029 ]

interest in this matter, make the record clear on this matter. What about any corporate transactions in the same sense I just outlined earlier on?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have no corporate involvements.

BCIT CUTBACKS

MS. MARZARI: This is a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier interfered or meddled with the decisions surrounding the cutbacks to BCIT in the last few weeks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I guess from time to time I've sat in on Treasury Board meetings as often as possible, and we may have discussed BCIT, among a number of other things.

MS. MARZARI: A subsequent question, then. Did the Premier, or the Premier's office, meet with Mr. David Park before his report was completed to suggest to him ways in which his report on BCIT should be changed — an independent report ostensibly commissioned by the Ministry of Advanced Education?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I've never met with Mr. Park.

MS. MARZARI: Has anyone in your office, then, been involved with the cutbacks to BCIT in the last few weeks — yourself or your office, Mr. Premier? Have you been involved with the cutbacks and the procedures leading to the cutbacks?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, have I been involved in the budgetary process? Yes, I have been in the budgetary process for the Ministry of Advanced Education and for a host of other ministries as a part of the Treasury Board process. There are meetings of Treasury Board that I attend, so obviously we're all party to those discussions. I think that's a responsible thing and that it would be expected.

MS. MARZARI: Two reports were commissioned: the David Park report, as well as a Price Waterhouse report which you might be aware of, Mr. Premier. You must be aware of it to the point where on Friday you suggested there were aspects of BCIT that could be privatized. Would you comment for the House on what parts of BCIT you intend to privatize?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know what the question is exactly. Certainly I met with student representatives; they presented a number of concerns, and I think they were very positive in this respect. They also made some comments about certain things that could be improved, or that they saw could be improved, and it was a very worthwhile and useful meeting.

As far as the question from the media with respect to privatization, that's always a possibility. I don't know what aspects might be privatized, or how they could more effectively serve the institute or the students there if they were privatized. I do know, however, that there is a great opportunity here for more private sector involvement. Generally speaking, I think the private sector — the business community — has seen BCIT as an asset, and one where they could help in the developing of programs that would assist in training people appropriately for particular functions in their companies or in their commercial or industrial endeavours.

So there is that sort of support, and I think we should capitalize on that. If we can bring the private sector in and see them still more involved in the process, or see them participate in programs or in the development of programs, or perhaps even in how programs are presented to students.... All of that I think is a very worthwhile effort by the private sector and I would encourage that. To that end I think we should have an open mind.

HON. MR. ROGERS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe a question addressed to the Premier during question period by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) somewhat offends the bounds of question period. Perhaps if you could peruse the Blues and compare it with the rules of Bauchesne and May, we could get some kind of an indication from you whether that assumption is correct.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll be pleased to review them.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING

On vote 5: minister's office, $248,576.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to rise and speak to the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training. I'd like at this time to recognize the untimely passing of several members who have contributed greatly to the education process in the province of British Columbia, who gave of themselves for the benefit of others.

I refer to the very recent death of Malcolm Wickson, who served on the board of BCIT for six years and was chairman of the board of governors for three of those years. His passing, following a long illness, is mourned by all those who knew and respected his dedication.

I also express my deep regret — and I know I speak for many others — at the death of Terry Ryan of Courtenay, who died earlier this year after a lengthy illness. Terry served on the boards of North Island College and the Open Learning Institute. I know that his knowledge and dedication will be greatly missed.

Another contributor to the education system whose passing is sadly acknowledged is Mr. Harold Newman, chairman of the board of North Island College. His leadership and wisdom will be missed by those who had the opportunity to know him. I am sure that this House shares in mourning their loss.

[2:30]

When I spoke to you last July 14, I referred to the new ministry as a far different organization than had existed before in this province. I told you it was an amalgamation of crucial elements from four former ministries, bound together as a force to provide basic support for the development of our

[ Page 4030 ]

people and the economic growth of our province. The foresight in establishing a ministry that includes universities, colleges, institutes, science and technology, job training, youth and women's initiatives has proven to be noteworthy in every way. When blended, these diverse ingredients have proven compatible and complementary to each other, producing some extremely innovative actions. Post-secondary education is an investment in the potential of British Columbia and is the primary asset of its people.

It has been an exciting year, a dramatic year. The student financial assistance program has been an outstanding success. Yes, we did face some registration difficulties as more people in this province took advantage of the financial assistance to return to post-secondary institutions, but that was a small price to pay for its results. This year, with some streamlining and innovation in our registration program, I expect the process to operate in a much smoother manner.

My ministry has adopted a skills-for-life approach. We believe that we must not only open the doors for opportunity, but we must also equip our people to walk through them. Training and education is everything. I quote Mark Twain, who said: "The peach was once a bitter almond; cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education."

We remain committed to job training, and we are proud of what we have accomplished in the apprenticeship program. We face the challenge of building on that excellent record by providing leadership in seeking new ways to improve the whole program, so that the people of this province can obtain the skills for a useful and productive life.

To ensure that everyone in the province has the same opportunity, our one-stop centres in many regions bring together regional economic and business information, training, employment and educational resources. These centres are linked through telecommunications to remote and small communities, providing improved accessibility to employment and training resources through a regional network and information services. Their existence provides improved accessibility to employment and training resources.

I know that you share with me a concern for our disabled population. You will be pleased to note that my ministry offers a wide range of services to the disabled. These services include assessment, counselling, provision of technical aids, education costs and job placement assistance. I assure you that these services are flexible, responsible and accessible.

I wish to point out at this time the concern I have for the colleges and institutes, which play a key role in providing the skills-for-life approach about which I've spoken. As you may know, I have formed a task force to examine the needs of post-secondary education and have called on the colleges to work with the task force in a concerted effort to ensure that access to post-secondary education is made available to those who seek it. This is not a task force with the luxury of a longterm mandate but one with a deadline of May 13 to report back to me in several key areas.

The task force is chaired by a chartered accountant and includes participants from the colleges and institutes. It will report on the identification of achievable savings in administration and program areas which are less efficient than comparable areas; savings that may be achieved through other delivery methods; measures that would increase the utilization of capital assets, such as extended hours or development of a semester system; and expected demand for increased enrolment and the resources required to meet those demands.

The task force is established to review the extent to which the redeployment of resources can be achieved and to comment on the need for additional resources. Based on those findings, I am prepared to ensure that the high-quality college and institute system in this province is maintained and indeed grows to meet the needs of our people.

My ministry's estimates reflect an increase of 6 percent over last year. Given the success of the relatively new ministry in its first full year of operation, I feel the increase is well justified. Due to a shift in emphasis of spending on training to the private sector by the federal government, our funding for skills training from Ottawa will decrease by about $8 million.

Despite this reduction in federal funding, we have absorbed the decrease without corresponding cuts in the colleges and institutes. Taking account of this reduction, the actual increased cost to the province for colleges and institutes is not .89 percent, but it is in fact 3.8 percent. The advanced education program's budget will increase by about 7 percent, and in addition, the province will match up to $ 10 million in new private sector donations to the three public universities.

During the past fiscal year, science and technology programs were transferred to my ministry from the Ministry of Economic Development. Additional funding will be available for science and technology through the new program's vote. Science and technology have been given new impetus in the past year. The Premier has established a high-level advisory council on science and technology to assure that we are getting advice from the broadest base in the private and public sectors. I am pleased to report the Premier's council has made great strides in fulfilling its mandate and assisting my ministry to fulfil its role in the scientific and technological community.

The Science Council of B.C. is another key agency bridging the gap from research to products and services in industry. I also wish to tell you that the lights will again shine brightly at the silver dome on the site of Expo 86, when Science World officially opens its doors as a showcase of achievement in this province.

I cannot say the words "science and technology" without sharing with you my enthusiasm for the very positive response we are getting in our quest for the world's only kaon factory at our TRIUMF facility on the campus of the University of British Columbia. TRIUMF is a particle physics facility engaged in some of the most exciting work in the area of pion cancer therapy and other subatomic research. Those projects involve 400 scientists from this country, plus 40 scientists from 25 countries on any given day of the year.

We are on the leading edge of science and technology — yes, even at a world class — with our provincial commitment to the building of a kaon factory, the construction of which will generate 19,000 person-years of employment and millions and millions of dollars in spinoff benefits.

Canada, and in particular British Columbia, is fully one year ahead of others in the development of a kaon factory. Only one will exist in the world, bringing world-class research and world-class people to this province. A delegation abroad, led by a distinguished Canadian physicist, Dr. Geoff Hanna, accompanied by Dr. Erich Vogt, who heads up TRIUMF, and staff from my ministry has determined there is tremendous international recognition for our kaon proposal.

This government has committed $87 million to the project and looks to Ottawa for financial commitment which

[ Page 4031 ]

would be quickly followed by major financial contributions from West Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States — all of which recognize our leadership in this field. Given that support, the members will understand my enthusiasm for a project that will create 49,000 jobs and be of tremendous financial benefit to this province and to this country as a whole.

Every bit as exciting is the work of the women's secretariat and the B.C. Youth Advisory Council. Both have achieved a greater level of support and direct linkage with the constituents they represent and the legislative assembly and the government.

In the case of women's programs, a modest restructuring has resulted in a greater flexibility for the secretariat to reach out for specially qualified skills required to carry out its mandate. The B.C. Youth Advisory Council's structure has been altered to make it more independent of government. Regional committees have been established to make it more responsive at a grassroots level.

Both the women's secretariat and the youth council are great support mechanisms to guarantee important parts of our social structure, and that they have equal opportunity to share in the social and economic prosperity that lies ahead.

Please note that as minister of state for region 1 — Vancouver Island and the coast development region — that budget is also included in my ministry's estimates.

I am extremely proud of the accomplishments of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training in its first full year of operation. It is my sincere hope that we can continue to achieve at the same rate, because as the ministry moves from success to success, so does the province.

Consider once more the diversity and yet the integral needs of our programs one for another. The education and training system provides the human resource to fill the tremendous demand in the science and technology community where through our leadership we are breaking new ground and creating new job potential, potential that is recognized as world class. That is what my ministry is all about, and that is why I am so proud of it.

I'm pleased to be joined by my deputy minister, Isabel Kelly, and also with me is Jacquie Rice, who is the executive director of finance and administration.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Minister, it's been a long and difficult year, and one in which we've all come to learn a great deal about how our ministries function and operate and how budgets get pushed around and how priorities get assessed. When we first started off in our first go-round with our estimates, I for one took very seriously the answers you gave to questions that I put forward in the House with good will. As I have watched our program — the program I am responsible for being the debate leader on and the program you are responsible for monitoring funding for and encouraging — I must say that it has been a year of disappointment.

It has been a year of disappointment to the colleges; it has been a year of continued demoralization for the universities; it has been a year of political surprises for institutes that thought they were doing a good job — BCIT being the case in mind. It has been a year where your department has virtually been decimated. It has been a year where the women's secretariat, or the women's component of your program, has all but disappeared. I must say that as I go through the litany, the list of areas which your ministry covers, we are faced time and time again with headline news, stories in the newspapers, surprise policies, surprise budgets and surprise programs which have shocked many communities, many administrations, many students. And all this has come from a minister and a ministry which last year promised during the estimates process a measure of stability, a measure of steady state, a measure of promise that suggested to post-secondary education, to those involved in job training, to youth and to students that there would be incremental and stable growth in budgets — and therefore in their capacity to plan. When we look carefully at that, we see that that stability simply has not been there. In fact there have been many inconsistencies in the plans that were promised last year.

[2:45]

When I asked — just as an example, on university planning capacity — how we were really effectively going to plan with our universities their progress over the next five years so that they can regroup and redevelop their staffs and their departments so that they can grow out of restraint with some integrity.... I asked — as an example: "How are we going to plan properly for the orderly retirement of the professorate in the universities who are reaching retirement age?" You suggested to me, Mr. Minister, that in fact there were plans well in hand, that the universities were working on these plans, that there were funds being set aside and that these were being properly discussed. In fact what we found out just a few months ago is that the University of British Columbia was actually asking the provincial government for permission to be absolved from section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that in fact no planning had gone on, that there was a knee-jerk reaction going on in our universities which your department and your government didn't foresee and didn't handle. Finally it was laughed down, but not without a headline and a lot of embarrassment, both for the university and for your government.

I turn too to the inconsistencies of the colleges, where a student financial aid package was put together, to the delight of people on both sides of this House. Aid was almost doubled, based on — it seemed to me — a reasonable consultation process with people who did seem representative of the student population in this community. Yet when they showed up at the community colleges last September, at least 3,000 of them were turned away — at least 800 at Douglas College alone, and on those people I have the numbers. So we had students who were ready to quit their jobs and come to community colleges and could not get the courses that they needed; and where they did get two courses that they needed, they could not get the third course to qualify for the financial aid.

These are just two examples of where there has been inconsistency and lack of serious, integrated planning to ensure that policies made were properly carried out and integrated with the decision-making in the rest of the communities that those policies affected.

When I look at the last year, there have been ups and downs, but when I look over in some kind of purview of the post-secondary education policy and its implementation, I can only suggest that there has been disappointment, frustration and anger at the promise which has been thwarted in our communities, at the rhetoric which promises economic growth and investment in post-secondary education, and through to the truth, where in fact we do not see anything more than a subsistence increase for the community colleges, a minor cost-of-living increase for the universities, and a serious restriction in the ability of the ministry itself to do

[ Page 4032 ]

future planning by virtue of the fact that many of its people who were capable of planning have been let go.

I should say that if there has been disappointment, Mr. Minister, the area where it has been most keenly felt, especially in these last few months, has been in the women's area of your portfolio. Women all over this province would look to your ministry and to your secretariat for some say, some policy and some inspiration, as this country has been rocked since January 28 by the revelations of the Supreme Court of Canada, which finally discovered that women's bodies had integrity and that women had rights in the law. Since January 28 there isn't a woman in this province who has not thought through her relationship to her community and her society in a much more serious way, perhaps, than she had ever thought before.

Yet when it comes to budget time, Mr. Minister, we find that your budget for the women's secretariat has been cut by $65,000. We find inconsistencies in the granting formula whereby grants of up to $50,000 are promised, but in fact we find that last year $200,000 was secreted from other locations and injected into your grants budget. Inconsistencies — setting out one criterion and yet meeting the obvious need by pulling from other budgets, without really revising the budget that you've got on the plate today.

For that reason, we want first today to turn to the women's secretariat. We consider it to be probably one of the most indicative of all the areas that you deal with; and that is the area, I should remind the minister, that we left off with last year on a high note, suggesting that the minister should implement a status advisory commission on women in this province. We are nowhere near such a commission, and not one suggestion has been made that such a commission will ever come to be.

So for the next hour I would suggest to the minister that we will be talking to him about his women's budget and about some of our visions for it; about what we think could be done with the budget he's got, albeit cut back by $65,000 from last year. With that, Mr. Minister, I would like to turn the discussion over to my colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have some questions for the minister. I'm looking at the mandate of the women's programs. One of the areas is "to represent women's interests at senior levels of government." I'd like to know if the minister could inform the House how he fulfils that aspect of his mandate.

HON. S. HAGEN: Just before I address that question, I would like to respond to the member for Vancouver-Point Grey with regard to the reduction of $65,000 in the women's programs portion of the budget. Most of that is a communications portion which has just been moved to another section of the budget; all of our communications money is in one section of the budget. So I don't think you'll find any substantial reduction.

With regard to the question from the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley, we have contact people in every ministry whose job it is to represent women's views and to accent their concerns. I'm also the minister who represents those views at the cabinet table. To my knowledge, they didn't used to have this. We've instituted it, and it seems to be working well.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I have a couple of questions with regard to two particular ministries and your contact people in them. First of all, in the Ministry of Health, do you have continuing liaison with that person? Do you consult with that person? Can you tell us what the advice of your ministry, under women's programs, was to that person with regard to the government's policy on abortion?

HON. S. HAGEN: Contact is maintained between the women's secretariat and these people, not between me and these people. I don't have the name of the contact person in the Ministry of Health, but the people in Health and Social Services participated in the new program that was developed and released in the last couple of weeks.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is: with regard to this government's policy after the announcement of the Supreme Court of Canada, did the women's secretariat advise your contact in Health to support this government's policy to withdraw and restrict services on abortions in B.C.?

HON. S. HAGEN: Not to my knowledge.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What, then, was the function of that representative in the ministry?

HON. S. HAGEN: The function of the women's programs and the women's secretariat is to assist women in getting access to job training programs and to educational programs, and also to make sure that they're getting the financial assistance they need through the student financial assistance program.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Again, I will remind the minister that part of the mandate of the women's programs is to represent women's interests at senior levels of government. My question is: what advice did the women's programs and their representative give to the government on this issue?

HON. S. HAGEN: I am advised that the women's programs and women's secretariat received no input from the community, and therefore had no input to pass on that particular issue. 

MS. SMALLWOOD: So the representative of women's programs, of women's interests at senior levels of government, did not have a voice on this crucial issue to women. They did not in any way advise senior government as to what women's interests were on the abortion issue. Is that correct?

HON. S. HAGEN: As I've said before, Mr. Chairman, the area of interest that the women's secretariat carries out is relative to job training and apprenticeship, and also the area of education.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is the minister then saying he sees that as the total responsibility of the women's program? That the women's program aspect under his responsibility deals with nothing more than job training?

HON. S. HAGEN: No, I'm not saying that. There are other ministries that deal with that — Health and Social Services.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Minister, I have a list of your grants. The grants themselves do not reflect job training

[ Page 4033 ]

solely. The responsibility of women's programs under your auspices, sir, reflects a much broader interest than just job training. By the grants alone, the mandate suggests that the kind of network you talked about — the network of communicating, of representing women's interests in other ministries — would indeed have a broader mandate than just job training.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm not sure if I have anything to respond to. Was there a question there?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm hoping the minister will reconsider his answer that his responsibility for women's programs only deals with job training.

HON. S. HAGEN: I have here a list of the grants that the ministry has approved over the last year. There is quite a broad cross-section, but I would say the majority of them relate to job training or educational programs.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Minister, if you do not, through the women's programs, represent women's interests and the issue of equality, then who in this government does?

[3:00]

HON. S. HAGEN: One of the other functions of the women's programs — whether it's myself at the cabinet table or my deputy with the senior bureaucrats — is to speak out on issues that individuals ask us to speak out about. My information is that we received no input to the women's secretariat to address the particular issue that you're referring to.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So the minister is saying this government received no input as to women's interests in the abortion issue.

HON. S. HAGEN: Nice try, but no, that's not what I said. I said my women's secretariat did not receive that input; obviously the Ministry of Health received a great deal of input on that issue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to go back to the women's programs elaborate networking — the representation for women in senior levels of government in each ministry. My next question has to do with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. Did the representative of the women's secretariat have any input into this family program and the $50 reduction for single parents?

HON. S. HAGEN: The former, not the latter.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister is saying first of all that the women's program had input into the Strengthening the Family program that the government introduced in the last month?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, we did. That's correct.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Could the minister indicate the input and the sort of recommendation the women's secretariat made to that program?

HON. S. HAGEN: We did receive information and suggestions from various groups that we're in contact with in communities around the province, and we passed that information on to the development group for that program.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister has indicated that he did not receive any input from the community on the abortion issue but that he did receive information from community groups on the government's Strengthening the Family program, which indeed was an anti-abortion program. I'd like the minister to tell the House how they solicited information, what kind of information it was and what message they forwarded to those ministries.

HON. S. HAGEN: The staff that we have in this area is in constant touch with communities around the province, is constantly assimilating this information, and then uses it at the appropriate time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister is being rather vague in his answer. I would specifically like to know what the process is to solicit information. When the minister can come to this House and say that he had no feedback at all through women's programs on an issue that turned this province upside-down — the government's policy to restrict safe medical practices — yet was able to solicit or acquire information on their anti-choice program, Strengthening the Family....

HON. S. HAGEN: There are two ministries that have a regional network set up to gather information and keep in touch with the various women's groups around the province: one is the Attorney-General's ministry and one is my own. Both ministries have a series of regional representatives that communicate with these groups and receive information from them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I suggest that you are again being extraordinarily unclear with your answers. I'd like to know what the instructions to your representative in that planning process were. What feedback did women's programs give to the ministries — or perhaps to the Premier's office, if that's where the program came from — when they were putting together...? What were the recommendations from women's programs?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, there were no instructions from my office to these people on how to gather information; they know how to do their job. They are in communication with these groups all the time. I gave no specific instructions on what information to gather or on how to gather it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Again, I'd like to know the recommendations that came from women's programs for developing the Strengthening the Family program. Does women's programs support the end product? Were there items that were not incorporated into the program? Do you, sir, feel that women's programs, as the representative for women, had a strong voice in the development of that package?

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't have the list of specific recommendations here. so I can't give it to you. I am prepared, though, to provide information to you and also to give you the names of the representatives in each of the ministries.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I don't feel particularly comforted having the minister represent or speak for the women of this

[ Page 4034 ]

province. You have been unable to answer the questions. You've been unable to give us information as to the input that women's programs have had on these two very crucial programs that your government has introduced or intervened with.

I am skipping some of the mandates of your program because other members will be speaking to them. The final mandate of women's programs is to ensure that the provincial government, as a major employer, provides leadership in providing equal opportunity for women within the public service. Have you, through women's programs, considered pay equity?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, with regard to equity and employment in government, I can honestly say that I have done my part and my best in my ministry. I can't say that I'm particularly satisfied with regard to some other ministries, but we're continuing to work on that.

The pay equity question. Yes, we've considered pay equity. We've looked at the Ontario program and the Manitoba program, but to this date we haven't made any decisions.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister has indicated that he is unhappy with some ministries within the government as to their response to equity programs for women. Can the minister indicate to us what he is doing? Is it this network that is speaking for women that is responsible for influencing those ministries?

HON. S. HAGEN: One thing our ministry is doing is sponsoring a training program for women in government to provide opportunities for those who wish to advance themselves. The other thing I do is speak to ministers personally and try to encourage them to give women the opportunity to compete for senior positions.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I understand that the network is a voluntary network, additional responsibilities that individuals take on to represent women's voice or women's programs in the different ministries. The minister has indicated that when there are major issues affecting women in this province, the minister has on occasion received some information, and on other occasions not received any information. What are you doing to try to increase the communication with your ministry, if indeed your ministry is the sole ministry responsible?

HON. S. HAGEN: One of the things that we're considering is involving the regional process in this and getting the ministers of state to look at special committees or some method of getting input from each region of the province.

MS. SMALLWOOD: There's a major initiative coming from the Canadian government on free trade. During the budget speech the Premier talked about the economic impact of the free trade agreement on the province. Is the women's program planning on doing any work to identify the impact on women in this province; if so, what can we expect in the way of programs to soften that impact?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to advise you that the women's secretariat is doing work in this area, and that input will be going into government in dealing with the free trade issue.

MS. SMALLWOOD: How will that input be given to government?

HON. S. HAGEN: Probably on paper — I would think in the form of suggested policy or input.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Minister, are you personally going to talk to each one of the cabinet ministers — take them aside, maybe at coffee? Are you going to somehow send the message through that communication network that is out there that is speaking sometimes for women and sometimes not? How is that very important issue of free trade and its impact on women in this province going to be dealt with? Answering that it will go on paper is an insult not only to myself but to the women.

HON. S. HAGEN: I certainly didn't wish to insult you. You asked me how it was going to be brought forward. I apologize to you if you felt I was insulting you.

In answer to your question, yes, I speak continually to my fellow cabinet ministers about the issues involving women. If you don't believe me you can ask them.

With regard to the free trade, the women's secretariat will have full input, and it will go into the Ministry of Economic Development as a recommendation. We're obviously interested on what the impact, if any, on women will be.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Is this a study that the women's program is conducting? Who's doing it? If it is a study, what are the lines of communication? Will it go to cabinet?

HON. S. HAGEN: It's being undertaken by the research coordinator and the women's secretariat, and the paper will eventually end up in cabinet.

MS. A. HAGEN: The questions of the last few moments from my colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley lead into the area I want to focus on this afternoon, which has to do with training opportunities for women. But just before I move into that area specifically, I want to look for a moment at the matter of grants available to various women's groups from the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training, which over the past couple of years have been in the area of about $50,000, according to the budget papers.

That is very much the operative figure out in the communities. When we talk to women's groups, we find them acknowledging that the amount of money they feel they can access is $50,000, and that's for 54 percent of the population right across the province. For most of them, from the very outset that amount is very discouraging, because they recognize that it can't go very far. But when you look at the minister's annual report and also information that has been provided to us by the deputy minister about grant expenditures for the current fiscal year, we find that those grants are in fact considerably larger than that: they're running in the range of $250,000.

I have two questions I want to ask the minister. First of all, where is the money coming from, since it's not listed in the usual sources of information under "Grants, " which does indicate an approximate $50,000 figure? Secondly, if the ministry does indeed have those dollars available — certainly $250,000 is a lot better than $50,000; let's acknowledge that right off the top — why is he making such a secret of it? Why isn't he telling the women of the province, the organizations

[ Page 4035 ]

that work with women, that there are additional funds available, so that there is some encouragement for groups to know that there might in fact be a pool of more than the paltry $50,000 that they could tap?

[3:15]

HON. S. HAGEN: In answer to the member for New Westminster, it obviously isn't a secret, because we've drawn down all the funds available. The difference between the amount there and the $47,000 in the budget comes from the women's non-traditional employment section of the job training budget. But there is no lack of applications, and there certainly is no secret in these groups as to where the money is.

MS. A. HAGEN: Is the minister saying that those groups know that they can tap that non-traditional women's program funding? How do people who may not know that find out about it? Presently, as I say, out in the field, there's a very strong impression that the amount of money available for training, for programs that would assist women in the fields of employment and employability, is limited to $50,000. I haven't seen anything in the literature. In fact, it's very difficult to find in the minister's literature reference to that non-traditional program.

I'm really talking about the kind of publicity that you give to an effort that I'm commending at this time. I want to know why all those groups that we are talking to — groups very active in looking for funding for training and employment workshops and opportunities — don't know it's there. Why not, Mr. Minister? Why is it something that so many women's groups don't know anything about?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm going to take that as a positive suggestion, because I'm told that although the programs are talked about in the newsletters there is no amount of money mentioned. I will take that as a positive suggestion so that we can include that in our newsletters, with regard to the nontraditional employment part of the budget.

MS. A. HAGEN: A couple of other questions just to conclude on the grant issue.

First of all, Mr. Minister, I would hope that you would not rely just on the newsletter. It's a very infrequent publication. I would think that if you have a network of women's groups, you must have a means to get that information out. If we're going to be proactive, let's be genuinely proactive and make sure the information is available.

Perhaps the minister could advise us of the total amount of grant expenditures for the '87-88 year. I think I have them to just before Christmas, and at that time they were in the $250,000 range. Could he advise us of the amount for the past year, and could he advise us in the House for the record right now what the grants will be for this fiscal year if they are indeed more than the grant portion indicated?

HON. S. HAGEN: The total for this last fiscal year was $297,500.

MS. A. HAGEN: And for the upcoming fiscal year, is there a targeted amount?

HON. S. HAGEN: The targeted amount is the same as it was last year.

MS. A. HAGEN: It's about $300,000, and about $250,000 of that is coming out of the non-traditional programs for women.

That leads me, then, into that particular area. I would like the minister to give us some information now about the commitment of his ministry to women's opportunities for training. When I look at the recent edition of the newsletter from the women's secretariat — for the winter, I guess, of 1987-88 — there is very little information in it that really gives much indication of opportunities for training and employment. The minister does speak in a lead story — interestingly enough, to a Philippine delegation — which is the front-page story of the newsletter.... He states that women face unique barriers to education and training, and that we are developing initiatives to address special access difficulties experienced by specific groups. If almost $250,000 is going into non-traditional training through workshops and things of that nature, can the minister tell us what other initiatives he is taking to assist women to achieve training in non-traditional workplaces, what dollars are available for that, and how many women in the past year have in fact received training for non-traditional occupations?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be pleased to address that. The secretariat has published a series of brochures, and I'd just like to list them for you: "Women in Business: Where to Get Help"; "Women in Business: How to Get Financing" — which, as you know, is a significant problem; "Women and Pensions: What You Should Know"; "The Women's Grants Program" — and the Women's Secretariat Newsletter. In addition to that, we have computerized the information resources at the Vancouver office. We've developed a pilot-tested training program for women in government in Victoria and the lower mainland; a preliminary plan, which includes community regional consultation, for instance, with native women groups; and public information referrals through the Vancouver office, which is a follow-up to the "Plan for Progress," endorsed in March 1986.

MS. A. HAGEN: Well, I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that those brochures might have been very interesting to the women from the Philippines, who would probably have been looking for assistance for their sisters who are coming out of an agrarian and peasant economy, trying to find a rightful place for themselves and decent work. As I look at those brochures — "Women in Business: How to Get Financing," pensions, grants which go to groups and a newsletter — I really can't find very much there that I can imagine would be useful to the 35,000 single parents, most of whom are women on social assistance and many of whom, I suspect, would be looking for information and opportunities that would enable them to work in non-traditional occupations that might afford them a reasonable standard of living for themselves and their families.

So once again I want to ask the minister: what programs are there in your ministry to provide for some of these people whom you have identified yourself, in your comments, as requiring special initiatives? What are those initiatives? To what groups are they targeted? And how many women have been assisted specifically? To give that last question some viability, how many women have had training for nontraditional occupations in the course of the past year?

HON. S. HAGEN: One of the initiatives — a very large initiative — that we started last year and are continuing this

[ Page 4036 ]

year is the student financial assistance program. I forgot to mention that. One of the groups targeted is single parents. I recognized, when we started dealing with this issue, that there was a particular problem that had to be addressed — and I believe is addressed, or at least it's starting to be addressed through the student financial assistance. In my travels around the province and in talking particularly to single parents, I've spoken to many in the colleges who have said to me personally that if it wasn't for the student financial assistance program, they would not have the opportunity to be there — whether to complete their grade 12 or to upgrade themselves in whatever courses they're in.

The women's programs portion of the ministry also provides direct counselling through the Vancouver office and through the one-stop offices around the province to women dealing with particular problems. I don't have a figure for the number of women who were helped through the non-traditional employment programs.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like the minister, in his next comment, to tell me whether that information is available. I can appreciate that he might not have it here, but I want to know whether that information is available.

One of the mandates of the women's secretariat is to develop and implement provincial policies and programs which will ensure equal access for women in employment, training, education and career advancement. We can only know if the minister and his ministry is achieving that goal if there is some accountability at the end of the process. Given the emphasis that there has been on non-traditional programs, it seems to me that that would be one of the areas where the minister would be able to provide us with some concrete information about those opportunities.

I want to comment also about the student financial assistance. I will be coming back to this a little later, but let me just say this during the portion of our time in dealing with women's issues. The student financial assistance program for people who have very limited resources is indeed a boon, but there are some very serious concerns here about the amount of debt that students have to undertake, particularly in the area of schooling in private schools. I want to come back to that later on.

Mr. Minister, in respect to the mandate relating to policies and programs, perhaps you could give us some indication of the working relationship your ministry has with the 35,000 women on assistance or the many women who are underemployed and who will achieve a satisfactory standard of living only if there is an increase in their opportunities for training. Does the ministry have any targets in this regard? Does it have any affirmative action plan — even though it doesn't call it that — within the ministry to say how many women it would like to see being trained in particular areas? Are there some targets that relate to some of the labour market strategies that could be appropriately targeted to women?

Is there anything in the ministry's planning that could give women some sense of the direction the ministry is taking so women would know that in addition to all of the rather general statements about access and wanting to encourage people to get training and providing some dollars through student financial assistance, they can see what the ministry's program and policy is? If you are speaking to and for women in this very important area, it seems to me that some of that substance would be sustenance to women as they look to their planning.

[3:30]

HON. S. HAGEN: With regard to numbers, I'm told that we don't segregate numbers in any of our programs. However, I will make the commitment that whatever information we have in regard to the numbers being trained — I'll be interested in that myself, as a matter of fact — we'll make available to you.

I'm advised also that each ministry has targets that they work towards, but no specific numbers. I'm not sure if that's my problem, or if it's a problem of Social Services.

MS. A. HAGEN: Last year when we discussed JobTrac, I remember discussing at some length the fact that you were the coordinating ministry — or the ministry of record — in terms of those initiatives. I suggest that in terms of many of those initiatives, because you've marketed all of these programs under one umbrella which has that name, you made a commitment last year to take that responsibility. With that responsibility goes the responsibility for leadership and policy setting as well. It may be cooperatively with other ministries, but it seems to me that somewhere in this government there has to be somebody prepared to provide some accountability and evaluative information on these programs that are part of your ministry's efforts. If you want to comment on that, I'll sit down and let you do that, and then I want to briefly pursue another area.

HON. S HAGEN: I don't think I gave a commitment to provide information on male versus female in the particular JobTrac programs. We obviously have the numbers of jobs and the people who got jobs through JobTrac, but we haven't differentiated between male and female. Is that what you were saying I had done?

MS. A. HAGEN: I wasn't saying that specifically. I was saying that if you were targeting women for some of your programs, then you surely have to know something about the women you are targeting and what is happening with them. It seems to me that without any question those kinds of statistics have to be there. If you're talking about targeting social assistance recipients, the highest number of people who are probably being targeted are women in single-parent families who are seeking to find means through training to get back into the workforce.

I'm having some difficulty with your saying, "No, we don't keep those statistics," and at the same time saying that this is a constituency of people for whom we have special concerns and for whom we are going to be taking special initiatives to help meet their needs. If you're doing that, then you clearly have to have some results. I know; I was a teacher; if you raise your hand long enough, Mr. Minister, then you'll get your day in court, so I'll give it to you now.

HON. S. HAGEN: We can provide you with the statistics on the women's non-traditional employment portion of the budget. What I'm saying is that I can't provide you with statistics that involve programs that other ministries deal with.

MS. A. HAGEN: I look forward to that information, and I thank you for that clarification. I would hope that statistics will be kept — and not just the statistics, but the evaluation that goes with those statistics.

[ Page 4037 ]

My colleague from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley raised the question of the free trade initiatives, and I want to just say a brief word about that in respect to training. I have seen figures that suggest that as many as 85 percent of the women in the labour force are likely to be affected by free trade. That's largely because women are concentrated in the service sector. In addition to that, there are other sectors in which we find large concentrations of women: the textile industry, the garment industry and the food industry.

Given that should that free trade agreement become the law of this land the playing field is being established right now, it seems to me that the study taking place that the minister commented on earlier is something that seems to be slow in its process. I would really like to ask the minister again a little bit more about that study that is taking place: what the target date is for its completion and — assuming that the ministry should have been in a proactive mode a long time ago — if it is preparing for major changes in the job picture with women. What's available in the way of labour marketing forecasting in his ministry to deal with the needs of women and the workplace, presently and with free trade on the horizon?

HON. S. HAGEN: With regard to labour marketing forecasts, because the statistics are kept by the federal government, that's where we tend to get our information from.

With regard to free trade and whether its effect is positive or negative with regard to adjustment programs and, more specifically, women, I understand that the target date for the completion of this study is the end of June.

MS. A. HAGEN: Is it the intent of that study to estimate accurately the number of women who would be affected and the sectors in which they will be found in the workplace?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, that's correct.

MS. A. HAGEN: Has the ministry taken any initiatives to plan for the necessary retraining of women who may or will be affected by the free trade initiative?

HON. S. HAGEN: This topic of discussion came up at the last federal-provincial conference that I was at. The federal government and their minister, of course, are actively involved with this. The free trade agreement, of course, is something that is going to be phased in over a period of years, so it's not something that is going to happen overnight. There will be time to adjust to it if that is necessary. I see it as a great opportunity for this country and for the men and women of this country.

MS. A. HAGEN: We're talking, Mr. Minister, about how your ministry will deal with your mandate to provide training and employment opportunities for women who will be affected by the free trade initiative. I take it from your response that in fact there has been no planning put into place in your ministry at the present time; that you are still dealing with studies in this area; that there is nothing on the drawing board for future initiatives in the way of training; that you are relying on federal information on labour market surveys; and that, in your ministry or elsewhere in this government, there are no B.C. labour market surveys that look at the specific impact the free trade agreement will have on this province.

HON. S. HAGEN: I've already indicated that we have this study underway, so obviously we've been concerned about it and have been thinking about it. We're also looking at the regional aspect of the federal figures. We discussed it at the last federal-provincial ministers' conference; the federal provincial deputies are discussing it and working at it from their level. So I think it's not a fair comment to make, that nothing has been done.

MS. A. HAGEN: I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not confident in the minister's response, in that I feel that there has been a significant lack of foresight and planning in training policy in this ministry. This probably is the most significant change in employment potential for this province that we're likely to see in many a decade. For a government whose leader — the day, the night, the hour the free trade agreement was announced — stated that it was something he embraced wholeheartedly, it's discouraging to find that we are dealing with yet another study. Studies need to be done, but I'm discouraged that there is nothing that suggests a more proactive position.

I want to advocate specifically at this time for older women, because in many instances older women have not had opportunities to receive training. Many of them are in very modest-paying service jobs that, should they disappear, as all of the predictions indicate they will, place them in a very difficult position. That's true now, and I think our initiatives, even in the present state of affairs, are much less than adequate. Has the minister given any thought to training that's specifically targeted to older women, and is there anything on the drawing-board in his ministry?

HON. S. HAGEN: We are bargaining very toughly with the federal government on the POWA agreement, and we've made some gains. We're not ready to sign it because we don't feel we've extracted everything we can out of the federal government. But that, of course, is directed not specifically toward older women, but toward older men and women. We can't forget about the men in this situation either; I would remind the member for New Westminster of that. We're hopeful that we will be able to conclude the POWA agreement with the federal government, but we're not going to conclude it unless we feel we have a fair agreement.

MS. A. HAGEN: One final question. Could I ask the minister if he's prepared to make a commitment, given the very significant changes the free trade agreement could make in the employment situation in B.C., to have the capacity in his ministry to do labour market work and analysis in B.C., recognizing the federal-provincial nature of this — the capacity to do that in this province, with the expertise and personnel to provide that service to us here?

HON. S. HAGEN: With regard to the specifies of the question, the answer is no. There are a couple of insinuations there. One is that the effects of the free trade agreement will be negative on British Columbia, which we don't think it will be. Secondly, the insinuation is that it will be negative to women. which I don't think is proven either. But I want you to know that we are working with the status of women ministry in Ontario on targeting some specific information that will be useful in helping us with our study.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I wanted to question you on some of the effects of — and, shall we say, the context for

[ Page 4038 ]

— the selection criteria for the grants program, which is the centre of the women's programs, as far as I can see. At least, that's where the budget seems to be — in these grants.

Of course, sitting here and listening to my colleagues previous to me talk about what your ministry has done, it's odd to see that one of the criteria for selection for grants is that the project will be given priority if it eliminates systemic discrimination. That seems to me a very good goal. But if that's the case, does the ministry itself try to eliminate systemic discrimination, or do we leave that to the women's groups or the other groups throughout the province that are trying to do things for women? In other words, I'm a little confused by the minister's answer to the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), who said he didn't seem to have any input on that basic human rights issue that we dealt with after the January 28 Supreme Court of Canada decision, which was a human rights issue and which dealt with systemic discrimination. You as a minister say that you had no input from throughout the province, so you didn't have any input to the province's response.

I lay that out first as a matter of some bewilderment to me as to how you see your position as representing the women's programs in this province. Meanwhile, I will go ahead, because next is the one that says another aim of the secretariat is to minimize the negative impacts of technology. I would like to ask the minister this: exactly what impacts does he see as the negative impacts of technology, and what plans does the ministry have to minimize those negative impacts? Can I take that as an indication of what the minister likes to do on a proactive position, rather than just the kind of criteria he's going to use in case somebody else might like to do it?

[3:45]

HON. S. HAGEN: That criterion is going to be removed from there.

MS. EDWARDS: May I ask why?

HON. S. HAGEN: Because I just decided to do it.

MS. EDWARDS: Do you mind if I ask you why you just decided to remove that as one of the criteria?

HON. S. HAGEN: Because you just read it out to me, and I didn't realize it was in there.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm still bewildered, Mr. Minister. Doesn't it suit the goals that the minister has for the secretariat, or why would you remove it?

HON. S. HAGEN: Because I don't believe there are negative aspects to technology.

MS. EDWARDS: That's an amazingly optimistic view, Mr. Minister. Do you have some model for this kind of policy making?

HON. S. HAGEN: What kind of policy making?

MS. EDWARDS: You know, ad hoc; right now.

HON. S. HAGEN: I just don't think there need be negative intonations to science and technology. I think there's a more positive way of saying it, and that's how we planned to do it.

MS. EDWARDS: Might I ask the minister then how he would phrase it to make clear what he intended? Perhaps you simply hadn't read your own material and your criteria, but what would you intend the women's secretariat do in order to stress...? I also recognize that there are positive sides to technology. There are very broadly recognized negative impacts on women in the workforce from technology. I hope you're not denying that there are negative impacts on any of the workforce, male or female, but particularly female.

HON. S. HAGEN: What's the question again?

MS. EDWARDS: The question is: what do you intend to do about technology? Or is the minister totally eliminating any goals for the secretariat vis-à-vis technology and women?

HON. S. HAGEN: I will ask the secretariat to develop a new statement to replace that one.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I really have not yet had a clue, from what you say, what's wrong with what the statement says. Why is it that you would have it there, take it out immediately and say you will have something else drafted? What do you want to have drafted? What is the basic rationale that you would put forward to the secretariat to draft a criterion for?

HON. S. HAGEN: I prefer positive policy to negative policy.

MS. EDWARDS: What impact does the minister see from technology on women, and what plans might the ministry have to maximize any positive aspects that he might see?

HON. S. HAGEN: Certainly that is a very broad question, and I don't think it's one to be addressed specifically here. The programs in place at colleges and institutes, for instance, deal with that issue and provide opportunities specifically for men and women to upgrade or retrain themselves if their job is being affected adversely by technology changes.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I would like to direct your mind again to the fact that we are dealing with the women's secretariat. We are at this point not dealing with the programs in place that deal with the population in general. We are dealing with programs you have put in place to give grants to projects that support women. These projects are not to be done by reading the other criteria; they are not to be done by the colleges. The criteria I am reading from are the criteria to give to organizations and other community groups, which will do work, as you say in the other part of this, that is otherwise not going to be done by universities.

In responding that these criteria would include one that would minimize the negative impacts of technology, you seem to have been saying something about projects that community groups could do. You were saying something about the broadly recognized impact of the technological world, which is already upon us. Now you are backing off on that. But we know very clearly that there are certain effects that are going to impact on women; we know that community groups may be asking for projects that would work in

[ Page 4039 ]

relationship to those perceived impacts. Is it true that that no longer will be there?

The minister is telling us that he does not see negative impacts of technology. I want to go on to another issue that the minister has also been dealing with, the proposed free trade agreement, which the minister says he is in favour of, although he has not yet done a study. That has happened all too frequently. In this case too, you believe that there are no negative impacts, although you're doing a study that you think should be done in June, and I'm not sure of some of the criteria for this study or some of the actual descriptions of it. Perhaps you could clarify that for me before we go any further.

I wonder if you could tell me at which federal-provincial conference it was that you were discussing this study. Was it the federal-provincial conference of ministers responsible for women's issues?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, that's right.

MS. EDWARDS: The study you're talking about: is it one done by the province or one that the federal government has arranged? Who is doing this study?

HON. S. HAGEN: It is a joint federal-provincial study, and the province of Ontario is in the lead role.

MS. EDWARDS: And this will be done by the end of June. By that time, will the minister be ready to decide whether the effects will cause him to want to support the free trade agreement, or is that immaterial now? Is the study going to make any difference to his support of the proposed free trade agreement?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm not sure if the member is asking if I support the free trade agreement. If that's what she is asking me, the answer is yes.

MS. EDWARDS: You have said that you support the free trade agreement, but when you said you'd like to know the impacts and you haven't seen any studies.... I am asking you if what a study might say is going to make any difference to your support of the free trade agreement. In other words, when the group that you feel should study this question has studied it and has said, "These things are good and these things are not so good and these things are horrible," are you going to let that study make any impression on your support or lack of support for the proposed free trade agreement?

HON. S. HAGEN: The purpose and the results of the study will show how we will react if there is any need for reaction, and how we will provide labour adjustment if that is needed.

MS. EDWARDS: There have already been some predictions that the service sector will be most seriously affected if the free trade agreement goes into effect. As my colleague for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) said earlier, approximately 85 percent of women in the labour force work in the service sector, so it's very probable that there will be some severe effects on women. The effects are already showing in the data processing industry. That is technological, Mr. Minister, and there are some negative effects to women in that particular industry.

I'm amazed that you're not looking into this more closely if, in fact, you have what you consider to be a mandate to represent the welfare of women. I'd like to also point out to you, in case you are not so aware, that the economic restructuring that could result from the free trade agreement could cause a major loss of jobs for women. Once women are laid off, they tend to be laid off longer than men in the workforce, and if they do find other work, they usually find it at a lower rate of pay. whereas when men find another job, they usually find one at an equal or greater rate of pay. These effects have been determined by people who have done studies. Have you looked at these studies that have already been done, or are you waiting for the study that you're talking about with the federal-provincial group?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to say that my ministry constantly monitors all of the studies that are being done, and we base many of our policy decisions on those studies. As you well know, there are some studies being done on free trade that may be somewhat politically tainted, and we want to make sure that our study is objective. Of course we will be comparing our numbers with other provinces across Canada to try to come up with an objective view.

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, I sincerely hope you get some studies that are not the least bit politically tainted, but I'll tell you that I would feel better — politically tainted or not — if you supported very strongly the issues that are of great concern to women right now, and I have yet to hear a commitment.

MS. MARZARI: The questioning of the last hour has been most interesting. We have discovered that the women's secretariat has been involved with the family-strengthening program and had input, but we don't know of anybody who has been asked what that input should look like.

We've discovered that the minister has criteria in his grant application process that allows for programs to help prevent or eliminate systemic discrimination; yet we find that the minister doesn't have an ongoing plan or idea for a program for pay equity or for affirmative action. We discover that the minister has within his grant application a criterion for dealing with negative aspects of technology, and right here on the floor of this House, in this committee, the minister decided that that is no longer a criterion; that that criterion has become inoperative, on the spur of the moment.

We discover that there is a study going on from the women's secretariat on the impact of free trade on women, but judging from the way the minister so ably set aside the criterion on the negative aspects of technology, we can only assume that if the study comes back saying that free trade does have a negative impact on women, the study might become inoperative and might not ever see the light of day.

[4:00]

What we have here in the last hour is a complete.... We've fulfilled the prophecy that I suggested at the beginning: what we have here is a women's secretariat that is not only under funded and under-resourced and has ambiguous criteria for operation, but we can only assume that if it were properly funded it still wouldn't be able to function properly, because we don't really have an idea of where that secretariat is going or what it's about or what it's doing. The amorphous network that it supposedly relates to doesn't seem to really exist when it comes down to the nuts and bolts, because

[ Page 4040 ]

decisions can be made right here on the floor of the House, without so much as an ounce of consultation.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that in the area of women and in the area of the women's secretariat, you need an agenda. You might start with thinking about the need for pay equity and the need for affirmative action. And you could start with a program right here, within the confines of the Legislative Assembly and within the confines of the administration of this government. What a good way to start. It's the way that Manitoba and Ontario and P.E.I. started; a way in which we can develop an affirmative action program that might actually introduce the possibility of more and more women coming into the public service and being promoted through the service. It would not be an expensive study to undertake. The job has been done by many other provinces; in fact, every other province has initiated studies on affirmative action, if not pay equity.

I would suggest too that your secretariat might want to do a study on child care. It might want to work with the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, to help them along with a very difficult task, which they are having tremendous difficulty with, in developing an agenda for child care. They are having such a difficult time with it, they actually bought into a program of the Premier's that suggests infant care for $400 a month for women who choose to have their babies for the state. They are so misguided that your department could have stepped in and given them some assistance. I would suggest that some studies promote and advocate child care as a part and parcel of the larger agenda of supporting women in the economy.

I would suggest that your department could also assist in the business of helping women to find affordable housing, which very often means building houses where they are most needed. They are most needed for people in poverty, and it just so happens that most people in poverty happen to be women. There are women between the ages of 50 and 65 right now that nobody's taking care of. They are marginal to the workforce. Somehow, technology has adversely affected those women, Mr. Minister. They could be adequately housed with a minimum of effort from your department.

There is work that could be done by your ministry on pensions, on their transferability and transportability from province to province and from job to job. Women are most affected by these schemes, because women, as we said before, are most marginal to the workforce, very often, and are moving from job to job, or from province to province. It creates havoc with their pension schemes. And as small as they are, and as minuscule as they are, and as needy as those pensions are, we could be working towards their transferability and transportability.

I think that your ministry could well use an agenda, Mr. Minister. I would suggest that rather than cutting back by $65,000 on your secretariat's budget, you would be well-advised to increase it, double it. Take a look at Ontario, which spends $18 million a year on coordination of women's programs.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Ontario may have a deficit of $2.4 billion a year; this province has had an accumulated deficit of $6 billion over the last six years — a billion dollars a year. Ontario has three times our population. I would suggest that it's not accumulating three times our deficit.

With those closing comments, Mr. Minister, I know that you'll take all these recommendations to heart, and that next year we will see a very different picture in terms of the women's program coming out of your ministry. I would suggest that if you don't, it's going to be at your peril, because women in this province are waking up and taking notice.

Mr. Minister, at this point in this estimate, we would like to turn to job training and spend an hour discussing the job training aspect of your ministry. If I might, I'll suggest to you, Mr. Minister, as I did last year, what the rest of these estimates might look like. At 5 o'clock we are prepared to start debating student financial aid; and at 5:30 we are going to bring on our youth critic, because that is another aspect of your portfolio; tomorrow morning, we want to spend some time on community colleges, universities and distance education. We hope that our contribution to the estimates will be over by about noon tomorrow.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI: Yes, you have to be here tomorrow morning as well, Mr. Minister.

I will turn the floor over to my colleague for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who is our party's critic for job training.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair]

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to thank my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) for using a word that I think is a very critical word when we're discussing job training, and that word is "agenda."

I want to note also that if the minister thought that his broad sweep of a ministry could be covered in an afternoon, it is because there are some gaps in what he is doing that it can't. I want to deal with some of those for a little while in the time that I have available to me this afternoon.

I spent some time over the weekend reading through the estimates from last year, when we were under considerable pressure because your estimates came up much later in the course of our legislative agenda in 1987. At that time, and in the course of those estimates, the minister was discussing and speaking with great enthusiasm about a new program called JobTrac, a program that was marketed with a tremendous amount of enthusiasm and, I might note also, a tremendous amount of bumf, a lot of it not very readable, which is true of some of the publications that come when things are put together in a hurry, but nonetheless are there in massive quantities.

When one looked analytically at that particular program, one found that it was, first of all, a recycling under a new name of a good deal of the inherited mandate from the Ministry of Labour, which had come to this Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training — once it got its name straightened away — and that there were other programs that fitted, perhaps, under the post-secondary mandate. But in the throne speech and in the budget speech and in the minister's own discussions for his plans for the year, there clearly was a very strong and enthusiastic commitment to this program called JobTrac.

It was a program that was touted as having an economic development component. This was going to be the kind of activity that brought together under the lead ministry — the

[ Page 4041 ]

Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training — all those kinds of things that dealt with training, employment opportunities, counselling and special needs, and all of them were to be aimed at job creation. There was a pretty significant number of dollars, to the tune of $81 million provincial and an announced $15 federal, that were to go into that program. We heard about one-stop shops in various parts of the province, and we heard about a whole range of different programs that were to be marketed under this particular heading.

At various times throughout the year I, in my role as the spokesperson for our party on this particular aspect of job training, kept in touch with JobTrac. One of the things about which the minister spoke with great pride last year was that JobTrac contained training toward employment. There was a whole list of programs that were to come under this: Environment JobTrac, CareerTrac, Forestry JobTrac, assistance to employment, Community JobTrac, Business JobTrac, access to programs, social assistance programs, disabled persons programs, student programs, student venture loans, and, of course, apprenticeship training, which was one of the programs that came over from the Ministry of Labour.

Throughout the year we had running commentaries on progress in terms of the creation of jobs, because there were a significant number of jobs targeted — 17,000 jobs, in fact. At the end of the year, the minister, in response to some inquiries from me, provided some information about the fact that yes, in 1987-88 the money had been all spent, unlike the first year of JobTrac when it had not. Yes, jobs had been created; not 17,000, but something in the order of 13,600 — almost exactly the same number of people who were no longer on the social assistance roles, and those particular persons were persons who are now touted by the Social Services and Housing ministry as being people who are off social assistance.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: Well yes, come the budget speech we did get off "Trac," much to everyone's total amazement. When we look at this year's budget speech, all of a sudden there is no mention of this name. I recognize it's a market name in part, but there was also no mention of anything relating to training, job creation, employment opportunities. The budget is silent in those areas. It has nothing to say about JobTrac.

We questioned the Minister of Tourism in the House and he announced that he really was not aware that this was happening, and he also indicated, rather wanly I think, that he hoped that something might take its place, because his ministry, which had had $20 million in program money for last year, was going to be very seriously affected. The minister, when he was asked, had a singular and very brief comment that to me indicates that the program was probably axed somewhere over in another place than his ministry, and that perhaps he was not really fully aware of what was happening.

MR. BLENCOE: The Poole room.

MS. A. HAGEN: Well, we could dignify it by calling it the West Block. At any rate, the minister's comment when he was asked about JobTrac was that it was felt that with the decrease in the unemployment rate, dropping by 3 percent to 5 percent around the province, government-assistance programs like this were not needed this year. And with the stroke of a pen, something in the order of $35 million to $40 million just dropped out of this program and disappeared altogether.

If one looks at the unemployment situation in most parts of the province, and particularly in those parts that the minister himself said he hoped this program would assist.... We look at the interior, the north, the Kootenays, and we find that the employment record is still abysmal. We're looking at unemployment rates of anywhere from 15 to 19 and occasionally over 20 percent. The employment situation is far from rosy, and whether we call ourselves fifth from the bottom or fifth from the top, we — as a province with resources that should be able to put people to work and have them gainfully employed for the well-being of the province and themselves — are still looking at absolutely appalling unemployment rates. I would venture to speculate that once we begin to look at employment records over the next short time — and I don't want to be a doomsayer — we may see an increase in unemployment because the programs that have provided some short-term employment for people are no longer available.

When we talked about these programs last year, we were looking at programs that would last for four to six months. I know that many of those programs don't have an automatic ongoing nature, and people are unemployed. When we look at the number of people employed under the community JobTrac program, for instance, most are employed for five or six months and then the job comes to an end. Hopefully some of them will have another job, but the pattern very often is that those people have had employment for a short period and then are faced with unemployment again.

[4:15]

Mr. Minister, we had this program that was touted as a major program last year. It has disappeared, and dollars have disappeared. There's something in your ministry called "employment programs," and we know that they are for apprenticeship and disabled people. We know that of the $28 million there, $10 million is for the student summer program, a program that hasn't seen any increased funding over at least the last couple of summers. We know there are programs for special-needs people like the disabled — in other words, the regular programs that are always a part of your ministry.

We have at this time no commitment by your ministry to any innovative training within any special programs. At the same time, we have the ongoing situation of a huge number of people who are either unemployed and requiring income assistance or underemployed because they don't have the training and skills necessary for them to be productive within our workforce.

We are dealing, then, with one aspect of training — and none of us ever said it was a perfect aspect by any means — that your ministry last year was touting as its answer to the training and employment needs of people in the province. I want to ask you: did you know that this program was disappearing? From your perspective, what are the reasons for its disappearance? Is it the simple quote that I read, that the employment opportunities are sufficient to meet the needs of people and that the 35,000 women on social assistance and other underemployed people don't need any of those programs? What coordinating work is going to be in place now that that program has disappeared? Are we moving to privatization of many of these programs now that you have cancelled this program, which you so proudly announced

[ Page 4042 ]

was going to be the flagship of the work your ministry was doing in the field of job training in the province?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for New Westminster for posing that question. It's interesting for me to listen, as I do so carefully, when members from the opposition.... They criticized the JobTrac program when it was announced: it was no good, it was not worth having, it was too difficult to understand, nobody knew what it was about, it wasn't going to generate any jobs. Yet now we hear about what a great program it was, what a great success it was, what a great number of jobs it generated. First it was no good and now it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I want to tell you that I take exception to some of her criticisms, because I think they are a direct slam at the hardworking civil servants in this government who spend their time helping people on an individual basis and working with the programs that they have. I'd like to apologize to them. I think they do a great job, and I give my compliments to them.

With regard to the job training programs that we have, first of all she is absolutely right: unemployment has dropped from 3 percent to 5 percent in the Comox Valley, where I live. That's just an example of what's happening in this province with the tremendous job opportunities that are being generated in the private sector. At the same time, my ministry is maintaining the training programs that we have on top of Challenge '88, which we're contributing $ 10 million to, and which, together with the $19 million that the feds put in, will generate 18,000 student jobs this summer. We have the training programs for disabled persons, personnel placement program, vocational rehabilitation service program, apprenticeship training, student venture loan program, women's provincial apprenticeship board and the JobTrac centres.

The one-stop centres are continuing to open. One was just recently opened in Kamloops. I'll just tell you where they are on a region-by-region basis: Prince George has one, which is region 5; Victoria — you should know that — region 1; Kamloops, region 3; Nanaimo, region 1. New centres are planned for 1988-89, including Terrace, region 6; Smithers, region 7; Dawson Creek, region 8; the Fraser Valley, region 2; Cranbrook, region 4; and the Okanagan Valley, region 3. Yes, we had a good year last year, and we're going to have a better one this year. I want to point out — I'm sure you found this out when you were questioning him, but it just escaped your mind today — that the Minister of Social Services has something like $28 million in his ministry, which is a similar sort of program to what JobTrac was. JobTrac was, as you said, an umbrella program, and that portion of the program has now gone to his ministry to be administered.

So this province and this minister is concerned and very interested in job training programs, believes in apprenticeship, in job training and the importance of those programs, and will continue to accent them.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to comment first about the minister's comments that the discussion last year was that this program is not a good program. The discussion we had last year was to tell us what this program is all about, and that's what the discussion is about today. Tell us what your training programs are all about: how you account for them, how you evaluate them, how we know what you're doing with the taxpayers' dollars. I would suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that that's very difficult to get at in looking at any kind of long range policy. The federal government has a Canadian job strategy which is not the greatest thing since sliced bread either, but at least it's a three-year strategy, and a revolving one. At this stage of the game we're not quite sure where you happen to be going.

I also want to comment about the dollars that supposedly are in the Social Services and Housing ministry. The dollars in that ministry which are identifiable are something in the order of $16.75 million. I have as yet not found the other $12.25 million. Maybe they're in the lottery fund, which is where we often find some of this stuff tucked away when we really go looking for it. But it's not announced in his ministry operations, so my calculations still have us down something in the order of $35.5 million in commitment to training opportunities for people in this province.

The issue is that training is an essential ingredient. We talked a few minutes ago about the issue of labour market strategy. We talked about how to know where we're going and how we're going to get there. We talked about the programs that the ministry has in place which will give us some of that assurance. Mr. Minister, if we are going to reinvent wheels every year and leave ministries and people — who are the colleagues with whom you've been working — totally surprised and astounded at the end of a year that programs which they had anticipated had some ongoing shelf-life have disappeared, then that doesn't give anyone — us, your colleagues in cabinet or people in the province — the sense that this province has any planning in the hands of your ministry dealing with training.

I want to ask you at this stage of the game what your longterm strategy is in terms of these programs. The programs you just listed for me are programs you took over from the Labour ministry. There is nothing new in that list with perhaps one exception, and I can't recall what it was. As I went down the list, there was one that looked as if it might, in fact, be a new program. Every single one of those programs has been in place. They are the basic nuts and bolts of the programs that you've been offering, and there are very few dollars available in any of them.

When you take out your student programs alone, then half of your dollars are gone. You're looking at $13 million or $14 million in the way of training opportunities specifically under the job training aspect of your ministry. Later on we will get to some of the things related to the college and institute systems and private schools. Right now I'm talking about those things you identified as new initiatives around job training.

Mr. Minister, when I wrote to you after a meeting with your assistant deputy minister for job training, Mr. Woodward — who I'm pleased to see in the House today and with whom we had an excellent meeting — one of the questions that I asked deals with the accountability and evaluation that goes with your programs. I asked for some indication of the number of people who have been trained and had secured ongoing work under JobTrac; a summary of the initiatives built into this program that ensured that the employer was getting subsidies to employ the 1,500 to 1,900 people who got jobs under that program; and the criteria to ensure that those people were not employed just for the period that employers were getting a subsidy of a third or a half of the wages of those people.

[ Page 4043 ]

In the response that I got under your hand, Mr. Minister, the observation is made that there was no formal evaluation of individual components of JobTrac undertaken this year. In other words, the program went through just like the Hewett Group went through under the Social Services and Housing Ministry. It went through the year, and we don't have any record.

I know the people in the field worked hard on those programs, because I'm out and about — just like you are — in my region and other regions of the province. I do not take lightly your suggestion that I was reflecting in any way on the work of civil servants. Civil servants are out there doing what the policy setters and the program setters of government have established for them. When you undercut them and all of a sudden pull away a program that they had anticipated working under with some ongoing funding, you have in fact done them a disservice. You have betrayed them and left them uncertain about what programs they are going to be working on over the months and years ahead.

So it appears there is no evaluation of this program that has been cut, There is some simplistic analysis that says unemployment is down 3 to 5 percent, and that might translate almost exactly into the jobs that JobTrac created in the past year. You plan to continue with the things you inherited, but there is no economic development, no job training and no employment initiatives clearly indicated in your ministry at this particular time. Given your own statement about the need for and the importance of training, where is the job training part of your ministry? Where are the policies and the programs that will take us into the next decade and the next century with this particular ministry?

His hand is up, Mr. Chairman. He's grasping the symbol of his voice power, and I will give him the opportunity to speak.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm so pleased about those questions that I can't get over it. I thought nobody was going to ask about new programs. I thought nobody was going to ask what our objective was, and nobody in fact did ask what the involvement of industry is going to be. I would sure like to address those questions, and I'll address them right now.

Our objective — this government's and mine — is to have the best trained and best qualified workforce anywhere in Canada. That's what we're working towards.

In preparation for that, in my budget this year we have $1 million for a new initiative called the industrial training program, This is a pilot program providing training costs to employers for implementing new technologies or expanding into new markets. We base a lot on this program. We have the cooperation of industry, who are very anxious to get involved with this, and I can tell you that industry is taking on new responsibilities for training their employees, and many of them are not even asking government for wage subsidies or any other type of subsidy program. They are quite prepared to take that responsibility, because they realize that as well as the employee benefiting, the employer benefits.

Let me tell you something about the JobTrac program, seeing as you asked for some specific things. In the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training, our allocation was $30 million. The number of jobs created was 10,281; the number of persons assisted, in addition to that, was 6,482; and the number of workdays generated last year was 853,831. In other ministries the allocation was $50,633,000. In Environment and Parks there were 192 jobs, and in CareerTrac programs, 136. There's a whole list of them here.

We make no apologies for JobTrac. For last year it was a good program. With the unemployment rate dropping and the shift of some of these programs to other ministries, the help is still going to be there for the people who need it, but we're also saying to industry: "You buy into some of these programs and put your money where your mouth is, because we're expecting you to do your part in the job-training access, so that people can be helped."

[4:30]

MS. A. HAGEN: The trade-off of $1 million for an industrial training program with $35.5 million that we don't have is really a pretty impossible trade-off to even comprehend. That's the one new program this year: $1 million for an industrial training program for new technologies and new markets. I might note that I hope that that isn't to deal with the negative effects of technology that are requiring people to have new training. In fact, because there are negative effects of technology, people can't work in their present workplaces without retraining. That's negative until we do something about it.

The rest of the figures that we're dealing with are exactly the point that I'm making: we have had job creation. Heaven knows, I'm not suggesting that this is the kind of economic policy that the government should hang its hat on for years to come, but there has to be some economic policy toward job creation and job training and, Mr. Minister, with all due respect to your ministry, I don't think that you have the paper to show us what that is. I don't have a mandate for what your policy is. All I have are studies and more studies, repetitious and redundant studies that tell us that we are going perhaps somewhere but we're not quite sure where. What we need at this time and what people are looking for is some leadership on the part of this government around the issue of training.

I have been keeping in very close touch with people who have been watching and observing and working with both your ministry and the Canadian Jobs Strategy on the question of training, and one of the commentaries that I have read has a couple of very good observations that in three sentences sum things up very well for me. The comment is:

"The fact that our ministry has 'Job Training' in its title is a hopeful sign, but it is no substitute for organized commitment. Funding by the ministry of institutions and particular programs offered by institutions doth not a policy constitute. It smacks more of inertia than of a plan to tie our institutions into some kind of scheme to further economic welfare of individuals and the province."

That, Mr. Minister, is it in a nutshell. There are programs and you can list them — you can pick up your paper and go down the list of the various programs there — but there isn't in this province and, sadly to say, there really isn't within the nation either, a good solid training policy that people can see evolving out of consultation and commitment to job training.

Instead, we have some of the kinds of circumstances that come up with the formula that you use to fund new programs in colleges, a formula that leaves the colleges that have set their priorities around new vocational education programs wondering whether their funding is going to be at the 96, 98, 100, 101, 102 or 104 percent level, which will tell them (1) whether they'll have the course at all; and (2) if they do have it, at what proportion.

Again, we're looking at funding for programs, but we're not looking at anything that provides a long-range policy for

[ Page 4044 ]

those institutions. We have the kind of situation that has occurred this year, where the colleges have done a darned good job of providing the minister with information about the needs of their communities for access for their students. We have the minister first of all establishing an access committee in December, and then — because I really believe that he was again shortchanged on the budget for colleges and institutes — he suddenly had to scramble to save his political face, if you like, when we were faced with colleges having less than a 1 percent increase in the budget.

We're dealing here with colleges that have informed the minister in no uncertain terms of the kinds of problems they face with access, and that provided him with very reasonable alternatives for planning. Those institutions, with their open-ended courses and their diploma and career courses, are faced with the absolutely frightening prospect of turning hundreds and thousands of students away from their doors. The minister again says, "We'll do another study," and one of the things that's a criterion for that study is that perhaps we can privatize our public institutions a little more; perhaps we can turn some of this over to the private sector.

Mr. Minister, in this province — and I challenge you to provide me with a document that contradicts this statement — there is no document that provides those people who are planning for training with short- or long-term goals, objectives and a means of accounting for and evaluating those kinds of programs. They simply do not exist, in spite of the efforts of not only civil servants in your own ministry — of whom I can't speak, but perhaps you can — but good, willing and hardworking people in the field of training, particularly in the colleges and institutes, to challenge you to look at that issue and to come up with something other than programs and formulae for financing.

Mr. Minister, those needs have been articulated over and over again, and if the other half of your ministry mandate is to achieve any kind of success in its presence, something has to be done. JobTrac was an initiative that provided some training, very little accountability and very little evaluation. As I have responded in correspondence with you, it was something that provided some dollars and some opportunities; but again, it was a band-aid. What we have is no more dollars for that in the college system — fewer dollars, when you look at the cost-of-living adjustments, the increased demand and the need in the province for adequate training; no labour strategy; no labour market estimates or ability to estimate; no statement of policy; and no means of delivering the programs that are there in a way that allows the institutes and colleges to plan. The minister himself knows that in his pursuit of science, technology, kaon and visits to many workshops, he has simply not paid the kind of attention to the nuts-and-bolts stuff that needs to happen in his ministry to look after the interests of ordinary people who want entry-level training, upgrading and retraining. He has not paid attention to that area, and it's a major deficit in his ministry.

If the minister does not wish to comment at this time, there is another matter to put on the table in connection with job training: the growth in the private college system in the province. I'm particularly concerned about this because of some of the initiatives the minister has taken to try to extricate himself from the problem of access to college programs this year because of there being so few dollars in the college and institute budget. The new committee on access for students that's to report sometime in May.... One of the things that was stated in that particular mandate was that the committee was to look at private training institutions.

The private training institutions in the province have grown by leaps and bounds. There are something like 40,000 students in the private training institutions of B.C. at this stage, and there are over 400 schools. Some of them are within the framework that most of us would accept as being excellent for schools.

For instance, we have the private trades training schools, which are non-profit societies and have a very clear mandate in terms of their accountability. Others — like a program near my own community called youth employment skills or YES — work with a board of directors that has national stature. It is a model program that we find in several provinces of Canada and is very well developed here.

But most of the private training colleges are in fact entrepreneurial; they are put together by people in the business of being in business. A number of students have been in touch with me this year about problems with those training institutes. I'm really concerned that the minister, instead of having a commitment to the college system and the system of public institutes, is looking to the private sector to provide training across a wide range of initiatives.

I've looked at the documentation that goes with licensing the private training institutions, and it is a process that is obviously inadequate to protect the students who attend those institutions. An application for a certificate of registration requires a cheque, a surety bond, a course outline, some letters of evaluation, a submission of full qualification particulars of the individuals providing instruction and the contract form for students.

Let me read into the record what's involved with people who are going to be teaching in the private colleges. "Qualification particulars to be submitted by teachers" — this is the record; this is the official document. "Length of present employment" — not what they're doing, but just how long they've been there. "Name and address of school where employed" — the assumption that they are employed at a school. "Subjects in which you give instruction. Previous to your present employment, have you had any experience in teaching the subjects covered? If so, please give details" — no requirement that you have to have. They'd just like to know if you happen to have any experience. "Please detail your practical experience in the subjects you are presently teaching, previous to your present job" — perhaps you were a lowly clerk in a travel agency, and you're now able to teach how to be a travel agent. "The institute where applicant completed formal training related to area of instruction. Date of completion of formal training and references...."

I can't imagine any statement that gives us less information about the qualifications of the people who are presumably going to be teaching in private colleges.

[4:45]

I don't want the minister to suggest that I am impugning all private colleges; I am not. I'm talking about the minister's responsibility — as the person registering these colleges — for some standard that is going to be accepted and recognized by students who are going to be seeking access to these institutions, because in most instances, they can't get into the colleges. They are going to these institutions because they have to wait for two or three years to get into their programs in the college. They're in a hurry, so they're prepared to take any avenue possible. They get a brochure from the college, and it says it's licensed by the ministry. They assume that provides them with some guarantee about the quality of this school.

[ Page 4045 ]

These 400 schools are administered by one registrar and his assistant. Two people in this province do all the work associated with the private schools of the province. With the exception of schools that have their own boards and are non-profit and accountable to the society they represent, obviously it's a caveat emptor situation for students. Indeed, we recently had an inquiry about a franchise college in Vancouver, where the students were charged $4,000 for six months of classes from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. It was a travel class where they had an ancient atlas, some out-of-date material from a travel agency and no teaching materials. We were told by the registrar of the private institutions: "Yes, there have been some problems with that particular operation. We suggest you go to another one, and we hope it won't happen again." What else could they do? There is no accountability for 400 institutions.

Mr. Minister, when I read that one of the avenues that you are looking at to deal with access and the crisis that's occurring in colleges is to suggest that perhaps we need more in the way of private training institutions, I shudder. There is a place for private institutions, but when we come to education, those private institutions should be as accountable as any public institution.

If we are going to have students who are eligible for student financial assistance to attend these colleges..... I've talked to students who've borrowed $5,000 or $6,000. They paid $4,000 in fees for six months of courses, often without a record.... That is a problem. I think the minister has to be accountable for those colleges that he's licensing and marketing and where students are getting student financial aid to attend them.

HON. S. HAGEN: I have a great deal of confidence in the private training institutions in the province. I think they do an exceptional job. That is not to say that they will ever replace the public institutions that we have, but they play a major role. The proof of the pudding with the private training institutes is in the eating. One of the reasons people go to private training institutions is that they are virtually assured of a job when they graduate. The institutions have a first-class job placement record.

When you talk about accountability, these people are required to post a bond. If you've ever had anything to do with business, you'll know that that's not the easiest thing to do. The purpose of the bond is to make sure that the students can complete their education and have it paid for by the bonding company if something happens to the school. I must say that not very much happens in these private training institutes with regard to failure.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: The member for Nanaimo is not listening. I know you have a short attention span; you've referred to it many times yourself.

When I said the proof of the pudding is in the eating I meant it, because the students who graduate from these private training schools do get jobs, mainly in the private sector.

I want you to know that we are working very closely with the private training association, to work with them as to how they can improve and ensure high quality in their schools. We are also working with them towards national accreditation of the private training institutes.

MR. LOVICK: It seems appropriate that I'm next on our speakers' list, given that the minister has just made reference to me. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time talking about the minister's estimates; however, I want to touch briefly on JobTrac.

As I was sitting listening to the minister discourse about JobTrac and attempt to answer questions about it, what struck me was some inspiration. I therefore crafted a brief verse which I hereby dedicate to the minister:

We seek it here, we seek it there,
We critics seek it everywhere.
Is it alive or is it dead.
That strange elusive JobTrac program that used to belong to Advanced Ed?

I don't wish to inject too much of a note of levity into this chamber, but clearly one has to have a sense of humour when one looks at the strange and curious career of JobTrac.

I want to begin my few questions about JobTrac by asking a simple and direct question about cost. I want to know, for example — and I'll pose this question very directly, to begin — what these glossy pamphlets that abounded throughout the province announcing the advent of JobTrac actually cost. Let me just remind you: "JobTrac, a Go-ahead in Every Way." What a marvelous irony! The first line is: "JobTrac is ready." That was indeed a brief career. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to tell us: can he give me any information regarding the cost of that publicity project?

I'll take silence as....

HON. S. HAGEN: The member for Nanaimo will be pleased to note that I have the information at my fingertips.

I'm given to understand that the amount expended on all the advertising and promotion for the JobTrac program, which includes the print material, the television and radio ads, was $300,000 out of an $80 million budget.

MR. LOVICK: As other ministers on that side of the House have been known to say, what's a million, or what's $300,000? I hope that you're able to recycle these documents. Perhaps there will come another time when they might be used.

More seriously though, I'm wondering if the minister would confirm for me whether there were some other attendant costs in setting up this program. I think the minister will see fairly clearly what I'm leading to in terms of what appears to be on the face of it a record of ineptitude of right hand not knowing what left hand is doing.

Is it not the case that there were significant staff changes in the ministry, anticipating an expansion in the JobTrac program some two months ago — I'll just give you a series of questions — that is to say, in the job training branch, which were to accommodate the JobTrac program and the rather large plans we had for it? For instance, is it not the case that the director of job training moved to Victoria from Burnaby and the assistant director moved from Victoria to Kelowna, and that that person was responsible only for JobTrac? Is that not the case? In other words, some attendant costs. Perhaps I can leave that question to begin.

HON. S. HAGEN: Those changes and whatever changes that took place in the ministry were necessary not because of JobTrac specifically but because of restructuring all the programs we have in place. They were not directly related to the JobTrac program.

[ Page 4046 ]

MR. LOVICK: I am delighted to hear that that is the case, that indeed there weren't other attendant expenses there. Let us hope that that is in fact the case.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to touch briefly now on the specifics of my own constituency of Nanaimo, and I suspect that Nanaimo is perhaps a microcosm, sadly, for the overall picture of the JobTrac, the one-stop shopping centre experiences, etc. Again, my theme here is going to be costs. I give you advance warning, Mr. Minister.

In Nanaimo, for example, the grand opening of the one stop shopping centre — which was to be a combination of Social Services and Housing, apprenticeship, JobTrac, Malaspina College, open learning programs and so forth, a number of those things all fitting together — was to occur in the summer of 1987. According to my sources who work in the program, after months of frustration and confusion, the opening finally took place in March '88 — obviously a very brief career, if it opened in March and was effectively over by April.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Well, please do correct me. I'll give you the opportunity, Mr. Minister, I assure you.

My understanding of what happened is that the movement was to a new facility that had to be refurbished and refurnished, which involved gutting, if you like, an older building and spending, apparently, some $200,000. Now, of course, nobody is sure any longer — in my community at any rate — whether that facility will even be used. We know, for example, that some of the people who were supposed to be working in that facility — namely, Social Services and Housing staff — and who were transferred to that facility are now being told that they will be moving out of that facility. It sounds, Mr. Minister, on the face of it as if we have just done a wonderful job of refurbishing a building, for something in excess of $200,000, which we aren't even going to get the benefit of. Would the minister like to comment on that?

HON. S. HAGEN: I certainly would. The one-stop office in Nanaimo is indeed alive and well, and will remain in operation, combining the resources and the expertise of all of those people you mentioned, except Social Services and Housing, to provide answers to people who come in off the street and are looking for answers, and who, instead of getting shuffled from place to place, will be able to find answers there. We have the full cooperation of Malaspina College and of all the other areas involved with the one-stop office.

MR. LOVICK: I'm a little surprised to hear you say that it's alive and well and functioning as it was — except that it's now missing Social Services and Housing. Is it not true that that was the biggest component and had the largest staff? Was that not the case?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm given to understand that when you look at all of the one-stop offices, the Social Services component is 20 percent or less.

MR. LOVICK: Do I understand that there will be, then — to conclude from the minister's words — some kind of grand opening announcing the new one-stop shopping centre in Nanaimo? It hasn't happened yet; I wonder if that is on the way. Nobody knows.

HON. S. HAGEN: I can assure you there will be a grand opening, and you will most definitely, along with your seatmate, be getting an invitation.

MR. LOVICK: I will only ask rhetorically when then might be, rather than ask you to tell me now.

The predicament, I understand — and I am now moving from Nanaimo to Victoria, for which I have some additional information, where there is also one of these creatures in place — is apparently that at the moment the staff does not have any budget or other means to publicize the services provided by the one-stop shopping centre. If indeed that is the case, how will clients learn about the services offered? How is it that this operation will function?

HON. S. HAGEN: I am given to understand that your information is incorrect again. In fact, they do have a budget for advertising, as do the other one-stops.

[5:00]

MR. LOVICK: I wonder if the minister might be willing to go on at a little greater length and perhaps provide me and other members of this Legislature, as well as anybody who might have the courage to read this record of debate — or the masochist impulse, perhaps — with a brief statement about what he understands the current status of the one-stop shopping programs to be, not just in my community but in other communities where they are now located, and perhaps to tell us whether it is still the plan to establish one-stop shopping centres, or whatever the terminology or nomenclature is, in eight different regions corresponding to the eight regions of state.

HON. S. HAGEN: That is already a matter of record, and I am sorry that the member for Nanaimo was absent from the House this afternoon when I described not only where the existing one-stops are but where the new ones are going to go. So if you would like to read that record tomorrow, I am sure I can save you the time.

MR. LOVICK: I will indeed read the record; I was listening to most of the debate, and I certainly didn't get what I thought was a clear answer to the question. I will ask the minister whether he can give us assurances that the centres are now going to be adequately funded and whether it is the case that the removal of the Social Services and Housing component will not seriously affect the welfare and continuity of those programs and operations.

HON. S. HAGEN: I can assure the member for Nanaimo that that is the case. The new offices will be opened, and the impact of Social Services moving out of there because they wanted to take their programs and operate them will not impact the opening of new offices or the continuation of the ones in existence.

MR. STUPICH: I don't think the minister confirmed the cost of the improvements at the Cliff Centre location in Nanaimo for JobTrac.

HON. S. HAGEN: No, I didn't, and I can't confirm them. I don't know what the cost of improvements was.

[ Page 4047 ]

There is a budget item this year, as there was last year, for opening up the new offices, which sometimes, as you know, includes refurbishing offices.

MR. STUPICH: The minister said that the Social Services staff makes up 20 percent of the complement. Can he tell me what other groups make up the complement in Nanaimo?

HON. S. HAGEN: Malaspina College, I believe, is involved; the Open Learning Agency; my ministry.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I understand that Malaspina College has 1.5 people on staff in that location.

Can the minister tell me what area we're dealing with, and is it correct that there's a five-year lease on that space for this purpose?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm not aware of what the lease arrangements are.

In answer to your question with regard to the percentage of space that Social Services takes up, it was with regard to all of the JobTrac offices around the province. I was not dealing specifically with Nanaimo, and I made that clear in my answer.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister can tell me anything about the rest of the staff in Nanaimo, other than that there are some of his and some of somebody else's. How many members from your staff would be in that location?

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't have that information with me.

MR. LOVICK: I don't wish to pursue this at any unnecessary length. Rather, I want to focus on one thing, as suggested by my colleague's question. How much of that space — the refurbishing of which was paid for recently by taxpayers — is currently being used by the one-stop shopping activity?

HON. S. HAGEN: My information is that all the refurbished space is being used in the one-stop office.

MR. LOVICK: That is occurring despite the fact that a significant group of people who used to work for Social Services and Housing are no longer there. Is it the case then that the others have opted for some kind of Parkinsonian dimension and they've expanded to fill the space, or what's happened?

HON. S. HAGEN: I understand that the space that was looked at originally was too small, but they were going to try and make do. They went ahead and refurbished it. The Social Services ministry moved out. If there is a space that is not needed, then that space will be sublet or leased out.

MR. LOVICK: Let me just conclude my portion of this debate, Mr. Minister, by saying that the reason we are asking these questions is to emphasize and draw to your attention and the attention of others the difficulty we have with your government continuing to beat a particular drum and to play a particular tune telling us that we do not have the resources to accommodate serious needs in the community, and how offensive and disturbing it is to us when we hear tales of ineptitude and waste and duplication, as are manifest clearly for all to see, in the brief history of JobTrac. If there were ever an occasion for all those jaded opinions about government not knowing what it is doing and not spending taxpayers' dollars wisely and well, it would seem to me that JobTrac constitutes that paradigm case. That's why we're belabouring this point, Mr. Minister. I hope that message isn't lost on you and on other members of this government.

HON. S. HAGEN: I take exception to that comment, Mr. Chairman, for a couple of reasons. One is that I have visited the one-stop offices around the province, and I have spoken to people who have been helped at those offices.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: No, I have not visited the one in Nanaimo, but I've visited others in other parts of the province, and there have been a significant number of people who have come for help and who have received it from the people in those offices. So I think you're treating this a bit too lightly.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to take a very few moments, Mr. Chairman, to sum up this portion of our review of the ministry. We have really, I think, been concentrating on job training policy and on the initiatives, in the broad sense, that this government has taken through this ministry, and on some of the specifics that were a part of its program last year.

It is an area where the ministry has very few clothes that we can see in terms of style and substance. There are a lot of programs that are in place, but they're not in place with any sense of continuity. The minister has taken over areas from the field of labour, particularly apprenticeships, which we will be canvassing tomorrow when one of our colleagues who is not able to be here today will address that issue.

There have been cuts in programs that are available for training. There has been an initiative to coordinate, which has now disappeared without any real indication of why it disappeared. Social Services and Housing came into a coordinated role with the ministry; it has now gone out of that role. And the minister has not provided us with any indication of why that is, other than that's what that ministry wanted to happen.

We've looked at the issue of colleges and the problem they have in providing access to training programs, and we've looked at the minister's initiatives in expanding the private sector school program, with very sketchy kinds of procedures to ensure that the students who attend those institutions are protected and are getting value for money.

It is a critical area, with free trade coming around the door for us in some form or another, we fear. And in all of these areas, the minister simply tells us that he has one new program and others are continuing. There is no sense of direction and no sense that this minister has a policy procedure, policy vision, for that area of job training. It's a disappointing scene for us, in looking at that part of the ministry. I don't find in the discussions we've had this afternoon much in the minister's comments to give me any hope that he has a good grasp on that part of his ministry. I would hope that by the time we're here next year some of those initiatives which, as I say, are being addressed constantly and very thoroughly by people in the field will have filtered through to the minister and that there will be some sign that we do have the beginnings of a good long-term training policy for this province, under this ministry.

[ Page 4048 ]

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, I want to turn the attention of the committee at this point to student financial aid. If there was a jewel in the jewel-less crown of this minister, it would be the student financial aid program. We commend the minister for further expanding that program this year to, I believe, $50 million.

What we are dealing with here is a substantial expansion in one particular program — and I will say it again — without the overall planning going on that would enable students who might be eligible for that student financial aid to actually enroll in the courses that they might want at the college they might want. So I would suggest that although we have an exemplary program standing here in the province for our students, it is rather like wafting the aroma of a good meal in their direction without necessarily providing them with the meal itself.

If I can just open up this section of our estimates with a few comments that students have made to me over the last year, and then get the minister's response to these comments, I will go through them all together, rather than asking individual questions, since other members on this side do have questions they would like to put to the minister, and I would like to give them a chance to do that before the next 15 minutes is out.

The major point that has been made time and time again by every student who walks through my door, or phones, or phones my colleagues, is that the best student aid is adequate funding in the first place; adequate funding to the colleges, to the universities, to the institutes; adequate funding so that student access is improved, and that quality of education may be maintained; adequate funding so that tuitions can be stabilized or reduced, adequate funding so that students can actually look at their next three, four or five years and plan their financial futures with some sense of stability. We ask young businesses to have business plans; certainly young students are ready to prepare their personal plans, but they can't do that if their tuitions are increasing by 13 percent to 25 percent to 40 percent a year. We have been told that 40 percent is not out of the ballpark if in fact our colleges are not properly funded this year.

[5:15]

So students are saying that they want adequate funding and they want summer jobs. We don't have JobTrac any more — we've just established that — and Challenge '88 is based on minimum income, which doesn't carry students very far in terms of a summer job that's going to meet their needs. Students are saying that their health care premiums, like everyone's, have gone up by 30 percent and student aid is not going to necessarily be increased by that much. Bus fares might be going up as well, and this is a major concern for many students in urban areas and rural areas.

Students want to know why the personal responsibility component of the financial application forms is not advertised. These so-called personal responsibility forms that students have to fill out — to let the loaner know that they have had a summer job and that they have been doing work in the community — are very important when it comes to remission time. Students have not been informed about the importance of these personal responsibility forms. We on this side of the House have trouble with the personal responsibility forms in the first place; we believe students are responsible and shouldn't have to testify in order to get a loan remission.

Students who graduated between '85 and '87 are now being harassed by loans officers of banks through whom the loans were granted. There is a remission, obviously, for students starting last year, but those students before last year are presently in very difficult straits, and they are asking for some kind of remission. They are looking for relief from the debt loads that they incurred before your program came in, Mr. Minister.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Couvelier) said we have the best loan program in the whole country. The fact of the matter is that we're now in the middle. This program has brought us from the bottom of the pile in the whole country to somewhere in the middle. I think we should pat ourselves on the back for that but we should not pretend that we are at the best level in the country, that we are investing that much.

There is also a concern that the student loans are capped at $5,800 per year. In this coming year, the cap will be raised to $6,190 a year, and in '89-90 raised to $6,500 a year. Students want to know why it's being phased in so slowly, when in fact the demand on their wallets is going up much faster than this. Students are asking if they are being pushed out to private colleges where it's possible they may be spending $6,000 on tuition alone for a ten-month program. Why cap so low at this point? For them, this is not convenient. If they are going to be forced into the private sector, they need a higher ceiling on their loans.

Students still want to know why, even with the improved program, part-time students are still discriminated against. A four-year degree must be completed within five years. This basically makes any part-time student — and most of those part-time students we know are women who can only take a course at a time, perhaps — ineligible for the loan system altogether. Students are asking why we should leave this discriminatory aspect in our loan program.

Students on welfare are asking when we are going to improve the interface between the Social Services department, which handles their welfare payments, and the financial aid officers at the colleges. Many financial aid officers find it difficult, and I'm sure the financial aid workers in Social Services find it difficult, that there are regulations so that rather than helping the woman — most often the woman — get back into the college, very often there is a drag, an institutional interface drag, in the ability of the financial aid officers to facilitate with the welfare department the re-entry of the mother, generally, into the training system.

These are the comments that have been made. These are the questions that have come across my desk and over the phone. Sometimes these questions are asked in anger; sometimes they are just asked as a general term of reference. Some of them have been put forward to you formally by your task force, I'm sure. You can see that they are all coming from individuals who are budgeting and calculating down to the last 50 cents every month. They are questions and comments that must be addressed, because though you have the best car in the world, if the engine in it isn't going properly it's not going to do you much good. It's going to look good and you're going to have great pictures taken in it, but the machine isn't going to do what you want it to do.

I'll just leave those few comments and questions. I would certainly appreciate some answers right now, and then we can go to my colleagues who have some questions on student financial aid.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sorry, I wasn't really aware that you were going to ask so many questions. I jotted some of them down and I may have missed some, so I don't mind being asked again.

[ Page 4049 ]

You made a comment with regard to the Challenge '88 program: that most of the students are on minimum wage. I understand that in fact only 5 percent of the students on the Challenge program receive the minimum wage. As a matter of fact, I just saw a note on it today that there was a particular program — I can't remember what city it was in — at $7 an hour. So there is a variance. I share your concern about the minimum wage, because obviously if the students can only earn minimum wage, there is going to be a bigger draw on the student financial assistance program to make up the difference.

With regard to tuitions.... I guess I wanted to make a general comment first. I've made it a point — and I got criticized for it just a few minutes ago — of getting around to the colleges, universities and institutes, not just to meet with the boards and the administrations, but when I'm there I meet with the students, the faculty and the support staff. I must say that I'm not getting the same messages that you are getting, particularly from the students. When I meet with groups of students, the first thing they do is compliment the government on the student financial assistance program. They tell me what a difference it has made. The difference, of course, is that they now have access to education. I'm not saying the program is perfect, but everything that was included in the report from the committee — which was representative, I think, of the education sector, including students — was implemented. As you know, I've left a committee in place to monitor the program to make sure it's working the way it was intended to work, to receive information from groups, and to see whether or not we can make some improvements, recognizing that we are working on a budget.

In answer to your question as to why some of these things can't be implemented more quickly, it's simply because the dollar amounts are very, very large. In fact, we have gone from a $19 million budget for student financial assistance when I first took over as minister, to next year's, which I think will be about $80 million. We are under some constraints.

You asked when they find out about the personal responsibility forms. They find out about those forms when they fill out the applications for the loan so that they will know.... I'll tell you something: I haven't talked to a student who isn't aware of the personal responsibility aspect. They are aware of that before the summer.

I'm sorry, I didn't make note of the other questions, but I'm sure some of your colleagues will raise them specifically.

MS. MARZARI: Let me remind you just briefly. I was asking about the possibility of some kind of dispensation or remittance to those students who graduated in the years 1985 to 1987 before your program came into effect. You've basically talked to the phase-in program, saying there's not enough money, and the part-time students who are not eligible unless they're completing their degree in record time.

HON. S. HAGEN: With regard to the pre-program loans, that, in all fairness, is a question I'm asked when I go on the campuses, obviously, because there are still students there under the program prior to the new student financial assistance program. The standing committee is looking at that now to try to estimate the cost factor of that. As you know, with any program that comes in, it's very hard to bring in retroactivity, particularly with the cost of this program, but I have asked the standing committee to look at that.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Right. I have some sensitivity here too. We are asking them to take a minimum of three courses; I believe that is based on the federal government guidelines. But if they're not already doing it, I will ask the standing committee to look at that too.

I have a particular care, I guess, for the part-timers, because I think we're going to have more and more of that. I would want to encourage that, not discourage it.

MR. GUNO: Actually, my question is sort of different but relates back to your statement about students getting a break this year on financial assistance. There is a group of students who are not: these are students from my constituency. This year, they're being denied access to post-secondary institutions largely because of the massive cutbacks by the federal government in educational assistance to students. While I know that this is purely within the federal jurisdiction, I just wonder if the minister is aware of the problem, and if so, has he conducted any kind of dialogue to see to it that this problem is dealt with?

HON. S. HAGEN: I happen to be concerned about this area as well, as I think you know. I have taken some steps to try to deal with it. One of the difficulties we have is dealing with the status native, which is federal jurisdiction. We cannot deal with that. There is an equalization payment in the student financial assistance program specifically designed for people who live outside of the lower mainland, to assist in those extra costs of getting people down there.

The other difficulty we're having with the federal government, to be very upfront with you, is that they keep on wanting to withdraw on what we see as their financial responsibilities, not only with regard to the native community but with job training, apprenticeship and many other areas. It is a concern, and I'm not sure how to deal with it. The easy cop-out is to say: "Well, I'm sorry. We can't deal with status native people. " But I'm not sure that that's the answer. I feel personally that education and job training is an area where we should be working very closely with the native peoples. But every once in a while we come up with this problem involving the feds. Maybe we could do a little more negotiation or have closer communications with the federal government.

[5:30]

I could give another positive statement about something we've done. I'm sure you're familiar with the Native Education Centre in Vancouver, adjacent to Vancouver Community College. That facility was going to close had we not funded it through Vancouver Community College last year to the tune of $330,000, which I was personally very pleased to do. I have visited the centre and think they're doing a very good job. I'm told that this year we're funding it for the same amount.

We're also working on another program with regard to native trade skills in a particular institution, but we're in some very tentative negotiations and I can't say anything more about that.

We are working on it, but we don't have all the answers. Actually, I wouldn't mind sitting down with the member at some time and getting some ideas from him.

MR. STUPICH: I've had correspondence with the minister, and his ministry as well, about an individual. The girl's

[ Page 4050 ]

name is Ballendine. The girl in question attended Fraser Valley College, and then the Phyllis Herndl school, and there are questions about a loan remission program. The girl received an application form while in attendance at this private school, and had every expectation that she would qualify for the loan remission program, partly because she received the application form in the first place.

The minister, in his letter dated April 8, which I received today — I think Canada Post can beat that; but in any case, it's date-stamped here April 25 — indicated that the girl never should have received the application, since private schools weren't included in the program. He says specifically in the letter: "As previously indicated to you, better identification of students who should receive the applications now exists." In a previous letter from the ministry, the reason given for the application going to that particular individual in that particular school was: "In conjunction with the review and anticipated recommendation, loan remission applications were made available to all private school students who at the time were enrolled in their final year of study." So it wasn't that it went to someone it shouldn't have, because the ministry was expecting at the time that approval would be given for those students to qualify for the loan remission program.

The minister later in the letter says: "To my knowledge, no student has enrolled in a private trade school expecting remission." In the first letter I had — and I've been trying today to find out more about it — she was told that if she graduated, she would receive help in the form of a remission. It just seems to me that something went wrong with this program. I'm not sure how many students were involved, but some students felt that they had every reason to believe that they would qualify if they graduated, if they met the qualifications. The minister said that not everyone who applied got it. Not everybody qualified, but the qualification was whether or not they graduated on time.

This student expected that she would meet the qualifications. She received the application in the first place, which indicated to her that she would qualify if she met the other qualifications. Beyond that, she was told by someone, who was not just receiving application forms — I haven't found out who yet, because I just got the letter today and I haven't been able to find out — that she would meet them if she qualified. Yet the ministry ruled that she didn't qualify, without giving any particular reason, except that it wasn't available to private schools. Some people in the ministry apparently thought that it would be.

I just don't think this change in midstream is fair to the students. They certainly never should have been told. At the very least, I think apologies should have gone out to anyone who did apply, explaining why they weren't getting what they felt was coming to them.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd like to point out that we do send out forms to all students graduating from high school. Of course, we don't know where they're going to apply. I recognize that this isn't that case, but I'd like to point out.... The member did make a sort of gross general statement saying: "You know, there's something wrong with this program." There are a lot of students out there who would be unhappy to hear you say that, because they really like the program. We have over 22,000 loans outstanding. When you're dealing with that number, you may have one or two glitches. But I don't think this is the proper place for the member to raise this particular issue. I would be pleased to revisit it and get back to the member on it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I accept that. The first letter I wrote was dated February 8, and the response was April 8; it took three weeks to arrive from the minister's office to my office. I just hope that I live long enough to exchange more correspondence on this, at that rate of progress, but I'll try it.

MS. MARZARI: The issues that come up around the student financial assistance program are multifarious. I must say that the administrators in the various colleges and the financial aid offices in the universities have been most helpful and informative to the students and to us in the opposition. It is an area in which information has flowed.

So the questions that have been put before you and the frustrations that have come up, you must understand, are completely sincere and are coming from people who recognize that it's a good program. Therefore it makes it all the more imperative — since we're not dealing in rhetoric here; we're dealing in real people inside a good program asking serious and legitimate questions — to see to their needs and, even more important, to make sure that the program, which seems to be functioning so well, has an infrastructure in which to function, such as a community college or university.

Because we want to take youth seriously, the final section today will be dealing with youth policy and the youth secretariat. I would ask the critic on youth to take over at this point.

MR. BARNES: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to have a brief dialogue with the minister in the spirit of the afternoon, which has been very congenial. There has been a free and rather candid exchange of ideas.

What I want to do, though, in the next few minutes is get information from the minister. I must say I'm not that impressed with the failure of the minister to even mention youth in his estimates. I may be wrong, but I've looked at the estimates, and I didn't see the designation under vote 5. What page is it on?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Would you explain to me what page it is on and the amount and scope of the budget — something about the complement of staff? When you were talking in your introductory remarks, I didn't get the impression that you had a very broad definition of the scope of that secretariat to share with us. I can tell you that it is probably one of the most important. I'm sure you would agree in some of the discussions we've had in the past....

It's a matter of finding out, first of all, just what your mandate is for youth. The opposition could come forward with its own ideas and designs about what it should be, but I think at this stage — this is your second year in this role — I'd like you to assist us in understanding just what your mandate is. Are you an advocate for young people between the ages of 15 and 25 generally? Is that your definition of the age range you were talking about? I don't want to be cynical, but does it have a large public relations contingent to it, or is it more than that? We can draw our own conclusions when we see the dollars you have appropriated for the ministry.

Are you concerned about motivating youth who are in the cracks? Are you just concerned about those who may be going on to advanced education, those who are going to be successfully graduating from secondary schools and going

[ Page 4051 ]

into training schools, universities, etc.? Or are you concerned about people in the age category in every respect? That we're not sure about.

The budget item, again, is a vital one, in that it would indicate the scope of the government's sincerity and concern about addressing the problem. You've mentioned that you do have a youth advisory council, which you certainly can be commended for. You mentioned that the Youth Advisory Council would be independent; at least, you're working toward more independence for it. Does this mean that it is going to have a budget to address grant requirements throughout the community? To what extent? How big is its budget, and what are the terms of reference? What kind of projects and situations is it addressing?

As well, I'd like you to comment on the composition of the Youth Advisory Council. In other words, I am sure, as you pointed out, that there is regional representation, but within those regions, are you looking at class or at educational, social, racial factors — any of these? To what extent?

Certainly we've talked a lot about employment problems, but we can't talk enough about them, and I would suggest that you could probably fill the British Columbia Place stadium with people in the age category we are talking about who are unemployed or underemployed — and we're not talking about those who may even be working for the minimum wage. So that may be around 60,000 people in this province of less than three million.

Basically what I am asking for is information. I would like you to define for us that secretariat, its mandate, the priorities you've set, and the amount of money you are appropriating for outreach programs, motivating, assisting, them to participate in the mainstream of society, etc.

We need to know what the government's intentions are. Obviously you want to have a good image, so we know that there is a public relations factor involved. It's good to be able to say that we have a youth program or a youth advisory council. That's a good democratic concept. It sounds good and is impressive. What we want to know is: are you addressing those in need in that category? Many of them are making it, as you pointed out. Only 5 percent of those young people that we are concerned about that may not be fitting in are in the income bracket that is part time or minimum wage. In other words, it's not a huge amount, but 5 percent is still 5 percent. Those are the ones, as well, that we're concerned about. Could you give us the information that we require on this so that we can see just what the government's plans are with respect to young men and women in the province?

[5:45]

HON. S. HAGEN: I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for his comments. I know that he shares a great concern for the youth not only of this province but of the country. I hope that I can address some of the questions that he posed to me.

The youth portion of my ministry was transferred not too many months ago from the women's secretariat to the job training and employment part of the ministry. This was done at the request and the suggestion of the youth council. In their meetings, the youth council — and I'll talk a bit about that — has determined that the two main concerns that youth have are drug and alcohol abuse and employment opportunities.

The budget that we have is $650,000, which includes administration and two FTEs, and $500,000 in youth grants that are available. This part of the budget is administered by the youth council itself. The youth council has been enlarged to 16 individuals, divided into eight regions, so there are two youth council representatives from each of the eight regions. We've tried to give them as much leeway as possible. We've asked each of the eight regions to appoint themselves a subcommittee of eight individuals from their region. It's been very strongly suggested to them that they appoint a broad cross-section of that community with the groups and the sectors that you mentioned. The objective here obviously is to try to get as much input and, I guess, as large a cross section as we can. It's not that easy. I felt that if I made those extra appointments, it would be criticized for being political — and I know nobody over there would criticize me for doing that — but if they make those appointments, there is a good opportunity that they will be less political in nature and maybe a better cross-section.

MR. WILLIAMS: Any native children?

HON, S. HAGEN: Yes. As a matter of fact, we have at least one native, if not two. There is one on the council and several on the subcommittees.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes. as a matter of fact we do. I don't think we have any Norwegians. Yes we do: we have one.

You talked about youth falling through the cracks. You and I have talked about that before. I have real concern for those youth who are falling through the cracks. One small thing we've done here in Victoria is put the fellow — and you know who he is as well as I do — who works with the street kids in Victoria.... We've opened the doors into the Social Services ministry for him. He was having difficulty getting access, as people sometimes do, and he doesn't have that difficulty any more. That didn't answer the problem, but I think it will make it easier to address the problem and, hopefully, come up with an answer. I'm not the only one concerned about the youth, the street kids; the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) shares that concern.

The other thing I've been doing is working with the federal Minister of Youth, the Hon. Jean Charest, in trying to come with a pilot program for youth. I should have said at the outset that I consider "youth" to be ages 15 to 25. The feds are very interested in coming up with a program to assist these people so that they will be either in school, in training or in the workforce — in other words, not on the street. We're still negotiating there, but I'm prepared to commit the funds; I'm prepared to commit extra dollars to that program. I think he's been having more trouble than I have in getting the program into being, but from what I've seen at the meetings, I think he will. I guess we share that concern that young people should either be in school, in training or in the workforce; that they should actively be participating in doing something. That's what we're working to achieve.

MR. BARNES: I must say, I'm enjoying this dialogue. This is really constructive. I'm sure the youth of British Columbia will be pleased to know that a member of the opposition is able to engage a minister of the Crown on matters concerning them, obviously with an intent to try to be constructive and achieve something. So I commend the minister for his responses; believe me, it's about time we began to address these matters seriously.

[ Page 4052 ]

When you talk about school and working or getting training — that this sequence of events is a sort of continuum of engagement for young people — I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I think we could give credit to a member of this Legislature who not too long ago, as Leader of the Opposition — unsuccessfully in the last election — came up with what he called a youth guarantee. The concept frightened a lot of people. In this rough and tough competitive society of ours, we don't like to think in terms of guaranteeing anybody anything. It comes back to haunt you. But if we could put politics aside for just a second, we would probably realize that in terms of future hope we've got to be far more committed to the young men and women in this province and in this country — indeed, in the world. We've got to put our money where our mouths are.

For that reason, I commend the minister for indicating that he is prepared to address these problems as an advocate. I wasn't sure at first whether you viewed yourself in that capacity. You haven't used the word "advocate," but your response indicates to me that it's more than just advanced education in terms of those who can make it to that level. We're talking about those young people who are dropping out, and we know the numbers are far greater than they should be, particularly among native youth. Many of them are in jails, correctional institutions and broken homes, and are certainly victims of substance abuse, etc. We've talked in and out about this for years, so it's good to know that we have a commitment at least to begin to address their concerns in a constructive way.

I want to think, though, a little more about the arrangement you have with the Youth Advisory Council. Although you have some $650,000 — approximately the figure you gave for the overall program — you say about $500,000 of that is for grants. I'd like to see a definition of just what kinds of grants are available; who can apply for them; what are some of the conditions; and in terms of parity sharing, so that we know that people all have a fair shake. We don't want a situation where those who know how to go through the system, how to apply, etc., are the ones who succeed. We want to ensure that the criteria and the controls are such that the council has to follow certain guidelines. That's a political input you could give without being guilty of, as you say, manipulating the situation for political purposes. I think this is necessary. It's a little bit of advocacy, a little bit of affirmative action, and a little bit of reality. We have to make the extra effort to help those who are at a particular disadvantage.

There's just one other question I want to ask you. Because of the agreement that we would be finishing pretty much along, the timetable that was arranged by the debate leader, and it being three minutes to six, I just want ask you one question with respect to this target group, this group of young people, in terms of the principles and philosophy we're talking about. Would you indicate your view of the franchise for 18-year-olds? In other words, do you not agree that the time has come for British Columbia youth to have the same rights as other youth across the country with respect to voting rights? They still have to be 19 years of age in order to vote in the province. Is it not time that the young people in this province have the same rights as others across this country — being able to vote provincially at the age of 18?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm surprised that the youth council hasn't raised that point. I'm sure that they'll be reading the discussion today. It probably will be raised. It might not be such a bad idea that it should come up through that process; it's definitely something we should look at.

You asked some questions with regard to the grants. Last year in the 1987-88 program, there were 31 projects approved throughout the province. Over 14,000 youth were estimated to benefit directly from the projects. The project activities range from peer counselling, establishing youth drop-in centres and job-finding clubs to community-specific projects related to tourism, health, employment or recreation. I would be pleased to give you a copy of this; it's not a problem.

As a point of interest, out of 31 projects, eight — or roughly 25 percent — were related to drug and alcohol abuse. Some examples are the Victoria Volunteer Bureau, Mad Max Music in Vancouver, Youth Outreach Unlimited in Osoyoos and the Smithers Community Services Association. That's information that is available. Just to clear myself, I don't think there has been a project approved in Courtenay.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, obviously the dialogue is just beginning, with the minister's undertaking to keep his doors open. I certainly would like to feel that we can discuss some of these matters later on and begin to pursue in a proactive way some of the issues as they come up, dealing with real people instead of numbers and statistics. This is what we really want to start happening. To me, that's the only way we can make things like the peace march last weekend make sense. People are beginning to say: "When are we going to get government that is going to deal with people problems in a very real way?" We know that the youth of this country and this province are our future and our resources. Let's get on with it and begin to address their concerns.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Pursuant to standing order 2(2), I advise the Legislative Assembly that the House will sit this Wednesday.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.