[ Page 4053 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

(Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 4053

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Miller

Mt Rose

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Blencoe

The House met at 10:08 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the precincts is the mayor of Pemberton, Mrs. Shirley Henry, and on your behalf I take pleasure in introducing her to the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services to meet this morning while the House is sitting.

Leave granted.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING
(continued)

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

MS. MARZARI: Yesterday we covered the women's program, we covered job training, we asked questions about student financial aid, and then we left on questions regarding youth policy through the youth secretariat. This morning I would like to finish off a few more questions and some explanations around the youth secretariat, and one more question in the area of student financial aid, most notably the single mothers on welfare and their day care problems with student financial aid. So that's how we will begin this morning before we begin a discussion of community colleges.

MR. BARNES: I have a very brief request to make of the minister, for the record. Yesterday we were discussing the duties of the Youth Advisory Council, and I would like the minister, if he would, to tell us what are those regions that he mentioned. I think there were eight regions. You said there were two youths representing the regions. I'd like their names and the means by which those youths could be contacted, and I think that would complete the discussion we had yesterday. I think that should be on the record so we can know where they are. There may be people who would like to get in touch with them, and this would provide that information.

There is just one final thing I'd like to clarify for the record. I made reference to a class yesterday when I was asking you by what means you select members of the advisory council. I would like to withdraw that particular designation, because I personally would not like to have to determine the class of anybody in the province. I'd like to think that we're all pretty much classless when it comes to our rights in society, so I don't like that particular designation. I'm sure that you don't use that in your criteria either.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, I thought that I might have taken the opportunity yesterday to nail you on that, but I didn't.

I don't have the list of names with me, but before this morning’s session is over I've sent for them, so I'll read the names of the Youth Advisory Council into the record. The eight regions that you asked for are the eight economic development regions in the province. They are the same boundaries. I will have the list later this morning.

MR. BARNES: And the contact.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, this question has to do with the interface between the Ministry of Advanced Education and Training and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing and with students at universities. I'm referring specifically to a letter written by Mr. Paul Mendes, an external relations officer at Simon Fraser University, dated January 25, 1988. It was a letter to Mr. Jim Carter, Deputy Minister of Social Services and Housing, and a copy was sent to the Minister of Advanced Education and Training. The situation is in regard to those university students relying on the B.C. student assistance program loans as a principal income source. Social Services and Housing has interpreted the recent increase in the maximum amount of loan available to be income under the financial eligibility requirements of the day care subsidy program, regulation 2(20) of the GAIN regulations. Now I am quoting from Mr. Mendes' letter. He says: "It also appears that the increase in the student loan maximum has skewed the interpretation of the financial eligibility test such that single parent loan recipients who qualified for full subsidy coupons for July to December 1987 are now only eligible for partial subsidy from January 1988 on." This means that single students with dependents are having a new hardship imposed on them, and I think this is happening without intent. But the fact is that full day care subsidy, crucial to their ability to maintain enrolment and provide adequate care for their children, is seriously hindered.

[10:15]

Now this impacts the quality of post-secondary learning, and it compromises the quality of the day care because of the reduced amounts for day care subsidy available to these parents. Apparently this is unique in British Columbia. To quote from Mr. Mendes again, British Columbia "is the only province that mistakenly calculates student loans as 'income' while failing to fully account for educational costs as legitimate living expenses."

This apparently does not apply to job training programs outside of a university setting, so there is a discrimination that goes on here which I think you, Mr. Minister, must address and get straightened out with your colleague, the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond). There is a selective application of the regulations, and it implies that the ministry avoids fully assisting only single parents — students pursuing training and technical programs and not academic programs.

Perhaps I can say that more clearly. It appears that there is a selective application of the regulations by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing that treats students in job training programs in a different way than it treats students in university settings. I would just like to conclude with a final paragraph from Mr. Mendes' letter, where he says:

[ Page 4054 ]

"When the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training...undertook a review of the B.C. student assistance program in 1986-87, it was determined that single parents with dependents were urgently in need of additional levels of support. When he implemented these increases, we were fully in support. It is ironic that neither Mr. Hagen nor the Simon Fraser Student Society envisaged that this good turn would come back to penalize the very students requiring additional support."

I just want to refer briefly to an article by Sandy Macdougall, staff reporter for the Coquitlam News, who says, quoting a student, Trish Alexander: "The reduction in her day care subsidy from $131 per month to a meager $19.50 has left her angry and confused. 'The day care subsidy is the only way I can afford to attend school,' she said. 'The harder you try, the more obstacles they put in your way."' My question is, why should this be? And my request is, will this minister take this up with the Minister of Social Services and Housing, and correct this discriminatory application of the regulations?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd like to thank the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam for that question. I will do more than take it up with the Minister of Social Services and Housing; I will ask the standing committee, which has remained in place, to assess the student financial assistance program to make sure that it's working the way it was intended to work: to help people get access to post-secondary education. I will ask them to look at this particular problem. When I talk to the Social Services minister, I will also ask that individual hardship cases be looked at very quickly. I can't do anything more than that right now, but I'm concerned that the program — which I believe is a good program — should deal with the areas it was meant to deal with. One of the areas that we targeted to help was that of single parents. I would be very disappointed if it was not achieving that.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to thank the minister for that answer, and I would like to, in conclusion, request that the minister write to Mr. Mendes at Simon Fraser with copies to the student affairs societies at the other two universities to assure them that he will be taking this matter up at the earliest opportunity. I would point out that this letter to the Deputy Minister of Social Services and Housing, which was copied to the minister, was written January 25, 1988. There has been much hardship for a great many students, all of whom applying for a student loan and requiring day care subsidy would be considered, in my opinion, hardship cases.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, we will do that.

I neglected to make two introductions this morning, and I apologize to my staff. With me this morning, in addition to my deputy minister, I have two assistant deputy ministers: Mr. John Watson, whose responsibility includes universities, colleges and institutes, and Mr. Ron Woodward, whose responsibility is for science, technology and job training.

MR. MILLER: I want to start by referring to some articles. The topic that I want to pursue is the whole area of apprenticeship training. I think there's been, if I can so characterize it, a dereliction of duty on the part of government and industry in dealing with this whole issue. I mentioned, I believe, in my maiden speech that I thought that apprenticeship training was one of the best ways we could provide opportunities for young people in this province to acquire a skilled trade, which does several things: it generally puts you in a little higher income bracket, and it gives you more satisfying work. I see a major failure on the part of industry and the government to seriously address the issue of apprenticeships.

I'm quoting an article from the Vancouver Sun in October 1985. The headline is: "Apprentice Classes Slashed." It goes on to say: "The B.C. government will cut the number of apprenticeship classes at the vocational schools by 16 percent next year, bringing the number of classes offered to less than half the total of two years ago...." It goes on to quote a letter written by Mr. Meredith, director of trades and industrial training: "employers have been unable or unwilling to hire and retain new apprentices in sufficient numbers to sustain the province's apprenticeship training system."

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

I then turn to another newspaper, not from this country, but a newspaper clipping from the Borneo Bulletin. There are two ads placed by the government of Canada, one for business immigrants and the other for skilled immigrants. They've even got a person working full time, I guess, or part time, to try and acquire skilled people to come to this country to fill jobs that are obviously vacant. I'll read it because it's worthwhile noting what the government of Canada is looking for in other parts of the world. "Canada is looking for fully qualified immigrants in a wide variety of occupations. Some of those most needed are: draughtsman; secretaries; repairmen and servicemen of electronic equipment, radio and television, precision instruments, office machines and computers; commercial artists and technical illustrators; technicians and technologists for laboratory, chemical, dental, petroleum process-operative, textile and x-ray; engine and turret lathe setup operators; machinists; various types of qualified mechanics; millwrights, plus many others. " There we have an ad placed in mid-1987 by the government of Canada in the Borneo Bulletin, saying that Canada is desperate for skilled tradesmen. What is the government doing?

I want to know from the minister his views on the entire subject, but more specifically, I'm going to ask him some questions in terms of the state of apprenticeship training in this province today. Is the minister aware of the level of apprenticeship training that is taking place in some of our major industries in British Columbia? We're seeing a fair amount of capital investment in the pulp industry, for example — a massive amount, really, compared to any other sector. We're investing in machinery and equipment, but it doesn't appear that we are investing in people. Does the minister have any idea what level of training is taking place in some of these major industries?

HON. S. HAGEN: The apprenticeship question, of course, is of major importance to the well-being of the province. The difficulty we have in dealing with it is that the responsibility and the funding for apprenticeship lies solely with the federal government. They have historically — and I understand by statute — funded apprenticeship programs across Canada.

I am pleased to say that this province is looked upon across this country as having the most successful apprenticeship programs in the country. One of the reasons for that

[ Page 4055 ]

success is the fact that we have 58 trade advisory committees operating throughout the province. These committees represent those 58 trades, and on those committees is a broad cross-section of representation from the large company sector, the small company sector, the union sector and the nonunion sector. They are a group of volunteers who meet quarterly. There are 20 to 25 people on each trade advisory committee who advise the government on what trades and apprenticeship training is going to be necessary over the next five years.

However, I don't want to bail out industry with regard to their responsibilities for training. In fact, you will find around this province that industries are taking more and more responsibility for job training and for the apprenticeship program. As you know, we have a provincial apprenticeship board that also represents a cross-section of the community.

Yes, I would say we're very aware of the training that's necessary, and the people who advise us are the people who are out there in the field, who in fact are working in those industries and know exactly what's going on.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, I sat on a trades advisory committee, so I'm fairly familiar with how they work and what they do. It's fine to have a good program, but it's not much use if there are no people in it or if there aren't sufficient people in it.

A couple of days ago — late last week — I met with the home builders. I'm advised by one of their representatives that the average age of tradesmen, primarily bricklayers and carpenters, in the home-building industry is about 57 years. They're very concerned that there's going to be a shortage of skilled trades.

Let's go through some of the statistics. In 1982 apprenticeships were about 1.8 percent, almost 2 percent of the workforce, almost 19,000 people. We find in 1988 that apprenticeships are –– 7 percent of the workforce, a significant cut.

Let's deal with some of the primary industries in this province. Alcan Aluminum: 363 journeymen in their plant in Kitimat. How many apprentices? Four. And by the way, Alcan, if you read the last issue of the Financial Post of about a week and a half ago, apparently didn't pay any income tax last year.

How many tradesmen in the Harmac pulp mill just up the road? Three hundred tradesmen. How many apprentices? Zero. Big goose egg for Harmac. If you look at some specific industries . . How many apprentices in the government service? The government employs a fair number of mechanics; how many apprenticeships does the government offer young people? How many opportunities are they providing? Let's look at Alberni Plywood: 55 tradesmen. Absolutely no apprentices; zero. Alberni Pacific Division: 97 tradesmen; six apprentices.

So it's quite clear that industry is not doing its part to train young people. We have to advertise in the Borneo Bulletin to find people. I've been through that, Mr. Minister. My work experience is as a tradesman in a pulp mill, and I've seen the successive waves of tradesmen coming from other parts of this country and from outside this country while our young people are denied the opportunity to receive those apprenticeships.

Going on further, there used to be a program in this province that provided minorities and young people with some opportunities to get into the trades. In 1985-86 females made up 17 percent of the apprenticeship force; native Indians a paltry 1.5 percent. There are no programs now that I'm aware of that assist minorities. Has the minister any plans to deal with that? The federal-provincial program, I understand, is expiring in '89; the federal government apparently is seeking some cutbacks. The provincial government has already cut back too, but is the minister making any efforts to boost funding in the apprenticeship area?

[10:30]

HON. S. HAGEN: As I stated previously — and I'll state it again so the member understands it — the funding for the apprenticeship program is a federal responsibility. My ministry is continually negotiating with the federal government, not only to retain the present level of funding for apprenticeship but to increase it. The agreement does expire in 1989 but, of course, that's just the current agreement and we are negotiating a new agreement, one that will continue on.

I'd also like to point out that we are negotiating and working with the home builders to develop training and retraining programs. Not all of these are apprenticeship programs, admittedly, but we have to have a mix of job training and retraining and also apprenticeship programs.

MR. MILLER: You didn't deal, Mr. Minister, with the question of women and minorities, and perhaps subsequently you could.

There have been cutbacks in your own ministry, as I understand it, in terms of the staffing levels available to assist and in terms of the whole program. My information is that since 1980 there have been some very drastic cutbacks. The manager of administration has been eliminated. The secretariat to the trades advisory was disbanded; the cutbacks in apprenticeship counsellors, program development officers.... So there have been some cutbacks at the provincial level as well. Perhaps the minister could deal with that, and perhaps the minister could outline the position of the B.C. government in terms of negotiating with the federal government over the whole area of funding. Is B.C. asking for significant increases?

I've got a jumble of questions here, and I want to get some answers to them. What position are you taking with industry? Have you met with industry at any level at all and told them they aren't doing their job, and to get with it and start providing opportunities for young people in this province?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, we do have a program to provide wage subsidies to apprentices, specifically to get minorities involved. It's called WNTEP: Women in Non-Traditional Employment. And there's another one, I'm advised, for minorities.

Our negotiations with the federal government are ongoing. When you're dealing with the federal government, it changes from meeting to meeting, because sometimes you're struggling to hold the status quo with them with regard to funding. Other times you have an opportunity to work with them on new programs.

We continually meet with industry — the forest industry, the mining sector, the construction sector — with labour, with the B.C. Business Council and with all sorts of groups around the province to remind them of their responsibility with regard to job training and apprenticeship.

MR. MILLER: I'm not really satisfied. If you've reminded them, they certainly don't seem to have paid

[ Page 4056 ]

attention. I know that the previous minister, when it was under Labour.... I actually preferred that. No slight intended to your able administration of your ministry, but I preferred it to be under Labour. There was much more of an understanding of the whole system.

Going back to some of the costs that you outlined, an article in the Journal of Commerce in February of this year indicates that the private sector pays the major share of the cost of apprenticeships. Some 83 percent of the cost of apprenticeships is picked up by the private sector and the apprentices themselves. The federal government pays 13 percent and the provincial government contributes 4 percent.

Perhaps the minister could advise how much.... He talked about women in non-traditional trades or occupations. How much is being spent to promote that? What is the minister doing, specifically, to deal with those trades where there has been an identifiable shortage, where we know we're going to be short? I talk to people in industry and in trade unions. I know, for example, that in the pulp industry they cannot find skilled trades to fill jobs. What specific undertaking is the minister giving, and what is he doing, to make sure that those areas where there are shortages are being met, besides reminding employers?

HON. S. HAGEN: The province currently spends about $17 million on apprenticeship training: $7 million of that is through the ministry and $10 million is through the colleges and institutes. We are continually looking for ways to improve the apprenticeship system and job training programs. We currently have a study under review by Price Waterhouse, and I haven't had an opportunity to see it yet. I understand that it was just completed yesterday — or at least it was received by the ministry yesterday.

We are currently reviewing the role, the mandate and the membership of the Provincial Apprenticeship and Training Board and the trade advisory committees. A three-person committee is reviewing all 178 trades to consider which are redundant and which need to be classified differently or changed. This three-person committee will also be recommending criteria for assessing trades required in the future.

We will also be carrying out a public awareness campaign later on this year to encourage participation in the apprenticeship programs. This will focus on young people, counsellors, teachers and industry people.

As I said before, my ministry staff are working with business and industry to identify the needs and opportunities for retraining. A joint project now underway will identify retraining programs available in industry and institutions, and a catalogue will be prepared and provided to industry.

We are developing innovative approaches that can be used to improve the delivery of apprenticeship training. Co-op education and competency-based training are being considered for use in some trades.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, for all the talk, it seems to me that we have a very simple problem in this province, that we're not training enough apprentices. You can tell me about a three-person committee reviewing trades to see which ones are redundant; it doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you compare it to the glaring fact that we've got an aluminum smelter with 363 journeymen and four apprentices. Industry is not doing their job.

I don't want to hear the minister talk about a committee deciding which of the trades are redundant. What are you doing to make sure we fill these gaps and that we fill them with young people from British Columbia, so that they have the opportunity? They're there on the unemployment rolls.

All it takes, quite frankly, is for industry to say, "We're now going to train more apprentices," and for the government to follow suit in terms of offering the support through schooling and the rest of it that's required. It's very simple. It doesn't require great committees or great studies; all you have to do is look at the facts. Again, I go back: are we just going to dither on this thing forever? I recall the previous minister talking about it. I went to a major conference in Richmond when Jack Heinrich was the Minister of Labour. We had industry and labour together; and, yes, we knew there were skill shortages. But all we do is talk and nothing happens. What is actually going to happen? Are you going to go to industry and say: "Live up to your responsibilities"? They're using the raw resources of this province. They're making profits. I've got nothing against that, but it seems to me that they should be living up to some further responsibility in terms of offering training opportunities for British Columbia youth, rather than going to Borneo. I've got nothing against people in Borneo either. But if our own young people are out of work, and they're being denied these opportunities and industry is not spending any money to train people, then it seems to me something is wrong. I would like to know, cutting through all of the committees, whether the minister is going to take some action on this issue or not.

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the comments about it being a simple problem and that we don't need a lot of rhetoric on it, and I trust that the hon. member will take his own advice on that.

I would like to remind the hon. member that the apprenticeship program is industry-driven. As the minister I cannot go to Alcan and disrupt the contractual agreement that they have with their union and say: "We think that you should have 25 apprentices." Industry drives this program. As industry asks for apprenticeship training, that training is funded.

I would also like to remind the member that apprenticeship is not the only kind of job training that takes place in this province; there are other job training programs in various sectors of industry around the province that are also funded by the province and the federal government.

MR. MILLER: Well, we won't debate rhetoric. Sometimes it's useful and sometimes it's not.

But again I have to go back. You talk about disrupting union agreements. In most industrial enterprises there's no disruption of agreements at all. In fact, in most industrial enterprises there is no specific reference to ratios or the number of apprentices. I know that unions try to get that, and I approve of it. In fact, the unions have been a major force in terms of pushing employers to do more training. So there's no disruption of collective agreements. The minister is quite free to go up to Alcan, or go to Mac and Blo in Harmac, and say: "Look, I don't think you're doing your job." Surely the minister agrees that he has those persuasive powers. He doesn't even have to use rhetoric.

Is the minister prepared to send a very strong message to industry in this province that they are not doing their job, and that they should take more apprentices on, that they should train more people? Is the minister prepared to do that?

HON. S. HAGEN: As I said previously, I have been doing that very consistently. I believe in working in the

[ Page 4057 ]

partnership approach with industry and encouraging them to do their part. I believe that they are starting to recognize that responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister from Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope to be the minister from Prince Rupert at some point.

Just one final question, then. I feel quite strongly about this, and I could go on for a long time, but I realize there are other issues that must be canvassed in your estimates.

There has been endless talk about this issue in this province for as long as I can remember. But the plain, simple fact is that we're not doing our job. If the minister is unprepared at this point in time to send that kind of strong signal to industry that they should do their job better, and he wants to simply encourage them, will the minister undertake that after a certain point, after all of the encouragement that he's offering, if there is no movement, if it's clear that industry is not.... If those figures that I cited earlier of four apprentices and 363 tradesmen continue, is the minister prepared to perhaps use a little stronger language than encouragement? Encouragement does not seem to have worked; we must do more.

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, I am prepared to use stronger language.

MS. MARZARI: The areas of major expenditure of this minister's budget are obviously community colleges and universities. We approach this subject knowing that time is limited and that focused questions are probably most appropriate here, rather than grand dissertations and philosophies. However, there is a great deal to be said about community college funding in this province, as we have witnessed the exercise over the last few weeks since the budget appeared.

[10:45]

My point here is that community colleges, which have suffered grievously at the hands of this government over the last five or six years, are continuing to suffer under the present minister and the present government. I say this with some sadness, because last year at this time the whole postsecondary industry in this province thought they were seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, that the period of restraint had come to some reasonable conclusion, that cost-of-living increases at least were something that could be a stabilizer in a system that had undergone massive cutbacks, in a system that had suffered up to 33 percent cutbacks in operating expenditures over the last five or six years. Students, administrations and faculty had thought with last year's budget that they were facing an end to the death spiral in post-secondary education.

This year, however, when we looked at the community college budget and saw that the estimates were basically status quo, that the estimates for the budget basically promised 0.89 percent increase — which on closer investigation looked like a real decrease, because the actual expenditure last year was closer to 3 percent above the expenditure promised this year — we were appalled. The faculties were appalled, the association of college principals and presidents was appalled. It's been suggested to the students that tuition increases could amount to as high as 40 percent if this budget were to be implemented.

Subsequent to that budget day, we have discovered a number of things. We have discovered that it is quite possible the minister himself was not involved with that final budget figure. The minister stood up in this House during a question period and suggested that, in effect, the college principals and presidents really had misread the estimates; that they were in fact going to enjoy a 3.5 percent increase, amounting to some $10 million. It was suggested that they had misunderstood the numbers appearing in the estimates. We combed the estimates; we could not see how anyone misunderstood anything. We understood that the estimates stood there at around $287 million, which was a minimum increase, if any. Then we discovered that the minister was doing a very fast run to Treasury Board or, as evidence came in later, to the budget of BCIT, to make up the terrible gap between what had been promised in the estimates and what he knew the colleges needed to come out even at a status quo level in terms of their functioning and operating.

The questions that arise out of this process are innumerable. How can a minister reach budget day without knowing what is going to appear in the estimates? How can a minister, who has to this point done a reasonable job, we think, in pulling money out of Treasury Board to give the colleges and universities a small respite from restraint, not know what was going to appear in the estimates on budget day? It raises the question of interference by the Premier's office in that minister's budget for community colleges, and it raises further questions about what happens when the colleges are about to be supplemented by BCIT. By their cutbacks the colleges flourish. It raises the question of why this government would want to rob Peter to pay Paul, and why the Premier's office should be involved in these questions in the first place.

Those political questions aside — of how ministers have to scurry to find their budgets for programs which they claim to be basic, indigenous and generic to the economic growth and expansion of our province — the larger implication is the fact that the community college system now finds itself facing another crisis in stability and wondering if the word of the minister is at all credible and once again is looking at a loss of morale.

The minister has had since February a report from the college principals and presidents telling him that 3,200 FTEs had to be created in order to bring colleges back to any kind of reasonable functioning. We have comments from the Camosun board chairman saying that the 3.5 percent increase is just enough to keep them from starving. He predicts that the ministry decisions will increase the demand on college space for seats that we don't have.

We have a report from the college presidents in February basically stating what had to be done in order to reduce the terrible pressures and demands on community college spaces. Yet our minister is proceeding with another study of community college potential which is about to report on May 13. Why hasn't the minister accepted the recommendations of the college principals and college boards? Why do you need to form another task force to project the demand for increased enrolment when that information is already in front of you?

If investment in post-secondary education is so important to this government, why is the FTE funding for 1988-89 below the 1984-85 level? Those are just a few of the questions that emerge in this morass of trying to understand community college funding. Perhaps the minister would like to comment.

HON. S. HAGEN: I will take this opportunity to outline the actual funding for the college system. There is a 3.5

[ Page 4058 ]

percent inflationary increase in the college funding system this year, which will enable them to deliver 100 percent of the FTEs funded in 1987-88 at the present level of programs. I might also add that the business development centres will continue to be funded at last year's levels — at the full levels. What I am concerned about is the increased enrolment expected in September.

In answer to your question of why the minister doesn't accept the request of the Council of Principals or the boards, I would think that the answer must be fairly obvious. If the ministry was to try to fund every request that came into the ministry, and if every other ministry in government was to do the same thing with hospitals and schools and all the other demands, I can tell you that we would not be bringing our deficit under control. We would be accumulating a massive deficit such as the province of Ontario has. My job is to make sure that we are able to provide a high quality of instruction out there, but at a level that the taxpayers can afford.

The purpose of the task force, which is a one-month task force to go into the colleges, is to assure me that the money necessary to fund the anticipated enrolment increases is not available in the system. They will be looking at five items, and when I get that report on May 13, I will then determine whether or not I have to go back to Treasury Board to get money to fund that increased enrolment. I have made that commitment to them, and I make the same commitment to this House that I'm prepared to do that. But I need the facts and figures to back up my request.

MR. ROSE: Like my predecessor, I won't be speaking very long on this item. But I do represent an area from the catchment basin of Douglas College — the catchment area, not the catchment basin; that sounds more like plumbing. Douglas College has been a major institution in the Coquitlam-New Westminster-Burnaby area for some time, and its president reports to me regularly. I visit there from time to time and talk to the president on the one side, and I also go there and talk to the students and teachers from time to time.

In '83 there was an act: I believe it was Bill 19 — not the infamous Bill 19, with which the Minister of Labour (Hon. L. Hanson) is familiar, but a previous one. What that did was replace elected college boards with appointed ones — presumably nice, malleable ones that wouldn't cause any trouble for the government.

In fact, these people were rather docile, so from about 1983 until this year, I never heard from the Douglas College board — ever. That was true when I was quite interested in education. I didn't have the responsibility for post-secondary, but I did for education generally. I heard loud and clear from the school boards, because they were elected independently. The college boards were all appointed, and they were very taciturn. They weren't loquacious; as a matter of fact, I don't think they did their job openly. Now what kind of pipelines you got to the government privately, or the then minister of post-secondary or advanced education, I don't know.

But lo and behold, the other day I got a letter signed by the acting chairman of the Douglas College board. He said:

"Dear Mr. Rose:

"Because of the significance of Douglas College to the public life of our region, I am enclosing a copy of the letter sent to the Hon." — this may be out of order, but I'm quoting from the letter — "Stanley B. Hagen, Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, on the matter of provincial estimates for colleges and institutes. The college board is hopeful that a meeting of B.C. Association of Colleges representatives with Mr. Hagen next week will resolve our concern...."

In his letter he outlines a great number of concerns, which need not be repeated here — at least, not at this point. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that something  perhaps a more sympathetic, understanding minister, or greater courage on behalf of a board member appointed by the government — happened: he wrote an opposition member, quite in contrast to municipalities, who do it regularly because they're elected and reasonably autonomous and independent; and quite in contrast to school boards, who've done the same and who've raised a lot of Cain over the years because they felt they were being squeezed out of existence.

The college boards are not stimulated into writing letters such as these if there's no problem. They outline the problem: "...will not be able to maintain its present levels of enrolment, much less increase levels of enrolment, unless there is recognition of our operating needs." How are you going to recognize the operating needs of Douglas College, Mr. Minister? You said there's a 3 percent increase — or 3.2; I wasn't quite clear.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's 3.5.

MR. ROSE: This has been disputed. Are they going to be reassured with a 3.2 percent increase? I have a statement of enrolment and those people who couldn't find places for the current semester from the college president. It indicates that approximately 5 percent are being turned away; they can't find places for them. This is in spite of huge increases in the productivity — in other words, the workload — of the faculty.

There's been a labour-management dispute with that faculty going on for months now. It's certainly not going to be resolved if you don't give them any more money. Ultimately the students are going to suffer.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, if you want to respond.... I don't like this. I'm not a lip-reader.

Anyway, they outline a number of things that have happened. They've got a 5 percent increase in their course demands, and the success rate in courses has shown an overall decrease of 5 percent. That sounds a bit to me like the status quo.

[11:00]

Another graph and chart indicates that the enrolment over '82 — the bulge was in '86 — for the spring is up to something approaching 300 more students attempting to enroll.

I won't say any more about that now, and will give the minister a chance to comment. I won't promise, however, that his will be the last word. It depends on whether or not I'm provoked.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would like to thank the member for his comments. I know that he has a real interest in the education system of the province, having a background in that field, and I'll try to respond to his concerns as effectively as I can.

[ Page 4059 ]

The first thing is that, subsequent to that letter being written.... I must say that I received a deluge of letters from college boards around the province who were concerned, and I've had a lot of telephone calls. I guess I can categorically say that the fact that they are appointed by me certainly did not dissuade them from complaining very strongly about what they saw initially as their budget numbers.

I did meet with the board executive from around the province and also the council of presidents as soon after the budget as I could. They were instructed to maintain their present level of programming, and they agreed that they were able to do that with the 3.5 percent, which includes 0.5 percent for the additional medicare costs.

With regard to the enrolment list that you sort of flashed, what you have to remember with regard to people who say they are unable to enroll or that the college turned them away is that many of those people enroll in another institution. The student enrolls not only in one but in several programs in a particular college. In the lower mainland, where they have the opportunity, they will enroll not only at Douglas but at three campuses of Kwantlen, and then they will go over to VCC and enroll there and maybe even at Capilano, so the one student shows up as maybe 20 different numbers.

That's not to say that there isn't a demand on the system, because obviously there is. I admit to creating some of that demand myself with the introduction of the student financial assistance program. But as I said initially, the reason that I'm going back to Treasury Board is to seek the necessary funds to handle that projected enrolment increase coming up in September. That was the reason for putting a very short time span on the task force to be back by May 13, so that we could get those numbers into the colleges so that they would know that they would have those resources for the incoming students.

I can assure you, with regard specifically to Douglas College, which is a very efficiently run college, that Douglas and other efficiently run institutions have nothing to fear from an independent review on how they have allocated their resources. If they are efficiently run — and I believe Douglas is — then I think the task force report will show it.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: To respond to the minister, I don't think anybody in public life, in any institution, should object to an outside independent review, as long as it doesn't turn into either a whitewash or a witch-hunt. We are always a little bit nervous and insecure about these things, especially when we are the ones being reviewed. That's a natural tendency. No, I don't think we should, as long as there are terms of reference.

To respond briefly to the minister about waiting-lists and the double or triple registrations, it's caused by the fact that there are waiting-lists: if I can't get in here, maybe I can get into the Vancouver Community College, or into Kwantlen, or I can get in over at North Van or at some other place. That has not always been true, but I would think there would be more examples of double or triple registrations in the hopes that they can put their foot in the door in at least one instance. I don't think that that is necessarily an explanation for the triple arrangement; it's because of the tightness of the system that that is forced on the students.

I notice in coming legislation, where it is tabled, the abolition of excellence funds in education. Does that also apply to the excellence fund? It was one of the first in post-secondary education. It was brought in in about 1984 in response to the terrible cries of pain from restraint at that point.

HON. S. HAGEN: I trust that the member was supporting the funds for excellence.

MR. ROSE: I thought it was a slush fund.

HON. S. HAGEN: Oh, I read from the intonation of the question that there was a concern that this program was being dismantled, and I assume that comes from a concern that the program is needed.

I happen to support the excellence program. What has happened with the excellence program is exactly what the opposition asked to have done when it was first introduced, and that is that it should have been part of the base funding; and in fact the fund for excellence has been rolled into the base.

MR. ROSE: That was the base of my question.

HON. S. HAGEN: No, it's rolled into the base.

MR. ROSE: Thank you.

MS. MARZARI: It's worth saying here that those 3,000 students who were turned away weren't all triple registered. It's worth saying here that the professional opinion of administrators and boards throughout the community college system is that there was a higher demand, which was in keeping with the demand curve of the last number of years, a real demand. There were more returning students at colleges; there were more part-time students coming on stream; and there was additional student financial aid available, which you yourself have admitted. The percentage of secondary school graduates wishing to enter increased because of the rhetoric of this government, claiming that we were more interested in an investment in post-secondary education. So the demand was there and it was a real one, Mr. Minister, and I don't think we should overplay the fact there were some students who had double and triple registered.

Which brings us to a general area of questioning around access to post-secondary education in our province. The revised figures that I have suggest that if you add the number of university transfer students from community colleges to the number of students actually in universities, we now have in B.C. an access rate ranging between 20 percent and 22 percent. The numbers that were traditionally used were much lower than that and put us very low in the general picture in terms of Canadian student access to post-secondary education. However, even at 20 to 22 percent we don't compare terribly favourably with the Canadian average of 28.2 percent, or with the American average of 54 percent. So access for our young people is still something which has to be worked on. We have to talk about goals for that access, and we have to talk about what we need to do to provide that access.

I should at this point suggest one of my concerns about this new study of the minister's, and that is that the accessibility question might be answered by this government with distance education. I would point to the fact that this new task force, this independent review, is reporting very soon, by

[ Page 4060 ]

May 13, so the minister can use it to get some more money out of Treasury Board to perhaps get more FTEs into the community college system. But I would suggest that a sub agenda of that particular task force has to do with injecting more distance education into our system rather than less, or rather than rationalizing its use. I point to the fact that the one community college administrator who is actively engaged in this independent task force is in fact the principal at North Island College, who is an active advocate for distance education.

At this point in the discussion, I want to reiterate what we said last year: that distance education is, in its place, a very strong and potent and: viable and useful addition and complement to the existing post-secondary package that we have to offer to our students. However — and I will reiterate this from our last estimates process and through numerous conversations that we've had — distance education cannot ever be regarded as a replacement for face-to-face instruction.

There is a legitimate question in the minds of administrators, students and college boards right now as to what is going on with distance education and what the minister's plans are. Is distance education going to be used as an access tool to bring more and more students, even in urban areas, under the rubric of distance or television learning? And is it going to replace face-to-face learning in situations where students are not 300 miles distant; where they are not within the driving range for a face-to-face, teacher-student encounter? These are real concerns that have to do with access. This is just one question that arises from our look at this task force.

Another question that has to do with access is the whole business of privatization. Are you seriously suggesting that by privatizing — I should say by continuing to privatize community college courses into the private schools, which my colleague from New Westminster (Ms. Hagen) referred to yesterday, and by continuing the privatization process — that is going to increase quality access for our students and our young people? If you are going to suggest that's the case, then we would suggest back to you that without an overview or a major commission reporting back, this would be a very foolhardy step in the wrong direction.

As my colleague for New Westminster so ably pointed out, many of these private colleges are basically operating on a shoe-string and without proper supervision or the proper mandate of a fully resourced licensing facility. So is distance education privatization a part of your agenda for this business of increased access? My colleague for Burnaby (Mr. Jones) will continue to talk about a third component of this access in terms of tuition fees, when you have answered.

HON. S. HAGEN: I am pleased that question was asked; it gives me an opportunity to address it specifically. To the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, I would like to say categorically that we, did not suggest the task force look at distance education, specifically with regard to the delivery of programs. That was not on the agenda, and it wasn't on my agenda.

To tie that into one of the individuals appointed to the task force, I can say that was not the reason for that individual being appointed to the task force. What we wanted to do was take people not only from the lower mainland, but we wanted to take people from other parts of the province who have different experiences from the people in the lower mainland. Also, he's the principal of the North Island College, and he happens to run a very good institution. He's there for his administrative skills. He does have a lot of expertise on open learning and the delivery of distance education, but that's not the reason he's on the task force.

[11:15]

I would like to take a minute to respond in regard to the college system as a whole. I believe that British Columbia has the best college system in this country, and one of the reasons that it's so good is that it's so widely dispersed around the province. It not only services people in the lower mainland, but in our 15 college regions we have over 100 delivery points for delivering college education in all of the broad cross-section that entails to the people of British Columbia.

It enables people who live in small communities like Hazelton and other small communities around the province to have access to college education. We can take a lot of pride in the college system we have, and a great deal of the credit goes to the people who work hard in that system to deliver the programs around the province.

With regard to the privatization of some programs, I've asked the task force to look at instances where courses can be better delivered in the private sector and to give me a recommendation on those instances. It's not to say that I will follow their recommendations, but I want to know what their perception is. You must remember that the people on this committee are from the system. This is not an external team; this is a team made up of individuals who work in the college system.

They're not going in on a witch-hunt to remove a bunch of programs, but I think that we have a responsibility to see that the programs we are offering are the ones that students need to take, and also that they are being offered effectively and efficiently in the public system. If there are some recommended to me that can be better offered, and if that is proven to me, then I will look at making that change.

MRS. BOONE: Ever flexible, we are not going with the member for Burnaby (Mr. Jones) ; we are going with the member for Prince George North. That's right, we are going to talk about a university from the north. I don't even have to say this, because the minister knows what I am going to say in addition.

We do have a real problem in the northern half of the province. You heard the statistics from the member for Vancouver-Point Grey about our accessibility and the numbers that are going on to post-secondary. We have the dubious honour of having the lowest incidence of people going on to post-secondary education in the province. It's something that is of grave concern to all people who look at their children and wonder if they are going to get access. Sometimes the access is merely a cost thing, because people can't afford to ship their kids down here. They can't afford the transportation plus the accommodation once they get down here.

In addition to that, there is the human cost, with people being virtually so far away that they cannot even get back for weekends and possibly not even for long weekends. There is a tremendous problem. I've heard numerous stories of people whose children have come down here and found that for various reasons they don't last, whether it be the cultural shock of coming from a remote, small community and being pushed into the UBC setting, or what have you. We have a tremendously high dropout rate as well. That's of grave concern to all of us.

We see this as something that we are trying to address. In Prince George a society has been formed from a cross-

[ Page 4061 ]

section. On that society are people from labour, the business community, the academic community and the social services community. From just about every area within the Prince George region people are binding together to try to come to grips with this issue and to convince you, the minister, that there is a need out there.

But they've reached beyond Prince George. Most of the trustees I know that attended the northern interior branch of the BCSTA also agree that there ought to be a university in the north, and they have joined with that society. There are members now reaching up into the Dawson Creek area. The membership is expanding rapidly as people throughout there understand that at least if they had a university a little bit closer than Vancouver they would be able to have bus access and get back on weekends.

There is a lot of value to this. I think that the business community is seeing this not just as a means of providing education for their children — which, of course, is the most important one — but also seeing the economic value to communities such as ours when you put in a university, when you have people coming in and when businesses have something to draw on. They have there a pool of resources from which to draw for their employees. Their employees know that they, as adults, have somewhere they can go to continue their education.

Women in the north have a tremendous difficulty, as a lot of them interrupt their education to have children, to have families or to promote their husband's career. They still do that, yes. Then they have to go back. I've known women who have left their families in Prince George, travelled down and lived in Vancouver for a period of one and two years, coming home between sessions, in order for them to complete their degrees. It's not a very good situation, but it's one that many people are doing.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The social value that it brings to communities, too, can't be measured — the value of bringing in the arts community, of having all of those areas right there at your fingertips. The northern university that we are working towards is one that I don't believe should be in an adversarial role with other areas. I do not like to hear people say: "Well, where should the first university go? Should it go in Prince George?" I strongly believe that all regions of this province ought to be looking at access to university education.

It does not necessarily have to be through a large structure called a university. It doesn't necessarily have to be a separate structure from the existing universities. What we are saying is that we as communities and as regions want access for our people, be they adults or children, in order to have them obtain a post-secondary education somewhere. As I said, I don't care how it is done, but it is absolutely essential.

I don't want to see one region pitted against the other. This is an area that is needed for all regions of this province, and I've heard members on your side of the House from the Kootenays and Kelowna area stand up, indicating they want a university and that service for their people as well. It's an absolutely essential thing, especially since people are now looking to regional development and we now have these regions out there that are supposedly addressing the needs of the people. Surely those regions ought to be able to develop within their structure and tell you what they need, because it is clear that this is what we need as an area for regional development and for social and economic development in all of our communities. I can assure you, Mr. Minister, that we're not going to go away on this issue. It's not something that people are going to be hot to trot on for a year or so and then back off, because this is something that we all feel very strongly about.

Currently a study is being done through the minister of state — the Minister of Environment's office — in the northern region on the viability of putting in a university or access to a university in our area. If this study comes out and indicates that it is a viable alternative and that there is a need there, would the minister listen to the study? Would the minister heed the recommendations of this study? Will the minister implement further studies throughout other regions so that we can start to move towards giving access to people in all regions of this province — and not bankrupting families — so that they can have university educations?

HON. S. HAGEN: I want to thank the member for Prince George North for her comments and her questions. I must say that we are a lot closer together on this than I thought we were. As matter of fact, I'm trying to find something that I disagree with in what you said, and I haven't thought of anything yet.

My two jobs given to me by the Premier were to improve student financial assistance and to look at and improve the accessibility to post-secondary education, or more specifically university education, around the province. As a result of that, about eight months ago I developed a committee chaired by Dr. Les Bullen, who chaired the student financial assistance committee. In my opinion, he's a great educator in this province. I established an access committee to look at not only accessibility to university education around the province, but other very important facets of that question such as retention rates, transfer and completion rates, because I think they are just as important as the accessibility question.

When the regional concept was announced by the Premier, we immediately expanded that to eight regional committees. You spoke of one from the region that you live in. There is a committee in each of the eight regions that is developing information on what the people of those regions need for accessibility to university education. The region that you're in happens to be more advanced because of the society that you spoke of that was specifically organized — at least originally — to look at a university in Prince George. They are very advanced, and I've met with the chairman twice — once in Prince George and once down here.

I'm committed to providing educational opportunities and access to post-secondary education outside of the lower mainland; in other words. to other regions of the province, whether that be on Vancouver Island or in other regions of the province.

I can give you two examples to back up what I say. One is — and you were there at the opening — the new dental hygiene clinic at the College of New Caledonia. I was a brand-new minister when I had to make the decision where that program should be, whether it should be in Prince George or whether it should be at Vancouver Community College. I was convinced by the people of Prince George — because I was up there when I was making that decision — and, more specifically, by the dentists, who really laid on a lobby, that there is an advantage to educating and training people in the north, or in the various regions of the province, because they are then more likely to stay there and work.

[ Page 4062 ]

The second example I can give you of my commitment and, I believe, my government's commitment to provide this opportunity in areas other than the lower mainland — not that there's anything wrong with the lower mainland — is the northern teacher training program, which is now being offered at the Northern Lights College on three campuses — in Chetwynd, Fort St. John and Dawson Creek. There are 42 people enrolled in that program, which is a Simon Fraser University degree-granting program. But again, I believe it will provide opportunities for those people to be educated in that area of the province and, hopefully, to stay in that area of the province and work, if that's what they so desire.

[11:30]

So my commitment is to provide access to university programs. I'm hesitant to say to provide a university campus, but it is definitely to provide access to university programs and, in my personal opinion, to on-site professors, not television delivery, although there may be some of that involved, as there is at UBC or UVic or Simon Fraser.

I can tell you that the three publicly funded universities in this province are very excited about that concept, and as you know, people from the universities have already been visiting. Professors, deans, have visited Prince George to talk to the people up there, to find out what their thoughts are, what their wants are and what their needs are. So there is no group saying: "I don't think that's a good idea."

The question is to come up with a process that delivers what we want to deliver in an affordable manner. If you look at my capital budget, for instance, in one year.... I think this year it's about $45 million, not counting the $10 million matching. If we were to say, "Well, we're going to create a new campus," it would obviously impact on the other campuses around the province. I meant to mention, just to interject here, with regard to the demand for colleges down in the lower mainland, that we're going to be building a new $20 million campus at Kwantlen College, which will certainly help in the pressure points in Surrey. And we presently have underway a $5 million construction project at Vancouver Community College. So it's not as if we're sitting on our hands; we're actually trying to address the needs, but the needs are growing very quickly.

I really appreciate your comments that it's not only Prince George that feels this need, because the demands are coming also from the Cariboo region — specifically Kamloops — from the Okanagan region, the East Kootenays and the West Kootenays. I don't want to get into who's first, second, third or fourth. This may be wishful thinking on my part, but I would like to be able to come up with a program that would work in several places in the province. Without getting into the story I told last year about my wife, who was a charter student at SFU and completed her degree at home, I think I've had some personal experience in what people have to go through to complete their education. My desire is to vastly improve on what is in existence today.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm pleased to be able to get up to say a few words about an absolutely essential and fundamental area of British Columbia society, the whole question of advanced education. In the discussion and debate around the estimates of the minister, who is pleasant and forthright with us in his responses.... I want to make it clear that my remarks are not intended as a personal comment at all, because he does present the estimates in a very fair, reasonable and pleasant way.

However, our concern is that the government has been eroding one of the basic underpinnings of British Columbia society by neglecting the post-secondary education and job opportunities for our young people. We think it's a foolhardy attitude; we think it's almost that of a cost accountant in a car dealership, where you're asking people to cut back and control their spending by underfunding and forcing people running the system to provide more with less. That was one of the great buzzwords of the last few years during the restraint period. Mr. Speaker, we long ago passed the point of rationalization and are now getting into the point of the demoralization of an entire generation of British Columbians and, equally, the administrators and the professionals within that system.

That is our major concern about the estimates of this government in post-secondary education: that we are now distorting programs in these very fine educational institutions that have been built up over the last few decades. We have excessive class sizes; we have a lack of contact between students and professors because of those excessive class sizes; we have an overuse of the facilities and, just as damaging, a collapse of morale among the people involved in this system. We have a lack of innovation.

Basically what I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this government has no vision of what post-secondary education is and, more important, what it should become. We believe, as New Democrats, that education must be a key priority if British Columbia is going to be the stable and prosperous place that it can and should be.

If you look around other jurisdictions, you will see that the emphasis is on investing and putting a tremendous amount of resources into the education of young people. Just go next door to Washington State, where the governor has made education the number one priority. Or go to Massachusetts, and if you talk to one of the presidential candidates, Michael Dukakis, as the governor of Massachusetts: tremendous involvement of the state in post-secondary educational programs; an innovative program of removing people from the welfare rolls with proper education; employer training programs; over 50,000 new jobs created a year through that kind of thoughtfulness about the role that education can play. Go to Ontario. There's that same push in public education, with the same constraining cost factors; just a different set of priorities and a different vision. Go to Japan. There's a tremendous emphasis on educational programs, and it pays off, not just that you have graduates who are as literate as the hon. member for Nanaimo and can quote Latin or Greek or, sometimes, English in the Legislature. You have those non-quantifiable benefits, but you also have the benefit of intellectual capital that sustains and nourishes our civilization — even more so in this increasingly competitive, difficult and unpredictable world that we live in. It pays off in new investment and new jobs.

We think it's unfortunate that those priorities have been distorted because of a lack of vision and a lack of respect for the role that education can play in our community, but we also think that it results from the past government's financial waste and misplaced priorities. I will quickly document those by referring you to the Coquihalla fiasco, the SkyTrain cost overruns, northeast coal and the fire sales on our B.C. Enterprise Corporation lands.

We're losing millions of dollars while we're allowing advanced education to starve to death. That is one of the reasons, aside from a lack of vision, that we have these

[ Page 4063 ]

misplaced priorities and that you have a very difficult time justifying your estimates, because they cut the investment that needs to be done in our young. I think you have a very difficult job, given that attitude and the lack of resources you have to carry out your mandate.

We think that this government's present priorities and the attention it's giving privatization, decentralization, Bill 19 and the Premier's personal agenda, which must dominate two-thirds of your cabinet time with trying to deal with his personal moral issues or helping friends and those sorts of things.... That's not education. That doesn't deal with where a huge amount of your energy, time and resources should be going: to the future of the young people in this province. The demoralizing of our school professionals is one of the sad legacies....

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I bring to your attention standing order 42 or 43 on relevancy of debate in estimates. I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition is a neophyte in this House, but possibly his budget speech should have been made during the budget and not in the estimates of the Minister of Advanced Education.

MR. BLENCOE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think it's extremely important that the Leader of the Opposition outline the financial constraints that this government has put on universities and where the history of that has come from. I think his points are extremely well taken, and they should be put on the record of why the universities and colleges are in trouble the way they are, and the record of Social Credit mismanagement and the dollars they have wasted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the advice provided by both hon. members and will agree that at one point during the discourse of the Leader of the Opposition there was some question about relevancy. But I noted that he got back to the relevant points quite rapidly, and so the Chair let it go.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, I understand why the government would think that their mismanagement and waste would be irrelevant. That is why they have such an irrelevant education policy. I can understand why they would be nervous and defensive and jump up and down about that. I'd be nervous and jump up too if I had that kind of track record. I'd be very embarrassed. I'd be embarrassed because of those misplaced priorities and lack of effort and realizing what needs to be done in education. It has led to one of the major tragedies in our system, which is not just the demoralization of our young people because they can't get into colleges. If they do, they get question and answer; they get multiple choices instead of a higher quality of instruction from their instructors, because their instructors are overloaded.

One of the other demoralizations, as I said, is that of the teaching professionals, who are starting to get demoralized and leave this province. We have numerous reports from all of the presidents of the universities, the colleges and BCIT, saying: "Here's what needs to be done if we are going to operate effectively, even as a car dealership should operate to be effective."

I want to point out in some detail why the remarks that I have just made are totally relevant to British Columbia right now, even though they may be irrelevant to the government, which has continually shown that it refuses to listen to the real needs of British Columbians.

I met last week with the president of the University of Victoria, Dr. Howard Petch, and I want to tell you the results of that meeting. I had to push and prod, because there is a great deal of fear among educators that if they give honest answers, they are going to get some vindictive action thrown at them by the government. I think it's unfortunate that that kind of fear pervades the thinking of the leadership of our post-secondary education institutions.

I want to talk about the four key problems that this government is not dealing with — not only not dealing with, but making worse. Those four problems are: the lack of access for students; the damage that's being done to the quality of education, not the quantity; the building shortage of competent professors that is going to affect not just our educational institutions of British Columbia but all educational institutions internationally, not just in North America; and the damage to the buildings and plants of our postsecondary institutions because of the neglect of basic maintenance and repairs and replacement capital programs.

To deal with those four areas, I'll start with the first item: the lack of access for all qualified students. Let's look at fees. Underfunding has forced the University of Victoria to dramatically increase student fees over the last few years. In 1977 fees were $600 at the University of Victoria. The fees in 1988 are somewhere between $1,500 and $1,800 per student. The amount of the University of Victoria budget has gone from about 8 percent to 16 percent just on student fees. That makes it far harder for students from the middle- and lower income families to attend schools.

[11:45]

What this government has done is to up some of the funding for students. They've increased the demand, but then they've restricted the supply. So on one side they've increased the demand, and then they've shut the door on supply in terms of spaces for students at these post-secondary institutions. That is leading to a great deal of disappointment, anger and resentment in the young people of this province.

In terms of the costs that the universities are facing with that increased demand, there are something like 563 more full-time students than last year at the University of Victoria; and yet not a cent more from government for education to help the university deal with that. There's been no increase in the government operating grant, yet enrolment in the last ten years has gone up 50 percent.

The president of the University of Victoria — and it took me a long time to prod this out of him — said: "In my opinion, we've reached the limit." And here's an administrator who has really tried to buy the government's restraint line. He has slashed, cut and without a whimper done all the hard tough slashing, the tough get going when the going gets tough, and all those other things, and yet he's being punished. He's being punished more and more. And I said to him: "Do you ever get the impression, Dr. Perch, that they really don't give a darn about you?" The University of Victoria will turn away over 300 qualified students this September because of the neglect of the last ten years.

I want to talk about the underfunding and how it affects the quality of education. You can be sitting there in a classroom with a pen and a notepad and be receiving far less of an education than you did even ten years ago. What bothers me is that while this underfunding is happening, this government isn't putting any money into post-secondary education. The University of Victoria is now receiving 16 percent of its budget from the students and the rest from the federal government.

[ Page 4064 ]

As a matter of fact, this provincial government makes money off the federal money that they receive. They take money back and put it into general revenue. For the University of Victoria, that amounts to about $5 million a year. The president of the University of Victoria, speaking in terms of the underfunding and its effect on the quality of education, said: "We're reaching, the stage of sacrificing the quality of education for our students."

Do you know who is suffering? Not the minister or I, who were fortunate enough to have a university education. It affects the young people of this province. It's cheating the young people of a good education.

I wanted to make it very clear....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sorry. We'll have to have an interjection, because time has expired. Perhaps if you would let one of your colleagues....

MR. BLENCOE: I am thoroughly enjoying the Leader of the Opposition's background to the crisis in our universities, and I certainly would like to hear him continue to give this House all the information and the facts of what's been happening.

MR. HARCOURT: That was a very good summary by the hon. member for Victoria of my remarks to date, and I see that I'm receiving the same encouragement from the government members on the other side of the House, the rabbit pack sitting over there in a bunch, listening thoroughly to the remarks taking place. I want them to hear my remarks about the impact on the quality of education in terms of professors' salaries.

You may not like professors. You may not like educators — and this government doesn't like educators. But I want you to know that there's a market for educators, too. If you don't meet the demand, then you're going to lose professors, or you're not going to be able to attract them. We're already at that point.

B.C.'s salaries are 8 percent below the Canadian average. I want to refer you to what Dr. Petch had to say about that. He said that we're not going to be able to compete for staff; we need competitive wages. Good weather alone is not enough. As a matter of fact, one professor said that climate is worth $ 1,000 a year. So the old argument that we can pay them less to come to beautiful B.C. is worth about $1,000, but that's not going to make up the 8 percent that we're below now and that is getting worse. It's not going to deal with the very real problem that I'm sure the minister and his staff are aware of, the increasing retirements of the universities' staff — the senior staff in particular. There were four to six last year from the University of Victoria, and this year it's climbing to 30. You could say the same thing for the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser and our other education institutions. In an increasingly tight market, we're going to be short of teachers, not only short of classrooms.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm not sure if the member for Richmond, after he's retired by the electorate in the next election, is going to have the qualifications to teach, but I certainly look forward to him going back to school and learning to spell real good.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He's not a Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT: He will be soon.

Mr. Speaker, to deal with the increasingly competitive climate for professors and teachers and to deal with the early retirements would amount to about an extra $3 million a year. This would bring the salaries up to the national average, so we can keep the university functioning properly.

This is just one example of the overall problems and crises that post-secondary educational institutions are facing. To sum up the overall problems of the University of Victoria.... We had to squeeze this out of them; they were reluctant to make this information available. I think that kind of fear and tentativeness from our educational institutions is unfortunate, but we did. I had to cross-examine almost reluctant witnesses — in the best manner of our illustrious Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) — to get this information out. But I did find out that the university's overall estimate of what they need to restore the integrity of that institution and to deal with the four problem areas that I've just outlined is about $20 million a year for the next five years. The basic numbers are about $10 million for capital costs; $2 million for operating costs and dealing with extra students; $3 million for salaries, just to get up to the national average — let alone attract some of the leading-edge people in technology, science, engineering, the liberal arts and other areas; and $5 million to deal with the decreased quality of education that's happened over the last decade.

I could give you similar discussions that I've had with the University of British Columbia, with the president of Simon Fraser University, with the B.C. Institute of Technology and the colleges throughout this province. It's all there; the same story of the disintegration and demoralization of the colleges and, more importantly, the lost opportunities for our young people.

Mr. Speaker, this government has failed to make education a priority. They've failed to realize that a good education system attracts investment and jobs — not just a nice smile; not just: "Come to beautiful British Columbia," and few cliches and pamphlets, but the quality of the education and training of our young people and people who go back to school, which is an increasing number of people that the minister outlined in his family.

Mr. Speaker, as the Victoria-area members have a pleasant chat over tea, as they usually do with each other, Social Credit cutbacks in education have not only hurt our children, as I have been trying to point out, but they've hurt British Columbia. They have cost us jobs in British Columbia, and as a result all British Columbians have suffered.

We also think that the lack of vision has led to missed opportunities, particularly in the north and the interior where we should have long ago started the planning process for four-year, degree-granting institutions. We should have long ago started that process, instead of depriving our young people in the north and the interior of an opportunity for a decent education tied to jobs that could keep them in those areas, instead of their having to leave the north and the interior and come to the lower mainland or — the worst fate of all — go to Toronto and pay $300,000 for a lousy little bungalow. What an awful fate this government has visited upon the young people of the north and the interior because of a lack of educational and job opportunities.

We think the work that could be done to establish those new institutions in the north and the interior should have taken place a long time ago. The universities here are ready to do that, the institutes are ready to do that. They're already

[ Page 4065 ]

involved in an ad hoc way with nursing and engineering programs and many others. But it should be done in a bold, clear, exciting way — the same way that we set up the University of British Columbia; the same way that we as British Columbians set up Simon Fraser University; the same way that we established with the Macdonald report in the sixties, that we established the college system throughout this province, and the same way that we established the Institute of Technology. We want to see the same attitude of British Columbians to establish two new institutions in the north and in the interior, so our young people have a future in those areas.

We think the same sort of vision and boldness should go into removing other barriers to access to post-secondary education, such as, for mature students.... The minister has mentioned his wife, who took advantage of post-secondary educational training. We'd like to expand that. We'd like to expand that to women who are more and more going back for post-secondary education, who also have the requirements of proper child care, to deal with their parenting responsibilities, and who have more flexible schedules in these institutions so they can deal with their other responsibilities in the family. We don't think that that has received enough attention from this government. There are people who may not have children at home or may have the wealth in the family to be able to adjust their schedules to those the institutions. We would like to see the institutions adjust their schedules to the kinds of students I've just outlined.

Mr. Minister, I'm sure if you want to look for ideas that are bubbling across this country, you can only look at the symposium that took place in Saskatoon in the fall of this year. A number of these new and bold initiatives are being talked about by educators right across this province. We would hope that not only had you and your officials read that document, having participated in that conference.... You would not just read it, you'd do it. D-O-I-T. Don't turn doing it into a four-letter word, as you have in most other areas. Please do something for our young people in this province.

The essential difference between New Democrats and Social Crediters is that we would make sure there were sufficient funds for education so that our young people would have a future. We'd do it by shifting our priorities, not by wasting $500 million to $1 billion a year, like Social Crediters do, blowing the taxpayers' money. Instead of putting $20 million into the Premier's personal crusade on moral issues and the family, and instead of self-aggrandizement advertising.... There's all sorts of money just in the waste and...

MR. BLENCOE: Gracie's furniture.

MR. HARCOURT:...this executive furniture that the government is ordering for its new ministries. We think that should be better invested, not wasted. It should be invested in our young, not wasted in these giveaway projects in which this government and past governments have been a failure in this province. We're saying: give our young people a chance for post-secondary education, Mr. Minister.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.