[ Page 4067 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Notice of Motion –– 4067

Oral Questions

Ambulance dispatch service. Mr. Miller –– 4067

Native education agreement. Mr. Guno –– 4068

Furnishings of Ministry of Economic Development offices. Mr. Williams –– 4068

Hospital user fees. Ms. A. Hagen –– 4068

Referendum system on education costs. Mr. Jones –– 4069

Privatization of provincial park campgrounds. Ms. Edwards –– 4069

Lake Koocanusa water level. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 4069

Riverview Hospital. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 4070

Tabling Documents –– 4070

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

(Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 4070

Mr. Jones

Ms. Smallwood

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

On vote 8: Vancouver Island-Coast development region –– 4078

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Clark

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This past weekend citizens of Victoria hosted their sixth annual jazz festival. It was a most successful event, with 20 bands participating, with a very international flavour, and I would like to personally thank those who put it on, especially the volunteers who worked so very hard.

There were many great, different sounds, every band having its own unique sound, but one band added a whole new dimension to the word "jazz, " and that was Igor and his Cowboy Jazz Band. He's a great entertainer and they're from Phoenix, Arizona. Igor Glenn is with us in the House today, along with his wife Barbara, and I would like the House to make them very welcome.

HON. S. HAGEN: It is indeed a great pleasure for me today to have visiting in the House from the beautiful Comox Valley, which I'm sure all of you realize is the heart of region 1, a group of students, namely, 28 grade 11 students from G.P. Vanier Secondary School and 12 students from Highland Secondary School, together with their teachers, George Cochrane, who also is the mayor of the city of Courtenay, and another teacher, Mrs. Clough. Also here is Norma Rankin from Crown Forest Products, who are sponsoring this tour today, and they are commemorating the startup of forestry activity in Courtenay again. Five years ago this was shut down for lack of merchantable timber. Fortunately there is enough now, so they've opened it up again. It's my pleasure to welcome them and I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. MILLER: I hope nobody was blowing their own horn last week, but I would like the House to join me in welcoming eight students and their teacher, Kevin Borserio, from the Queen Charlotte City secondary school. They are here as part of a program that Crown Forest has to bring students to Victoria, and I think Crown Forest should be commended. I should also point out that the students are the top academic students, and I think the students should be congratulated for that achievement. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them to Victoria.

MR. GABELMANN: As members of the House know, we've had a very successful legislative intern program in these buildings for ten years or more now, and graduates of that program usually go on to great things. In the House today we have a legislative intern from 1983, who has not gone on to great things; he's actually studying to be a lawyer. I wonder if the House would welcome Peter Hertzberg.

MR. CRANDALL: This is a rare day for me, and I'm delighted that I have four constituents from Columbia River here. I'd appreciate it if the House would welcome Mr. and Mrs. Ted Cuffling and Mrs. Cuffling's grandson, Fred Bjoranson from Victoria,

Now that you've welcomed them for being here, I would also like you to congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Cuffling, who were married just this past Saturday.

Also in the member's gallery we have two other constituents from Golden: Mr. Joe Dusevic and Mr. Wil Corbett. I'd appreciate it if the House would welcome them.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure both the Attorney-General and myself will come up with some appropriate punishment for the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) for his last comment about lawyers, but before we determine that, I would like to point out to the House that in the precincts today is Mr. Art Charbormeau. Mr. Charbormeau is in charge of the provincial organization representing the interests of those affected by the Principal Trust fiasco. I'd ask that all members of the House join me in welcoming Mr. Charbonneau to Victoria.

MR. PELTON: I would like on behalf of our Speaker to introduce some people attending in the House today: Mayor Alex Stuart from Ladysmith; Chief Jerry Brown of Nanaimo Indian Band; Ian Terry, chairman of the Nanaimo Regional District; Mel Woolley, president of Advanced Ecology Corp.; and James Grey and Beverley Mills, who are visiting from Camosun College. Would you make them welcome, please.

Notice of Motion

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I am asking leave to place a notice of motion on a possible matter of privilege which arises from the responses given yesterday by the Premier to a series of questions raised by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

Briefly, to one question whether there were no personal or corporate financial obligations to Mr. Toigo, the Premier responded: "I have no 'obligations' to Mr. Toigo." To another question further along about any corporate transactions in the sense I just outlined, the Premier responded: "I have no corporate involvements."

Well, today there are revelations that Mr. Toigo is a tenant in Fantasy Gardens, which would at least imply a corporate involvement. In view of this, I give notice now of proceeding with the motion of privilege, subject to the Premier having a chance to clear the air when he returns to the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his notice. We'll proceed with the matter further when the Premier returns.

Oral Questions

AMBULANCE DISPATCH SERVICE

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. We had an unfortunate incident yesterday in which a longshoreman died on the waterfront in Prince Rupert. The information I get from the union is that it took 16 minutes for the ambulance to attend. We had an incident last Thursday; it took 20 minutes for the ambulance to attend. In another incident, 20 minutes. I have a letter from the first-aid attendant at B.C. Packers outlining the problem: "I then phoned for an ambulance. It took me four minutes to talk to a dispatcher, and an additional 15 minutes for the ambulance to arrive. Some of the questions asked by the dispatcher requesting a detailed description of our plant's location were unnecessary." A local dispatcher would have known the location of a major fish plant in Prince Rupert.

Will the minister now admit there are serious problems with the centralized dispatch system, and conduct an in-depth review in consultation with rural people in British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to specific incidents. If he would give me that information

[ Page 4068 ]

I will certainly bring a report back — I'll take it on notice.

MR. MILLER: New question, Mr. Speaker. There is general fear and confusion. I've outlined three incidents. The people in Prince Rupert are up in arms. I talked to the longshoreman who called an ambulance for his dying fellow worker and was told that all the dispatcher in Kamloops wanted to do was jawbone. He didn't know where the port was in Prince Rupert.

Will the minister forget these foolish plans to privatize parts of the ambulance system and concentrate his energies on improving the system we have now so that it works for the people of this province?

[2:15]

NATIVE EDUCATION AGREEMENT

MR. GUNO: I have a question to the Minister of Education. Last Friday we learned that you and your federal counterpart, Mr. Bill McKnight, signed a new agreement on funding of education for some 7,500 status Indian students in B.C. Can the minister tell the House whether or not he believes that the right of native people to a meaningful say in their children's education should be a cornerstone in such an agreement?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know whether the philosophical question the member asked has anything to do with the funding agreement between Ottawa and the province.

MR. GUNO: I'll clarify with a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This agreement creates an evaluation process that doesn't require native involvement in a funding mechanism that ties spending on native education to the priorities of school boards. The chiefs of B.C. first nations have rejected this agreement unanimously. How can the minister reconcile that he respects the right of the native people to be part of the decision affecting them, when he freezes them out of the process?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The wording in the agreement does not require the participation, but neither does it preclude it. I would certainly welcome the participation of the native people in any evaluation programs as to the benefits their students are receiving. How can we evaluate anything without talking to them?

MR. GUNO: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In terms of coming to this agreement, what sort of consultation took place with regard to the native people? What sort of input did they have in this agreement?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: In the initial stages, efforts were made to try to involve the native peoples in the consultation. But as I understand it, there was a refusal to meet, walking out of meetings and that sort of thing. The funds available to the province from the federal government, in order to pay for last year's tuition of these students, was not possible without signing the agreement by the end of March of this year. There was no formula in place for the federal government to transmit any money to the province — and that's some $32 million - in order to pay for the education of the native people. I might point out that the agreement allows native people to reach an agreement with their local school boards - that's the first time that has been done — so that when they reach an agreement, then the financial dealings would be directly between the band, the school district and the federal government. So the provincial government would be out.

The other thing is that the funding under the new agreement now provides for funding at the level of the average education costs per pupil in the district, not based on the provincial average as before.

FURNISHINGS OF MINISTRY OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICES

MR. WILLIAMS: I had hoped to ask questions of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), but I guess she's out in the furniture stores today. My question is therefore to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister confirm that Treasury Board has indeed turned down the minister's request for $900,000 worth of furnishings etc. to replace the tatty furniture that the minister has had to put up with to date?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The issue is being revisited by Treasury Board at the request of the cabinet. The issue is many-faceted. We are in the midst of protecting the taxpayers' interest to ensure that we get full value for whatever dollars are expended. That means that we are examining alternatives to satisfy ourselves that the needs of the ministry and of the taxpayers will be well served.

MR. WILLIAMS: To clarify, the Treasury Board turned it down and cabinet requested the review; is that correct?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister explain to what extent it was outside the guidelines of these normal expenditures and whether previous expenditures by the minister with respect to the crystal palace in Vancouver were a factor in this review?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm not aware of any structure identified as the crystal palace, but in answer to the specific question, which I am able to deal with — the guidelines for Treasury Board review of ministry requests for expenditures within appropriated approved budgetary limits — the answer is $100,000.

HOSPITAL USER FEES

MS. A. HAGEN: The Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) has recognized that his policy of cutting income assistance to new mothers was unfair and antifamily. The Minister of Health has a policy which takes effect May 1, which will increase fees for seniors in longterm care facilities. Will the Minister of Health now admit that his policy of increasing those fees to seniors is unfair?

HON. MR. DUECK: No, that's a cabinet decision.

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps I could ask the Minister of Health a further question that he might take to his cabinet

[ Page 4069 ]

colleagues — a recommendation, in fact. Will the Minister of Health now recognize, as has the Minister of Social Services and Housing, the worry and outrage to the elderly and their families that his policy has given rise to? Will the minister agree today that he will take a recommendation to cabinet with his strong support to rescind these fees which are so unfair to the most needy and the most vulnerable of the older people in our province?

HON. MR. DUECK: I certainly don't take my cue from the opposition on what I should and shouldn't do. Cabinet from time to time reviews and makes decisions, and as far as I'm concerned, that decision has been made.

REFERENDUM SYSTEM ON EDUCATION COSTS

MR. JONES: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister is well aware of the very negative reaction he received on the weekend to his threat to the B.C. school trustees to introduce a referendum system in order to control school costs. Is the minister now prepared to assure the trustees, the education community and the parents of this province that he is not interested at this time in introducing a referendum system?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Sometimes I wish the member would follow the comments that I do make and the actual statements that I make rather than the criticisms that he generates and then attacks me for. I do not want a referendum in this province. I don't think this government wants a referendum in this province. I was trying to warn the trustees that there is an increasing demand from people for a referendum and that if they tax well above the shareable operating budget, then that demand will increase, and I would hope that they would act responsibly so that that wouldn't happen. The member mentioned some sort of a threat. I did not threaten them; I just informed them that....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have said clearly on the record to the trustees and in this House that I don't want to see a referendum, because there are many negative aspects to a referendum. But I am getting an increasing number of letters from taxpayers saying: "If we must foot the bill, then we want a vote on it." That is a demand for a referendum, which I was trying to forestall, not threaten.

MR. JONES: If the minister is not interested in a referendum, as he suggests, I don't know why he would raise the ire of the trustees of this province by that threat. Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that in fact the only call for a referendum mechanism in this province is at the instigation of Social Credit MLAs, who are sending out questionnaires like this one — I won't describe it as "garbage, garbage, garbage," as the Premier does — and putting this concept to the householder?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have very little information about these surveys. I do have a considerable number from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew's (Mr. Sihota's) riding, where his people are sending me all sorts of things, and I'm getting it from individuals. I'm getting an increasing amount of letters in my office. So when the member asks, "Is it not true?" he's absolutely right: it is not true that Social Credit members are pushing for a referendum.

MR. JONES: I'm sure the minister is well aware of public opinion polls that support increased funding for education, including one that indicated that 79 percent of those who voted Social Credit in the last election support increased funding. Has the minister considered the fact that it's really the under funding of this government and the lack of increases to the homeowner grant that's produced calls for reduced taxation?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm certainly not aware of whatever the member is talking about, but I truly am delighted that the polls are showing that the people want to spend more money on education. What I've said to the school boards is that the province has much improved the shareable operating portion above what was put in supplementary last year, and if they are going to supplementary, then they are accountable to their taxpayers. If their taxpayers really mean what they say in those polls — that they want to spend more money on education — then they will have every opportunity to do so at the request of the school board members.

PRIVATIZATION OF
PROVINCIAL PARK CAMPGROUNDS

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Parks. British Columbians are baffled why this government continues to put private interests ahead of the public good. Does the minister consider British Columbia's public parks and campgrounds a business to be operated for profit or a public service for all British Columbians and visitors to our province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There has been privatization of contracted services in the parks since 1983. As a matter of fact, of 208 parks, 158 have contracted services now. We are going to be expanding that. The service is excellent. As a matter of fact, the B.C. parks branch is the biggest accommodator in Canada, with 19 million visitors last year. So it's proved to be eminently successful since 1983, and I thank you for your interest.

LAKE KOOCANUSA WATER LEVEL

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have the privilege to respond to a question taken on notice from the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards). I regret being a bit tardy on this; it has to do with low water levels at Lake Koocanusa, a question posed in March. It's a long answer and I'll be as brief as possible and then pass this letter on to the member.

The question had to do with water levels at Lake Koocanusa. This year, as a result of a number of factors, including low winter precipitation and higher than expected electricity demands, Lake Koocanusa will be drawn down to an elevation of approximately 2,317 feet, and will only rise to an elevation of some 35 feet to 40 feet below the maximum. It appears that little can be done to alleviate the water shortage at this time in terms of reservoir operation changes by U.S. authorities. Ministry staff will monitor the Koocanusa reservoir Kokanee fishery this coming season. In particular, the spawning runs will be evaluated in September. It is primarily access to the reservoir which is expected to be impacted and not the fish themselves.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Before the members trundle off to their telly tubes to sing "Farewell to my Red River Valley",

[ Page 4070 ]

I'm going to file a couple of annual reports: the annual report of the corrections branch, number one; the annual report of the B.C. Steamship Co., number two; and the annual report of the official Administrator's annual return. Makes very rich reading.

[2:30]

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm responding to some concerns that I took on notice from the opposition House Leader. The one question was increases in the number of seriously ill and potentially dangerous patients at Riverview Hospital. In response to the question from the hon. member, ministry staff have investigated. The hospital has investigated care in the hospital and now given me a report.

In the report we state that street-focused kids and people dependent on drug lifestyles have been increasing — there's no question about that. We, of course, are mandated to look after these people. It is important to note that most mentally ill people are not dangerous or violent. The small minority of seriously ill people who are potentially violent are handled in a secure way to ensure their own and public safety. Over the past year, nurse staffing on a number of wards that contain more difficult patients has been adjusted to ensure appropriate levels of care and supervision.

The second question was the concern about the patient care and public security as a result of nursing staff shortages at Riverview Hospital. Again, in response to the hon. member's question about a shortage of psychiatric nursing staff at Riverview Hospital and the impact of this on patient care and public security, I would like to report that hospital management are constantly monitoring the situation and believe they are managing this problem appropriately. There is a current shortage of nurses, and Riverview Hospital has a number of vacant nursing positions. The hospital maintains a large pool of relief, on-call nurses to ensure that nurse-staffing requirements are met when regular nursing staff are not available. They are being used to fill current direct-care nursing vacancies. To ensure that adequate staff is available over the long term, the hospital has initiated an advertising campaign to recruit more psychiatric nurses.

Orders of the Day

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.

HON. S. HAGEN: I was indeed pleased that just prior to breaking at 12, we were privileged to have the Leader of the Opposition voice his philosophy primarily with regard to universities and university education. I'm sorry he has left the House, so he won't be here to hear my answer to his concerns and questions.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for finally meeting with Dr. Petch, president of the University of Victoria. Dr. Petch, in my opinion, is one of the finest university presidents in this country. He's done a great job at the University of Victoria and had a great number of innovations there. I am sure that when the Leader of the Opposition was meeting with Dr. Petch, he was told of my frequent meetings with university presidents and the interest and good communication that takes place between my staff and the staff at the universities.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned four points that were raised by Dr. Petch at his meeting. I would like to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I have heard these points from Dr. Petch. In fact, these points were raised as a response to this government and this minister from the universities in a challenge to the universities to produce a ten-year plan laying out the concerns, needs and requirements of the universities as they deal with access, quality of education, competent professors and the requirement of capital. My challenge to the universities is — and I understand that they have almost completed this — that they produce a ten-year plan of their requirements and to deliver that to me.

I want to compliment the University of Victoria specifically for the way they have opened up their doors and encouraged students from outside the greater Victoria area. I think of other cities and towns and communities on Vancouver Island, as well as the great cities, towns and villages in the interior of the province, the north, the Kootenays and the coast. The University of Victoria has done the best job of the three universities in the province in addressing the needs of those students, although Simon Fraser has done an excellent job as well.

With regard to the suggestion that professors' salaries were not high enough in this province, and that therefore there was a problem in hiring competent staff, I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition and members opposite that at one of my first meetings with the three university presidents, I asked them to bring to my attention the first time that they were not able to hire the individual they wanted for a particular position in any of the three universities. I have yet to hear from the three university presidents in that regard.

I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that this province draws excellent, first-class people to its universities. An example at the University of Victoria is Dr. Alan Astbury, who is the Rutherford Prize-winner in physics. He is here because he wants to teach at the University of Victoria, but also because he wants to participate in the TRIUMF project at the University of British Columbia. He is a great physicist and a great professor, but we have many of them.

With regard to capital, I am pleased to say this year that the minor capital for universities is up to $16 million, plus an additional $8 million for colleges. That's in addition to the major capital of about $45 million, plus the $10 million in matching capital. I was up at Simon Fraser University last night meeting with a packed-out crowd of enthusiastic individuals involved in the private sector fund-raising drive up there. They have achieved half of the goal they've set. They are very enthusiastic, and they want to play a part in postsecondary education in this province.

I want to comment on the dismal opinion of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the attitude of students in this province. I can tell you that I'm not talking to the same students he talks to. I've visited every college and university in this province several times, and I find that British Columbia students are optimistic and enthusiastic; they work hard and are not disillusioned. They're proud of the education they're getting, and they're looking forward to getting out and making use of that education.

[ Page 4071 ]

The hue and cry that I heard with regard to lack of facilities and lack of buildings and lack of universities.... I would like to point out — I know that this is ancient history — that when the party opposite was government from 1972 to 1975, there was not a single institute or post-secondary institution started under that government of three years. All of the great facilities that were described by the Leader of the Opposition were planned and built by the Social Credit government.

The Leader of the Opposition also talked about education in neighbouring Washington state. I would like to remind him that a very large percentage of the institutions down in Washington, as in the rest of the states, are private universities and colleges. I'm wondering if that's the direction that he wishes me and this government to go. I can tell you that it's not the direction that I'm interested in going in. I would also like to point out that the students at the state-supported universities in the United States pay a much higher percentage of the costs of education.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to Michael Dukakis and the state of Massachusetts with regard to education. I can remind the Leader of the Opposition that the 260 colleges and universities in the state of Massachusetts were built long before anybody ever heard of Michael Dukakis. I might also add that they are mainly private and privately funded.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about the great education system in Japan. I'm sure that he would be interested in knowing that now educators are coming from Japan and visiting us in British Columbia because they realize that their programs have been too focused and that they have missed out on the advantages of liberal arts education. They are coming to British Columbia to have a look at our degree programs because they recognize that liberal arts are very valuable to the people of this province.

I would like to tell the Leader of the Opposition and the members opposite that my commitment as the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training is to the students and the people who want to learn. My determination is to continue to provide the best possible education programs that we can at the post-secondary level, taking into consideration what the taxpayers of the province can afford.

MR. JONES: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and to the always affable Minister of Advanced Education. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on the minister's estimates, primarily because of my interest in education, and also because I am fortunate in having in my riding of Burnaby North probably one of the most exciting and progressive universities in this country, an institution of higher learning of distinction among those in Canada.

I have a desire to communicate to the minister some of the concerns that I've heard from my constituents who happen to be students at that university. By the end of my remarks and my brief questions to the minister, I'd like to have conveyed a message to him of their serious concern about the level of tuition fees that they experience, and their economic lives as students.

First of all, I wonder if the minister is aware of these orange postcards. The minister nods. I hope he is, because he should have received 1,300 of those cards. They were part of a campaign a couple of months ago from students at Simon Fraser University expressing their very serious concern about the effect of tuition fee increases on their economic lives. In addition, I understand the minister has received a copy of this petition with some 1,700 names on it, expressing the same sentiments on the part of those students.

I'd like to ask the minister: is he aware that tuition fees in British Columbia are among the highest in Canada? At the same time the students face those high tuition fees, employment opportunities for those same students are about the poorest in Canada. We have among the highest tuition fees and about the poorest employment opportunities. The unemployment level for students in the 15 to 24 age range is roughly two and a half times the national average of the general population. Is the minister aware of those figures, and is he concerned? I know he's interested in unemployment figures. Is he concerned about the level of tuition fees. and is he concerned about the level of unemployment among young people?

HON. S. HAGEN: Certainly I'm concerned about the unemployment statistics with regard to young people, and I addressed much of that yesterday earlier in my estimates relative to job training and Challenge '88 and other employment programs.

But I want to talk about tuition fees for a couple of minutes. I want you to know that the tuition fees in British Columbia cover 17.5 percent of the cost of educating students in universities. In Ontario they pay over 20 percent — and Ontario is always held up to us supposedly as the shining light. We are 2.5 percent lower than Ontario. In the state of Oregon, students pay 27 percent of the cost at the state supported institution. I don't agree that 27 percent is right; I don't agree that 12 percent is right. I think that where we are — 17.5 to 20 percent — is a responsible range.

[2:45]

I can tell you that when I go and speak to student associations, there's always one person who stands up and says: "When is this government going to cut out all tuition fees for university students?" My answer is: "Never, as long as I'm minister."

MR. JONES: I have a difficult time with the minister's figures, in the sense that the tuition fees in Ontario are not as high on average as those in British Columbia. Yet the contribution to the operating budgets of the universities seems higher.

The minister says that 17.5 to 20 percent is what he sees as a reasonable figure for students to pay in terms of tuition fees as a percentage of the total operating budget. I appreciate that answer. Is the minister aware that in the 1983-84 school year the figure for this province was only 11.5 percent? So he wants to see almost a doubling from what it was a couple of years ago.

HON. S. HAGEN: I think that maybe you should ask the Canadian Federation of Students to re-look at those figures that they've been feeding you, because they're obviously incorrect. My statistics indicate that in the '84-85 year, students were paying 15 percent.

MR. JONES: Well, I would certainly trust the figures of the Canadian Federation of Students, those bright young minds that we're all so proud of in this province. If there was an error made, it's probably just as likely that it was made in the ministry as by the Canadian Federation of Students.

I don't see how the minister can justify the level of tuition fees when at Simon Fraser in particular, students have experience

[ Page 4072 ]

an increase in fees every year since 1979, and in fact have experienced a 150 percent increase since 1980, which is more than double the increase of the consumer price index during that period.

The minister must be aware of the impact of that level of tuition fees on the participation rate. B.C. has the lowest post-secondary participation rate of any province in Canada. If we were to get up to the national average, we would have to be enrolling something like 27,000 more students than we are now. Certainly the minister sees the tremendous economic barriers, the tremendous difficulty for students in this province, whose major source of income, being low-paying jobs and student aid, is roughly two-thirds of what it was 15 years ago. I'd just like to ask the minister: does he not see the problem that's being created by these large tuition fees? I guess the minister doesn't agree that they are large, if they're at 17.5 percent now and he sees 17.5 to 20 percent as being the ballpark. Would the minister respond to my statement that having these high tuition fees is a tremendous economic impediment to the young people of this province getting their education?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be delighted to respond to that. No, I don't believe it's a large economic impediment. The population of the universities and the enrolment are increasing every year, as they are in the colleges. I am concerned about our access and participation rates. That's exactly why I've got a provincial team and also regional committees out dealing not only with access but retention rates, transfer rates, completion and transition to work. We are working on this.

The other thing that I've done, as you well know.... One of the disadvantages, Mr. Chairman, of having numerous critics is that they're not there to hear the answers to the questions that have been asked previously. I hate to get into bragging about the student financial assistance program again, but this government brought that in last year to accommodate students. It's based on financial need; it's based on exactly what you're talking about. It's also based on the financial need of people who live outside of North Burnaby and the lower mainland, who have far greater access problems than your constituents have. And I have to be concerned about all the students of the province, not just those who live at the foot of the mountain.

MR. JONES: Perhaps the minister is not well aware, but I'm aware of his remarks in these estimates debates, and he should be aware.... Yesterday, this side of the House gave him full marks for his attempts at improving the student aid program in this province. The minister is certainly at a disadvantage in that he bears the mark of a legacy of long Socred neglect in this area, and no matter what he does in a short period, he's going to put only a minor dent in the very serious problem of funding universities and student aid.

The minister mentioned the '72-75 period. Even with the increases mentioned by the minister, next year's student aid proposal still leaves students some $600 short per year — if we take dollars in terms of constant dollars — than those same students would have had in 1972.

The minister doesn't see the connection between participation rates and tuition fees, and maybe he's quite happy to have students pay 20 percent of the bill, but he should be aware that in Quebec, where fees are one-half to one-third of what they are in this province, the participation rate is roughly double that in this province.

So if the minister is serious about improving participation rates, he'll look seriously at the relationship between student tuition fees and participation rate. I don't think he is looking seriously at that, and he's probably quite happy to see attending universities the kind of students who can afford to pay 20 percent of the operating budgets of universities. It doesn't appear to me that he's that concerned about those students who are economically disadvantaged, who have enough talent to thrive at university and yet see these kinds of tuition fees as economic barriers to the development of their potential, to their taking their place in society and to making a real contribution to society.

I'm very disappointed in the response of the minister, and given my understanding of the type of minister he is, perhaps he would like to reconsider that statement about the connection between tuition fees and participation rates.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm very disappointed with the comments of the member for North Burnaby. I think they are very unfair and unjustifiable by himself.

When I was looking at implementing the student financial assistance program, the greatest amount of time I spent looking at that program was to assure that it truly addressed people with financial need, looking at specific groups and also at people living outside the lower mainland, to get extra dollars to help them pay for that transportation cost to and from the universities in the lower mainland. And that's not even getting into the discussion we had this morning on my interest in improving accessibility and my agreeing with the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) and telling her that I had already started on those studies before it became an issue.

I believe that post-secondary education is a joint responsibility of parents, students and government, and I think that with students paying 17.5 percent and the government paying the difference, we are meeting our responsibilities.

MR. JONES: I think the minister also understands the connection between the funding levels and the rate of student fees, and I'm sure he is aware that this province has the worst funding record of any province in Canada over the last five years. He harked back to the 1972-75 days, indicating that the institutions created in this province were not created during that period. But is the minister also aware that the percentage of the provincial operating grants to the total provincial expenditures during that period — 1972-73 — was 6.6 percent? So we were spending 6.6 percent of our budget, in terms of total provincial expenditure, on operating grants. My calculations for the 1988-89 school year indicate to me that we are paying something like 2.7 percent. That's less than half the contribution we were making during those years, and that's the legacy you've inherited as a minister. That's your albatross, and that's what you have to wear. I don't think we need to hear the fancy kinds of statements of the throne speech — that we will invest in our most valuable resource, our people, and that that means quality education — when, as a Social Credit government, you bring forward that kind of sordid past, that kind of legacy to this province. Education is not treated by your government, as indicated in the throne speech of a year ago, as the bedrock on which we must build our new economy. It is not there yet. It has got a long, long way to go.

You talk about the contributions of the province. What are the contributions of the province? In the seventies, as I said

[ Page 4073 ]

earlier, the provincial government share was something like 30 percent. Of course, I'm referring here to federal transfer payments — established programs funding. What we saw in 1984-85 in terms of federal funding for universities and colleges in this province was 104 percent. So don't talk to me about provincial money going into post-secondary funding, because in that year something like $20 million of federal education funding was shunted off to other purposes. In fact, student tuition fees cover a far greater percentage than does the provincial government contribution to universities and colleges. The primary funder of universities and colleges in this province is the federal government. The second major funder is the students of this province, at what you describe as a meagre 17.5 percent. That's more than your government is contributing to education.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm delighted to respond to the question on EPE I'm sure the member is aware that the basis on which that funding is calculated was changed several years ago; and to make those kinds of comparisons borders on the ridiculous because there is no comparison there. The transfer funds that come from the federal government are now allocated for health and education. The federal government does not break down the percentage that is to go to each, and I can tell you that the money that isn't going to health is going to education and vice versa. You make it sound as if something is being spun off somewhere, and that borders on the ridiculous. The moneys are designated for health and advanced education, and that's what the moneys are being spent on.

[3:00]

MR. JONES: I think the minister knows that that is a smoke-and-mirrors argument, and I don't think it impresses anyone.

In addition to the kinds of funding shortfalls we saw during the eighties, a very serious problem occurred with respect to the capital budgets of those facilities. I know the minister, to his credit, spends a good deal of time at the institutions, colleges and universities around this province. He has seen firsthand the deterioration of those facilities — Simon Fraser in particular. The university on the mountain, which was the jewel of the W.A. C. Bennett government, with the Arthur Erickson design, was certainly one of the most beautiful universities on this continent. Yet we've seen the deterioration, and the minister, knowing something about concrete and cement, must know the kinds of things that happen when a building is built very quickly, as that was, and the kinds of funds that are necessary to maintain that very beautiful structure at a level it deserves. It is estimated that something like $57 million in capital funds is needed just to halt further deterioration of that university structure. I'd like to hear the minister's response, and his desire to see that beautiful university maintained at the level it deserves.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd be delighted to address that question because the insinuation there, of course, is that the quality of education in the university is determined by the type of building that the university is located in. I can tell you that's not true.

I had the opportunity earlier this spring to visit MIT, which I'm sure you would agree is a fine university in the state of Massachusetts. When I arrived at the facility, I looked around and asked where the university was, expecting to see the type of university campuses that we're used to seeing in this province. They said: "Well, this is it." They've taken over a bunch of old warehouses down in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and that's where they've established the excellence in educational programming.

In answer specifically to your question with regard to Simon Fraser University, as a response to the study that my ministry asked for with regard to what was necessary at Simon Fraser University with some of the problems that they have out there, we were able to increase our minor capital budget this year, because they asked for it over a period of years, and we also managed to increase our major capital. The intent of the minor capital was to be able to provide funding to address many of the needs that they have, and over a period of time we will be able to address those needs.

At the same time, we have under construction a new building, the applied science building at Simon Fraser University, as well as a new chem-physics building at UBC, which, I might add, was unable to get announced since 1980. I was able to announce last year a new $16 million to $17 million chem-physics building at the University of British Columbia.

I don't believe for a minute that the quality of students that come out of that new building is going to be any better than the ones that come out the old building because the quality of the student that comes out of there is determined by the quality of the professor. I agree that we have to continue as a government to recognize our responsibilities and continue to address our capital needs.

I want to make a comment about my travels around the province. I can tell you that what I've seen around the province, generally speaking, in our college sector is first rate accommodations. You complain, which is your job, about some of the physical structures here. I want to tell you, you should sit down with the minister who has my responsibilities in the province of Ontario. The demands and the problems that they have there are far greater, and they are not able to meet them. We are at least meeting the demands that we have before us in a very responsible manner.

MR. JONES: If I was playing games with words, as the minister did, with my question at the beginning of his response, I would accuse him of wanting warehouse education for this province, but I know that's not his desire. I'm moderately pleased with his response to that question.

I have one further question for the minister — after he finishes blowing his nose. He mentioned accommodation....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Vicious attack!

MR. JONES: It's a normal bodily function. I won't hold that against the minister.

I'd like to raise one further question. Perhaps the minister is not aware of the serious shortage of student housing on the Simon Fraser campus. I don't know whether the ministry has any figures for what it thinks is appropriate for the amount of student housing that a university can accommodate.

I think the university itself has a goal of something like 15 percent. But it's my understanding — and I hope to be corrected; I hope I'm wrong on this — that the ministry does nothing to assist the university with the establishment of student accommodation. As a result, in order in the long term to provide student housing, the university has had to get into marketing land, marketing accommodation for perhaps non-

[ Page 4074 ]

university persons, has had to try to generate funds from taking what was granted to it as land for the university, and is developing a village proposal that is to appeal to the general housing market. So certainly the entrepreneurial spirit is alive there, but I think it's an inappropriate use of that land if it's not for the university community; and it's a shame that the university has to get into the housing market in order to generate some funds for other facilities that it needs as a university.

Could the minister comment on student housing, what he feels is appropriate for student housing, and why — if it's true — the ministry does not contribute to assist universities in establishing student housing?

HON. S. HAGEN: The decision that Simon Fraser University has taken shows one that their board of governors has taken without any influence from me, and that's their privilege. At UBC, UVic, BCIT and at the colleges where there are residences, the residences are self-supporting. We will assist as a ministry in arranging for long-term money, but we will not put money that we see necessary to provide instructional educational needs into buildings for student residences.

I think it's a great opportunity for the private sector to be involved. When I went to university I stayed in a basement of a private home, and I think there are lots of opportunities for the students.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I found particularly interesting the exchange between the minister and the member from Burnaby relating the quality of education to the buildings. The point that I am wanting to make with the minister has to do with Kwantlen College in Surrey. I am hoping that the minister's comments about the level of education do not directly relate to the quality of the buildings at Kwantlen College, at present at least, given that the college campus has temporary buildings that are leaking badly.

The point that I do want to raise has to do with what is happening at the college. I am hoping, given the fact that the member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) is present in the House, that she too will try, if she hasn't already, to argue in support of more funding for Kwantlen College and the programs there. I find it very disheartening that the college board that is appointed by this government has not fought harder for the very desperate needs of our community. Our community is a young community; therefore it has strong demands for a community college and opportunities for education.

I was just looking at my speech to the House last year in which I was talking to the members about Surrey, about who lives there and what the needs were. There was a particular part of that presentation that spoke about the educational needs, and in particular Kwantlen College. At that time — and these were statistics from last year — I brought to the House's attention that 40 percent of all entrance applications to Kwantlen College for trade or for office courses were turned away because they failed grade 10 or better literacy levels.

There is a really desperate need in our community for upgrading and for college support access to.... The minister is indicating to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) that he should be listening. I am sure that the minister has taken note of the comments that were made in the House last year and is looking at Surrey with a particular amount of attention to support the need for grade 10 literacy levels.

Interjection.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think it is really unfortunate that the minister belittles the concern of a community like Surrey...

HON. S. HAGEN: You raised it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: ...and I would expect that the member for Surrey-Newton also would take offence, because this is damned important and we want you to listen. We want you to hear what the people in our community have to put up with. There are 12,000 students of college entry age in Surrey. Of that number, 8,000 have to leave the community because there is no space for them. Because of the severe cutbacks, the restricted budgeting that you have implemented on this college, they are now in a situation of cutting back a program that is vital.

Our college no longer has a program called "Success Skills." That program is targeting, in particular, under prepared students for basic entry to university. Success Skills deals with time management, research skills and writing skills: how to prepare papers. That's a basic program that in the past has been provided by Kwantlen College and is provided by other colleges around B.C. The funding for that program, I am told, has never been or is not supported by your ministry. The money is not provided. It costs $100,000 a year to provide for that program, but because of the severe budget cutbacks, they are now having to cut the basics themselves. This is not a situation of cutting the frills but instead is a situation of cutting the basics, the very essence of community colleges and the purpose for community colleges: easing the access to university training in our province. That program is no longer offered at Kwantlen College.

I'd like the minister to explain to the people of my riding, the taxpayers of a young, growing community, why they no longer have that very basic program in their college. Explain to the students — the mature students trying to re-enter the labour force, to get an education; those very people that this government says it cares about — why they are going to have to travel outside of Surrey and compete for those basic needs with the already increasing numbers of students who are turned away at colleges.

[3:15]

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd like to thank the member from Surrey for her direct questioning.

I can say categorically that when the concerns were raised by the Kwantlen College board, the first member from the Surrey area to bring that to my attention was the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), the second was the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), and it was not until today that I heard from the other member from Surrey with regard to that problem. But I can tell you that the board has been very forthright, as have the other boards in the province, in addressing their concerns to me.

With regard to the specific question that you asked on the program, there is flexibility in the college budgets for them to make choices as to what programs they want to offer. If this program was dropped — and I hope we don't think in this House that once a program is instituted, it should live forever

[ Page 4075 ]

— then I would suggest that you talk to the administration of the college to see what priority they've placed on that program.

With regard to the general situation at Kwantlen College in Surrey and in Richmond, I'm aware of the growth in population in those areas; it's severe. As you know, the planning for the new Surrey facility of Kwantlen College has been approved by my ministry. The site has been identified. We're looking at a very major facility in the neighbourhood of $20 million, and the board is working with an architect and the ministry in the design of the new facility.

As to the ability of the people of Surrey to compete, I know a lot of people in Surrey, and I think the people of Surrey are able to compete with anybody in this province.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm pleased to hear that the government members from Surrey have had an opportunity to speak to you about this concern. You've also suggested that the board has spoken to you about it. Again, my understanding is that they have had to cut this program because of the budget restrictions that have been put on the college. If the two members from Surrey and the board have spoken to you about this program, what did they say?

HON. S. HAGEN: What the two members from Surrey and the board spoke to me about was the general budget this year, not the particular program you spoke to me about. What I'm saying to you is that the college has obviously not set that program as a priority, so your direction should be to go to the college and speak to the administration.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thank the minister for clarifying that point, because if we look at the Blues, the indication is that all those people had spoken to you about my specific concern and I was somehow following their lead. I again want to bring to your attention that this is an important basic course for community colleges. If the minister is saying that the whole responsibility for cutting this course is an issue of priorities, that this college has enough money to function and that the board has somehow placed this basic course as a lesser priority than some other courses, could the minister tell me, as a representative for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley, how I should respond to the people raising concerns in my constituency office, and how they might hope to influence the appointed board that you have in place at Kwantlen College? Would I suggest to them that perhaps this should be a higher priority?

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, how would the member normally respond to a request from a constituent?

MS. EDWARDS: I'm here to say a few words. I won't take long, but I want to establish the record. The minister seems to think that the Social Credit governments are the only ones that give established post-secondary educational institutions in this province. I'd like to simply go back a bit.

I have no worry about saying that I was around in British Columbia in the early 1970s. It was at that time that the government — the New Democrats — established the college system basically on the format here now. There were huge areas of the province not in the college system. There were four colleges established in 1975. I was in on the beginning of East Kootenay Community College; it was one of the new ones, with North Island. And there were a couple of vocational schools, the Northwest and Northern Lights. In the founding years of that college and the excitement of what was often described as "outreach" or "distance education" and the ideas of what was to be done in those colleges and in that college system.... There is a huge comparison with what's happening in the college system currently, Mr. Minister. There is no excitement in the college system these days. What has happened is that the governments have ground the system down.

When I began in a small college, the people actually had a very close relationship with the students, the community.... In fact, there were elected members on the boards of colleges; no longer are there any elected members on boards of colleges. Now we have a structure into which the colleges can fit themselves and probably make any number of budgets per year — approaches, plans and so on — but they don't get the funding to carry that out.

If the minister thinks that the education of a student is determined by the power of the professor, I'd like to suggest to him that he look at what's happening to the instructors in our post-secondary system in this province. The instructors are being loaded more and more heavily every year, as it goes along. In our college in particular, the ability to have professional development is practically non-existent; it is granted at the whim of the administration, because the limits of what the ministry allowed did not want that to happen,

There are continuing and increasing dangers for the articulation of courses from the academic courses to the university. The access even in the rural areas has been diminished. All these things are going together to prove that the minister, when he says his concern has to be with all the students of the province, should take a much closer look at the college system and decide that what has happened to the college system does not indicate that he has concern for all the students of this province.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure glad that that side of the House isn't the government, because I think the whole population would be so depressed that health care costs would soar from psychiatric visits.

I am a supporter of the college system as well as the university system and of the entire responsibilities that I have. I don't know where you're getting your input from, but as I travel this province and talk to students and faculty members, I am not getting the view that you are getting.

MR. JONES: What about the Canadian Federation of Students?

HON. S. HAGEN: The member for Burnaby North talks about the Canadian Federation of Students. Rob and I have a very close relationship. He sits on my committee monitoring the student financial assistance program. He in fact sat on the committee that developed the student financial assistance program. He sends me input on various things from time to time. I'm always willing to meet with the Canadian Federation of Students and any other students who want to meet with me.

I have always had an open-door policy for them. Any time they want to meet, I'm available. I'm going to Simon Fraser over the next few weeks to meet with student body representatives up there. I'll meet with students at any time and any place.

MS. MARZARI: We spent a great deal of time discussing community colleges in this province. It is not to distract from

[ Page 4076 ]

the overall picture dealing with universities in this province and the institutes that make up the core of our post-secondary institutions.

From some of the responses the minister has given in the last little while — especially his response that it's the job of the opposition just to complain and to sound depressed — I have to say that I don't consider it my job to sound depressed and to complain about government policy. It's my job to rage and express the frustration and the anger and the accumulated disappointment of students, faculty, administrations and communities throughout this province about the inadequacies of the post-secondary education and about its hopes, visions and aspirations as well and to share with you the comments, values and goals that our communities are expressing. The job is a difficult one, Mr. Minister.

It's a difficult one because, as I listen to you responding to our complaints, it's like raging against Tinker Bell sometimes. Why is it that when we go to the community and talk to students, we hear an entirely different picture than you do? Why is it that when we go to the community and talk to university administrators, we hear a slightly modified picture from what you do. Why is it that when we go to the community and talk to faculty and teachers, their version of what's going on is different than what you come back to the House with?

One gets the impression, Mr. Minister, that you are so tied in to the tiny budget that you've got and your vision of this year's balanced budget, that you have forgotten the larger picture. You're going to sit on the edge of the Premier's office or the Treasury Board and close your eyes very tight and ask everyone to clap their hands and wish, and suddenly all the problems will disappear. It is a Tinker Bell approach. It is a Tinker Bell policy, and it's very difficult — you can understand — to rage against it.

For example, you mentioned EPE Last year I made a sort of bargain with you across the floor — a political bargain. I said that I wasn't going to rage at you around the EPF funding formula, because it had become so contentious between the federal government and the provincial governments over the years as to what EPF would be spent on. It had become such a finger-pointing exercise for the opposition to stand up in legislatures across the country and claim that their government had not been putting appropriate numbers of dollars into post-secondary, and it had been filtered off into Highways or Health. Then governments could stand up and say that in fact EPF was a very confused....

[3:30]

I made sort of a deal with you that I wouldn't rage about EPR In return for that recognition on this side of the House, I would have expected that this province, having the lowest access rates of students to post-secondary and having the greatest needs for improved capital facilities and improved access for students and with all the concerns expressed by university administrators and presidents, would have taken some initiative within the last year with the federal government to come up with something to replace EPR In fact, when the dialogue was opened in Saskatoon last year and David Crombie and Brian Segal initiated a federal-provincial dialogue around funding for post-secondary, for universities, I would have expected that our province would have been the first to come in with different, new and innovative ways in which the federal government could contribute to and develop national policies around education. All of our discussions and estimates to this point in post-secondary education have basically dealt with a terrible, tragic underfunding of post-secondary education in Canada, but most certainly and most emphatically in British Columbia. Everything we are saying today underlines that.

Even in this week's edition of Maclean's magazine, that bastion of middle-class common sense, it is suggested in a double-page story — which is about as long as you can get in Maclean's nowadays, because they must assume that the Canadian attention span can't take anything longer than eight columns — that chronic underfunding is the major problem in Canadian universities. It uses, as its prime examples, universities in British Columbia, with a full frontal picture of Daniel Birch from UBC standing in a leaking library and pictures of UBC students writing exams in old army huts.

Underfunding has to be our joint problem, the problem that we have to face. I would ask the minister to come out of his Tinker Bell reverie and suggest innovative ways that this province is involved or intends to get involved with the federal-provincial discussion of a replacement for EPF.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd like to thank the member from Point Grey. I'm a little reluctant to get into the EPF thing, because I know she knows a lot more about it than I do. But I can tell you that I sit as a member of the new committee established nationally — the post-secondary ministers' committee — and we have been asked to deal with the recommendations that came out of the national forum in Saskatoon. Of course, one of the big items that came out of that forum was the level of funding for universities in Canada, so I can tell you that over the next year we will be holding several meetings, probably over the telephone, to deal with those issues. The issues revolve around funding for the university system. The result of that may well be another system of funding, but I can't say that at this point.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister ready to take to these meetings some initiatives, some comments, some way of redistributing tax points in order to bring money back to British Columbia, some way of building it perhaps into the economic development portfolio — like kaon, which is now being discussed under the economic development package for the west, probably under western diversification funding; whether western diversification funding might be used for universities; whether this might be a way of approaching the whole problem, using an economic portfolio or envelope, rather than an education envelope?

Have you thought through the possibility of grabbing back tax points based on some need assessed through looking at underdeveloped industry, or through looking at us, as Canada looks at the maritime provinces, being in need of special economic development? Has the minister thought it through? Has he got a study going right now with experts in the field? I know there are many in British Columbia who could probably help in this effort. Have you got people working on this right now?

HON. S. HAGEN: The officials have already started meeting. We are formulating our plan, and I can tell the member opposite that I will be pursuing the funding of postsecondary education very vigorously at this committee level. I make that commitment.

I certainly believe that the post-secondary education system is very closely linked to economic development. I might say that, to the great credit of the Premier of this

[ Page 4077 ]

province, for the first time the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training sits on the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development. Strange as it may seem, this is the first time that this has happened. I think it shows that everybody across the country is coming to grips with the fact that there is a close relationship between the quality and the importance of post-secondary education and economic development.

MS. MARZARI: Since we're dealing with the beginnings of an attempt to come to grips with the lack of funding, let's move right along to a second major goal, if you will, that we could address our attention to. I'm trying to be helpful here rather than criticizing, and in that assistance I am hoping that we can take a look at a second major tenet here: that of planning.

In the whole budget, we've got distance education; we've got a special vote for science technology; we have international education; we have student financial assistance. Where in this budget have we developed a solid planning concept? Where have we got the five-year plan and the ten-year plan, for what community colleges, universities, BCIT and Emily Carr can expect in the next ten years?

Outside of the fact that each college has a vice-president in charge of finance and each university has its own committee and they're reporting to you, what mechanisms have we set in place? Can I suggest one? Can I suggest that the community colleges, now being about 25 years old, really have not had any serious look — they have not had a task force of any serious repute, operating over any length of time, go out to review their mission statements and review their relevancy to the communities and review the thin line that must be trod between community relevance and central administration and central planning, to find out if there is a better adjustment; to find out if their original mandate is the one we should be moving with now. Such a commission would take a look at their curricula, at the funding formulas and the FTE formulas which seem to be so tightly packed right now that people are feeling strangled by them. It would review the overcrowding in the classrooms and faculty morale as the numbers of full-time staff dwindle and the numbers of part-time staff increase.

There seems to be a crying need right now, not for little post-budget panic task forces so that you can justify your case in Treasury Board, Mr. Minister, but for a comprehensive overview of what community colleges are capable of doing and can be expanded to do, and a better integration of those community colleges with the university structures that we have — a planning process, in other words, that would bring the whole post-secondary system into perspective and ready it for the new agreements that undoubtedly will be made between the federal government and the provincial government in the next few years.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm very pleased to advise the hon. member opposite that all of the things she has suggested are already underway, and I'm so pleased that she agrees with the process that's taking place. We have the Joint Planning and Articulation Committee, which meets twice a year. We have the University Advisory Council, which includes representation from all aspects of the education system. And she'll be pleased to know that I sit on the ten-year planning committee for the government, so all the information that comes in to me as the minister gets fed into the ten-year plan.

With all due respect, I don't think there is need for another commission or another task force. We have the people out there doing the work; we're assimilating the information; and it will be a very integral and important part of the ten-year plan developing for the province.

MS. MARZARI: I'm going to underline that in the Blues and in the Hansards as I mail them out to my contacts in the field, to faculty associations. administrators and student associations, because you have to admit, Mr. Minister, that the last few months have been very destabilizing for most of these institutions. There have been suggestions that courses are going to be privatized. There are suggestions that BCIT is going to be cut back further. There have been suggestions that reflect a lack of planning, suggesting that we have to squeeze more out of the existing rocks that we've already squeezed the life-blood from. So when we're talking about planning, I'm talking about no surprises for these organizations that have already been surprised year after year after year until the element of surprise is long gone and morale falls.

This is another example. The CFS has produced a report called "The Quality of Post-Secondary Education in B.C." It says that 83 percent of the faculty in post-secondary education in B.C. believe that the quality of education has deteriorated since 1984, and 86 percent believe that the morale has deteriorated during the same period.

Those are difficult things to measure obviously, but the CFS has put forward questions that I believe are reasonably professionally handled, and we are seeing a decline in morale. You cannot hire new staff, you cannot bring them on board, you cannot attract them from across the country if morale is low.

I would hope, too, that the planning incorporates the notion of how the universities deal with an ageing faculty. It was suggested last year that there were plans afoot, and yet I don't see any plan. In fact, I see panic reactions occurring now that the appeal court has made its decision.

I would only hope that serious planning is taking place and that your department, your ministry, is monitoring that and working with it to ensure that in the next 15 years — until the year 2000 — we're dealing with a system with as few surprises as possible. We don't need surprises; we need funding in this system, and you know that, and we need fewer surprises in terms of panic reactions to budgets.

A third goal that I would like to put forward, which builds upon the others — the others being funding and planning — is that I think this province should start and can afford to develop access goals — real, firm access to students — so that we should by the year 2000 be talking about access to the average secondary student in a number like 30 percent. I'll correct the percentage access that I raised this morning. In reviewing the numbers that I have in front of me, I should have said the number was 16.8 percent, not 22 percent of people in B.C. ending up in post-secondary. It still is low; in fact, it is one of the lowest in Canada.

If we established access goals for our students, then we could start to move towards them. It's like working with any business or any industry in the public sector or educational sector: if we establish goals, we can work towards them. We should be establishing goals for access for women and ensuring that programs are put into place so that women are guaranteed, or have a better guarantee, that they're going to get the courses and they're going to get where they want to be.

[ Page 4078 ]

[3:45]

You can't do that in a system which is cutting back programs, very often programs that appeal to women, such as early childhood education. Cutting them back from two years to ten months is not a way that's going to increase access for women who are interested in that kind of course. We could also have dollar goals for building housing for students and for capital development inside the universities. We could be developing goals around the locations of new universities based on demographics and accessibility.

So access to students, quality of education, planning and funding are the major areas that we have to be spending our time on. That second one, the quality of education, is a result of everything else that we do, and if we attempt to pull together an initiative around funding with the federal government and planning goals around capital and access to postsecondary, then the natural result of that will be that the quality of education is going to improve, because it goes without saying that there will be a multiplier in there, and it will be improving the morale of our existing institutions.

I must say that these estimates have not proven to me that we're any further along the road towards providing quality post-secondary education. I do sense that the minister himself has a sincere commitment. I do not feel, however, that the machinery the ministry is running has a definite enough policy or a clear enough vision about where we want to go. The goals are not apparent in the words that have been uttered.

With these words I would urge the minister and the ministry to press for more specific enunciation of their goals and a more specific articulation of their mission. The community colleges are asking for this. In fact, the acting president of Camosun has said that part of the problem they have now is responding to abrupt changes in policy without any clear direction from the government as to the reason for changes. Many of these people complaining are people who have been appointed by the minister, and their words have to be taken seriously. The universities are crying out for some relief, not so much in terms of their operating this year, but certainly with their capital and planning needs. Once again the students have been very vocal in the past year. They are raging. Despite the student financial aid program, they're saying that things are not what they should be for a student who happens to live in British Columbia.

I will leave this part of the estimates here, Mr. Minister, with the assumption that we will probably meet same time ' same place next year, and perhaps be able to have another go at these four major goals I have outlined for us.

HON. S. HAGEN: I just want to say that I appreciate the comments that have been made, and I will take them to heart — I've been making some notes. I appreciate the feelings that the member has for post-secondary education, and I think she knows that I share them.

At this time I want to read into the record, as I promised this morning, the list of names that make up the B.C. Youth Advisory Council. The chairman is Rob Sorensen from Victoria and the vice-chairman is Mamie Lett from Vernon. The members are: Jason Berg from Prince George; Shannon Davidson, Fort St. John; Michael Geddes, Okanagan Mission; Sandra House, Cranbrook; Bruce Kindrat, Fort St. John; Laurie Lee, 100 Mile House; Jean McFee, Bums Lake; Janice Pasqualotto, Trail; Jeremy Sabell, Courtenay; Laura Sather, Coquitlam; and Kathleen Wong from Vancouver.

Vote 5 approved.

Vote 6: ministry operations, $856,742,355 — approved.

Vote 7: science and technology development subsidiary agreement (ERDA), $4,240,000 — approved.

On vote 8: Vancouver Island/Coast development region, $796, 82.

MR. BLENCOE: I'd like to let the minister know that we might spend a little bit of time on this particular vote. I hope his staff are available, although I understand he's had some trouble with staffing of late, so we don't know who's working for this particular section.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's quite the turnover.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, it's quite the turnover.

We hope the minister is a little more prepared than the minister for the Thompson-Okanagan region. We're finding out that these new governors of the province of British Columbia, the new "United States of British Columbia".... It's really a lot of puffery, a lot of money and a lot of bureaucracy, but we sure haven't seen much action yet. As a matter of fact, we've seen no action. We've seen frustration of local councils all across the province. We've seen frustration with small businesses who really don't know who to talk to anymore, because there are so many committees that work across this province, and no one really knows who they are going to report to anymore.

In the Thompson-Okanagan they've got at least 25 committees meeting — or 26 at last count — with about 400 people all getting together for coffee, cookies and doughnuts to talk about what they're going to do in their regions, spending thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. But have we seen any action yet? No action at all. We have the extension of the Poole room over here, all upset because in eight months we've seen nothing except bureaucracy, spending of taxpayers' money, committees meeting and no action.

Staff turnovers in this minister's new governorship — we have no explanation of why the staff turnovers. We don't know how the current people got hired. We haven't even seen an order-in-council approving the new regional development person that replaced Fran Norris. But of course the governors of the province of British Columbia continue to meet with their committees, and we see no action.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, look who's leading the heckling. It's all those parliamentary secretaries, all on the gravy train. Here they are in the far left of the Legislature, heckling away. They know it's in their interest to defend this politically corrupt system because they're all on the gravy train, making extra dollars, running around the regions of the province with their ministers of state, a million dollars in their back pockets, handing out the largess to their Socred friends.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now back to the vote, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I'm on the vote, Mr. Chairman. We're on the vote, all right. But I tell you, Mr. Chairman, the

[ Page 4079 ]

people of the province of British Columbia are on the vote too. They'd like to know how in eight months you and your political cronies have run around this province spending taxpayers' money, and what do we have as a result? We have little Socred coffee parties and umpteen committees reporting to we don't know who yet, all to be decided in the regions, in these new states. What does local government have to do with it all? Absolutely nothing. They sit by and say: "Hey, we were elected to do this job." It's another level of bureaucracy, Mr. Chairman, that expending tax....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, the parliamentary secretaries are upset again. They're all upset. They don't like us taking on the united states of British Columbia, because they're all on the gravy train. They're all getting extra money for their pockets at the expense of the taxpayer.

I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Vancouver Island: what has he done in eight months? Where are these great projects? Where is all the money going? How many committees have you got working in your region? Maybe if we get some answers....

I can tell the minister what's needed on Vancouver Island, because the local governments have been asking for certain things for years. You didn't need to create another level of bureaucracy. You didn't need to create a gravy train for your parliamentary secretaries in the comer over here. You didn't have to do that. Tell us....

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't delivered.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, we haven't delivered?

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll get to that.

Maybe the governor of Vancouver Island could tell us what he has been doing for eight months. What has he been doing with the people's money?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm so pleased to hear the enthusiasm of the member from Victoria, who knows what a great program this is but just can't bring himself to that point in his life where he's going to accept it as being a great program for this region. Of course, he was in Powell River for the AVIM, and he knows the enthusiastic response that we got from the AVIM there. The most contested election at the AVIM in Powell River was for people who ran for the ten names that I'd asked for to sit on the economic development committee; 23 of those people at the AVIM put their names in to run for ten positions. I can tell you that it was very enthusiastically received, and the correspondence that I've had since has supported that.

The member asked what we've been doing since this was announced. I can tell you that for the fiscal year ended March 31, because we were just putting the system into play, we spent $78,319 out of our budget. We have now appointed two committees: an economic development committee and a government resources committee. I have appointed a regional development officer by OIC, as well as a regional development liaison officer by OIC.

The member mentioned Socred coffee parties. I think the member should be aware that these are not Socred coffee parties. These are meetings of people who live and work in the region, who are concerned about and interested in the future of the region, and who are representative of that region: people like Mayor Don Lockstead of Powell River; people like the Member of Parliament Ray Skelly, who is the Member of Parliament for North Island; and Member of Parliament Jim Manly. All have agreed to sit on my committee. I look forward to working with these people in a cooperative manner to accomplish positive things for the region number one. which is the number one region in this province and includes Vancouver Island and the central coast.

[4:00]

MR. BLENCOE: Could the minister answer my question: what has he done in eight months with the people's money? What projects have you got? What are you doing? What are the criteria? Tell us some of the great things you're doing.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I just laid out.... I guess he wasn't listening; he doesn't want to hear things that he doesn't want to hear. But they're in the record, and I'm sure that you'll read them tomorrow.

We're working on a number of projects right now, one of which has been announced and will be officially open within the next week or so. We are also working on a number of projects with companies and individuals in the region. We are acting as liaison, pulling in ministries, together with the federal government to solve some problems. These are ongoing, and we'll continue to address the needs that come to us.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is admitting that nothing has been done — no projects, no initiatives, just a bunch of meetings and a lot of taxpayers' money spent. What a joke! You can't tell this Legislature what you've been doing and the projects you've initiated in eight months? The Premier made a grand announcement in September at UBCM, this marvelous project.... Special warrants were passed, $8 million; $1 million in your back pocket, Mr. Minister. How many months ago was that?

They're groping, as the Premier said six months ago. It's quite clear this government and the minister of state are still groping. You know why they're groping, Mr. Chairman? It is because they have a system in place that is redundant to what we have in the province of British Columbia. That is, local government has the ability to do exactly what this government to do. Local government is right there; they're elected at the local level. You don't need another level of bureaucracy. You don't need to reinvent the wheel, Mr. Chairman.

HON. S. HAGEN: Why are they so anxious to participate then?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's the only show in town. You've cut off everything else to them. What are they going to do?

I attended the AVIM, and I in my ten years in local office, seven years at the municipal level, have never seen so much frustration by local government with you and your system. Well-known Socreds got up to attack and to say: "What are you doing?" Are you invisible? You've got this grandiose

[ Page 4080 ]

scheme that's supposed to be in place, a bunch of committees, recycled news releases — even the president of the AVIM said recycled news releases. Every time you come to talk to them, it's another press release of a few months ago revisited.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, you've got a bunch more money. You've already had a million; you've now got another $796,000, and all you keep telling me is you've got a bunch of committees running around. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, a few phone calls to key mayors on Vancouver Island and they'll tell you what the priority is: it is build the inland Island highway. You don't need all these select little groups running around meeting, having coffee and doughnuts in the region. You've got local councils; you have the mayors' strategy that was developed a few years ago; it's there, it's in print. AVIM has got the processes and the policies articulated for you. You don't need your minister of state system. You don't need the extension of the Poole room to control local government. It's not needed, Mr. Chairman. Local government in this province was elected to do the things that you're trying to do.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate if you were to advise the members to lift their feet; it's getting higher in here.

MR. BLENCOE: I suppose that's to be expected from the member for Saanich. We all know he's looking for a new seat; he knows he's not going to get the next one.

Mr. Chairman, the minister still has not given me any evidence that he's using the money in a fruitful way on behalf of the region of Vancouver Island. Has the minister read the mayors' Vancouver Island strategy, endorsed unanimously by the AVIM? A couple of phone calls.... Just call up the mayors; they'll tell you what's necessary. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Is the minister's priority going to be the final construction of the inland Island Highway? That's the priority on Vancouver Island. You don't need all these committees and super committees and bureaucracy to tell you that.

HON. S. HAGEN: I certainly appreciate the rhetoric over there, although I want to tell you that you are keeping me away — and I know this concerns you — from a minister of state meeting that I have with some people here from Nanaimo to discuss a very important problem up there. I don't want that to concern you, but the sooner we can get this over with the better.

I appreciate your very direct question with regard to the inland Island Highway, but obviously you haven't been to Port Alberni lately. I think that you have a member on your side of the House from Port Alberni. You haven't been in North Island lately, where the priority does not happen to be the Island Highway. I think that these people are very happy to finally have some input into decision-making at the government level.

You made a comment about a person who stood up at the AVIM and criticized the process. I would like you to know that I have had a letter of apology from the president of the AVIM, who states that the AVIM is very anxious to work with the minister of state in helping the region.

With regard to your question as to whether or not I have read the strategy that was developed and published by the AVIM — and as a matter of fact a great deal of the credit for that goes to the current Minister of Finance — yes, I read that when it was first released and I have read it since, and that of course will become an integral part of our planning for this region.

MR. CLARK: I just have a few specific questions to the minister. Could he inform the House how much of the $1 million was spent last year?

HON. S. HAGEN: As I said earlier, it's always difficult when you have so many critics, because when they flip in and out of the House, they're not here to hear things as you say them. As I stated only about five minutes ago when you weren't here, the amount expended last year was $78,319.

MR. CLARK: Some $78,000 out of $1 million is all that was spent in eight months. Could you tell us what that was spent on?

HON. S. HAGEN: Salaries, $16,369; travel, $700; professional services, $10,500; office supplies, $750; and word processing, which was a capital expense of $50,000.

MR. CLARK: So that's the one employee that had been hired; is that correct?

It seems to me it's an extraordinary jump, given that only $78,000 was spent in eight months. Could the minister explain the rationale for the $796,000 this year, in some more detail than we have in the estimates? It seems to me if you have only one person on staff, your eight months would be startup, and there would be that $50,000 capital expenditure which would be one-time, presumably, and now you have some firm plans for this $796,000. For example, maybe the minister could tell us how many staff he intends to have on stream this year and what the budget will be for that. Could he tell us what the staff will be doing — in other words, what the assignments will be? Will there be a communications officer, a PR person, a consultant?

If you're going to come to the House and ask for justification or ask to pass a budget of $796,000, given the track record over the last eight months, I'd like some assurance, if the minister can give it to the House, as to precisely what the money will be used for.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would be delighted to provide that information to the member opposite. In this year's budget the operating costs include fees, allowances and expenses for committees, $129,000; travel for the RDO and RDLO, $39,230; communications, telephone, postage and courier, $26,500; professional fees, consultation on projects, $280,000; data and word processing expenses, $10,000; office and business expenses, $33,500; advertising and publications, $70,000; vehicle operation and maintenance, $5,100.

With regard to the staffing question, the minister of state office has at present three staff: one clerical staff is on secondment from another ministry; the regional development officer is a replacement; and the regional development liaison officer represents one additional staff person. Another clerical staff person will be seconded, which will bring the FTE level to four, as identified in the estimates.

[ Page 4081 ]

As for the $70,000 for advertising and publications, the minister of state initiative is essentially a communications exercise giving a voice to all areas of the region, involving some expenses. We have a population of 537,000 in this region with 38 newspapers and 26 electronic media, including TV, radio and cable.

MR. CLARK: So the minister is saying that the minister of state is essentially a communications exercise. Is that what the minister said? Because we have varying reports on the intent of the plan. Is it an economic development initiative or a communications exercise in order to facilitate communications with the government?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, it fulfils all those and more. It plays a coordinating role and opens up government. It takes government out to the people so that they have better access to it. The people of the various regions then have representation at the cabinet table.

MR. CLARK: If I look at your budget for next year as you've outlined it, there is $70,000 for advertising and communications and $26,500 for essentially the same kind of effort. Maybe that's mailings.

But the big item is for professional fees. I'm trying to get a handle on how this works. You've got four FTEs, and some of them are clerical. You essentially have one person working as the kind of economic development officer, who pulls together the meetings of these two committees, and committee travel is $129,000. I suppose if someone takes a day Off work to attend a committee, you're going to pay a day's pay lost or something. Maybe you could give us a handle on that.

Essentially, the $280,000 for professional services or consulting fees will be for major consulting initiatives arising out of these committees. Is that how you see it working?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes. Did you apply for one of the positions? Because you have a very good handle on how this thing works. I'm sorry I missed your application in going through the short list.

The $280,000 is available for consultation, and an example of the type of consultation it might be available for would be on a waste management project. We believe that waste management is a regional problem, and so far it's just being tackled on a municipality-by-municipality basis. I think it is possible to deal with it on a regional basis, but that would involve more information than we have available to us at this time.

[4:15]

MR. CLARK: Just to summarize then, the committees will meet on a regular basis, presumably, and will decide what consulting reports are done. Is that how it works? If they decide that there should be a steel mill on Vancouver Island, the minister can agree to have a consultant study that proposal based on those people's decision. Is that how you see it working?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes. If a recommendation came forward from downtown Victoria that a steel mill should be located in downtown Victoria, if it was a recommendation of the joint committee, then it would come up as a recommendation to me. But there has to be consensus in developing the priorities of the region.

MR. CLARK: One last question. Could the minister tell us how he arrived at $280,000 and how many such major consulting studies he anticipates?

HON. S. HAGEN: Admittedly that was a very difficult thing to do. As in any budgeting, you try to ascertain how much planning is going to be necessary, and you want to be able to have enough money to do what you want to but, of course, not too much money. It's what you would call a calculated number. We will try to deal with any of the major requests that come in, but I won't know really until the end of the year whether that number is right. We have no way of knowing that.

MR. LOVICK: As I listen to the answers of the minister of state for the Island and the coast region, or whatever its terminology is now, I like to think: wouldn't it be wonderful if everybody in this province would review Hansard and discover that the point we have been making from the beginning has indeed been verified and vindicated. You guys don't know what this is for.

When my colleague from Vancouver East poses the question to the minister and says, "Te11 us what you are spending this money on," what do we get by way of answer? Not specifics, not a description, but rather reading to us from a supplement to the estimate. Moreover, what do we get read to us from the supplement? We get the budget categories. Isn't that informative! In other words, we can say: "Oh yes, indeed, a certain amount of money will actually be paid for fees, allowances and expenses." Suddenly all our fears are assuaged and allayed; we understand everything that's happening. For heaven's sake, the point surely is that, at this stage of the game, you ought to be able to tell us what you are spending the money for and why you needed it in the first place. The fact is that your silence speaks volumes, Mr. Minister. You can't answer the question. You make precisely the case that we have been articulating all this time.

I want to be my usual charitable self when I discuss the minister's estimates, but honest to heaven, when I listen to a couple of the comments made by the minister in response to queries from my colleagues on this side, I begin to feel my little heart go pit-a-pat. Because I hear the minister say....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, contrary to popular belief, Mr. Minister, I do indeed have one, and it goes pit-a-pat especially vehemently when I hear statements such as: "The sooner we can get this over with, the better." That's offered from a minister of the Crown who is engaged in debate in the legislative chamber, where we in fact, by law and by constitution and by precedent, have these kinds of discussions. We have an obligation to have these discussions, but because we on this side are asking him to explain why this money is being spent and is needed, suddenly we are told: "Hurry it up! Come on, I've got other things to get to." That, frankly, scares me. I don't think that's a laughing matter, because it seems to me that what that answer indicates is precisely the problem that we on this side of the House have with your entire program. Specifically, your program, on the face of it, would seem to subvert the system under which we live and operate in this province. I recognize that that is a serious claim, but I am prepared to substantiate and support it.

The other point that makes my little heart go pit-a-pat is when I hear the minister, within the space of about 47

[ Page 4082 ]

seconds, say also that the real justification — those are my words, by the way — for this initiative is so that — let me quote you, Mr. Minister — people will finally be able to have some input at the government level. Mr. Minister, if you don't understand that the nature of our system of government is that people elect representatives who deal with government, and those individuals, whether they are on that side or this side of the House, are part of government in terms of that system, then God help us. The fact of the matter is that any MLA worth her or his salt is going to be in contact with the ministries and is going to be representing the interests of communities and regions. To suggest that suddenly we have need for this brand-new creature, in order that all the people will be represented, is a fatuous and facile comment that doesn't really belong and doesn't deserve the grace of having even a dignified debate about it. That offends me, Mr. Minister, and I'm challenging you to respond and clarify your point of view on that, because I think it is quite simply wrong.

The notion of giving people a voice only by making sure those people have a direct pipeline to government is quite simply an admission of error of understanding about the way our system is supposed to operate. That's the predicament, Mr. Minister.

If the minister is anxious to respond now, I'd be more than happy to yield the floor for a moment.

HON. S. HAGEN: I am anxious to respond and anxious to give the hon. member's voice a chance to rest so that he can build up his strength for the next opportunity. There is no misapprehension on my part as to how the system works. That is precisely why I have invited all MLAs to play their part as they see fit and as they wish to in this process. As it turns out, some MLAs have chosen to be a part of it, and some MLAs have chosen not to be a part of it. That's certainly their privilege and their responsibility.

I have addressed requests of MLAs from both sides of the House who have come to me with concerns. As the minister of state, I have addressed them equally and with an equal amount of effort and hard work. There's no differentiation. It's interesting for me to note, since this started, that by far the greatest number of proposals and the greatest number of inquiries and requests have come from the areas of North Island, Port Alberni and Nanaimo. That's where most of our energies have been directed.

As the member said, maybe he's too busy to deal with some of those requests, but my understanding of what he said to me was that the job of the MLA is to deal with those requests. I can assure the hon. member for Nanaimo that if he comes with a proposal or with a request that needs any help from me, I would be most anxious to participate in helping him solve the problem. If he doesn't want to ask me for help then I'm sure that he won't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the next member, I would like to remind the hon. members that the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation cannot be discussed in committee.

MR. LOVICK: Duly noted, as my colleague for Vancouver East says, and I would certainly second the point here. I want to tell the minister, however, that his answer to me demonstrates rather clearly that he does not, with all due deference and respect, understand the point I was enunciating.

The fact that members on this side of the House are invited does not solve the problem. The problem, we have been suggesting, is that the system itself represents a corruption of the normal process. That's the point. Before anybody over there gets too self-righteous, before anybody decides to become indignant, let me remind you of the statement made by your colleague the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) in public talking about how this new system is really going to operate, when he spoke to the good burghers of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

We are talking about something that on the face of it, whether you intend it or not, is irrelevant, but on the face of it systemically looks to be a perversion and a corruption of the process. If that point appears to be somehow arcane or esoteric, I'm sorry, but it's a valid point, and I would ask you please to consider the validity of that point.

I want then to turn briefly to two of the specifics of those estimates for just a moment. I recognize there is other pressing business before the House. I wonder whether the minister would tell us if any of the personnel for the regional development groups have yet been found. That's a major budget item.

HON. S. HAGEN: Could I clarify that? Are you asking if the committees have been developed? Is that what you're asking.

MR. LOVICK: Yes.

HON. S. HAGEN: You must have come in late too. Yes, the letters have gone out. First of all, a series of letters went out to various groups, including the AVIM and chambers of commerce asking them to supply names to me. The appointment letters have gone out appointing people to both of those committees.

MR. LOVICK: You can understand the confusion, I am sure, Mr. Minister, because when we have tried to deal with your office in the past, we find that it is a kind of revolving door. The regional development liaison officer was not appointed for a considerable period of time, and then I discovered that my contact within the new operation suddenly was no longer working there. So you can understand, I am sure, why we have some queries about who's doing what at this particular time and particular day of the week.

HON. S. HAGEN: Why didn't you ask me?

MR. LOVICK: You're hard to find, Mr. Minister, just as I am.

I want to also pose a couple of other very small questions. Would the minister be good enough, please, to explain to the House, under item 7 in the supplement to the estimates, the figure of $129,000 — fees, allowances, expenses — in somewhat more detail, with somewhat greater specificity, what that money is being spent for? Or do we know at this point?

HON. S. HAGEN: That will provide the committee members with the travel allowances and expenses to get them from where they live to where the meeting is within the region.

AN HON. MEMBER: And lost pay.

[ Page 4083 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: In answer to that comment, we are attempting to hold the meetings on Saturdays to try to contain the lost pay.

MR. BLENCOE: We're trying very hard to understand why you need this system. If I may, I would like to refer to.... By the way, we know that most of the money for this program is going to go to legal fees in this particular state — when Ms. Norris finishes with you. I got the brief and the slick little thing you handed out to everybody about the "voice for the Vancouver Island/Coast region." It's quite evident that this minister-of-state system is basically just a communication device, another mechanism by the Premier and these eight ministers of state to control the agenda of local government as much as possible.

[4:30]

Local governments on Vancouver Island, as I've already said, have been developing the strategies. You don't need all this. No wonder the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) left; he spent many weeks and hours and months preparing the strategy — also your member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) on forestry. All those ideas have been ignored. And now you've imposed this great big, new whatever you want to call it on Vancouver Island. We don't need it.

But here we have a slick regional newsletter from the governor of Vancouver Island. It says: "A Voice for the Vancouver Island/Coast Region." I'll quote a section of it:

"The economic diversification development group will be responsible for producing an inventory of economic resources within the region, and for developing a regional plan to ensure long-term economic initiatives. The services development group will evaluate the level of health, justice and other government services, and develop recommendations for improving service delivery."

It seems to me that we've already got ministers of the Crown doing those very things. We've got cabinet ministers doing those very things. We've got cabinet committees responsible for those very things.

HON. S. HAGEN: Not on a regional basis.

MR. BLENCOE: We've got regional government. What happened to that? Is that to go next? We've got local government. We've got cabinet. We've got those ministries. And here you are saying: "We're going to do another inventory." I would suggest to you that those inventories already exist. Come on, you don't need this. It's all in place.

A few minutes ago you mentioned waste management. You're concerned about waste management. What's the waste management branch been doing? What's that minister responsible for?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I see — provincial. So you're creating another level of bureaucracy to deal with that.

Mr. Chairman, we're trying to get some answers here. The minister says they're going to study all these things I've listed today, things that are already being done, and have been done for years in the existing ministries. He's got all these various committees running around the region, studying things that have been done. He's got a bunch of money in his back pocket for things that have been done. And yet we, and the people of the province, are supposed to believe that this minister of state has the ability to do the things that cabinet hasn't been able to do; that public servants in those ministries haven't been able to do; that local government has been doing in their development plans. The Minister of Finance even worked on those, and your own member, the member for Cowichan-Malahat, before he came here, at the local level. Local councils have plans and ideas.

You've got regional government and economic development commissions that in your last program.... Do you remember your Partnership in Enterprise program? You created those economic development commissions, and you spent a whole pile of money on them. And now you come along, and the Premier announces at UBCM: "Well, we need another level of bureaucracy on top of all that. That was no good. That was another waste. Shovel out the taxpayers' money into that program. Now we'll reinvent the wheel."

Mr. Chairman. it's no wonder that small businesses on Vancouver Island haven't got a clue what you're trying to do. All they see is now they have another level of bureaucracy to go through, which is you, to get approval for loans. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — bless her heart — will still have to approve what you do at the regional level. She will still have to approve what your little committees do. So what you've done again is elongate the process for saving industry and small business; you've stretched it out. You've put another five steps in the process for small business to be able to get loans.

At the same time, of course, you've stepped all over economic development commissions that you created in the last term. You've stepped all over local council and regional development. You've stepped all over the Vancouver Island strategy developed by the AVIM and the mayors. You've stepped all over the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) when he was the mayor of Saanich and all the things he tried to do. You've stepped all over the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) and all the things he tried to do. Where's his program? Where's the Island Highway? There is no Island Highway — $6 million.

Can the minister confirm today, after all these great things he's going to do by interfering in the provincial process and local government, that the existing ministers will still have to approve what you do — for instance, the Minister of Economic Development? You go through all this great committee process, and all these unelected people get together, and you take these applications in. We don't know what the criteria are for selection yet, by the way; we haven't got that information. But when you're finished your months of study and committees and review, the Minister of Economic Development will still have to approve it. Can you confirm that, Mr. Minister?

HON. S. HAGEN: Before I answer that last question, I would really appreciate it if the member would listen to this, because he's been missing a bit throughout the afternoon. He said that small business does not approve or does not agree with this process, and I wonder if he knows that the B.C. Chamber of Commerce has published a document which states categorically that they are in favour of the regionalization process, and that they support this.

I have had countless letters from chambers up and down the Island; I have spoken at most of the chambers up and down the Island who totally support this process. So I'm

[ Page 4084 ]

afraid that the member for Victoria is again fighting a losing battle in making his whining arguments. He is not coming up with anything supportive that says that people don't agree with this process. Why, if people don't agree with the process, would we have so much activity from groups around the region who have obviously been unable to have their needs attended to by other people? They bring them to us, and we work through with the existing line ministries and the existing MLAs to try to solve problems for people. That's what our job is: to try to help people. I want to assure the member that despite his negative attitudes, the program is being well received, particularly by groups like the AVIM. I would like to assure the member that we have asked AVIM members who have worked on those committees before to chair two of the major committees being struck. So the AVIM is totally supportive, as are the business community, the councils and regional districts up and down the region.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, I'll read an excerpt from page 739, Erskine May, sixteenth edition, on relevancy: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation...cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply." I would like to remind members that I have brought this to your attention. We're not here to debate whether or not the legislation governing the ministry of State should be in place; we're here to debate the estimates.

Would the second member for Victoria please continue.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't mentioned the word "legislation" once this afternoon. You are obviously getting some instruction from somewhere.

Like the taxpayers who are paying the shot for these governors, we'd like to have some information about what they're trying to do. The minister didn't answer my question. I asked him specifically, when it comes to economic development initiatives and loans, after all his committees have met and gone through this non-elected bureaucracy, is it accurate that the Minister of Economic Development will still have to approve the loans?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sorry that I neglected to answer that question, but you throw them at me so quickly. I have been accused of a short attention span by another member over there, and it's tough to keep up with you. The answer is no.

MR. BLENCOE: Isn't that fascinating. We have been told that the Minister of Economic Development will still have to approve the loans.

MR. SIHOTA: The answer today is no.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes. Last week when we did the Thompson-Okanagan, the Minister of Economic Development would be involved.

Let me try to go through the process so we can glean.... By the way, if I may, I am talking about the $16 million seed money that has also been given out. To those members who don't know, these ministers of state now have another $16 million in their back pocket above and beyond the first million and then the allocation now to run these ministers of state. There's an extra $16 million, of which, I believe, they are going to get approximately $2 million each.

This is the process that we understand, that the order-in-council has outlined, and this is the problem of the layer of bureaucracy that we have some concerns with. Is the process for applying for those loans on a regional basis as we understand it?

First, the applicant applies directly to the minister of state. Secondly, the application is referred to a regional small business development board, which is composed of the minister of state, his parliamentary secretary and volunteers from the region. Thirdly, if approved — but it has to go through all of these committees which meet who knows when and all come down from all the little areas in the region — the application goes to two different financial institutions for proposals on the level of loan they are willing to give and the guarantee level they would require from the province. Fourthly — this was just a week ago — the minister of state and the Minister of Economic Development will then consult to see which of the resulting financial proposals they are willing to accept. Has that changed?

HON. S. HAGEN: The only clarification I would make is that the second financial institution is optional.

Also, clarification on a statement made where the member for Victoria changed what he said. He asked if the Minister of Economic Development had to approve that loan. My answer was no. Then he said: "Does the Ministry of Economic Development have to be involved?" The answer to that question is yes. In the process there is always a representative from the Minister of Economic Development, but the minister does not have to approve the loan. The member is very good at slipping and sliding and changing direction.

MR. BLENCOE: There we have it. We've got local government elected, we've got regional government, we've got economic development commissions....

AN HON. MEMBER: Three.

MR. BLENCOE: Three. We've got the minister of state, the Minister of Economic Development, these umpteen committees meeting all over the place that get together over coffee and doughnuts, and now the minister has confirmed that after all that process, the minister of state still has to be consulted and brought into the process, as to whether she actually approves of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of Economic Development.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm sorry, the Minister of Economic Development approves the loan. You are using the word "consult," which means if she doesn't agree, you don't get your loan. But you'll still have to go back to the Minister of Economic Development to consult about this whole process about who's going to get the loan.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You just said that. It would be much easier if you allow regional government.... I'm glad to see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is back here because he was at the local level for many years and is being stamped on by this new proposal, and he knows it. It would be much easier if the proposals could come in from local

[ Page 4085 ]

government. They've done it for a long time. The ideas for economic development for Vancouver Island could come in from the AVIM and local government and the mayors, if Was economic development set in place for the Ministry of Economic Development. Voila! But you don't need this. Why do you need this? Why does he need these other four steps in the process? Oksana Exell — I've already quoted her — of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses really hit the nail on the head when she said her members are confused about whom they should approach if they need government help. There are too many people involved to accomplish anything: "If you assemble a number of people in a room, you're not going to come up with objectives. If you ask a committee to design a horse, you end up with a camel." With 350 people, you couldn't even get a camel, Mr. Chairman.

[4:45]

For 100 years in this province we've had regional governments planning for their regions, developing the strategies, doing all the right things. Now, for some fantasy in the Premier's mind, I can only presume, we've got to have another level of government spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and, in my estimation, slowing economic development to a standstill. Why do you need four more steps for approving economic development initiatives at the regional level? You don't need them; you don't need all the glitz and propaganda and unelected committees to do what local government is quite capable of doing. You don't need that waste.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, they're reviewing it; you bet they're reviewing it.

You don't need umpteen committees getting together when you have local government committees that are quite capable of doing the job. As I have said over and over to you and on Vancouver Island, the mayors have done it all; AVIM has done it all. The Minister of Finance was involved in that process. Make a phone call to the president of the AVIM and disband your ministry of state tomorrow. It's not required, and the only reason it seems to be required is for certain members: the parliamentary secretaries. When I first started this debate, of course.... We all know why they want the job. It's just another way of sharing the Socred political message: control the agenda at the local level. There is absolutely no need for this new level of bureaucracy.

I would like to ask the minister if he can tell me or table with me today the criteria — the booklet — he is going to use to select successful candidates for business loans. Can you give us the criteria? Have you got them written down?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to rise and get into this debate, but when I heard the little member for Victoria and his much speaking, I moved to enter the debate, if only to even the odds up. You guys have been ganging up on the minister from region 1, and it's time we evened the odds just a little bit.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Victoria talks about recycling items. I am listening to a rerun of his speech from my estimates, almost verbatim. I guess he thinks he will be heard for his much speaking, and I suppose he intends to recycle that speech eight times during the committee stage of ministry of state estimates.

It is quite clear, as it was during my estimates, that this member can't get his mind around a new concept, nor does he wish to. It is something brand-new. He said himself: "It's been this way for 100 years. Let's leave it this way. I don't want to try any new ideas. I don't want to try anything. I don't want the people in the regions of British Columbia to have a say in what the future will be. I really don't want that to happen. So don't try anything new; let's not come up with a new idea to see if we can make the machinery of government work a little better. No, let's get up and ridicule the new idea."

That's the intent. It was during my estimates — and I missed one, the Ministry of Environment — and it will be with the Ministry of Advanced Education and probably five more ministers of state. I guess if I am forced to, I will get up and repeat my comments eight times, if only to keep the record straight, Mr. Chairman.

He is saying that we are creating more bureaucracy. He obviously wasn't listening when I told him what we were doing in Thompson-Okanagan, and that I had hired a staff of one outside of those who already worked for government. If a staff of one is a new bureaucracy, then I guess we had better not take a look any further into government. I would like him to talk to some of the people on our committees, the local governments, who want to be involved. Contrary to what he says, we're not stepping on any local governments. Those were his words: we're stepping all over local governments. Quite the contrary: local governments want to be involved in the minister of state idea, because it's working.

If the member doesn't believe that it's working, I'll give him some names of people who are employed because of the involvement of the minister of state in my area. I'm sure the minister of state for the Island can do the same. I'll give him the names of a few people — 30 in one operation, 15 in another, another in Vernon that's going to employ about 50 people — and I'll give him some names from other places in the Okanagan where we have actually been very instrumental in bringing in business and keeping business operating.

He has the audacity to talk about highways, Mr. Minister of State for the Island. Imagine someone over there talking about highways. They've been against every highway that was ever built in this province since they were here. They were against the Rogers Pass. They were against the Coquihalla Highway. You should go and talk to some of the people in the interior and see what they think of the Coquihalla Highway. And he's got the audacity to take his place over there and talk about highways.

When your party was government from '72 to '75, you know how many highways you built. You didn't even patch the pot-holes. You not only didn't build highways, you didn't even patch the holes. You have the audacity to talk about highways. You don't even know how to spell highways, let alone talk about them.

We'll get around to building the Island Highway, and we'll do it properly too. We'll build it, we won't just talk about it. We'll do the Island Highway for you.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The people in the communities want to be involved in this new process because it does give people a regional view of what's happening in their region.

I will give the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) credit. At least he asked some intelligent questions

[ Page 4086 ]

and is trying to understand how the system works. But the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is not trying to understand. He got up and lectured us about corruption and subversion, which I think are pretty harsh words. He should come and examine how the system works before he uses words like that. He's another one who doesn't want any change. "It's been like that for 100 years" — this is the member for Nanaimo — "so let's leave it that way. Let's not ever change anything." At least the second member for Vancouver East is trying to get his mind around it.

The second member for Victoria is at the same place he was six months ago and six weeks ago and two weeks ago. "I can't understand this new system," he says, "so I'll get up and ridicule it. Every time a minister of state's budget comes up I'll get up and ridicule the system rather than try to get my mind around it. I'll use the same quotations from Oksana Exell...." She is a lady I admire very much; she's a very bright lady. As a matter of fact, I did a television program with her just this morning. But that member will get up and recite the same quotations about building a camel. We've heard it before, and no doubt we're going to hear it again.

I just wanted to put the record straight as to where that member is coming from. It's a concept he can't understand, so he will continue to stand in his place and ridicule it.

MR. BLENCOE: The governor for Okanagan-Thompson is trying to make amends because he....

AN HON. MEMBER: The czar.

MR. BLENCOE: The czar — he named it. He did so badly last week or whenever it was, he's feeling guilty. He hadn't got his act together then and he still hasn't got his act together today. The reason why people ridicule this program is that it's so easy. It's so easy to ridicule, because it's a joke. But do you know what? It's a very expensive joke. People of the province of British Columbia continue to have to shovel money out of their pockets to pay for your own political agenda. That's what it's all about. You've got money for glitz and glamour.

I asked the minister a question. Would he please today give me his criteria for allocation of funds to businesses? Table the documents, table the information, give me the criteria for your selection process. I mean, you are spending taxpayers' money.

HON. S. HAGEN: I was about to answer that question, but I gave my place to the other minister. I don't have that document with me today, but I'd be pleased to.... It's part of the budget documents; there's nothing secret about it. It's public information, so I'm surprised you don't have it. Obviously you haven't done your homework, but it's available and I will see that you get a copy.

MR. BLENCOE: Can you believe this? This minister of state and this government has got all this money in a back pocket....

MR. CLARK: What's a million?

MR. BLENCOE: What's a million? He doesn't have the criteria with him. He says it's published.

HON. S. HAGEN: I said it's public.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it's public; the criteria for selection. Well, maybe the minister could confirm this, because another committee has been struck, I understand, to deal with the seed capital funds. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has drafted extensive plans. By the way, counter to what you were saying, the Minister of Economic Development does have a major role to play in how this money is going to be used, so the point I make about another level of bureaucracy is well-taken, I think.

The Minister of Economic Development has drafted extensive plans of how the allocation of these funds is to be carried out in the region. Now it will require another committee, separate and apart from all the others we've mentioned so far. Apparently the details are.... The minister says they're public, but he doesn't have a copy today. Maybe the minister could just ask his staff, because they're with him. By the way, the minister didn't introduce his staff to his left. Maybe the minister could just give an inkling, from off the top, what kind of businesses are going to be favoured. Can he give us some idea of the selection process, how the committee is going to be involved in this — the non-elected people. Give us some idea.

HON. S. HAGEN: I do want to apologize for not introducing the regional development officer for Vancouver Island, Mr. Bob Buchan, who is sitting to my left.

MR. BLENCOE: Tell us about it.

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, I'm going to answer your question first, okay?

His CV is available, as are those of other government employees.

I'm really surprised that you don't have the criteria; I suppose if it was a secret document, you'd have it. But because it's public, you haven't received it yet. We could have it leaked to you, as a matter of fact, later on this afternoon, I'm sure.

Anyway, some of the criteria are that this is a lender of last resort. If they can get it from the banks or the credit unions, they can get it there and we won't deal with them. It has to play a part in economic diversification. There must be a net economic benefit to the area; there must be a good market; it must be a good product; and they must have a good business plan.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I guess it certainly came too late in the lower mainland region. Somehow those committees kept meeting too often, because the one so-called success and great announcement by press release by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) announced saving of an Agassiz company; but somehow it just didn't get there in time, and those committees just didn't get it together in time, and oh, dear, they went down and failed, and that company went.

Again, of course, that's part of the problem. We've outlined this new level of bureaucracy, and all these new components of trying to get money from this government that small business people have to go through. Boy, oh, boy, no wonder they're so frustrated. No wonder the AVIM gave you a stiff message. They were not happy with this entire process. Basically, they're not happy because they see their role at the local level — elected role — being taken away.

[5:00]

I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will have full documentation of the process and the criteria for selecting

[ Page 4087 ]

businesses, for being given taxpayers' money. We've been waiting eight months for some of these details. All we can conclude is that again, we were discussing a week ago with the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan the same kind.... He criticized today that we asked him the same questions; of course, we're asking the same questions, and we're still not getting the appropriate answers, or any details of how this program is going to work and what you've been doing for eight months.

No wonder people are cynical. No wonder the system is being ridiculed not only by us, Mr. Chairman, but by the media, by local government. Columnists are calling it a political con game in editorial after editorial. Elected officials at the local level and nearly every single one that I've talked to at AVIM and at other places just don't understand why you have to put this other level of bureaucracy in place. It's not required. It's quite obvious that if it's to develop economic initiatives, and you have all these new processes for small business to go through, and then the Minister of Economic Development still has to be consulted, no wonder we are in trouble in this province.

It's time to stop conning the people. It's time to let local government govern. It's time to let the proper processes that have been in place through this Legislature and the appropriate cabinet committees and ministers do their job properly and not be interfered with and create another level of bureaucracy.

MR. SIHOTA: Get off the backs of people.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. We heard the Premier coming into office saying that we're going to get government off the backs of people. If we ever have another level of bureaucracy that has just been dumped on top of the people and small business of this province with committee after committee, meeting after meeting.... Then the appropriate minister still has to be involved. It's a joke. Unfortunately it's an expensive joke, and it doesn't deal fairly with what local government has done in this province for a long time.

We have to say that we believe this system is politically corrupt. Not only is it politically corrupt, but this political corruption isn't even working well.

I presume, though, that in another year or so, as we get closer to the election, these little committees will be meeting in back rooms saying: "Hey, boys, who wants the right loan at the right time for the right price?" Now we've got it, because the only conclusion we can come to when we look at this thing.... We've been looking at it for eight months, and we still see no evidence that anything of benefit is going to come to the people of the province of British Columbia.

The only conclusion we can come to is that the agenda for the system is political. It has been developed in the Premier's office — in the Poole room. It's been concocted by a Premier who couldn't get his way. When he got out of government, he called his cabinet colleagues gutless because they wouldn't pass his Land Use Act. There were 50 ways in that act to control local government and overturn local government decisions in land use, zoning and economic development initiatives. That's what we've got today. We've got a mechanism that is politically corrupt. The agenda is to control local government agenda and centralize in the Premier's office. Unfortunately, we have ministers like this who are being told to front this system, and who really have nothing to do. Nothing is working, but I can tell you that when it gets closer to the election, the money will be out in the back room. It will be there.

We will never ever support such a system, and when we are government in British Columbia, the minister of state system is history. It's gone, and we'll get back to real government, real decentralization and real devolution of power to local government, where they have control over their local resources and their local economic initiatives. We won't have a corrupt system that this government continues to support and spend millions of taxpayers' money on.

HON. S. HAGEN: I cannot let that sort of disgusting rhetoric pass without comment. I think back to a speech that the Leader of the Opposition gave at the UBCM last fall on the day prior to the Premier's announcement of decentralization. The Leader of the Opposition said: "If the NDP were in power, the first thing we would do is bring in decentralization and bring in regionalization and bring in the same plan that this government has brought in. "

The only cynicism in this province with regard to this program is the cynicism of the member for Victoria, who doesn't want the regions of the province to have input into what takes place in this province, who doesn't want the people from North Island, northern British Columbia or the East Kootenays to have input into what happens in this province and to play a role and to participate. While he talks about cynicism and being cynical, he is the one who is cynical. The people who have volunteered and who have actually run for election in their groups to play a part in this role are not cynical; they are anxious to play a part.

Mr. Ray Skelly, the MP — the NDP MP, as a matter of fact — is anxious to play a part in the program. He has said: "Yes, I want to sit on the committee." Mr. Manly, who is the NDP MP, has stated his desire to sit on this committee. Mr. Don Lockstead — who I believe used to sit on that side of the House just a short while ago, before the people of Powell River had the good sense to elect a member who can represent them properly in Victoria — wants to sit on the committee and has stated his desire to do so.

The AVIM has sent me a letter totally supportive of the concept. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has sent letters totally supportive. The economic development commissioners for Vancouver Island are involved in the project and are totally supportive. The chambers of commerce, all of the groups that have asked to participate.... Labour organizations have been asked to participate and are sitting on the committee.

I'm afraid that the cynicism we've seen this afternoon is unfortunate, but it's typical of the negativism that comes from the socialists in this province. I'm pleased to be part of free enterprise government and to play a role in the development of the regionalization of the province.

MR. CLARK: Well, I wasn't going to speak, but the member talks about free enterprise. I note the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) is here, and that's very good, because he might have something to say on this too. I always get nervous, as someone who has studied economics, when governments talk about being the lender of last resort. They need to have a good business plan, good prospects and a few other things the minister suggested before they'll get money. Well, if they have a good business plan and they have good prospects, they can go to the bank or go to the credit union to get money.

[ Page 4088 ]

What's the government's role in this? How is government going to get involved and foster economic growth? How is this going to work? The minister said earlier that they have one person, or in his case two people, on staff. We don't know what their backgrounds are. We know that most of the money is going to go for travel and expenses. I want some assurance from the minister and from the government that this $20 million isn't just going to be frittered away on political projects that don't have any economic merit. If they have economic merit, why do they need to go to the government for assistance in the first place? Maybe the minister can give us some assurance that there will be some professional review, some hard-headed business review of these kinds of fly-by-night projects that might be funded by this program.

HON. S. HAGEN: What we have just seen is the reason for the need for regionalization. We have the member from downtown Victoria and we have the member from Vancouver East, downtown Vancouver, who can't understand the plight of the small businessman who lives in the various parts of the province and who can't get a loan to get into business. That's exactly why this plan is in process. These people who live in the lower mainland and in Victoria don't understand that, because, yes, it is easier to go into the bank or the credit union in Victoria or Vancouver. But when you live in some of the other places in the province, it's not that easy. Those are the people this government is committed to help.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister talks about the need to have a process whereby these businesses can get money and loans, etc. We have processes in place. We have institutions that are there to do those things that you're talking about. Is this risk capital?

MR. CLARK: He's criticizing the banks.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. Are you saying, Mr. Minister, that the financial institutions and credit unions of this province are not in tune with the economic needs of this province? Is that what you're saying? Are you telling this Legislature that the banks and the credit unions are not doing their job?

HON. S. HAGEN: What I'm saying is that it's easier to get a loan in Vancouver and Victoria than it is in many other places in the province.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to pursue that for a moment with the minister. I wasn't really expecting to get into this debate either. I wanted to talk about Principal Trust and all sorts of other stock exchange matters in terms of things that aren't working.

I want to pursue this with the minister. Is the minister saying that it's easier to get a loan in downtown Vancouver you're a small businessman than it is if you're a small business person in Sooke? Are you saying that the local credit union in Sooke is not sensitive to the needs of the business person in Sooke? Are you saying that the bank in Sooke doesn't understand what's happening in Sooke — the local manager? Are you saying that all this money that banks and credit unions are spending on assisting small businesses is misguided? Is that what the minister is saying? Are you saying that in my riding, in a community like Sooke, which is not in downtown Victoria, they are not doing their job?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm sure that the member from Esquimalt is aware, having been in a sort of business and dealing with the bank, that the local managers no longer make those decisions. When you apply for a business loan in Courtenay, for instance, you have to deal with the business loan manager in Victoria. Or if you apply in other areas of the province, they have centralized their approving process. What I'm saying is that in these communities where the local managers do not have the authority to approve business loans, it's not as easy to get a loan.

[5:15]

MR. CLARK: The minister said it's easier to get a loan in Vancouver and Victoria. Why, then, has the minister of state for the lower mainland got $2 million to spend? And is the minister saying that in fact people from Victoria who apply for this money won't be eligible for it?

HON. S. HAGEN: There will be equal access to the availability of the $2 million loan guarantees from anywhere in the region.

MR. CLARK: The minister just contradicted himself. He said the reason for the $2 million is that those poor places out in the hinterland can't get access to capital and so the government has to provide it; not free enterprise but the government. He says that's the reason, because people in Victoria can get easy loans. But now he's saying that the government is going to intervene in Victoria and give loans also in Victoria, to compete with the banks, to compete with the private sector. Is that what you're saying?

HON. S. HAGEN: As I said before, the loans will only be available if the money cannot be borrowed from existing institutions, such as the credit unions or the banks.

MR. CLARK: Well, if the money can't be borrowed from credit unions or banks, then why would the government would lend the money? What criteria is the government going to use to say that although the banks and the credit unions have turned them down for loans because their business plan or something is not appropriate, or because their prospects aren't appropriate or they can't make a return.... What criteria is the government or the minister going to use? What's different that allows the minister to intervene and give loans?

HON. S. HAGEN: The board will make many considerations when dealing with these loans. I listed them to you before but I don't mind repeating them. The net benefits to British Columbians in terms of job creation, increasing exports, diversifying the economy, transferring new technology, and substituting local products for imports.... They will consider the absence of other forms of government assistance; evidence of business viability, such as demonstrated management capability, financial strength of the firm, acceptable debt-to-equity and investment return ratios; a satisfactory three-year business plan; acceptable cash flow projections; and a demonstrated ability to service and repay debts. They'll also consider the impact on competition, and the impact on market trends, including industry outlook, market stability, likelihood of market shifts, and the influence of technological change.

MR. BLENCOE: The very criteria that banks and credit unions and regular institutions use. But then tell us: what's

[ Page 4089 ]

different? What qualifies for you to reconsider what the regular institutions won't accept? And I might add that this is one of the fundamental concerns with this process. You have unelected people, unaccountable, meeting behind closed doors, dealing with applications that can't get accepted by regular institutions; and you've just given the criteria of those institutions that they've said no to. What are the real criteria?

HON. S. HAGEN: The government guarantee may well provide the level of comfort that the bank needs to go ahead with the loan,

MR. SIHOTA: So what the minister is saying, then, is that they will.... Is the minister saying that the ministry— or the group, this often uninformed group — that's going to be looking at these matters will only fund to the extent required to make them eligible for loans from regular financial institutions?

HON. S. HAGEN: The guarantee cannot exceed $50,000 or 75 percent of the total loan.

MR. SIHOTA: My question wasn't how much money is going to be guaranteed. My question was: is the minister saying that — given the $50,000 or $75,000 limitation — they will provide capital to the extent necessary to make these companies eligible for funding from regular financial institutions? Is that the purpose of the plan?

HON. S. HAGEN: I don't think I understand the question. Could you maybe clarify it a bit more.

MR. SIHOTA: We're trying to seek clarification from the minister with respect to the comments he's made. Earlier on he said that the committees would guarantee money up to a certain point. The implication of what the minister said prior to that was that that would then have the effect of making the enterprise eligible for financial assistance from regular institutions — banks and credit unions. So the question is: is the purpose of the money that you're giving only to make these enterprises qualify for assistance from regular financial institutions?

HON. S. HAGEN: I see your problem now. The money is not money; the money is a guarantee. The money will come from the banks or the credit unions, but the guarantee comes from the government — up to 75 percent of the loan or a maximum of $50,000.

MR. SIHOTA: If it's just a guarantee and no actual provision of cash, the point still remains that what you're doing then is trying to establish for the banks' purposes — if I can use this word; it's not the proper way of describing it — an equity base for that company that would then make it eligible for government assistance. What you're saying is: "Fine, we won't put in the cash. We might go and borrow it from a credit union or whatever, and we'll guarantee so much." So what the government is doing is underwriting the operations of the enterprise to the extent necessary to allow it to qualify for financial institutions.

HON. S. HAGEN: What the government is doing is giving the guarantee to the banks, so that the bank will loan the money to the company, which will then become equity in the company.

MR. SIHOTA: Isn't the minister then saying that what's happening here is that the government is willing to take the risk that the bank is not prepared to take?

HON. S. HAGEN: In some cases, I would think that that may be true. That's why I referred to the problem of getting money when you're outside the Vancouver or Victoria area.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says "in some cases." How does he justify the comment "in some cases"? We've been talking about the purpose of the fund. It seems to me that would be applicable in all cases, if you were taking a guarantee position in order to make someone eligible for regular financing from an institution. But the point remains — and it gets back to what the other members have said: why should the government take a risk that you, in accordance with your free enterprise principles, are saying that the banks ought not to take? As someone else says, it's a free lunch, isn't it? It's aid and assistance, to take a risk which the private sector itself is not prepared to take. Isn't that what you're doing here?

HON. S. HAGEN: I think, if you listen to the criteria that we have established in giving these loans, you'll see that it counters what you're saying. We're concerned about the impact on competition. on market trends and everything else. So to give help to a small business that's starting up, which may employ two or three or four people.... It's in the government's interest as well as of economic development in the province for the government to assist those people.

MR. SIHOTA: We're dealing herewith taxpayers' funds. I want to ask the minister to consider those funds as if they were his, and then say to him: is he saying that he would take his funds and apply them to a risk which the banks are not prepared to accept — and if so, at what rates, and all that kind of stuff? What preferential advantage do you get for taking that additional risk?

HON. S. HAGEN: The purpose of taking the risk is to assist people in getting into business, to stimulate the economy.

MR. CLARK: The problem is, of course, that you're taking the risk, which is the very thing that the private entrepreneur is supposed to be taking. You're the one that's underwriting the risk, it seems to me.

The minister has made a number of comments. First of all, he said this was for startup money. Is there going to be preferential treatment for firms starting up? Because the one loan that we saw that fell through, of course, was for an existing business that wouldn't qualify. Is it mostly for startup funds or what?

HON. S. HAGEN: The companies that are eligible are existing businesses if they're expanding or new businesses starting up. I might add as a supplementary comment that in some cases the government may be taking only part of the risk, because the bank, for instance, could conceivably lend more even though the guarantee only goes up so far.

MR. CLARK: Could the minister inform us on who is in a priority position to collect the money? Who's the first creditor, the bank or the government, in the event of a bankruptcy?

[ Page 4090 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: In the event of an insolvency or bankruptcy — the lawyers might be better at answering this question — I would think that whoever is in first position has first access on the funds.

MR. SIHOTA: The question to the minister is: who's going to be in first position? If the government is taking the bulk of the risk through its guarantee.... Let's put aside the fact that it might be bankruptcy or an insolvency, because the Bankruptcy Act would come in and that perhaps is a different matter. With most businesses, the company just collapses and there is no need to go into the bankruptcy procedure.

In the case of a financial collapse or if the undertaking doesn't prove successful, who's going to get paid out first from any liquidation — the government or the banks?

HON. S. HAGEN: I would think that that depends on the basis on which the loan was made, what the exposure of the bank was and what the contract was that they entered into.

MR. SIHOTA: To the minister. What you're saying, in terms of this program, is that you are prepared to take the risk; that's the underlying component of what you're saying here. It seems to me that if you are prepared to take that risk and it's a risk greater than is acceptable to the private sector, i.e. the bank, does it not stand to reason that you ought to be in first place in terms of priorities, because you are the one taking the most risk?

In other words, if I can get you to think again in terms of whether it's the application of your own funds.... When it's your own money and you want to invest in an enterprise, and you are told and you know that this enterprise is not acceptable to the banks, that there is too much risk for them to be involved.... An investor comes to you and says: "Look, will you invest in my enterprise? It's not acceptable to the banks." If you're going to be silly enough to move into it without any preferential rates in terms of interest, it seems to me that the other thing that you want to do is have the first charge on any and all of the assets and undertaking of the enterprise. That's just logic. That's just simple business sense, which I'm sure the minister, who professes to be a free enterprise minister, would understand. Therefore, will you confirm that it will always be the situation that the government will have the first priority so the taxpayers' funds are protected to the fullest degree?

HON. S. HAGEN: In answer specifically to the question, I cannot confirm that that will always be the case. It will be judged on a loan-by-loan basis, and it will have to be looked at independently in each different situation.

MR. SIHOTA: Why, for heaven's sake, would the government be willing to take a second position to the bank? Should the government not be protecting its own equity interest by taking a first priority position if it's taking a substantial amount of risk?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, okay, it's taking a guaranteed position, whether it's through a loan, a debenture, a guarantee or whatever. But ought not the government, because it's taking this substantial risk, always to be in a top-priority position? If not, which is what you're saying, then give me an indication or an example of a situation where that would not apply.

HON. S. HAGEN: I cannot give him the answer that he's looking for, because, as I've said several times, it's going to be judged on a loan-by-loan basis, and I cannot say categorically that in every single case the government will be in first position.

[5:30]

MR. SIHOTA: Look, it seems to me that the government ought to be applying good, sound business practices. Right? I don't think there's a disagreement between me and the minister. I see the minister nodding in the affirmative, so it seems to me that he agrees that it ought to be taking good, prudent business practices into account. I can't think of a situation where a private investor would take a risk that's greater than what is acceptable to a financial institution and not take a first charge on all the assets and undertaking of the company.

Will the minister agree that to the extent that he's commented on it, we've pointed out a flaw in terms of what he's proposing, and agree to restructure the program so as to make sure that the taxpayer's funds, the amount that comes off my paycheque and out of my business and goes to the Minister of Finance, will always be accorded first priority, so the taxpayer is fully protected? Does he not recognize that there's a flaw there, and is he now prepared, under good, sound business practices, to remedy that flaw by making a commitment to always take a first position?

HON. S. HAGEN: In answer to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, first of all there is not a flaw in the program. The program is designed to help businesses start up, to help improve the economy of this province, to move economic development along. I would say to the member that he doesn't know much about business if he thinks that every person who invests money in a company and takes a position that is less secure than the bank is always in a position ahead of the bank. That just doesn't happen.

What we're trying to do here is to use government guarantees to give people the opportunity to do what they want to do: if they want to get into business, to create jobs, to sell a product that they've invented or that they produce. I think this will give them the opportunity to do that.

MR. SIHOTA: If the minister wants to get into that kind of argument, sure, there are instances where a private investor will come into a second-place position compared to a bank. The bank may have the first charge. However, that is done if there is sufficient equity in the enterprise to provide comfort to the private investor to make him think that it would be appropriate and sufficient for him to move in that regard. You're talking here about situations where the risk is far beyond that. You're talking about situations where the private sector is not prepared to take that risk, where the financial institutions aren't prepared to take that risk, so it's a totally different ball game from that which the minister is saying applies.

There are lots of situations where a private investor, for example, will take a second mortgage on a piece of property or a second position with respect to a chattel mortgage. But in all of those instances there is an equity position. What you're talking about here is that you want to get involved in

[ Page 4091 ]

businesses on a startup or expansion basis. It seems to me that to the extent that you're going to get involved in that startup.... You are going to be first in line because everyone else would have rejected that enterprise — similarly for expansion — therefore really first in line in terms of protection of the taxpayers' funds. That's not illogical.

The reason you sometimes get people in a second position who are private investors is that someone's on first base in the first place. But that's not going to be the case here. given what you've told us are going to be the matters under consideration by the committee. I'd like your comments on that.

I'd also like your comments on another issue. If you've only got two staff people to look at all — supposedly — these applications, who is going to be examining? Is it those two staff people who are fully responsible for making those calls?

I'll put those two questions on the table.

HON. S. HAGEN: I guess you were out of the chamber when we discussed the committee that will be a struck that deals with the seed capital program. It will be made up of people from the community who know the community and know where the businesses are — so that there's no competition — and, I think, can answer and can assess the application. At the same time it moves up in cooperation through the Ministry of Economic Development in case there has been an application made before that was turned down, and so that can be assessed. And at the same time the application goes into the local financial institution: the bank or the credit union.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, I want to thank the minister for confirming what the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) was saying: the Ministry of Economic Development will be involved. We now know that.

But now we're talking about funding being approved by a volunteer committee. It leads one to ask what....

MR. BLENCOE: In camera.

MR. SIHOTA: In camera, right, and unaccountable. And let's face it, it is unaccountable. I heard what the second member for Victoria and what you had to say, but effectively these people are unaccountable to anyone. They're not even accountable to the shareholders. The shareholders are the taxpayers, and the people taxpayers have elected to the board of directors are us, the MLAs, and we're the ones who are accountable to them. Now you're turning around and saying that these unaccountable individuals, who aren't accountable to the shareholders, are going to make the decision.

That's perhaps a bit of an aside, but you have to ask what skills or knowledge they have that would be superior to a local credit union in assessing the viability of a particular enterprise.

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, the system has full accountability, because it's accountable through me. So you can't say that there is no accountability. While I agree with you that certainly the people who work in the credit unions and banks have the knowledge and the ability to deal with loan applications, sometimes they don't know everything about what's going on in the community. They sometimes don't have the personal touch that's needed, because the manager is in Victoria, Vancouver, Prince George or wherever.

I just can’t see the difficulty of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew in having a program that helps small business people get established in this province.

MR. SIHOTA: That's just laughable, saying that we don't want to see small business people get themselves established. If you want to debate seriously as to the nature of your program and what priority you attach to the money that you are investing on our behalf, then let's talk about it seriously. But if you want to get into some rant about whether or not we have some difficulty in assisting small businesses.... I mean, let's face it: no one in this House is against small business. I just don't think that that type of comment is appropriate, given the discussion that we're having in terms of how you're going to finance these enterprises.

We've probably gone as far as we should on this matter....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, order, please.

MR. SIHOTA: I was just pausing because I wanted to have at least the courtesy of the minister's listening to what I've got to say, whether he agrees or disagrees with what I am saying.

The point is this. I don't think the plan as to how you're going to protect the taxpayers' investment is well thought out. I like to think that maybe you're not going to admit it in the confines of this chamber, but you will recognize it when you walk out of here, talk to your officials and ask them for some comment on what I've had to say. That, perhaps, in the overall context of things, is acceptable. But you are making a mistake, and I think deep down inside you know it, in terms of the way in which the taxpayers' funds ought to be protected.

I think you're also making a mistake in the way you're organizing this plan. I don't want to get rhetorical, but it is wholly inappropriate for the government to be engaged in a type of so-called decentralization program. I find it more than just of passing interest that you're now calling it rationalization, because you yourself appreciate the fact that this program, right from the outset, was poorly conceived. It was announced by the Premier effectively on a whim at a UBCM conference, because he had to make a major announcement.

Since then, the fact that there wasn't a lot of substance in the announcement is demonstrated in part by the fact that you asked for $1 million and you spent, I think in your case, only $60,000 or $70,000, and really there's been no tangible return on those funds. There is nothing to demonstrate that the $60,000 or $70,000 that you have spent to date has come back to the taxpayer in some type of return on that investment. I think it has been an affront to those of us who are democratically elected — the way in which the plan was conceived and the way that it is being put in.

There are ways in which one can trigger true and active decentralization in this province. There are ways in which one can foster the creation and development of small business. There are ways in which we can assist the imagination of entrepreneurs in this province to make a go of it.

At the end of the day I don't disagree too much with the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) when he says that there is a political agenda attached to the application of these funds; I have no doubt that it will be a consideration. The

[ Page 4092 ]

minister says no, and I guess it remains to be seen who will be correct on that. But I think the way in which you have set it up, the way in which the organization is set up, the people.... I was there and I chose not to talk at the Empress Hotel when you had your meeting, but you got feedback from people. There were 150 to 200 people from the Victoria area, and believe you me, not that I and the second member for Victoria orchestrated that meeting, but they were there and they told you exactly what they thought of this ill-conceived plan.

Shortly before the 1975 election, I know that this party introduced some legislation which would see the government get involved in the credit union movement and support and foster development of small business funds. I think the minister ought to be looking at that type of legislative vehicle to achieve some of the things that he is talking about, where small businesses sometimes do feel neglect from government. But that legislation was good legislation. That's what the government ought to be moving into.

If the government is interested in creating jobs at the local level, both the member opposite, as the minister, and I know, and the second member for Victoria knows, that there's a municipal infrastructure program in this province that is begging for some assistance. I've got problems with sewers and water in my riding, and if you want a good idea in terms of where you should be putting money to employ people, that's one area where you should, that will help out regional enterprises and regional governments. But not something like this, which has a plan to basically apply criteria that the private sector applies.

Let me make two concluding comments with respect to what the minister had to say. Number one, my understanding is that Mr. Manly has not chosen to participate in your program — at least that's what my conversations with him would reflect. I think that if the record needs to be corrected on that, the minister and I can utilize opportunities in the future to do it.

Finally, perhaps on a lighter note, I would hope that in the future when the minister puts out propaganda with respect to his decentralization program he will acknowledge the presence of both Langford and View Royal in my riding, which were omitted from the minister's list of communities.

[5:45]

Vote 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 16

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

On vote 37: minister's office, $293,411.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. ML Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The adjourned at 5:53 p.m.