[ Page 8313 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Wildlife Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Strachan

Introduction and first reading –– 8313

Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 76). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 8313

Indian Land Tax Cooperation Act (Bill 77). Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Introduction and first reading –– 8314

Mineral Tax Act (Bill 73). Hon. Mr. Davis

Introduction and first reading –– 8314

Income Tax Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1989 (Bill 79). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 8314

Oral Questions

Lorax Forestry Ltd. Mr. Clark –– 8314

Elk Valley forestry policy. Ms. Edwards –– 8315

AIDS prevention video. Mr. Perry –– 8315

Passenger rail service. Mr. Lovick –– 8315

Pricing of pulp logs. Mr. Miller –– 8316

Presenting reports –– 8317

Committee of Supply: Ministry of State for Cariboo, Responsible for Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 57: Cariboo development region –– 8317

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Vant

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education and

Job Training estimates. (Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 8319

Hon. S. Hagen

Mr. Jones

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Perry

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have the honour today to introduce three good friends from the city of Kamloops. First of all, Mr. Gordon and Ida Piva are here from Kamloops, and they represent the small lumber manufacturer in this province. They have been longtime friends and good supporters of mine. In the gallery is Mr. Dev Dley, a lawyer from Kamloops, who is also the vice-president of the Social Credit Party. Would the House make them all very welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS: On the North Shore my party stalwarts call him Coach. Those who know him best call him Ernie. I would like the House to welcome Ernie Sarsfield from North Vancouver and his grandson, Kirk Gilchrist, who is celebrating his eleventh birthday today.

MS. PULLINGER: Today in the members' gallery is a constituent and friend, an elementary teacher from Nanaimo, Delores Mason, and with her is my mother Diana Pullinger. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

MR. SERWA: Visiting with us today in the House is a teacher from my constituency, Mr. Sandy Dore. Mr. Dore has the honour of representing Springvalley Secondary School, School District 23 and the province on a trip involving the Pacific Rim initiative. He will be going to Hong Kong and Thailand. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. PERRY: It's a rare pleasure to introduce to the House some constituents from my riding: Prof. Jim Johnson, whom I'd like to introduce to the government benches as the individual who probably did the most to persuade me to enter electoral politics recently; his wife Pat Johnson; and their daughter Emily, who is a very fine baby-sitter. I'd like the House to make them welcome, please.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are two young ladies whom I'd like to introduce to the House. As many of you know, I'm in the habit of introducing nieces, but I'm one of the very lucky guys who has a lot of nieces to introduce to the House today: my nieces Sahara and Dorothy, visiting the Legislative Assembly with their father, my brother Peter.

Introduction of Bills

WILDLIFE AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Wildlife Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, in moving that the bill be introduced and read a first time now, I would like to point out that, as the title indicates, this is an amendment act, and it has a variety of purposes.

There's a long, new list of definitions. We cover off the occupation regulations regarding angling guides and angling licences. There are some references to CITES, which is the convention on international trade in endangered species; some sections dealing with nest and egg protection of endangered species; some group trapline regulations, which in the section are essentially colour-blind but are going to have a very positive impact on some of our native populations who are trapping; and also some amendments dealing with the disposal of a trapline.

It's a long, involved amendment act and long overdue. I understand that some of the provisions have to be passed or I go to jail, so there is some urgency to do it between now and New Year's Eve.

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the bill before you is an exposure bill or White Paper relating to the Family and Child Service Act. The bill addresses recommendation No. 26 of the justice Reform Committee. The committee was concerned that parents whose children are apprehended for child protection reasons may not always have enough details about the case to prepare adequately for court.

To resolve this issue, the bill would require the superintendent of family and child service to provide details of her protection concerns about a child when a parent requested it. This would ensure that parents have sufficient advance notice of the particulars of the case. The bill also provides that a parent who is not satisfied with the information provided can apply to the court for an order for further particulars.

It is our view that this bill represents an extremely effective solution to the issue identified by the justice Reform Committee. However, because of the gravity of these cases, we wanted to give interested persons and groups a chance to review the bill and make submissions before final legislation is passed. That is why we are introducing this in the form of an exposure bill. Those who are interested in making submissions should forward them to our superintendent of family and child service before the end of September, and they will be reviewed by the ministry.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to recommend this bill to the Legislative Assembly.

[ Page 8314 ]

Bill 76 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INDIAN LAND TAX COOPERATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Indian Land Tax Cooperation Act.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Bill 77 introduces certain provisions to complement changes to the federal Indian Act which gave the power to Indian bands to levy property taxes on reserve lands. In order that Indian taxation may proceed in a manner which meshes smoothly with existing provincial or local property taxation on the same lands, the bill makes it possible for an Indian band, through its tax bylaw, to adopt existing provincial assessment and assessment appeal systems and to make use of existing provincial or municipal tax levy and collection services. In addition, where it is clear that the band is providing services of a municipal nature and funding them through its own property tax levy, the bill permits the province or municipality to set a lower tax rate on property on the reserve than applies to similar property off the reserve.

Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MINERAL TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Davis presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Mineral Tax Act.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The purpose of the Mineral Tax Act is to establish a single streamlined tax system for coal and other minerals. The act replaces the mineral resource tax, which now applies to metallic and most industrial minerals, and the coal royalty, the mineral land tax and the mining tax, which applies to coal. The new system will relate coal and mineral taxes to true profitability.

The bill will also remove disincentives to new investment in the industry and prevent premature mine closures. At the same time, it will ensure that mines pay tax in every year and eliminate revenue leakages.

[2:15]

Bill 73 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT
ACT (No. 2), 1989

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Each year the federal government sends to this province a series of amendments to the Income Tax Act. These amendments, when adopted, provide for uniformity between the federal and provincial taxing statutes, and ease the burden on our taxpayers by ensuring that they have to deal with a single taxing authority.

The amendments contained in this bill have all been requested by the federal government. The amendments arise because of changes to the Canadian Income Tax Act. In addition, certain other proposed changes repeal provisions of the provincial Income Tax Act and incorporate the corresponding sections of the federal act by direct section reference. In this manner the government is hoping that the early need for extensive legislative changes to the provincial Income Tax Act will be reduced.

Bill 79 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

LORAX FORESTRY LTD.

MR. CLARK: A question for the Minister of Forests. Lorax Forestry is the company that took over the B.C. Forest Service training school in 1984. It was one of the first privatized government ventures in British Columbia. Can the minister inform the House whether Lorax Forestry has been given any government grants or subsidies by his ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER: I cannot recall. I'll take that question as notice and return with an answer.

MR. CLARK: Will the minister confirm that the rent paid by Lorax to the ministry for the use of land, buildings, equipment and facilities is only $30,000 per year, while the cost to the ministry is $45,000 per year.? In other words, Lorax is subsidized by the government to the tune of $15,000 per year.

HON. MR. PARKER: As with the previous question, I'll take this one as notice.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister confirm that three years ago his ministry gave Lorax a $5,000 grant and rent forgiveness of $20,000 — in other words, a further subsidy of $25,000?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I remind the member that the minister has taken a question on notice with regard to grants to that corporation. If he has a new question, he can ask that of the minister.

MR. CLARK: Last year Lorax Forestry went bankrupt, and 23 employees are owed over $16,000 for wages. The owner's wife apparently purchased the company for $1. Can the minister explain why his ministry continues to give special treatment and

[ Page 8315 ]

contracts to this company while employees are left without a job and owed money?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite referred to Lorax Forestry, which is different than the outfit that provides an educational program. But the substance of the question I'll have to take as notice.

MR. CLARK: A question to the Minister of Government Management Services. In the debate on privatization in this Legislature last year, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) said: "Ask the people at Lorax Forestry what they think of privatization." Now the answer is very clear: they're out of work and out of money.

The question is this: in view of this company's unbelievable track record, their bankruptcy and their reliance on government subsidies, can the minister explain why in November 1987 Lorax Forestry was given a contract by your ministry to teach nursery employees how to run a business?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The member is well aware that the question has been taken as notice. A full review will be done of this privatization initiative and a report brought back to the assembly.

ELK VALLEY FORESTRY POLICY

MS. EDWARDS: Crestbrook Forest Industries is planning to clearcut a large part — up to a third — of the scenic Elk Valley forest near Fernie. Is the Minister of Forests taking steps to ensure that their plans do not damage the unique scenic attributes of the area?

HON. MR. PARKER: The issue in the Elk Valley is one of substantial pine bark beetle infestation. A substantial number of stands have been killed, and there's a major salvage program and a major reforestation program necessary. Our staff are talking to municipal and regional district people about mitigation of the impact of the salvage program. I was with our chief forester this morning in Vernon, and he's on his way to Cranbrook for further discussions.

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary question to the Minister of State for Thompson-Okanagan. Because tourism is such a major part of the economy of the area, what steps is your ministry taking to ensure that the value to the tourist business of the landscape is not lost?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I believe the Minister of Forests simply told the member opposite, just a few moments ago, that he was working on that problem right now.

AIDS PREVENTION VIDEO

MR. PERRY: A question for the Minister of Health. It's beginning to sound like an old song. On Friday I obtained a copy of the Health ministry's AIDS video and showed it to a number of members and staff of this Legislature. Sunday's Vancouver Province reported on a showing to its independent panel, which generally felt that the video was appropriate for its intended audience. Can the minister tell this House whether he has chosen his hand-picked committee to view the video, and has he set a date for them to view it?

HON. MR. DUECK: That is future policy. I have to inform the House that protocols, lists and dates will be developed. At this point I cannot give him that information.

MR. PERRY: I asked my question in the past tense. I'll repeat the question: can the minister tell this House whether he has chosen — that's past tense — his own hand-picked committee to view the video and whether he has — that's past tense — set a date for them to view it?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, whether that's past or present tense, I did tell him that I had not yet developed protocols or dates. So he can take it past, current or future, whichever way he wishes.

MR. PERRY: A new question for the Minister of Health. Has the minister — or the Premier, for that matter — decided whether he will release the video for screening if the screening is funded by the B.C. Medical Association, the doctors of the province, the federal government, the Canadian Public Health Association, the general public of B.C., the Vancouver Province or whoever else feels that adolescents in this province who are sexually active are entitled to have the necessary information to protect themselves?

HON. MR. DUECK: I cannot give the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey an answer at this time, because it has not yet been developed. He's asking about something that may or may not occur, and I cannot give that answer at this time. Furthermore, I don't make my policy by his suggestions of what he thinks is appropriate at any given time.

PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The minister has been aware for some time, as indeed has every sentient person in the province, of the proposed federal cutbacks to passenger rail service, including the possible elimination of the E&N on Vancouver Island and the transcontinental route. Can the minister tell this House what losses in employment and impact on economic activity those cutbacks would cause if they were indeed implemented?

HON. MR. VANT: It's certainly of concern to this government, because no less than 45,000 passengers per year utilize the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. At present I don't have the exact employment figures

[ Page 8316 ]

before me. But I can assure you that we are considering various options subsequent to my letter, which I sent near the end of May, to the Hon. Benoit Bouchard. As I understand it, we won't hear the federal government's reaction to the Via Rail report until the end of August. Meanwhile, I can assure you we're looking at every avenue possible to maintain all the Via Rail passenger services that are currently offered in the province.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, that isn't very comforting, because it is substantially the same answer we got three or four weeks ago. When you wrote to Mr. Bouchard, you asked him to do nothing until he had consulted with you. Obviously your intercessions haven't had much success thus far.

A new question, Mr. Speaker. We know already what some of the impacts The rail union has estimated the loss of 510 workers. We also know that a study in Alberta suggested that in Alberta alone, there would be a job loss of 1,000. My question to the minister is very straightforward and specific: can he tell us whether his ministry has yet undertaken any study of the employment and economic losses in this province?

HON. MR. VANT: It seems rather strange that the member opposite seems so thirsty for facts. Yet he gets up to ask a question, and it seems that we wait and wait for the question.

I can assure you that we are not into studying the situation; we are into a very strong position that until the final report is released by the federal minister, we are putting on all the pressure we can to maintain the services. Until we get that final report, we cannot state a position without getting into future policy. I can assure you that we are considering several options to ensure that the Via Rail passenger service does continue — one way or the other.

MR. LOVICK: Well, it's passing strange, Mr. Minister, that you're waiting to hear from the federal government about how bad the impact has been on B.C. instead of doing your own studies on the impact on B.C.

[2:30]

Will you give this House your assurance, please, that you will undertake some studies and communicate to the federal government that the impact of the cutbacks in B.C. is unacceptable and will be rejected and resisted by this government?

HON. MR. VANT: In my communications with the federal minister, we have certainly indicated the financial impact, especially on tourism, because a lot of the rail service is used seasonally. The information we have so far is that the daylight Rocky Mountain run will not only be continued but will indeed expand. So there's a glimmer of good news in all of this speculation that I hear opposite.

I'm aware, of course, that the hon. member is the first member for Nanaimo, and his primary concern is the E&N. It's very seasonal. As I said earlier, it carries about 45,000 passengers per year. Actually, it is declining somewhat; it peaked at 58,000 back in 1979. 1 can speculate, of course, that its decline is because the Budd cars are not properly maintained, and they could improve the quality of their service. We're going to make sure that the federal government continues to subsidize that run. Or perhaps — and I'm just speculating here — they will offer the passenger service once again to the Canadian Pacific Railway which owns the rail line. Our research tells us that they charge very high rent for the use of the track. Perhaps if there was some adjustment there it could be made more viable. Right now it's very heavily subsidized, and it does appear that use is actually declining from the 1979 peak.

PRICING OF PULP LOGS

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests, who is finally moving on the question of waste: what concurrent steps has the minister taken on the whole question of the pricing of pulp logs? As the minister well knows, the difficulty that market loggers have is that they're selling to a rigged game, if you like, in that the markets are controlled by the major corporations. Currently it costs them more to take those logs out of the bush than they receive from the companies. What concurrent steps which logically should follow with this policy are being taken by your ministry to ensure that decent prices can be obtained by the market loggers?

HON. MR. PARKER: We don't have a timber board such as they had in socialist Saskatchewan at one time, and we have no intention of starting one.

MR. MILLER: A supplemental. That kind of oversimplification is typical of this minister, who, I think, has been introducing policies geared more to heading off questions in his estimates than to actually making some changes in this province.

The fact is that the Nilsson report and others have identified the low pricing in pulpwood as one of the major problems that have contributed to waste in the forests of British Columbia. Does the minister feel that the market loggers will be able to live with the zero tolerance now being imposed on them because of this pricing problem?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, the resources of British Columbia are not to be exploited. They are to be used in a rational manner, and that's what these policies do.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that I ran into a former employee of mine, along with her son and daughter. When I had Emery's Pub, a nightclub at Harrison Hot Springs some 20 years ago,

[ Page 8317 ]

she was one of my waitresses. I'd like the House to make her and her family welcome. Her name is Monica Corry.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have a letter to read to the House:

I submit to you this report on my examination of the severance settlement with Mr. David Poole. This report is issued in accordance with section 12 of the Auditor General Act, RSBC 1979.

George L. Morfitt, FCA
Auditor-General

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF STATE FOR
CARIBOO, RESPONSIBLE FOR ENVIRONMENT

On vote 57: Cariboo development region, $714,693.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, we've spent a bit of time in my estimates in the past two weeks discussing the Cariboo economic development region, which is one of the responsibilities of my portfolio. As I indicated to the committee, the most significant single issue to us in terms of economic development is quality of life, and we have agreed as a committee and as people representing the citizens of the Cariboo that probably the single best instrument of economic development that could happen in the Cariboo economic development region will be the establishment of an autonomous university. That is a unanimous decision.

I should point out that the university society has 15,000 names on a petition that one had to pay $5 to sign, so this wasn't just your normal shopping-centre petition but one, in fact, in which you had to invest before your signature went on the line. There is some considerable interest there. I think that really characterizes the mood of the people of the Cariboo. We really do have all the sawmills, pulp mills and regular B.C.-type industries that we need, but what we want to do is promote investor attractiveness, and we certainly want to promote the better lifestyle for those citizens who live in the Cariboo.

I will briefly relate an incident that comes to mind, and I think this will sort of explain my philosophy and the philosophy of the Cariboo to all of you. Some years ago I had the good fortune, as Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, to take four members with me, including the current member for Rossland Trail (Mr. Darcy), Don Lockstead, I think the current Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) and another government MLA. We went to New Orleans and visited as guests of the state legislators' conference. It was very good: we ate some great food; we listened to some superb music; we also listened to some superb speakers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, great music. You betcha. Pete Fountain, Al Hirt, and they all play like that.

One of the speakers was T. Boone Pickens, who in those years was known for the green rating and his takeover of companies — hostile and yet sometimes friendly takeovers. Of course, the state governors and the state legislatures were on him because when he mounted these takeovers, he would quite often resite the industry that he had taken over. So he responded to them, and he first of all gave us the business case as to why he bought the company.

Then he started to talk about siting, and he said: "When I consider siting of an industry in any part of the United States, I consider the technical infrastructure that must be in place for that industry." Those are, of course, the obvious things that we all know of as we think about industry in our communities: such things as railroad access, airplane access, road access, solid labour force, natural gas, hydro, the labour infrastructure, secondary industry that can support the primary industry and all the normal things. He said: "That's only 50 percent of my decision. The other 50 percent is an evaluation of the social side of that community. Are there churches there? Is there post-secondary education? Is there a lifestyle that is going to allow me to attract the best workers to that industry and the best managers? That's the other 50 percent of that decision. I weigh the industrial infrastructure equally with the social infrastructure."

That made a large impression on me because here we had one of the most interesting, and by no means small, players in the industrial world in the U.S. telling us how much value he put on social infrastructure when he considered siting industry and when he considered economic development in a particular region.

I have sort of, as an MLA and latterly as a minister of state for a development region, held that foremost in my mind, and I find out that most of the people I meet in the Cariboo agree with me. As I said earlier, the board of directors for the Cariboo development region are the seven mayors of the areas, the two MLAs, those of us who have attended.... Of course, you will appreciate that our former colleague Alex Fraser was quite ill during the time of the formation of our board of directors, and the other member did not wish to attend our meetings because of philosophical reasons.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) and I have worked very closely with our board since 1987, and if we have come to a consensus on one thing — and we have come to a consensus on many things — it's that we must improve investor attractiveness for our Cariboo development region, and the social side is really what counts. We do have exceptional highways; we know

[ Page 8318 ]

that. We do have two rail lines; we do have natural gas; we do have hydro.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In general we have natural gas.

But it's the university, the social side of life, that will really improve what it is that we want to do. With that said, I see there is great anticipation for other members to speak so I can further respond to them. I will thank you, sir, and take my place and listen to further considerations of the committee.

MS. EDWARDS: I have a question for the minister, because it was reported several weeks ago that the Premier made an announcement in Williams Lake about a wood waste project that has been proposed for Williams Lake. As a matter of fact, a number of people have made proposals on a wood waste project at a mill at Williams Lake. As far as some of the folks who had great interest in it were concerned, the decision had not been made on who was going to do that project. Perhaps the minister could clarify for me which project the Premier was announcing at that time in Williams Lake?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me say that I've always admired the Premier's enthusiasm and aggressiveness in discussing projects, but we have not arrived at a final decision yet. The policy review at this point is with the B.C. Hydro board of directors, because it involves a certain pricing for electricity, but one of two is going to happen. The two are: an MDF plant, which is sawdust-type plant that takes wood waste and compresses it into a building product and also co-generates electricity; and the other is straight co-generation of electricity. One of those two will proceed, but as yet we do not have a final determination from Hydro, nor a determination from the two proponents — because they may come together. There may be an MDF plant, and also Washington Power may be in on this co-generation; but either way, it's going to happen. I do appreciate the Premier's enthusiasm, aggressiveness and ambition, but I will say as kindly as I can that perhaps his evaluation was a bit premature.

MS. EDWARDS: It certainly aroused — how shall I put this — a very intense curiosity on my part and the part of a number of others. It's very good to know that you have a plant that maybe will go in one way or another, if everybody agrees and so on. As an announcement, that's great.

I only have one other comment. I have listened to this minister talk twice about universities in the north without illustrating any particular universities or where they should be located in the province. The minister said that if there had not been a whole regional structure, there would be no university in the north, and I would simply like to comment to the minister that if that's what it takes to get a university in the north, it's a heck of a lot of organizational pattern.

MR. ROSE: Last week the minister very kindly offered to get me some information on a particularly irksome matter in my own riding concerning Reichhold Chemicals Inc. Also I included a suggestion that he said he could consider about whether to employ an expert to monitor the nature of this plant's fugitive gases.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Emissions.

MR. ROSE: Well, they're gases or else they wouldn't be fugitive. Nevertheless, looking into this matter on our behalf, can he give us an update on where it stands today?

[2:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I can't, hon. member, and I regret that I'm not prepared for that today. I understood that we were going to be dealing with the economic development region of the Cariboo only. However, you do have my assurance that I will send to your office immediately whatever information we have found since I spoke to you last week.

With respect to the comment of the member for Kootenay, as I said last week, had a university society come to a government or any portfolio of government and said, "We need $100,600 for a good study for Prince Rupert to North Peace to the southern Cariboo, " I think any portfolio ministry would have been hard-pressed to find it. This economic development region, joined with three others, was the instrument, and this was a change in policy that worked well for us and gave us the ability — such as this co-generation study that I've done as well — to put some serious scholars in the field and have them develop a position paper and do some serious legwork for us. I can't accept that the establishment of our economic development regions wasn't without benefit and wasn't, in fact, the best mechanism we could have in this case to answer this question.

MR. ROSE: A final question. With some considerable risk, the minister mentioned the enthusiasm of the Premier over these various projects. I wanted to know what the current status of the meat-packing plant in Vanderhoof is; whether the chopstick factory is going ahead; and whether the co-generation was examined in conjunction with community heating. Many areas in Finland and the northern Scandinavian countries use community heating as opposed to individual heating arrangements, and it would seem to me that there's a large amount of waste products in terms of fibre. I can't imagine this, but if there are, Prince George would be an ideal place or maybe some of the smaller towns. I'll give you a very good example of community heating: there's community heating in several buildings — or there was — in downtown Vancouver right in the central core, and the University of British Columbia is also heated that way.

[ Page 8319 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, that wasn't done. I'll get to the two questions. First of all, the meat-packing plant in Vanderhoof: I don't know where it is at this point, but I don't think there's anything developing there for sure.

There are two chopstick factories. The proponent of the one in the Prince George area is a credible Korean company. They have the equipment and the expertise, so to speak. They are looking at a licence now, and they may or may not proceed, but it's in the preliminary point of view.

Getting back to the Williams Lake wood-waste study, we did not consider central heating or any other use of that type for the wood waste. We went to the engineering textbooks and also some of the practices that we see nowadays. The best we could find was Kettle Falls, Washington, where co-generation of electricity was by far giving the most bang for the buck from the wood waste. That is clearly it.

We don't really have heating problems in the central interior, because we're all on natural gas. As a matter of fact, my gas bill, living in Prince George, which will have 40-below weather, would be less in a year than the oil bill would be in Victoria. My gas bill this month is $3.26, so as you can see....

MR. ROSE: This is July.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I know. Pardon me, that was for June. It is for hot water only. Bxit natural gas is plentiful and most inexpensive, and that's our form of heating, so wood waste would not be practical. But I do thank the member for that question and that concern. Wood waste is most practical for particle-board or for cogeneration of electricity. That's the best possible use we can get out of the product.

HON. MR. VANT: I just wanted to say one or two words about the fact that the Cariboo development region, under the very able guidance of my hon colleague here, very wisely implemented the wood waste study which enabled the data to be gathered, so these proponents have shown up knowing exactly how much wood waste is available in the Quesnel, Williams Lake and 100 Mile areas. Of course, for quite some time now, until my hon. colleague the Minister of Environment tightened up the regulations for the beehive burners, we had quite a fly-ash problem. But if these proposals go ahead, for sure it will be a triple plus: it will be a 100 percent solution to the fly-ash problem, it will create employment, and there will be, with this medium-density fibreboard proposal, a marketable product out of what is now currently just going up in smoke in the various beehive burners.

Also, it seems that in the southern part of the Cariboo development region most of the chips from the sawmills flow north to the pulp mills either in Quesnel or in Prince George. Of course, the trucks and the chip-cars on the railroad would be heading back empty to pick up more chips. It makes a lot of sense from a transportation point of view that the wood wastes could go as the back-haul to what is currently an empty deadheading back. So it all makes very much sense for the whole region.

Also, in terms of the university of the north, we have always had problems keeping professionals of many different disciplines in the north. We are very confident that with the proper post-secondary educational opportunities, the young people will stay where they've grown up if they can get their training there, so we won't have the shortage of health care personnel and so on that we are currently experiencing.

I'd like to point out to this House, too, that the Prince George catchment area, from a post-secondary education point of view, is the largest area in all of North America; indeed, the catchment has over 300,000 people. It's the area of largest population in North America without a university. So it's high time we had one in the central interior.

Vote 57 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING

On vote 5: minister's office, $265,076.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm going to make a very short opening statement.

I am honoured to present to this House and the citizens of the province of British Columbia the main estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training and ministry responsible for science and technology. I am also the minister responsible for the women's secretariat and the youth council.

In October of last year I released the report of the provincial access committee, a report which was the culmination of a highly consultative year-long process. Today I will outline our strategy for increasing access for all to post-secondary education.

The access strategy that we announced on March 20, 1989, is a major step forward in our post-secondary system. "Access for All, " as we call it, embodies our philosophy for responsive, innovative and creative government meeting the needs of British Columbians. "Access for All" will expand institutional capacity and make university education available in a larger number of locations around the province. But access is not just about university level education. Access includes new alternatives for technical and vocational training. Increased opportunities for underrepresented groups focuses attention on literacy and adult basic education and creates a system built on strength, with the flexibility to adapt to the needs of the future.

The access strategy increases post-secondary funding by some $35.3 million this year and $690 million in total over the next six years. To accommodate a staged increase of 15,000 new student spaces in university degree programs and in both colleges and universities this September, 3,000 spaces will be added. Some 1,640 are in universities and colleges in the lower mainland; the remainder will be distributed across the province as demand dictates. New

[ Page 8320 ]

initiatives to serve career, technical, adult basic ed and vocational students have also been approved. Some 30 new programs and 1,000 student spaces in non-university level courses will be in place this September.

Because trends indicate that the population will increase in the Fraser Valley by 140,000 people by 1994, 1 have asked Simon Fraser University to work with Fraser Valley, Douglas and Kwantlen Colleges to address issues that will arise from this rapid growth. They are progressing well, and I expect to have their report by the end of the year. On the issue of literacy in adult basic education, last September I formed a literacy advisory committee chaired by Dr. Paul Gallagher, and I have set aside funds to respond to its recommendations. The committee will report early next fall with recommendations dealing with development of a provincial strategy on literacy.

On an estimates-to-estimates basis, the budget for universities has increased by $29.5 million, or approximately 9 percent, to a level of $371.26 million. This increase covers both salary and non-salary costs for 1989-90. By adding in the universities' share of access programs and enrolment of $8.25 million, total operating contributions to the universities have increased to $379.51 million. This represents an overall increase of approximately 11 percent in the operating contributions to universities for 1989-90.

This increase in excess of the rate of inflation illustrates this government's commitment to increasing educational opportunities for all British Columbians. We recognize the long-term benefits of an educated citizenry and are working with the educational community to increase participation rates in the province.

In 1988-89, a special warrant allocation of $10 million initiated the university matching program. The $20 million budget for '89-90 represents a 100 percent increase in the level of funding from 1988 to 1989. Over a six-year period this program will provide up to $110 million to match private sector donations to the three provincial universities. These funds are over and above the general operating and capital grants allocated to the universities. Matching programs help to strengthen valuable links between industry and universities and provide an excellent source of funding. In its first year the matching program enabled universities to fund many longterm projects which will benefit students and contribute to our goal of a strengthened post-secondary system.

On an estimates-to-estimates basis, the budget for colleges and institutes has increased by $26.48 million, or approximately 9 percent, to a level of $317.66 million. This increase covers both salary and non-salary costs for 1989-90. By adding the colleges' and institutes' share of access programs and enrolment growth funding at $26.34 million, total operating contributions will increase to $344 million. This represents an overall increase of approximately 18 percent in operating contributions to colleges and institutes for 1989-90.

Our colleges and institutes are the cornerstone of our provincial post-secondary system. They provide the closest links to the community and are responsive to the needs of industry. With the addition of third and fourth-year academic programming and the strengthening of first- and second-year programs, colleges will expand their role in the post-secondary system and serve British Columbians in a new way. This 18 percent increase in funding will also allow for additional non-academic programs to meet the changing needs of industry.

On an estimates-to-estimates basis, the budget for capital debt servicing is increased by $5 million, or approximately 5.5 percent, to a level of $97.08 million. This increase covers debt servicing and meets the requirements of existing and anticipated capital projects for 1989-90.

The 1989-90 estimates for student financial assistance of $50.65 million represents a 16.5 percent increase over actual 1988-89 expenditures. The budget adequately reflects anticipated requirements for the 1989-90 academic year. This year is the third year of a three-year phase-in for the province's new student financial assistance program. Over the last two years the budget for student financial assistance has increased by approximately 40 percent, from $36.45 million in '87-88 to $50.65 million in '89-90.

[3:00]

In addition, we have increased maximum allowances for students to $200 per week for students without dependents and $300 per week for students with dependents. This translates into increases ranging from 10 percent to 67 percent, depending on the length of program. In 1988-89, the program experienced a 5 percent increase in the number of students receiving loans. For 1989-90, it is anticipated that the program will experience a 10 percent increase in the provision of loans to students.

On an estimates-to-estimates basis, the budget for science and technology programs has increased by $7.5 million or approximately 40.5 percent to a level of $26.09 million. This increase includes $5 million provided to enhance the science and technology development fund. This will ensure the growing base of science and technology in British Columbia continues to expand.

In addition, $3.5 million has been approved to fund the kaon preconstruction study: $2.5 million is provided through a budget increase, and $1 million has been made available due to the phase-out of the natural gas vehicle conversion program.

This government recognizes that our future economic prosperity depends to a large degree on the development of a strong targeted advance technology sector. We are working with industry and the educational community to develop strategies and programs to encourage innovation. On an estimates-to-estimates basis, the budget for women's programs has increased by $109,000 or approximately 17 percent to a level of $753,000. This increase covers the establishment of an advertising and publications budget, salary and benefit adjustments and an increase in grants for 1989-90.

[ Page 8321 ]

This government recognizes the importance of enhancing the economic and social status of women, and these funding increases reflect our commitment to achieving these goals. These funds do not represent our total commitment to women's programs. A large number of women receive benefits through other ministry programs such as student financial assistance and job training and apprenticeship.

In the past year, this ministry has taken a leadership role in ensuring that training and apprenticeship programs are in place, so that we have the skilled workers necessary to continue to take advantage of our strong economy. We recognized that our stronger economy meant that employers no longer required as significant a number of wage subsidy programs to encourage training. We recognize that technological changes are impacting the workplace at such a rate that training has to become a fact of life at work.

We recognize that the stronger economy brings the need for more journeymen. To lead the changes required, we recently restructured the ministry executive and appointed an assistant deputy minister responsible for job training, apprenticeship and labour market policy.

To put a structure in place throughout the province that would strengthen our training partnership with the business community, I announced the training and enterprise centre network. These centres are in the business of promoting and facilitating human resource development. This is a unique concept; it's the first of its kind in Canada, and we are the leaders. We are working with our colleagues in the Ministry of Regional Development, as well as a variety of regional and local colleagues, to provide a coordinated initiative to encourage economic development and the required training of the most important resource our province has, and that is our people.

The business community, in general, has long been aware of their responsibility in training. This is true whether one considers their apprenticeship indentures, informal on-site training or sponsorship of formal training. However, the changes affecting the worksite are ever increasing, and so is the need for training. To assist the business community to respond to escalating needs for the development of human resources, programs such as the training investment program and the training opportunities program were established. These programs assist employers to implement long-range training strategies within their organizations, and they underscore my ministry's commitment to the establishment of a strong training culture throughout British Columbia.

Businesses are not only facing rapid worksite change; they are also competing for skilled labour Training and retraining internally is the most effective way for B.C. companies to ensure that they have appropriately skilled employees. I mentioned that the stronger economy has increased the demand for apprentices. Last year my ministry recognized that federal funding for this critical form of training was insufficient. Last year there was a 9 percent growth in the number of apprentices in the system — from 10,410 to 11,748. These increases in numbers are thanks to solid employment increases in many of our construction trades. No potential apprenticeships were turned away. We will continue to fund the training requirements for apprenticeships beyond the funding provided by the federal government.

In 1989-90, the initiatives that we put in place last year will be continued. In addition, as was announced in the speech from the throne, we are establishing a task force on employment and training. It would be a task force of British Columbians who know and understand the challenges we face in training our workforce for now and the future. They will be recommending strategies to ensure that the workforce can meet the changing realities of the workplace. This, I believe, clearly outlines my ministry's and this government's commitment to a strong and competitive British Columbia workforce.

MR. JONES: I thank the minister for his opening remarks. When my caucus colleagues asked me when the Advanced Education estimates were coming up, I kept saying: "Well, they're saving the best to last." I think we got close, and I'm sure the minister shares with me the importance of this area to the future of the province and the well-being of its people.

I speak for my first time in the Advanced Education and Job Training estimates. It's the minister's third such occasion, and this could be our last go-round before our next provincial election. I hope the members and the minister will forgive me, but rather than the short statement the minister made, I'd like to make a little more comprehensive kind of statement.

Let me begin by sharing one of my observations about the area. Like the Education ministry itself, it seems that the area of advanced education and job training attracts some very good people. I even include the minister in that. The ministry staff, the administration in the colleges, institutes and universities, the students, the faculty and the support staff have all been groups and individuals that have impressed me greatly and groups that I know are out there doing their very best. I'm sure the minister shares with me my wish for their continued success in the future.

I have watched this ministry and this minister for the last two and a half — almost three — years, and I'd like to begin my remarks by giving the minister his due. Very clearly the assessment of this minister, both on a personal and professional level, I think is.... On many occasions he has received strong support from the post-secondary education community, and I want to let him know that I recognize that it's greatly appreciated by the members that make up the post-secondary education community, and certainly I recognize the importance of creating the kind of positive image the minister has created.

In politics perception is everything, and the perception that's been created by the minister is one of a hard-working, dedicated, committed minister.

MR. ROSE: That's enough.

[ Page 8322 ]

MR. JONES: We've got the next two days to add balance.

Probably the most significant measure in the field is the ability of the minister to attract dollars to his ministry, and although there have certainly been some glitches in this, overall the perception in the post-secondary education community is that this minister has been successful. I want to add my commendation and give full credit to the minister for his efforts on behalf of post-secondary education.

But as my colleague the member for Coquitlam Moody points out, my job here is not to praise the minister, and it's not to bury him either. It's to point out what I see as the difference between that perception and another reality, another side of the coin. Our job here in opposition is to point out the shortcomings of government. As government watchdogs, it's so important to our democratic system that that minister be allowed to operate with the power of government only under the watchful eye of the media, the opposition and the people in the field. I know the minister appreciates that. So although my remarks for the remaining part of these estimates probably won't be flattering, I know the minister appreciates that they are not particularly personal remarks but comments on his role and function as the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training.

First of all, the situation we've left in this province — and the minister came in at a most propitious time — is one where we've gone beyond the black days of the past, and so to balance those accolades I have to say that it was an easy act to follow. The predecessors, Dr. McGeer and the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. R. Fraser), shared the blackest days of post-secondary education in this province, an anti-intellectual, anti-education approach adopted by this government which I don't think the government even particularly hid.

The record in education and post-secondary education was a marvellous record in how bad it was. We were the only province in Canada to slash student aid almost to zero; one of the few provinces, if not the only province, to experience an enrolment decline during that period. We had the lowest completion rates, and the minister has indicated his response to that. In fact, we had an unwritten policy on the part of the government of importing trained and talented people from outside this province, rather than using the human resources that the minister spoke of a minute ago.

In taking the skills and talent we have and applying one of the things we do well — education and training — we develop those talents in order to have those people take their place in this society at the highest echelons. We had a policy of being net importers of skilled and talented people. I'm hoping the minister is sincere in his promises to end that, and that we will see the completion rates, the participation rates and the funding record go from where it was under the previous ministers — the lowest in Canada — to if not the best, certainly above average. That was an abysmal record. We were a laughing stock in Canada. We had record debt loads. In terms of spending the federal EPF transfer payment, we had the lowest record there. In fact, I was convinced that the government would change in 1986, primarily because of that abysmal record in post-secondary education, which dashed the hopes of so many young people.

MR. R. FRASER: That's ridiculous.

MR. JONES: The first member for Vancouver South knows that well. That's the member who as Minister of Post-Secondary Education made his famous Marie Antoinette statement that if they can't afford to take out a loan, then maybe they should postpone their education.

While the minister has been appreciated for his contributions, I suggest that it was an easy act to follow, and the member for Vancouver South knows that well.

On assuming his portfolio, the minister was given two major responsibilities by the Premier: one was to review the student assistance program by January 31, 1987; and the second was to find ways to increase access to post-secondary education and job training. While I think the minister certainly did an adequate job of responding to those two particular — and critically important — areas that were assigned to him, I have to ask the minister if he did not see other very serious areas that needed addressing. I have to conclude that there has been a lack of vision, a lack of clarifying the goals and directions and a lack of leadership on the part of that minister.

For example, did the minister consider it possible or desirable to conduct a comprehensive review of post-secondary education in this province, to look at the needs into the next decade, or even to assess the damage done during the so-called restraint years by the minister's predecessors?

[3:15]

The minister talks about access to post-secondary education, and I have to ask the minister then: do we accept the concept of universal accessibility to postsecondary education? Do we accept that young people with skills and talent who can profit from a post-secondary education experience have the fundamental right to attend a post-secondary institution in the province of British Columbia, or are we moving away from that direction as those that can profit from having that fundamental right?

There are other questions. As we increase access, do we also address the question of quality — improving the quality of post-secondary education in this province? Or are those two mutually exclusive?

There are many questions, and one is: what's the best way to answer some of these questions? Do we need an ongoing forum for discussion of issues in post-secondary education to deal with these questions and others, and also to do an important job that the Minister of Education has addressed in his portfolio, and that is: helping to bring together what I consider the divided house of higher learning in the province of British Columbia to move towards a

[ Page 8323 ]

more cooperative system of post-secondary education, which right now I see as very competitive?

Clearly the institutions in post-secondary education in this province have been strapped, have had their backs to the wall, and have come out fighting when there's been a bit more money available. So we have a very competitive system. I think there needs to be a forum that could assist the cohesiveness and cooperation of the institutions in this province.

There are many other questions that such a body could deal with. Should we as a province be focusing on specific centres of excellence to achieve world-class status, as we often hear about from UBC, or should we be trying to provide the best all-around education to all those in this province who can profit from a post-secondary education experience?

I know the question of the aging faculty has been raised before, but I think it's a serious and ongoing one, and I don't think the minister has answered it adequately. In his opening remarks the minister alluded to addressing concerns about the role of women in post-secondary education in this province; that is a serious and ongoing problem. I have a friend who describes post-secondary education, and in particular the universities, as the place of 80 percent: they are 80 percent male — 80 percent of the budgets or salaries; 80 percent of those individuals are tenured; and 80 percent of those individuals are over 40. Those are serious problems, and I don't see serious responses coming from the Minister of Advanced Education.

Another question that I don't see the minister addressing in terms of providing leadership and vision is the role of the colleges. We see universities limiting enrolment, and we've even seen colleges limiting enrolment in the past. Should we be making greater use of our colleges, in terms of providing university transfer? Should those colleges have closer ties with the secondary schools in their communities? What is the role of the private sector in post-secondary education research? What post-secondary education services should be provided by the private sector, and how can quality be assured for those services that are already provided? I've raised that in question period with the minister several times. Is our system of governance of colleges, universities and institutes really appropriate in a free and democratic society, when we see the order-in-council appointments that make up those boards?

Although the questions of improved student financial aid and improved access were very important to post-secondary education in this province, it seems that those two were moved upon while others were not addressed — or not in a serious enough way, in my view. In order to address them, did the minister push to be included in the Royal Commission on Education?

I've complimented the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) on his very democratic role in choosing a process that did have wide involvement and tremendous input from individuals, communities and the stakeholder groups in education around the province. That royal commission traveled the province, held public hearings, received thousands of written submissions and hundreds of oral submissions, and I think everybody agrees that all who were interested had a chance to participate in that very important process.

I think that this minister, in showing leadership and vision, would have pushed to have post-secondary education included in that wide-ranging public involvement process. That process produced a mandate statement, and although it's not perfect, I think it's one that has a comprehensive set of system-wide goals and that has built into the process the potential for ongoing resolution of problems in the K-to-12 education system. I see that kind of democratic approach, vision and risk-taking, really, on the part of government, in trusting the people of the province to bring forward the kinds of principles, ideas and plans that can be implemented by a government and produce progress for education in this province....

Rather than showing the vision and leadership that the Minister of Education showed in risk-taking, working with all of those groups and being democratic, the Minister of Advanced Education chose to pursue his two assigned tasks, with some degree of access.... The minister will argue that the access process had over 5,000 representations from over 800 groups and individuals in 95 communities. From all that I can ascertain — I don't know where the minister gets those numbers — the access process compared to the royal commission process pales in comparison. Anybody who follows education in this province has to conclude that the access process by comparison was a closed process rather than an open one.

What I am suggesting is that the minister has not shown the kind of leadership, except in those two areas, that has moved advanced education forward and that is going to prepare us for the next ten or 20 years; that he did not see the need for involvement in the royal commission process, even though the representatives of the university and college system — even one of the university presidents — urged that post-secondary education be included in that process.

Rather than an open, liberal-minded approach that would have matched the promise of 1986, when the election was, at least to a large degree, fought on the concept of open government.... I do not see that as being followed through in this ministry. I see much more of a closed and centralizing approach, an approach very clearly aimed at stifling criticism and dissent.

When the minister was first assigned the portfolio, he was asked by a Sun reporter if he saw part of the role of university faculty to be critics of society. The minister's response was revealing as to the approach he would take. He said: "I don't know if we need any more critics of society. I say this sincerely. I think the media does a pretty fair job of that." In my view, that's not symptomatic of an apostle of free speech. It was from the Sun of January 10, 1987. It wasn't taken out of the context of that report. I hope it was a fair comment, that that is what the minister suggested.

[ Page 8324 ]

A few months later in this House, when debating with my colleague, now the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), in a debate on whether community college boards should be more representative of their communities as is the case with school boards.... The situation that we see in this province is with the minister making order-in-council appointments. I think it has to be concluded that those boards, rather than representing their communities, are there to represent the political philosophy of the government of the day. In response to a question from that member, the minister suggested: "I would be disappointed if we saw the same sort of political positioning take place that we see on school boards from time to time."

The minister is saying that those areas that have democracy in place and have local elections to elect local people to serve on school boards and represent their communities, ensuring the best kind of education for that community... The minister didn't want to see that for college boards. I am surprised, because I understand that he was on the school board in Courtenay and served his community there well. But he doesn't see that same principle applying to college boards. Clearly the minister likes it when members of college boards or boards of governors are all of the same political persuasion and the decisions are made behind closed doors, and doesn't like it when individuals may hold different views than he and those concerns are out in the open. Clearly the communities that comprise college catchment regions are not 100 percent Social Credit supporters. They are probably not even 50 percent. If the polls are correct, it's more like 30 percent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just remind the member about relevancy. It is somewhat difficult, but we are dealing with the Ministry of Advanced Education, as opposed to the Ministry of Education itself. I think perhaps the comments that have been offered with the best of intentions by the member over the last four or five minutes might not be considered particularly relevant.

MR. JONES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, and I will wind up those comments and summarize by saying I think the estimates of this minister have been geared towards a ministry that is interested in stifling dissent, that is interested in centralizing power and authority in Victoria — an approach that I think is totally inconsistent with what we saw 20 years ago during the genesis of community colleges as educational institutions that were there to represent the communities.

Now that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has put the "u" back in education, I am hoping the Minister of Advanced Education will put the community back in community colleges.

[3:30]

Let me give you another illustration of what I see as a problem in stifling dissent and centralizing power and authority, and it pertains directly to the estimates of the Minister of Advanced Education and

Job Training and his budget. The first budget from this ministry that I had a look at was about two years ago. At that time there were some 26 line items in the — at that time — half-a-billion dollar budget. There were 26 line items to communicate to the Legislature and the public in British Columbia how that money was to be spent. We had 26 line items which were not as informative as we'd like to see. What we've seen with this minister is a reduction in the number of line items; in this budget there are but 12 line items.

If we are here to provide accountability, to provide scrutiny of the government through the opposition for those they represent, to be a watchdog of government and to make sure that the people's money is being well spent, we've gone from a budget of some 26 line items to one of 12 line items.

The minister and I have both dealt with school board budgets. We know that at the school board level, where far fewer dollars are being spent, there are good public access and good accountability in trying to explain through the budget how those moneys are being spent. It seems to me that in a budget that's gone from 26 line items to 12 line items, the attempt is to hide how that money is being spent. If that's an unfair characterization, I would ask the minister if he would be willing to table a full budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education and job Training which fully explains the expenditures and the revenues that the ministry receives. Very clearly, if the intent is not to hide, then the minister, I hope, will be willing to table such a budget so that the opposition and the Legislature can have a full and accurate accounting of the money, rather than having $1 billion in 12 line items.

Perhaps I'll stop there. I've gone on at length, and I'm sure the minister has a number of responses to some of the — what I guess has to be characterized as — charges that I have made.

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the comments made by the member for Burnaby North; I wouldn't want to insinuate that he has had to dig a great deal to find something to complain about. Before I start answering — and I'm not sure that I can answer all the items on the long list, but I will do my best — I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Gary Mullins, Deputy Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training.

I certainly want to agree wholeheartedly with the opening comments of the member for Burnaby North: that is, his comments about the staff and administration in the college, university and institute system — as a matter of fact, in all of the areas that I'm responsible for. I want to say yes, the Social Credit government was very influential and did start the community college system in this province that has grown to be the best in this country. Yes, the government and previous ministers can take a great deal of credit for that, but at the same time, a great deal of the credit must go to the hard-working staff and administration in all the institutions who deal day to day with the students. After all, the students

[ Page 8325 ]

are the reason that we're all stakeholders in this system.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The member for Burnaby North made some comments on retention and completion rates and quality of education, and insinuated that somehow the quality of education in the system is directly involved with the number of dollars being poured into the system. This is one area that I would disagree with the member on. Yes, the system requires money to make it work, but I don't think you improve the system simply by pouring money into it.

With regard to the quality of the system, this was one of the key components and prerequisites that the access committee was asked to look at in determining how we could increase participation rates and increase opportunities to people who live outside the lower mainland and Vancouver Island in this province, who also have a right to good quality education and access to the post-secondary system.

Let's talk a bit about that process, because the member for Burnaby North did make some comments about why didn't I go with a royal commission or go with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) in his royal commission. Let me say at the outset that I personally think the Minister of Education has done a great job in his portfolio, particularly in how he has carried out the results of the Royal Commission on Education. I think all of us would agree — particularly, I guess, even the opposition has to agree — with that, seeing as both of the acts that came out of that royal commission were passed last week.

I might remind the member that it was not a closed process that we undertook with access. In fact, If it had been a closed process, we would not have received 5,000 to 6,000 submissions from all over the province, and the committee would not have visited over 90 communities and would not have received submissions from over 800 groups, from all of the stakeholders in the post-secondary system. Not only that, after the access report was printed, that same committee then went back to the public, back to visit the communities in the province of British Columbia to get public feedback on the access committee report.

So I must disagree with the member for Burnaby North, who has accused me somewhat of having a closed look at the post-secondary system. As a matter of fact, one of my critics who writes in one of the lower mainland tabloids made that same criticism of me, and when I spoke to him and told him how much public input there had been, he was quite shocked. He had no idea that there had been so much public input and agreed with me that the process was in fact just as effective as a royal commission on education.

The member for Burnaby North talked about the lack of cooperation between the universities and colleges and about the competition in the system. Yes, there is competition in the system, and I don't think anybody should be afraid of competition in the system. But let me remind the member for Burnaby North that in fact the cooperation is there as well. The three universities now sit down together and agree on how the university portion of the budget is to be split up. They never used to do that before, but they do that now. The cooperation that exists between the universities and colleges: does the member for Burnaby North think for one minute that a university would sign a 10-year agreement with the colleges in the Cariboo or the Okanagan to deal with the third and fourth-year programs and university degrees if there wasn't cooperation and a willingness to sit down and discuss?

He talks about centres of excellence versus all-around quality. Yes, I know that this is an academic argument that people can sit for a long time and talk about. I feel that we have centres of excellence in the province, that they are network centres of excellence. There may be two or three professors at one university and two or three at the other two who then network together to become a centre of excellence. I don't think centres of excellence require brick-and mortar buildings to operate.

When the member talked about a sort of autocratic system, I think he has forgotten the number of committees that this minister has struck to deal with particular issues. The first one was the committee struck to deal with student financial assistance, and represented on this committee were people from all aspects of the system, including, I might add, the Canadian Federation of Students, faculty members, people who deal on a daily basis with student financial assistance in the institutions, people from the business community and people from all aspects of the community. Another major committee that was struck was the access committee, which again represented all areas of the system.

The implementation planning group dealt with the issue of the degree-granting facility in the north. The native education advisory committee was formed to advise the minister on issues involving native education; the reduction in funding from the federal government; how we can best address the needs of the native students. And the literacy committee is advising the minister on how to deal with the literacy question.

Let me remind the member for Burnaby North, even though he made several complaints about the tough times that the system went through under restraint, that yes, there were some tough times, but the system came through it with flying colours. Certainly one example of coming through with flying colours is that British Columbia has the lowest illiteracy rate in the country. British Columbia students continue to win prize after prize — hardly an example of a system that is inadequate.

Another committee that I have struck, which is reporting to me on a regular basis, is the committee involving Simon Fraser University and the three colleges in the Fraser Valley — Douglas, Kwantlen and Fraser Valley — to assess the population growth in the Fraser Valley and how the post-secondary

[ Page 8326 ]

needs of that population growth can best be addressed.

Again, I would have to disagree with my hon. friend the member for Burnaby North, who says that I am running a closed system, or not receiving public input.

With regard to the quality of the system, again let me remind the member for Burnaby North that all three of our universities are in the top ten in Canada for receiving federal research dollars. Federal research dollars do not go to university buildings or are not given on the size of the university; they are given on the quality of the people at those institutions. Again, the fact that we are in the top ten with all three of our universities is a good indication to me that the system is a strong system, that we have the best people in that system, and I can tell you that it is the intention of this government to maintain that and to maintain that leadership in this country.

With regard to the argument about 26 line items versus 12 line items, my only comment is that the budget has been tabled, the blue book is printed, and you will have to go your best lick.

[3:45]

MR. JONES: In response to the minister, I did raise a number of concerns that I think were ongoing and long range concerns, such as cooperation between the institutions, such as a clear defining of roles and functions of the colleges, the universities and the institutes. I think they were pointing out very clearly that there was not the kind of long-range planning, there was not the kind of leadership, there was not the kind of focus that I think would assist. Except in those two areas of access and student financial aim there were shortcomings.

Those were serious questions that I think need some thought. They are not questions the minister can answer glibly off the top of his head, or even establish small task forces and committees to look at various parts of the system. It seems to me that it needs the kind of focus in education that the Sullivan royal commission brought to that process. I very strongly complimented the minister for his process and his role in that during his estimates and during the bills.

The reference of the government of the day having to be a Social Credit government to bring about community colleges in the days when there was community in community colleges I think is a little misleading. It was the communities themselves, and it was largely as a result of the report done by the president of UBC of the day, John Barfoot Macdonald, that caused those needs to be addressed by a community college system being established in this province. Very clearly the government was brought kicking and screaming to bring about the establishment of those colleges that we all appreciate in this province, and it's the direction of those colleges that I think is the question of the day. I don't think it's appropriate for government of any particular stripe to take credit for all the good work that the communities did in setting up that important system of education in this province.

Where I complimented the minister very strongly in my opening remarks, I was passing on to him the perception in the field of him being a highly respected Minister of Advanced Education. At the same time, when I was talking about the closed nature of the system, in particular the closed nature of the access process, I was again passing on perceptions. In politics we live and die by perceptions, and that is the perception that is out there, and I substantiate that perception myself.

From having read the regional access reports and had a look at their process, in region 1, Vancouver Island — the minister's own region — there were no public meetings. That regional access committee received 23 letters from institutions and other personal letters. In region 3, the Okanagan, there were four public meetings with 40 formal and informal briefs. In region 4, the Kootenays, there were ten public meetings; the attendance was poor at those meetings, and there were 110 questionnaires. In region 5, the Cariboo, there was a small number of public meetings, which were poorly attended, and there was a poor response to the letters. In region 6, North Coast, there were no public forums, and there were about a dozen replies to a letter sent out. In region 7, Nechako, there were no public forums. In region 8, Peace River, there were no public forums and very little public input.

In terms of the access report, very clearly the perception out there, particularly as it relates to the regional process that took part in the access to post-secondary education in this province and the minister's initiatives.... In the regions it was not felt.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) has a task force on seniors that I think is getting a very good response. The meeting I attended was very well received, very well attended and very professionally handled. I think the minister is to be commended for that — also the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) in the Sullivan royal commission.

However, in the access report I sense a top-down approach that has not listened to the people in the regions. In four or five of the eight regions there were no meetings, and the majority of those that were held were poorly attended. I don't feel the minister can suggest at this time that there was a strong public response to the question of access. Although it is an important area, I think it would have been better handled had it gone through the royal commission or had been given the kind of focus and attention received by the Minister of Health's "Toward a Better Age" or the Minister of Education's royal commission.

I was pointing out in my opening remarks that the minister did show good initiative in response to the directions given by the Premier in student financial aid. I think the committee that was set up was a good one and did a lot of good work in the area of access. I think the product there is a worthwhile one, although very slow in coming. So the minister did show initiative in those two areas, but in a number of the

[ Page 8327 ]

other long-range directions for post-secondary education in this province, I think it has been severely lacking.

However, I reiterate why I don't think I'm struggling or searching. This is my first time through the estimates, and I wanted to go back right to the beginning of this minister's tenure as Minister of Advanced Education and have a look at the things he did, the approach he brought and the focus to his ministry.

I find a theme of centralizing, of control and of focus in the province and not one that reaches out to the people of the province. One of the first initiatives this minister took to underline that concept is that he rescinded the appointments of all the current community college board members, and secondly, he fired the Universities Council.

I understand that with the community college boards, it was to change their term of office and to institute probationary appointments and specific terms. I suggest that process gave the minister an opportunity for greater control over who those appointments would be, and should there be an individual the minister disagrees with, it would be easier to get rid of that board member. So I'm again suggesting a centralist approach, and I'm saying that there is political interference in this process, and with these term appointments it's easier than ever.

With respect to the Universities Council, we all recognize that the Universities Council — as with all bodies: the government, the opposition, the institutions in post-secondary — was not a perfect body. But I think it was recognized that it did perform an important function that's carried out in most provinces in Canada and most states in the United States: a consultation process, an opportunity for cooperation and for depoliticizing the process of post-secondary education. The minister states that there are vehicles in place to allow for the kind of cooperation that's so necessary in post-secondary education, yet I was quite shocked to see in the March 29 edition of UBC Reports an indication of this province really moving towards a two-tiered system of universities. In that issue, UBC indicated that funding would be provided for 81 percent of the new graduate spaces under the access report. It seems to me that if the minister is making those kinds of decisions, I think to the disadvantage of the other two universities in the province, then those decisions are being made in a vacuum. I can't say that they're thoughtless, but they're certainly not well thought out in the open, consultative atmosphere that those kinds of serious, important decisions should be made in.

To have that amount of graduate space allocated to one of the universities, while leaving the remaining 19 percent of funding for new graduate spaces to be fought for by the other two universities, very clearly indicates to me that we are embarking on a two tiered system of university education in this province. UBC will be the centre of excellence that Dr. Strangway so often talks about; the other two universities will be left for certain kinds of training but will not be the major research centres that can attract the kind of funds that the minister alluded to a few minutes ago. I'm suggesting that the absence of bodies like the Universities Council, and leaving things up to the minister and the Ministry of Advanced Education, can result in decisions that are not in the best interests of British Columbia — or at least they're not explained in such a way that we can accept those decisions.

We did see the changing of appointments of community college board members; we did see the firing of the Universities Council. I think we see this as symptomatic of the centralist approach of this minister. He loves making appointments; he loves setting up these committees. To replace the Universities Council he has set up an advisory board. I don't know if it's representative of the community or the academic community, or whether it's representative of anything at all. I've heard nothing from it, and so I'll leave the minister with some questions about that advisory body. How is it going? What work has this body done? What sort of advice on serious questions facing post-secondary education or universities have they provided to the minister? Have they met lately? Who's on the board now? Are there any practising academics on the board? If not, how do you expect complex decisions on academic questions to be dealt with by such a body?

HON. S. HAGEN: I had to stifle a chuckle when I was listening to the member for Burnaby North and his comments about the closed process and what happened with access. I would challenge him to go into Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo or Prince George and make those comments. I suggest that he check with his insurance man before he does that, though.

With regard to long-range planning, I have to ask my critic what he would see as more important as a long-range issue than university degrees made available in twice the number of places around the province, We now have a process in place that will allow people who live in the Okanagan, the Cariboo and central Vancouver Island to obtain quality university degrees from existing universities. I would challenge him to speak to the people that I've spoken to, who have come up to me and have thanked the government for making those changes so that they can now have access to quality degrees without having to pack up and move to the lower mainland.

He mentioned that I fired the Universities Council. That's right. I disbanded the Universities Council, which had a budget of $650,000 a year, and of which all the university presidents asked me what the purpose was. They saw no purpose in it; it was not serving any purpose.

[4:00]

Yes, we changed the terms of the college board members, because they were appointed two and a half years ago for an unspecified period of time. They were doing a good job, but there were members who had been on there for a long time. There was no opting out. We've now changed that to a term of three years, with a renewable term of three years, and it's operating extremely well. Of course, a lot of

[ Page 8328 ]

the credit for the good system goes to the college board members as well.

The charge of political interference I find amusing to say the least. The people who serve on those boards, I can tell you, serve because they're very interested in the post-secondary system. They are community-minded citizens who are prepared to give of their time, to spend many hours debating many issues for the good of the students in those institutions.

With regard to the member's research from the UBC paper, I find that somewhat incredible, and possibly he should have phoned me to check out the facts. The fact is that the opposition is in error — again. On the funding for those grad students, 81 percent is not going to UBC. That article — I haven't seen it — is in error. The breakdown of the grad students for this year is 65 percent going to UBC, 20 percent to SFU and 15 to UVic. It's the historic breakdown of funding. We are having consultations now with the three university presidents with regard to future breakdowns, but no decision has been made.

MR. JONES: I fully accept the minister's breakdown on percentages as they exist today, but suggest that on March 29 they were different, as reported in UBC Reports.

The minister implied, with respect to the University Advisory Council replacing the Universities Council, that there was an annual saving of some $650,000. 1 would suggest that a good deal of that expenditure is now expended by the ministry itself, so there is nowhere near that degree of saving. I would also suggest to the minister that if he thinks there was unanimous support for the abolition of the Universities Council by the presidents of the universities in this province, he's sadly mistaken on that as well.

The minister asked what was more important than access. I've certainly recognized its importance. It's widely recognized. I'd like to read a quote to the minister: "...the province should aim at improving our participation rate from the present level of the worst in Canada to at least the national average, over five years...and remove barriers for the participation of rural students seeking post-secondary education by developing a comprehensive strategy of decentralization...." That statement was not made by the minister, nor by my predecessor, the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari), nor by myself

That was a statement made by Lorne Nicolson, the former member for Nelson-Creston, and he made that statement on March 18, 1985.

I've recognized the importance of that issue, and I'm pleased that the government and the ministry recognize the importance of that issue. Had the government and the ministry recognized the importance of that issue on March 18, 1985, we would pretty well be at the national average now. Instead, we're still talking about it and struggling to set up the access proposals.

I guess the moral of the story here for the minister is that the minister should pay more attention to the opposition. Clearly Lorne Nicolson was right in 1985, and the minister is right today. Had the minister of the day listened to Lorne Nicolson in 1985, we'd have the problem solved. We could be dealing with these other important questions that I suggest the minister has neglected while he was focusing on student financial aid and access.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Lorne now?

MR. JONES: He's playing golf up in Nelson.

The minister answered a number of questions that I asked, and I appreciate that. However, when it came to the replacement body for the Universities Council, the minister's University Advisory Council, I'm not sure whether I heard the answers to those questions or not. Let me just repeat some of those questions.

This body has been set up. It did replace the Universities Council. I've not really heard the workings or the makeup. I knew who was on the original board, but I don't know who's there now. I know that they are there to replace the Universities Council and should be providing information to the minister. I think that body has potential, as the Universities Council had potential. I think for it to fulfil its potential it needs practising academics on it, so I am wondering if there are any practising academics on it, and if not, why not?

HON. S. HAGEN: I have just sent out for a list of the people currently serving on that committee, but I can tell the member opposite that while there are no practising academics on it, there are three people from each of the universities serving on the committee; also one person representing the colleges, I think one person representing BCIT and one representing Open Learning. I will be pleased to provide the names of the individuals as soon as they arrive.

MR. R. FRASER: I enter this debate with great delight. The first thing I want to say to that member over there is, if you are going to quote me, quote me right. You misquote me. Don't do that anymore. Look it up and find out what was actually said.

I just can't believe this talk about elected boards everywhere. No, no, no. We don't need another level of government. I can see that he'd probably give them taxing authority. Good heavens no! I think appointments will be just fine, thank you very much. They have worked for a long time. They involve members of the community with a determined and decided interest in education, which is a good idea. Let's pick people who can make a nice, positive contribution without getting into the taxing role, which we don't have to do.

In talking to this minister down here about student aid.... I was involved in a little of that at one point, and he has been able to manage marvellous things for student aid. We have money out there now that the students can hardly even apply for, it's such a huge fund. The economy has changed quite a bit

[ Page 8329 ]

since the old days of the little recession we had in '81-84. The government has responded to our newfound state of economic health and given students a great and wonderful opportunity to go to school, and I commend the government for that. I am proud of it and proud to be part of it.

MR. MOWAT: What about the leadership that made the change?

MR. R. FRASER: That's right. The leadership that made a change is this government, Mr. Member from Little Mountain; thank you very much. It was this government that got the colleges going. That party over there knew it was so good they kept it up when they had their short period in office. If they'd done more of the things that we had been doing, they might still be there. But they can't do it, because they are wrong-headed.

The member talks about two tiers of university. Why not three? Why not four? Do they all have to be identical? Do they all have to be mechanical? Is there no way we could inspire those people over there to think big just one time? It seems to be impossible. The University of British Columbia came along the other day and said: "We want to raise our education centres even higher than they are now. We just heard from the government that all universities here in B.C. are in the top ten, and we want to go even higher." The member worries about a two-tier system. I think we should push our students academically as hard as we can push them, give them as much material as we can give them, make them work harder. Why not? Upscale the whole system. We've got three universities; surely we can concentrate on one being a little higher than the other two. I see no harm in that.

Access for students through all the colleges out there. What a wonderful opportunity, to get a university degree at home. I haven't heard one word from that other side over there about the distance education. I can assure you that it was a very proud day for me to represent this government when the first person ever received a degree in distance education — from the minister's riding, as it turns out. What a day that was. We both met her one day. Right at home, using modern technology.

The NDP can't seem to get a grip on anything but bricks and mortar. Thinking is where we want it. Let's use some high-tech stuff. Let's use more of that distance education. Why not?

I agree with the government. If the colleges occasionally have a little competition between themselves, why not? Doesn't it excite their imaginations? Doesn't it make them strive a little harder and say: "Come to our school because of this"?

"Oh no, we can't have it, " says the opposition. "We've got to trudge along in a little row." No way; let them compete. Let them struggle. It will be good for the students, and that's what we want. Now the universities are going out fund-raising. They've done such a good sales job, they are out fund-raising and getting terrific support from the community. What a good idea that is.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: You bet. Fully paid for. Biggest campaigns in history, well organized — we are so fortunate in this province to have the system we've got. I must say, I can't envy the member opposite for his job as critic, because there is not much to criticize. We can give to the students of British Columbia virtually everything they want in terms of education, from K to 12 and onward. We have a fabulous system in this province, done by the Social Credit Party of British Columbia, in office for so long because we do things so well. Keep it up, Mr. Minister.

MR. PERRY: I couldn't resist. As I listened to the hon. member, it took me back to my halcyon days when I listened to chants from the massed red-coated hordes chanting: "We are, we are, we are the engineers." I'll leave the next line for the hon. member to repeat; I can't remember how the song goes after that first line. But I thought, listening to the hon. member, that he must have been living back in his heyday from those glory days when he attended UBC back in the nineteenth century. I guess things have changed a little since those glory days.

MR. R. FRASER: A little insult there. Withdraw! Resign!

MR. PERRY: I'll withdraw the remark if it offends the member. It wasn't the nineteenth century. It certainly wasn't the eighteenth century, the age of enlightenment; it might have been the sixteenth or fifteenth century.

MR. R. FRASER: You've got to be funnier than that.

MR. PERRY: I'm not, as the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) frequently says, perfect, but I'll think hard about a funnier line and try to come up with one before I finish.

I felt that it was time to bring things back to reality a bit and talk about the state of the universities as they are. I wanted to tell the House about the conditions in the university where I work — UBC — and ask the minister to comment on some problems that I've witnessed firsthand in the last couple of years in that university.

[4:15]

Let me begin on a pretty serious note. Tragically, about two weeks ago, Dr. Don Hill, the chief pediatrician at the B.C. Children's Hospital, was killed in a sailing accident. Dr. Hill was also chairman of the University of B.C. academic department of pediatrics. I want to tell the House some things that he told me a few months before his death, things that I had hoped to discuss privately with Dr. Hill and the minister and perhaps the Minister of Health, but time did not permit before his untimely death. In recognition of Dr. Hill, I would like to record some of them officially now so that as part of his memorial, I hope, some of his goals will be realized.

[ Page 8330 ]

I visited the B.C. Children's Hospital shortly after my election and was given a brief tour of some of the hospital facilities by Dr. Hill. I sat with him for an hour and a half discussing some of the funding problems that the academic department faced. I realize that these are not directly within the minister's control and that some of them, in various ways, relate to Ministry of Health programs, but I'd like to raise them for his consideration and ultimately learn his thinking on these issues.

Dr. Hill pointed out to me some inadequacies in the physical plant in the academic parts of the Children's Hospital: for example, the fact that it is the only children's hospital in the country and perhaps in North America — maybe the only one in the world, at least in the modern, technologically advanced parts of the world — which doesn't have an auditorium for teaching. There is no room within that hospital where the pediatric staff and their students, nurses, allied health professionals, fellows and residents can meet. The small teaching-rooms are physically not large enough to accommodate the department for their weekly conferences. Therefore they have to meet in the adjoining hospital a considerable distance away and put the sickest children at risk, because those who look after them have to be five to ten minutes removed from where they can help the children. And even those facilities are not very adequate.

Let me just remind you how this relates to the Advanced Education ministry rather than Health. I am talking largely about people in postgraduate training or even medical students in training. When these young physicians work at night in the intensive neonatal nurseries, there is no place for them to sleep, except by converting the secretaries' offices. In the daytime, the secretaries put their books onto the bed where the doctors sleep, and at nighttime the doctors have to thread their way into these windowless rooms between the desks and clear the paperwork off the bed so that they can crawl into it for their one or two hours of sleep per night. So much for the physical aspects.

Let me explain part of the problems that Dr. Hill spoke of in describing the inadequacy of academic funding. He described to me his meeting with officials from government ministries — I no longer recall whether it was the Ministry of Health or Advanced Education officials as well — seeking funding for junior faculty members to work in research and in academic pediatrics in the areas of rheumatology, infectious disease and special neonatal care, areas which by their very nature are not highly remunerative. He showed me some of the figures he had presented to government officials, and I questioned him on them in some detail. For example, he showed me a table showing that the workload for the infectious disease consulting service had increased from perhaps 300 patient-visits to 500 over the last several years.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

1 could see why ministry officials might not understand that that was a significant workload for a physician in infectious disease; that one case might require an entire day's work for one doctor or even for a team of three doctors, for example. That was one of the reasons I had hoped to arrange a joint meeting with Dr. Hill and some of the ministers involved. But the point I'm trying to make is that ultimately what Dr. Hill's request came down to was $450,000 for three new faculty. Some of that was for their salaries; some was for support. Even if he were to obtain it, he pointed out that there was no office he could offer them. We're not talking about grand and glorious offices like the minister's here in these buildings; we're talking about a small cubicle to work in, some place where you can put your medical books, write up your charts and do your research work, or write up your research work. For this paltry $450,000 a year, not only were health services not being delivered but the potential development of an academic department serving the largest pediatric population of any children's hospital in North America was being significantly hamstrung.

The reason I raise that, Mr. Minister, is not only that, tragically, Dr. Hill cannot raise those issues himself any longer, it is because they are symbolic of other problems within the universities. Let me give you a few more examples from areas that are very familiar to me because of my professional background — not because they are the only important ones, but simply because I'm more familiar with them, and I can describe them in detail.

In the University of British Columbia faculty of medicine, most of the young, ambitious faculty members who attempt to fulfil at least part of points 2 and 3 of the British Columbia science and technology policy announced by the minister on August 16, 1988, narrow-minded as that policy may be — to "encourage the use of science and technology to optimize the quality of life for British Columbians"; or to "recognize the importance of basic research" — generally have to come to the universities on so-called "soft money." That means money from grants, foundations or so-called scholarships from the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation, the Medical Research Council of Canada or similar non-government funding bodies.

These so-called scholarships must not be confused with the scholarships given to students in universities to finance their basic education. They are financing for research at the highest level by fully qualified people, who may have spent up to 15 or 20 years in post-high-school education before they receive a scholarship. The amounts of money are modest; they're not large rewards compared to other rewards in society. They might range in the order of $40,000, for example, for a specialist physician with a PhD. Yet they're soft; they can be taken away virtually without notice.

At their expiry, the universities, which formerly had a commitment to the granting bodies to assume the salaries of these young faculty members, now no longer provide funding. A young medical scientist,

[ Page 8331 ]

for example, might achieve a brilliant record in one of our universities such as the University of British Columbia, spend five years working intensely to establish that record and find at the end of that time that there's no funding to support him or her. Therefore they'll either return to the private practice of medicine, charging the taxpayer a far larger sum than he or she would cost the taxpayer if they remained in academic medicine, while not necessarily providing any greater service; or they'll leave for another jurisdiction which values their services more highly.

In my view, Mr. Minister, this situation has become so chronic that some of the administrators in the system no longer resist or fight against it. One of Dr. Hill's great attributes was that he was always someone who lived life to the fullest and fought very vigorously for things that he knew were right. I think we've accepted a situation which is appalling and pathetic. I would like to ask the minister where he stands on the development of science within our universities, and specifically on funding for young faculty members where the universities now have no money to replace them.

I could give you more and more examples from my own department, where there has been no faculty member replaced for five or ten years — at least five years — and where there's no money to do that, even though older members are retiring. The department is one which, according to the Ministry of Health policy, would have an extremely important role in reducing health care costs in the future through education on drug-prescribing habits, and yet that one, for example, has no funds to recruit new members. Where do you stand on this, Mr. Minister?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm really sorry that the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey didn't raise these questions where they would more appropriately be raised, and that's with the budget of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck). That's where the funding comes for those programs, even to the extent of rental accommodations.

With regard to providing research moneys, I'm sure the member is well aware that the research dollars for universities come out of the federal government. I've been able to make some changes to some areas, one being the health research foundation, where we have more than doubled the amount of money that has gone into health research. We were able to convince the Ministry of Finance to allow them to flow through the $3 million a year that comes from the Patent Act, which is going into health research.

I'm sure you're aware also that the $380 million a year that goes into funding the university system in this province, which is a substantial amount of money, goes to the universities on an unallocated basis. The universities determine the priorities and allocate those moneys, whether it be faculty increases or whatever. UBC's portion of that allocation I think is somewhere around $220 million a year. I should note also that the total I've been able to reallocate into health care research this last year is $8.9 million, including the Patent Act moneys.

If the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey has specific points he wants to make, I'm sure he's aware that he can make those points to the president of the university.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Minister, it's not up to politicians — either you or me — to intervene in the administration of universities at that level. It would be seen as gross interference. My role in that regard ended when I was elected. Let it not be construed that the examples I've given represent interference; I'll give you some examples from other departments simply to make the point.

[4:30]

I think the issue is that you can argue the budget increase in different ways. The document before me shows three different scenarios for calculating the recent increase in university budgets, according to which the real increase this year could vary anywhere from 6.85 percent to 12.12 percent. The real issue, though, is: are we adequately funding universities to keep up to the goals that the government so frequently enunciates in its programs? I think you have to look at some of the details to know this question; then you have to make a decision, I suppose, whether or not as a minister you have confidence in the university boards of governors or administrators to have allocated the funds responsibly.

I think it's important for you to know some of the details, and that's one of the reasons I'm saying them. I think it's important for the public to understand them, which is the reason I say them here in the Legislature. Usually when the universities say this, it's seen as self-serving, and it's not widely reported.

Consider, for example, special education in the faculty of education at UBC — and again I give you UBC examples purely because I'm more familiar with them from my past experience. The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) would, I'm sure, be much more familiar than I with the provincial situation and has or will deal with other examples as necessary. At UBC, Professor Poutt in the faculty of education retired after many years of service and has not been replaced. The diploma program in mental retardation has been suspended as a consequence. During 1989 and '90, any student who wishes to specialize in mental retardation has to go to the province of Alberta. If that is progress or a healthy university system in British Columbia....

HON. S. HAGEN: They chose the priorities.

MR. PERRY: I'm simply making the examples for the reasons I stated before, hoping that the minister and the government will recognize that some of the choices forced upon the university relate to chronic short funding. A simple 10 percent — if that is the true figure — increase in one year does not remedy so many years of underfunding.

The French department at UBC — French is an area in which there is an intense interest by students

[ Page 8332 ]

because of federal government hiring policies and the bilingual nature of the country — advertised in the spring of 1989 for three tenure-track positions. One of these was withdrawn from the department for reasons of cutback, even though three good candidates had been found. Only two people were hired. On a net basis, the department has suffered attrition regularly, even though it services more and more students every year.

Let me give you a couple of other mundane examples but ones which bring home the point. I have lectured recently in a geography building at UBC where the curtains are in tatters and you can't darken the room to project slides. In a department which depends tremendously on audiovisual aids in its teaching, you can't darken the room because the curtains are in tatters. I said that while campaigning for election, and the former academic planner at UBC, Dr. Robbie Clark, telephoned me to challenge me on that. He said: "You're exaggerating." He said he made notes at one of my speeches and he wanted to raise five or seven points which he thought were wrong. I pointed out to him: "You know, Dr. Clark, from the heyday of the universities back in the sixties and seventies, things really have deteriorated. If you don't believe me, go to that large room in the northwest corner of the geography building on the second floor and you'll find those curtains in tatters."

Let me give you another example. The department of anthropology and sociology at the University of B.C. has had a world reputation in the postwar period as one of the greatest anthropology and sociology departments in the world. It benefited from a number of great American scholars who were no longer welcome in their country after World War II We got off with a leap and a bound ahead of the rest of the world. Now that department has been reduced to the point that its entire budget for special seminars by visiting academics is $500 per year. Imagine that, Mr. Minister. What could you do with $500 per year for an academic budget for special seminars? Could you bring one visiting academic from Comox down to UBC for that, or maybe from Calgary or Seattle, for an entire year? In one of the most important departments in the arts faculty in a university, it's pathetic.

I think you should just be aware of these things, because they're not widely mooted in the press. When faculty members raise them, they are often accused of carping or exaggerating. Those are the facts. I know it, because I attempted to get that department to co-sponsor a seminar that I was involved with, and the department head's response was: "It would be wonderful, but we don't have any money to bring in visiting speakers." How can you run a proper university without some cross-fertilization of ideas? Dare I mention the word in this assembly in the absence of the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser): how can you have intellectual intercourse when you've got no money to fund it?

This is in a province where we see our government.... Every night I see the smiling face of the minister opposite, a very friendly, handsome face smiling at me — beaming, in fact — as he prepares for the next election and I wonder to myself, how many thousands of dollars went into that advertisement to tell me what a wonderful job is being done for this province? How many thousands of dollars have gone Into all the other advertisements we see? I see the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) looking a little bit more sour now than he does in the advertisements. He looks genuinely friendly. Now it's coming out; I can begin to see the smile spreading over his face as he thinks of the compliments he must have had about those advertisements. But they're costly; oh, they're costly! We're talking big money there, not $500 a year for an important academic department in the university. I think the minister should be ashamed of that. I think that's something where the public expects better leadership in this province.

Let me just raise a couple of other issues quite briefly. I think my colleague has already addressed the issue of the student fee increases at universities. If not, then I'll simply take the chance to state the case for the students. Here I would like to recognize the minister for having spoken out on behalf of the students when the University of British Columbia raised its fees so precipitously. I am prepared to give credit where credit is due, and the minister, although he did not provide the university the means to avoid a steep fee increase, did criticize them when they implemented it. I think that the second part of his action, at least, was sound.

This really is posing a barrier to some students; maybe not to the more well-heeled students whose parents live in my riding, or at least some of whose parents live in my riding, but there are significant numbers of students who must go deeply into debt to finance their education. Another 10 percent on a very high fee does impose a significant burden for them, and I think symbolically it has also had the effect of discouraging students from pursuing higher education just at a time when what we desperately need in this province are the best educated students we can possibly find.

Paradoxically, I think an even more serious problem for them is one they are just beginning to think about: their housing problem. I had a call recently from students in Vancouver concerned about student housing problems at the university. The main reason is that rental rates are going up so precipitously in the city of Vancouver, and secondary suites are being closed down through the demolition of houses with the older secondary suites, where perhaps the minister or his friends may have lived if they studied at the University of B.C.

Many of us in this assembly had friends who lived in those so-called illegal suites. Those are being lost, and the city is attempting to close down some of them. At the same time, no significant amount of student housing has been built on the campus for years. There have been modest developments — but really very modest.

Now we see the university developing so-called empty-nesters' housing for the wealthiest people in

[ Page 8333 ]

the city to live on the endowment lands in an area that I thought the government had included in the new Pacific Spirit Park. But we don't see any significant plans for new student housing. Every time I fly back and forth from Victoria to Vancouver to my riding, I fly very close to or over those enormous parking lots at the University of B.C. Some of the most valuable land in the province is committed night and day — 24 hours a day and 365 days a year — to asphalt and the private automobile.

I would like to ask the minister if he — or the government — has any vision to provide new housing for students or faculty, whom it is difficult to attract to Vancouver now because of the absurd housing prices. On those parking lots, perhaps we could extend the vision not so far as to remove the asphalt, plant some trees again and restore it somewhat toward the natural environment that was there before, but to use that land for a higher purpose than simply the private automobile.

The logic is compelling, in my view. More people who spend their days at UBC could live on or near the campus and could reduce the transportation needs of the lower mainland, reduce the air pollution In the lower mainland and reduce our provincial expenses in building that transportation infrastructure. To use that wonderful phrase from the Minister of Transportation and Highways, they might even have the freedom to move — perhaps on foot, on bicycle or swimming through the other parking lots in the winter to get to their classes.

I think the logic is compelling, and I'd like to hear where the minister stands on that, because the university doesn't seem to be moving, and there is one obvious reason: lack of money.

HON. S. HAGEN: After listening to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey drone on and on, for the first time since his election I can say I am honestly pleased that he was elected in Point Grey to get him out of the university, so he doesn't keep on giving this negative propaganda to the students there.

I would never accuse him of carping or exaggerating; I wouldn't even accuse him of conflict of interest, seeing as he is employed at the university and speaking up for lack of funding. But I can tell you that he should talk to the people I talk to across this country....

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I would ask the minister to withdraw the allegation that I am employed by the University of B.C. I am not; I never have been. I teach for free.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has asked for withdrawal, and it is parliamentary procedure just to withdraw. May I ask the minister to do that?

HON. S. HAGEN: I certainly withdraw, Mr. Chairman. I would never have thought that he worked at the university....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the minister continues, perhaps I might refer him to that section of our standing orders which discusses what may or may not be debated at this time. We are doing the estimates of the minister's office, and it's your administrative responsibility and not the actions of the member opposite that are open for debate. Please continue.

HON. S. HAGEN: I apologize for taking that liberal attitude...

MR. ROSE: You're new around here.

HON. S. HAGEN: ...but I am new around here.

The only other phrase that caught my imagination was when he talked about freedom to move. I had some thoughts on that too, but I won't use them here.

The member makes some interesting points, and it's typical of the opposition in that on one hand they want us to interfere with the expenditures at the university, and on the other hand they say: "But don't interfere; we want the university to spend the money as they see fit." I think the member knows full well that the issues he talked about are issues that the university administration, the university board of governors and senate decide on in how they are going to expend their funds.

MR. PERRY: I'll just make one more brief, different point. But if I can respond to the minister, I have not called, nor would 1, for interference by the minister in how the universities spend their money.

[4:45]

The argument I have been attempting to make is that the universities are financially pressed; that they have tried to tell this to the minister and previous ministers in successive governments; and that we all know that the figures for university funding per student are abysmal in this province, about ninth in Canada. Virtually any way you look at the national statistics — unfortunately I didn't bring them with me today — they put B.C. eighth or ninth in expenditures per student in higher education. Our participation rate is the worst, or almost the worst, in the country. We can't blame it all on the public school system. Part of the problem is the short-funding of universities.

The example of student housing and the vision of the government really is, I think, an important question of principle. Without new money the universities cannot build subsidized student housing. They could attempt to raise the money involved — I don't know what it is; $50 million or $100 million, perhaps, for a substantial new project — but they're not likely to succeed. Yet it's clearly in the public interest not to have university students, who are publicly funded through the subsidies to the universities, through subsidized student loans and through scholarships and grants, spending up to four hours of their day traveling back and forth from as far as Chilliwack to UBC, for example. That's ridiculous, and it's clearly in the public interest to have more of them living on

[ Page 8334 ]

or near the university. The same applies to faculty. It's also clearly In the public interest to reduce the traffic congestion engendered by all those extra commuters. I don't think it requires very much vision, but I was hoping, I suppose forlornly, to achieve from the minister some statement of vision in that regard. It's certainly our vision on this side of the House, and I think it's the public vision that we need to think more clearly in those terms in the future.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to raise this one final point. I'd like to know where the minister stands on the principle of mandatory retirement and agism. This is an issue raging across the country. If I'm not mistaken, UBC professors are now appealing a case before the Supreme Court of Canada in which they contest their dismissal purely on the basis of age. We know that there are highly productive academics in our universities who when they reach 65 are compulsorily retired; we know that there are other academics who may perhaps be in favour with administrations or government who are not compulsorily retired and are welcome to stay on. We know that some of those who are retired retain academic records as distinguished and productivity as or more distinguished than their junior colleagues'. For example, I'm told that Dr Robert Noble, the discoverer of two major anti-cancer drugs and a pioneer of cancer research in B.C., is one of the few people you can still find on a weekend at the UBC animal research unit. If the Chairman were to wander up to the UBC animal research unit this weekend he might find Dr. Noble, who is in his early seventies, prowling the corridors and continuing his experiments without any remuneration and without even his normal status within the university, because he was compulsorily retired. Professor Copp, the discoverer of the hormone calcitonin, is another person who fell into the same circumstances.

Other provinces have enacted legislation to protect people from discrimination purely on the basis of age. Where does the minister stand on this, and can we look forward to legislation from him on behalf of the government in the future?

HON. S. HAGEN: I just want to go back a bit to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey's comments on being eighth or ninth in expenditure in Canada. Whether he's right or not I don't know, because it depends on whose figures you use. I think it's interesting, though, that a province that spends the money we do turns out the best students across the country. That's the significant thing that I, as the minister, look at. My job is not to spend the most money we possibly can on the system; my job is to make sure the system is the best it can possibly be. With regard to the access number, for instance, when the access implementation program is finished, we will be fourth in Canada in access to education and participation rate numbers.

With regard to the last question the member asked, I believe that issue is still before the Supreme Court of Canada, is it not? Obviously we are in contact with the universities — they are struggling with that issue — but at this time, as long as it's before the court, I can't comment on it.

MR. PERRY: I will wrap up very briefly so my colleague the opposition House Leader can get a chance.

I would like to raise one final question that is brought up by the minister's comments. Why do we have so many good students if our funding is relatively poor compared to other provinces? Does that mean that we are getting more efficient output for our dollars?

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: I am sure that's a complex question, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to point out there are some very obvious nefarious consequences of our low spending. One of the most obvious is that British Columbia, which has roughly 10 percent — or a bit more, maybe 12 percent — of the population in Canada receives only 3 percent of the total research and development spending in Canada. Why is that?

Of course, there are historical reasons. There is the tremendous power in the federal government of Ontario and Quebec. I don't for a minute suggest that it's the minister's responsibility that we don't get more from that funding. I think it's a tremendously difficult job to wring that money out of Ottawa, but one of the prerequisites to that is to have the best academic staff in our universities and to retain the best ones, rather than having them siphoned away elsewhere. From my own experience in the university.... Again I don't want to seem small-minded and refer to my own, but I use it because it's a good example of what is actually happening, and when I know things close to the ground, I know that I am telling you the truth. Some of our best researchers will leave or will not be able to compete for research and development funding because we don't actually have any money to pay them a salary. They will therefore go out, for example, into the private sector in fee-for-service medicine and simply serve patients in the way they do well and abandon academic pursuits, just when we need them the most.

In this respect I want to make my final comment, which is on the British Columbia science and technology policy approved on August 16, 1988, signed by the Premier and the minister responsible for science and technology, which reached me via some circuitous route in the last week — somehow it appeared in my mail. Perusing it, I must say I am struck at how one-sided and biased this British Columbia science and technology policy is. I had not seen this before, but virtually the entire thrust of the nine principles is to support science and technology which has direct economic benefits.

You may say, Mr. Chairman, what a wonderful idea. It makes sense and is logical to support science and technology which will improve our industry in British Columbia and improve employment, improve

[ Page 8335 ]

our economy. Of course it is, but it is the classic fallacy of science to think of nothing more than that. It is a fallacy into which the federal government fell in the days when Mr. Drury was the chairman of the Treasury Board and who said to the basic scientists of Canada, virtually in these words: "Let's not have any basic science in Canada; that's a luxury we can't afford. We can always plagiarize that or borrow it from the Americans or from the Europeans, because they will do it for us and we will take it for free." That provoked such an incensed reaction among the basic scientific community — those were the days when I was a medical student in Montreal and Dr. Charles Scriver of the Montreal Children's Hospital and others led a campaign with citizens to restore science funding in Canada — that that decision was reversed. The Liberal government at the time backed away from it.

This policy frightens me, in a sense, because it appears to encourage only that science and technology like that of the former minister, Dr. McGeer, who brought into the Wellcome Foundation an interferon project and spent $30 million on a product which is virtually useless, with the single exception of the rare disease of hairy cell leukemia. He bought into it because he thought it would provide us with more money and more jobs and a wonderful pharmaceutical industry. He neglected the basic underpinning, which was to have the capable basic scientists and the basic science infrastructure to be able to develop an industry in the first place.

This, if you ask me, is one reason why the Premier and the Minister of International Business (Hon. J Jansen), with whom I raised this question earlier in the estimates debates, were unsuccessful in luring to us a high-technology toxicology and drug research institute. The reason is that we don't have the basic science infrastructure to make it work, and if we are ever going to become the so-called Silicon Valley North that some of our politicians and scientists have dreamed of, we need a broader perspective on science and technology which encompasses more fully the necessity of funding basic research, not simply putting it in a sentence in which it later becomes subsidiary to a second clause implying that it would only be valuable in areas that contribute significantly to B.C.'s economic development and competitiveness

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to respond to those comments. I guess the one area that we would agree on is that we don't agree that 4 percent of research expenditures in Canada is good enough for B.C. I agree 101 percent with that statement. That's, of course, why this government and myself have worked so hard to promote projects — such as the kaon factory, for instance — which would drastically change that percentage of expenditure; also promoting the move of the communications research lab from Ontario to British Columbia.

I will not agree with him that we are not attracting the best people out here. We are attracting the best people. I keep very close touch with the university presidents and the deans when they are looking for people in their departments, making sure they are able to attract the people they want to attract. I think if you look at the hirings over the last two or two and a half years, you'll agree with me that we are hiring the best people.

On the comments you made with regard to the science and tech policy, I should remind you that we are one of the few provinces in Canada that has a provincial science and tech policy. In fact, this policy was developed by the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. About half the people on that are from industry — from the science and tech industry — and about half are from the universities. I would guess that you would agree that those people come pretty highly qualified: people like Dr. Strangway, people like Dr. John Borden and other researchers from our universities who sit on that committee.

I'm sure you also recognize that this is a provincial policy. Historically, pure research is the responsibility of the federal government. For us to get Into a policy of funding pure research would be a great way for the federal government to opt out and say: "Great. We'll fund it in the rest of the provinces and the province of British Columbia is funding their own."

You made a bit of an underhanded comment with regard to the Silicon Valley. I would remind you that this part of the country is becoming known as the Evergreen Triangle. We now have the third-largest concentration of software companies on the North American continent between Vancouver, Victoria and Seattle. I think that's something to be proud of.

It's not all doom and gloom as some members opposite — not all — like to portray it. I appreciate the special personal interests you have. Again, those interests can only be addressed by the people who allocate the funds at the university.

[5:00]

MR. ROSE: I hope not to be too gloomy while I'm up here — doomy or gloomy. I have a few words to say. As a matter of fact, the minister getting up and making his speech sometimes provokes me to respond in a way I might not have otherwise.

I'd just like to say that whether he knows it or not, we do have to compete for faculty in the North American market, or even in an international market. Therefore we have to be competitive internationally in the kinds of things we provide in terms of services, labs, research money and the things that attract professors and encourage them to do good work here.

We were very saddened during the dark days of the restraint program when we lost the local president of UBC, formerly from SFU, George Pedersen, who gave up the ghost and just said he couldn't work in this climate. If the minister has turned that around, then he deserves our congratulations and gratitude. If it's all smoke and mirrors and merely good words and a cosmetic approach to our problems, then I think many people will be disillusioned and disappointed, and the results will soon show.

[ Page 8336 ]

After years and years of undervaluing — actually, I think, insulting — the teaching profession, we had the Proposition 13 North called the restraint program. What worked out was exactly what we predicted. In the California experience, because salaries were by a particular initiative, money wasn't spent on the schools. Consequently, people in California didn't go into education. California had to recruit all over the North American market to get teachers. My daughter was one of them — couldn't get a job here and went to California. Now we've got the echo of Proposition 13 coming up to Canada. After years of discouraging people from going into teaching because there were too many, we've now got a memorandum here from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) entitled "Expanding the Supply of Provincial Teachers." It's the go-stop-go approach. Everybody wants to know: when's the next stop?

Over the next five years, the annual number of faculty of education graduates will gradually increase from 1,250 to 1,800. Where is the faculty coming from? You're going to have to start recruiting in the North American market, because you're going up 60 percent. Many people took early retirement or went to other jurisdictions because of the cut in the number of professorships in that faculty alone. I happen to know a little bit because I worked there for a number of years. So there we are.

During 1989-90, UBC will also retrain and requalify 72 former elementary teachers who have been out of teaching for more than ten years, some maybe to have a family. But others couldn't even get a job in this jurisdiction. So now we're all anxious to have them again, and I think that's going to be a problem for us.

I don't think our participation rates are good enough in this province. All right, you say you're spending money. But per capita spending is not that great. I agree, you can't solve all of the problems by throwing money at them — unless, of course, the problem is poverty. Throwing money at poverty is very helpful; I'm not the first person to observe that. Nevertheless, you're going to have to admit that a participation rate for our young people of about the level of Newfoundland is not an admirable thing that we should be dancing in the streets about.

Of course, there are a number of reasons for it. The costs for rent and transportation are appalling. I don't know if the minister is aware of the new transportation.... He should be, because there's a $53-a-year line item for transport in his estimates. I have some other things to say about that as I move along; nevertheless, it is recognized.

Rents are appalling, but the three universities are down here. Only two kids from my high-school graduation class of about 60 in the little hamlet of Mission up in the Fraser Valley got to university in the fall of 1941.

HON. S. HAGEN: How many last year?

MR. ROSE: I don't know.

People living in remote areas find it more difficult. The participation rate of people living in rural British Columbia, beyond Hope, is about half of what it is in the lower mainland, and the lower mainland is half of what it should be compared to other provinces — in round figures, if you say them fast. So our per capita spending is not high enough either, compared to other provinces.

There are many things we could say in the estimates that are important. I'm sure they'll be covered by other people more eloquently, more perceptively, than by me. Some people would quarrel with that assertion, but nobody on the other side, I don't think.

I want to talk to the minister about this business of student transit. On Thursday last B.C. Transit passed a recommendation to have a one-zone transit pass for all students attending a number of educational institutions: UBC; Simon Fraser; Capilano; Douglas; Kwantlen; BCIT; VVI — I thought VVI was gone, but I guess it isn't; oh, it's Pacific that's gone — Emily Carr College of Art and Design; and Pacific Marine Training Institute. It looks pretty good, because if you had three-zone passes in Vancouver and you were a student — that's what we've had this year in Victoria — it would cost you $90 a month. This is going to cost $50 a month, I am told. I haven't had confirmation on that. That looks pretty good, until you look at some other places such as Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Toronto, Oshawa, Kitchener, etc. They're all considerably lower than that. We're still the highest.

The other hooker in all of this, the other catch, is that if you live in Vancouver, say, at Broadway and Granville, and you need a bus to go to UBC, you qualify for the one-zone fee. If you live in Coquitlam and you go to New Westminster — I think it's in the same zone — it still costs you $50. But the concession fares for seniors and high-school students amount to $29. Now there are lots of poor students, and $29 is three-fifths of the $50 the students pay. But many students get no benefit at all. You have to go over more than one zone to get any benefit. One zone is $50 a month, so there's no gain there, even though the minister has increased the line item to $53 to cover transportation out of student loans. While the students get a break there, they also pay it back with interest when they graduate. So it's not a big deal.

Somebody once said: "Don't give anybody hell for doing something that you wanted them to do in the first place." I'm not attempting to do that. But B.C. Transit can't absorb all of this on its own — the concession fares. Concession fares are between $2 million and $3 million; we don't know how much. The ministry is not offering any. B.C. Transit is doing this — between $300,000 and $600,000, or roughly a quarter to a third of what is needed. That rests with the minister, then, who is very effective, I'm told, at wrestling money out of the tight-fisted cabinet, most of whom haven't really enjoyed the benefits of higher education and perhaps don't have quite the same appreciation of it, because they've been eminently

[ Page 8337 ]

successful without all these academic trappings, which tend to hinder some people.

I wish the minister would give me an indication, after I've given my little outline here, about whether or not we can look forward to a kind of concession fare which would apply to all students. Most students get no break at all. It's only those students going past one zone into two or three that get the break. Is it his intention...? Oh, future policy. He might be able to let us in on whether or not he intends to recommend to his colleagues the necessary funding, so the Ministry of Municipal Affairs — and through that to B.C. Transit — can institute a concession fare.

We're pleased with what you've done, but we're going to give you the standard opposition speech: you didn't do enough, and why did you take so long?

HON. S. HAGEN: I know that this is an issue which the opposition House Leader is immersed in and very concerned about. He has spoken to me several times personally. He has written to me, and I think I've answered the letter.

As he pointed out, we did increase the amount available under the student financial assistance, to compensate for that increased cost. I guess I'm at a bit of a loss to suggest what else we can do, because by increasing the amount under student financial assistance, I think we've then made it possible for those who are in financial need to acquire a bus pass. However, I am prepared to say to the opposition House Leader that I will resubmit this issue to the standing committee that is still there on student financial assistance, and ask them to look at, for instance, if there's any cost difference in the $53 that we increased versus some contribution to the cost of a bus pass that might be closer to a seniors' cost. I am prepared to do that. Maybe it's something that I can spend a little more time and effort on.

MR. ROSE: I'm grateful for the minister's reply.

Let's face it, it's a subsidy. Students are subsidized in many ways. Most students receive roughly 80 percent of the actual cost of their education. I know faculty of education student fees are used to subsidize the medical college; there are cross-subsidies within the universities. But the average subsidy was roughly 80 percent the last time I looked. It hasn't changed much, in spite of the fact that tuition fees since '81 have gone up 100 to 200 percent, depending upon which institution you happen to be looking at.

If it's worthwhile that we have highly trained people, if they do in fact contribute to our society — its economic potential, its growth, its affluence — then perhaps it's worth more consideration, because it is a barrier. Transportation for the students who really need the money is a tremendous barrier. I bet if you looked at the students at UBC and examined the parents' income, they've come from the upper quadrant of society. Brains are not sprinkled that way; they come from all segments of society.

I'd like to see the minister consider this, because I think we should make access more readily available and not put another impediment in the way. I had another thought about how to put that perhaps a little better, a little more eloquently, but it eludes me now. I think the minister gets the point. It's going to be a subsidy. Whether you do the subsidy directly to the transit system or directly to all bona fide or eligible students is really irrelevant. The point is that costs are too high, if it is indeed government policy to ensure greater access of those students in economically less favourable circumstances who have the ability to do good work and to contribute to our province and our country in the best way they know how, because they're prepared.

[5:15]

HON. S. HAGEN: I wanted to add — I couldn't resist — that the point the hon. opposition House Leader has made, of course, is for lower mainland students; we all recognize that. I don't think you can forget the fact that this government has put in a plan to also increase accessibility to the post-secondary system in other areas of the province, where, I might add, the cost implications are far greater than the cost of bus fare in the lower mainland. When you look at the cost of students attending from Prince George, Kamloops or Kelowna, you're looking at $8,000, $9,000 or maybe $10,000 a year. It's a substantial burden to overcome. Of course, our plan in the "Access for All" program is to make it much easier for people who live in those areas to have access to the post-secondary system.

I've got the list of names here — I'm sure you're waiting with bated breath — for the University Advisory Council: Rendina Hamilton is still the chair of that council, and she is from Kelowna; Bob Buckley is the person representing the colleges; Ronald Granholm is from the board of UBC — the universities were given the choice of whether to appoint a professional or an academic, or a board member, and UBC has chosen to appoint a board member; Dr. John Madden, who represents the SFU board; Margaret Vickers represents the OLA; Susan Irvine from Okanagan College; and Ethne Cullen, who is a business person from Victoria.

MR. JONES: I'd like to pursue for a minute the line of argument that the member for Coquitlam Moody was making with respect to student bus fares. It seems to me — and the member for Coquitlam Moody certainly mentioned this — that this is a subsidy. We subsidize students in the school system with respect to their bus fares. Now, with this recent decision on the part of the transit commission, that body is willing to recognize the importance to the province of those young people, and their difficult economic circumstances, particularly in the lower mainland, and is willing to subsidize the bus travel of those students to the tune of somewhere between $200,000 and $600,000.

The minister has indicated that this needs review and he is willing to review it, and I am pleased to hear that. But I would like to know what he is taking into that review process. I am wondering what his

[ Page 8338 ]

thinking is on this. It certainly wasn't clear from the remarks made earlier. I am wondering if the minister feels that it's really the responsibility of the transit commission to bear the brunt of the financial subsidy for these students — even the transit commission recommends the importance to British Columbia of those young people. Or does the minister recognize that the province of British Columbia, this government and this ministry in particular, which is responsible for students in B.C., should be the ones bearing the brunt of that financial subsidy for those students in their bus travel?

It's travel on a public transit system. The students in other parts of the province travel on publicly funded roads. We are talking about this bus transit situation which has been responded to in the school system, has been responded to by the transit authority. I'm wondering if the minister categorically rejects responsibility on the part of his ministry for subsidizing these students' bus travel.

HON. S. HAGEN: No, that's not true. We have already assumed some responsibility for it by increasing the amount of student financial assistance available, so that's not the thinking that I would be going back to the committee with.

MR. JONES: Has the minister met with the transit commission?

HON. S. HAGEN: No.

MR. JONES: The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but it's my understanding that the transit commission was after a meeting with the minister for some long period of time, and I am quite disappointed if that's the case and if that meeting still hasn't happened.

HON. S. HAGEN: I am not aware of a request for a meeting, and neither is my senior staff.

MR. JONES: Before I go back and pick up where I left off, I think the member for New Westminster wants to make a few comments.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to turn to another area of the minister's responsibility that comes more into the field of training than perhaps we've talked about so far this afternoon. I'd like to begin by asking a question about the private training institutes and whether the minister has any changes in how that office will operate, with respect to its staffing or the regulation of private training institutes.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased to respond to that question. As I've said before and can now say, I have the documents in my hands. I have a cabinet submission that's just about ready to go. I haven't finished going through it; I just received it last Thursday or Friday. I can also say that my staff have held meetings with the private training institutes, which have also had input into this document. As the document may require legislation, I'm not prepared to discuss what's in it, but I am ready to take the plan to cabinet.

MS. A. HAGEN: I presume it's implicit in the minister's comments, if there is a proposal that requires legislation, that there are some planned changes in how this part of the ministry operates. Is that a fair assumption?

Let me ask the minister whether he would care to comment at this time about articulation between his ministry and the Ministry of Education with respect to the implementation of the royal commission. I'm sure the minister is aware that there is a proposal that, particularly in the final two years of the traditional K to 12 public school time-frame, students will possibly have opportunities to pursue courses of study that may be quite individualistic or may be contracted out from the secondary school. I have seen in draft documentation some discussion about the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training having some specific responsibility regarding the regulation, licensing and other accrediting of institutes that might provide some of the grade 11 and 12 educational experience. I want to use this opportunity in estimates to ask the minister to comment about that articulation between primarily the last two years of secondary school and the work of his ministry in the post-secondary area.

HON. S. HAGEN: As the member for New Westminster knows — and I know that she has this concern, as I have — sometimes it is in the last two or three years of high school where we tend to lose a lot of students. I think one of the reasons for that is that sometimes they can't see a light at the end of the tunnel, especially as to what they want to do for a chosen vocation.

I want to go back a bit before I answer your question more specifically. Douglas College, in your riding, over the last couple of years has been working with the high schools in the college region in what they call a two-plus-two program. The idea is that students can enter into an apprenticeship program, for instance, in grade 11 instead of waiting until grade 12 graduation. I happen to think that this is a good idea if it works for those students.

With regard to your question as it relates to the royal commission, senior staff of my ministry and the Ministry of Education will be starting to meet this fall to work out the interface on the grade 11 and 12 programs — also as it relates to the job training part of my ministry.

MS. A. HAGEN: Would it be fair to presume that the private training institutes will be a factor in those discussions and plans?

HON. S. HAGEN: It's a little difficult for me to say, because the two groups have not yet met.

MS. A. HAGEN: In respect to jurisdiction for those programs — the minister responsible, if you like —

[ Page 8339 ]

let me just hypothesize for a moment. I'm asking this question to have some understanding of where jurisdiction may be vested, because when we start to broaden and contract out services, we want to know who is accountable for those services.

I realize I'm talking about future policy, but I have seen some material in writing around draft regulations, so I'm talking about stuff that's out there in terms of public consultation at this time. Would the Minister of Education or the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training be responsible for standards in respect to such training institutes? One of our concerns over the last period of time is that there has been virtually no really good monitoring of standards with the private training institutes. The minister responds to inquiries when there's trouble, when there are concerns, but that's after the trouble has been there as far as students are concerned.

Students have been very ill served by some of these characters. I know there are excellent private training institutes, and I don't want to use the walls of this House to in any way make comment that is not valid, but we do know there are bad actors out there. There are students who have been terribly abused in educational terms and in financial terms because of the lack of any kind of genuine credentialing of these private training institutes. The minister and I have had this discussion before across the floor of this House.

[5:30]

As education critic, I am very concerned about the method by which we open up additional opportunities for students. I want those additional opportunities to be available fully within the context of the public school system, with full policy consultation, development and implementation of that curriculum, and delivery of those programs.

I am concerned when I read that the Ministry of Advanced Education may be involved because, quite honestly, I'm not satisfied that track record is anywhere close to what I would want to see available to secondary school students. I don't like to see what we see in respect to post-secondary students; these are younger students who don't have as much experience in trying to sort out some of that kind of stuff.

I want some assurance from the minister that in any discussions that take place, there is going to be a clear accountability that stays with the Ministry of Education for these programs. In that articulation, I want to be sure the integrity of the public school system is enhanced. I think that's true between the colleges and the public school system, because they're both publicly accountable bodies, and we have the knowledge of that public accountability. We don't have that with the private training institutes, and I'm worried about the potential here, given the record of this ministry. I'm looking for some indication of your thoughts on this matter, in respect to both protecting the students who are already the clients of private training institutes and the possibility that, with this government's bent toward moving outside publicly accountable bodies, we are going to see younger students not well protected by your ministry and the Ministry of Education.

HON. S. HAGEN: Clearly you should interpret my comments with regard to private training institutions to mean that we are striving for more accountability with private training institutions. I'll have to reiterate that no meetings between the two ministries have taken place, but no discussion has taken place in my ministry relative to private training institutions and grade 11 and 12 students in the public school system.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm not going to pursue this matter further at this time, except to say that one of the hallmarks of the implementation of the royal commission has been an extensive openness about consultation in respect to policy development. In the debate just concluded at the end of last week on the School Act, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) repeated over and over that decisions would not be taken except through that consultative process, and I would hope that the same approach would be used, should your ministry be involved — and I don't have a problem with your ministry being involved in a generic sense.

I want to move to two very specific issues and deal with them very briefly. There is a program for older worker adjustment between the federal government and the provincial government, and it is my understanding that after some foot-dragging, this government has now signed an agreement with the federal government to participate in the program for older workers' adjustment. Before I proceed, I wonder if the minister could confirm if that agreement is now in place.

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, there was no foot-dragging. What took place were some very heavy negotiations with the federal government. The province of British Columbia was not prepared to enter into an agreement to sign the POWA agreement with the federal government unless we got as good a deal as the other provinces. Up until a short while ago, we did not have as good a deal as the other provinces; we now think that we do. I'm talking about the cost-sharing portion of the agreement and also what was or was not included in the agreement. We have not signed the agreement with the federal government, but I understand that we are very close to signing.

MS. A. HAGEN: I understand that the program is operational without an agreement. Again I seem to be in that unfortunate position of being somewhere betwixt and between something that is in place. I would like to get some information on what this program will provide.

I have some people in my riding, for example, who have been unemployed for about a year now and are just about to run out of unemployment benefits. There are two people involved, specifically, who have drawn my attention to their concern that there is

[ Page 8340 ]

nothing in place at this point. The likelihood of their being able to retrain is not great. I know this from the experience of many woodworkers who were retired early after 15, 20, 30 years in the industry, without the likelihood of having gainful employment again.

This program is a betwixt-and-between crutch, if you like — not a crutch; that's an unfortunate word. It's a program that would provide an income in excess of social assistance — less, I understand, than unemployment — with incentives for people to in fact go back to work if opportunities are there but enough to provide people with some kind of financial assistance in that period between their enforced unemployment and being eligible for the Canada pension and old age pension. I understand, too, that the agreement is one that has some retroactivity that takes it back into a phase-out of an earlier program.

I just wonder if the minister could give us a little bit of information at this time about what this program could and will make available to older workers in our province — of which we have a very large number. We can then look at the other side of that where we'll need skills to replace these people, but right now we're looking at people who've contributed tremendously to the economy of the province and who see a pretty dim future and see that this program might provide them with some more dignity and hope as they move into full retirement.

HON. S. HAGEN: In response to the member for New Westminster, I think what I would rather do is have my staff prepare a short briefing on what's in the agreement. I might be a little too general for you. Even though we haven't quite signed it, I think it's appropriate for me to give you the details of what we're signing, and I'm prepared to do that first thing tomorrow.

MS. A. HAGEN: I appreciate that from the minister. I probably know as much as his staff is going to tell me. I say that quite humbly, but I know what's in the agreement. I've seen a couple of the agreements. Let me just ask — because it's the practical aspect of this rather than a lot of the details of the agreement that I probably need at this time — when does the minister anticipate the program may be available to older workers in the province?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm told, and I must tell you, that I have been asking my staff these same questions for the last few weeks. I'm told that it will be ready to go in the fall but that there is a retroactivity to the program.

MS. A. HAGEN: Well, I hope it's a good program, because I understand B.C. has been one of three provinces that hasn't got an agreement.

I want to ask one other question. I've had some correspondence with the minister on this particular issue. It's an important one, I think, in many communities, and one that provides some additional avenues for help for students as they try to finance their post-secondary education. The minister has developed a matching endowment fund. I want to know the status of that fund and whether there are the same number of dollars available in that matching endowment fund as last year — more dollars, fewer dollars — and whether any improvements are contemplated, to act as incentives to colleges to really do their darnedest to maximize the contributions that people in communities are prepared to make to help students who need some financial assistance in order to continue with their studies.

HON. S. HAGEN: The dollar amount is the same in this year's budget as it was last year, and I am sure you are aware that the amount was fully drawn down last year. I should add that there are no increases in this year's budget.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think that's unfortunate. One of the things that students have to face every year is an increased cost of living, and I think the least that any program like this should have available to it is that kind of increase, simply to reflect the realities of the economy.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Has the minister given any consideration to any kind of incentives that might be available to colleges which are more effective in raising those dollars? I will speak of my own college, Douglas College, which I think has already drawn down a good deal of this year's available funds because it has been so successful in the community in raising funds for its students. I don't think Douglas College is different from most communities in recognizing that the people who attend community colleges are usually those who simply could never afford to spend four years at a post-secondary institution. Their family circumstances, personal circumstances, are such that the college is the means by which they get that start. I know that in the Douglas College region the community has responded tremendously. But there is a terrific incentive when people know that the dollars that they are giving are being matched. It is a wonderful way, I think, for government to tap a generosity that is there. I want to ask whether the minister has considered or is considering any of the kinds of incentives that would ensure that matching grants might be over and above what is now an underfunded system because it hasn't been COLAed.

HON. S. HAGEN: You had to get that underfunded system in there, didn't you?

I can say to the member for New Westminster that I'm in constant discussion with BCAC with regard to not only the bursary type of funding for fees but also the question of the appropriateness of matching capital funding for the colleges and the institutes. We will continue those discussions. I have told BCAC that I will look at any plans and ideas they bring forward, but even if I support those ideas, it doesn't automatically mean I can get the money in the budget for it.

[ Page 8341 ]

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I think there's a real opportunity out there to get not only the financial participation of the community but also the participation of the community in the community college. To me, that's maybe not quite as important as the money, but it's important to have that support.

MR. JONES: I would like to move on to the two areas where I think the minister's efforts have been most visible: the access report and student financial aid. Before I do, I would just like to wind up some of the remarks I was making earlier.

I suggested that the minister had focused on these two specific areas and done reasonably well, but at the expense, I felt, of other important areas of leadership, vision, planning and establishing goals for the future of post-secondary education in this province. At the same time, he adopted what I consider a narrow, closed, non-consultative, non-empowering, non-public-involvement type of process in his dealings with the various institutions of post-secondary education in this province. The minister's response to two things that I raised clearly illustrate this, the first one with respect to the University Advisory Council.

[5:45]

Clearly, the minister moved very quickly and decisively to abolish the original Universities Council and establish an advisory council in its place. I assumed there would be terms of reference and specific tasks that this body would undertake, and that it would be in a position to advise the minister on a variety of issues affecting post-secondary education. When I asked the minister if there were any academics on that council, he suggested there were not. When I asked the minister what work that council had done, if they had met lately and what were some of the important decisions they had provided the minister with advice on, he was very silent on those issues. Perhaps he just neglected to answer them, but it seems to me that we have a council whose focus is clearly not in the institutions, the general community or public. Although there is certainly strong business representation there, there is not the kind of representation from the academic community that a body of that kind requires.

The other area that illustrates the point I was making is the minister's budget going from 26 line items down to 12. We are dealing with the minister's estimates here, and the traditional and primary function of the government is to present their spending plans and to provide an opportunity for the opposition to scrutinize those plans and provide the public accountability that is required. Now the minister suggests in so many words that if I don't like the 12 line items, I can lump it.

I asked the minister to table a real budget that would give some indication of the real spending breakdown of his ministry. It seems to be a little contemptuous of our democratic system, of our accountability system and of this House not to be willing to provide a further breakdown of that budget. It destroys the accountability mechanism when those line items are changed annually. It's really not possible to track the spending of government, which is the responsibility of the opposition. It really isn't good enough to suggest that going from 26 line items to 12 is fine, and the opposition can lump it. What can we expect next year along those lines, Mr. Minister? Are we going to reduce it by half again? Are we going down to six line items, and maybe the budget following will go down to three line items? Maybe the year after we could get one single line item, like it or lump it. That would be perfect in terms of not providing accountability, not providing the opportunity for scrutiny, but perfect in terms of providing that closed cloak of government that I was suggesting is prevalent in that minister's ministry I would again ask that minister to reconsider and provide the opposition with at least a little bit better breakdown of a budget. I will be asking a number of specific budget questions, but a billion dollars in 12 items is really not good enough.

I'd like to move on to the question of access. We discussed earlier the process of access, and the minister and I disagree whether that was a wide-open, public participation process such as we've seen in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. I substantiated my position with the number of public meetings and the number of public responses that the regional access committees were able to consider. Certainly, the overall committee was in contact with the institutions.

Regardless of the process, a good report was produced. I commend the minister for his efforts in that report. However, that report sat on the minister's desk for at least seven months. I saw parts of that report in September of that year, and it wasn't until well into the spring — in fact, the first day of spring, in March '89 — that we actually saw that report.

Why did it take so long for the minister to respond to the report that basically took two years to get onto his desk? It was the first assignment the minister was given when he was made Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. It took two years to produce a report, which I consider to be a very lengthy period when it was not the wide-open consultation process that we saw with the royal commission, Then it sat on the minister's desk for some seven months, until March 22, 1989.

That report was well received. It was a good report, as was the minister's final response. I think it was a tremendous public relations exercise. I think the minister did a superlative job in preparing for all those press conferences. Despite a serious back problem, the minister did a super job in that.

I think we have to put that in perspective. The Times-Colonist of Wednesday, March 22, did that well when they said:

"If B.C.'s university system were already good, the government would deserve several rounds of applause for a broad range of measures designed to make it better still. But, of course, it is a long way from being adequate. Ours is one of the most under funded university systems in Canada.... It is a commendable, albeit belated, recognition of the importance of higher education in a province which can

[ Page 8342 ]

no longer rely on muscle power for jobs. But let's not kid ourselves that some wonderful new era is dawning. We are simply starting to catch up on years of shameful neglect. Many young, bright British Columbians who have been denied the higher learning and skills they deserved have little reason to cheer."

While the slow efforts of the minister are very welcome and are commendable, I think the Times-Colonist put it in perspective. It's about time. It's overdue, and it's about time we took our place in post-secondary education in this country.

We saw the promises of the minister, promises to address the quantitative aspects of some of the shortcomings of post-secondary education in terms of participation rates, degree-completion rates, geographic and economic barriers and an end to the import policy that I talked about earlier. It must be remembered, though, that these are the kinds of promises the minister has made a number of times before. Approximately a year ago the minister — and the minister is the one who so often likes to say that you can't solve the problems with money — came up with $8.3 million. I am sure the minister will recall that particular point in time. I believe that that $8.3 million was to resolve the shortages of spaces in our college system, because thousands were turned away. I guess Dr. Strangway of UBC, who was probably one of the first ones to quote the figure of 10,000 to 15,000 spaces short....

HON. S. HAGEN: He said that's what was needed; he didn't say that's what was turned away.

MR. JONES: Okay, let's talk about turnaways. We had some 800 at UBC, some 800 at Douglas, some 800 at Cap, and we had 3,400 at BCIT alone. The 3,400 at BCIT are not applying to other institutions, so we had 3, 400 at UBC.... We had thousands turned away.

However, the $8.3 million was a promise of the minister, and that was to address the serious problem of turnaways. Every year the minister expressed very strong concern about those things, and when that program didn't work out to resolve the problem of turnaways, he then turned around and blamed the colleges for underestimating the number of spaces required.

It's very much like what we saw before the last provincial election with the promise of funds for excellence in education. That was a healthy promise. The minister's up into the large-dollar range again now, and the government was at that time as well. We were promised some $600 million for funding in education, both the public schools and the independent schools and post-secondary education. But despite where we ended up in the election, the question is: was the government believable on that promise? Did they deliver the $600 million, did they deliver it in the time-span they indicated, and did they deliver it for the purposes that were outlined? The answer on all three of those questions is: no way. In no way was the $600 million delivered. Roughly half of it was spent. Was it spent within the time indicated? It was to be a three-year plan. No, the plan was cut short a year early. Was it spent for those particularly targeted areas outlined in the announcement? The answer is no. A good deal of that funding went into the basic operations of the institutions.

The point I'm making is that the $8.3 million to solve the problem of turnaways wasn't believable. The promise of $300 million for post-secondary education in the funds for excellence was not believable. I think we call into question the believability of this government. The minister, on the Excellence in Education Fund, said: "I think this will demonstrate the government's commitment to education in the province." Well, it was only a short while later that the program was cancelled because of the lack of commitment.

I think the minister would like, in the remaining couple of minutes, to respond to some of the remarks that I have made, and I'd like to give him the opportunity to do that.

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that I'm going to reserve my response until tomorrow. I move that 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. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.