[ Page 8343 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training estimates. (Hon. S. Hagen)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 8343

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Jones

Mr. R. Fraser

Hon. Mr. Michael

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

FAMILY AND CHILD SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm told that to got the proper amount of exposure on my bill yesterday, I should have it placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today. It's Bill 76, Family and Child Service Amendment Act, 1989, and I do want it to get the proper amount of exposure for the coming year, so I would so move.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, in your galleries today there are grade 12 students from Victoria High School who are attending summer school. My understanding is that they are more interested in the architecture of this building than in the session today, but they are very much a part of our education system in Victoria. Would the Legislature please welcome these grade 12 students, along with their teacher Mr. Norris-Jones.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On behalf of the Committee on Standing Orders, Private Bills and Members' Services, I would ask leave for that committee to be able to sit this morning.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING

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

HON. S. HAGEN: At this time I want to reply to questions and comments that were raised at the close of yesterday's session. But first of all, I'd like to reply to the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen).

I want to correct an answer I gave to her question on the matching endowment fund about whether the amount has changed for this year. My answer was that it has not changed; my answer was incorrect. I would just like to give that correction to the House, and read it into the record. In the 1987-88 budget the amount budgeted for matching endowment funds was zero; in the 1988-89 budget the amount budgeted was $1.894 million; and in this year's budget, 1989-90, the amount budgeted is $2 million. Her suggestion was: why isn't there an amount in there at least for inflation? In fact, there is.

Next I would like to reply briefly to questions and comments raised by the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones). He again raised comments about the number of lines in the budget, which I know is a very pressing and important issue. He advised that the number was reduced from 26 to 12; in fact, the number increased from 12 items to 13. We eliminated the item "special initiatives" from last year's estimates and added two this year: matching program universities and access programs. This increase in the number of line items enhances the disclosure and clarity of the budget.

The other points he raised were to do with the University Advisory Council. I find it interesting that he would raise this issue, since it's about two years old; however, I'm quite pleased to address it. The purpose of the revised council is to advise the minister directly on issues: not only issues involving the three universities, which it used to do, but to help coordinate the system. That's why we've placed members on it from the institutes, the OLA and the colleges. I remember the member yesterday making comments that we need more cooperation in the system. I want to say to the member that there is indeed more cooperation in the system. There is more working together. The access program would not be working as successfully if there wasn't cooperation. One of the reasons for that cooperation is that the place where we can get all the questions out on the table is, of course, the University Advisory Council. If the member for Burnaby North would take the time to ask the university presidents whether they would rather go back to the old system of dealing through the Universities Council or whether they prefer to deal directly with the minister, as they do now, I think they would tell him that they would rather stay with the present system.

The question was raised as to why the minister sat on the access report for six or seven months, I think he said. The fact is that I did not sit on the access report for six or seven months. I received the access report in October, and at that time I reviewed it with the committee chairman. As you know, the access committee then went back into the province to discuss the specifics of the recommendations under the report with the people in the system throughout the province. Within the next two and three months I received the report from the chambers of commerce in the Okanagan, together with the work that the Okanagan MLAs had done with regard to Okanagan College and their request to become a degree-granting institution. Shortly after, I received the report from the Interior University Society, which also had to be considered in light of the access report. The three reports had to be considered together.

[10:15]

[ Page 8344 ]

There was no point in making an announcement until we had a detailed planning and implementation strategy, which as you know was announced on March 20 or 22. I think the member will agree that this was received very positively. I'm not going to comment on the one editorial that he happened to pick out, obviously written by some left-wing, socialist-thinking media person. I would refer him to the positive comments like the ones in the tabloid in Vancouver and the other print media and the radio and television media.

MR. KEMPF: Very briefly, I want to discuss this morning the question of a university for Prince George and get on the record from the minister when he's going to start to lay the foundation which will result in the construction of a university in that northern city — not a degree-granting privilege for another college, but a real bricks-and-mortar university in the north in Prince George. The minister has received the word loud and clear from all northerners as to their wish for that kind of facility in the northern part of this province, and I want to hear from him this morning when he's going to start construction of that facility.

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the question. I want to compliment not only the people of the north for the lobbying they have done and the way they have gotten the word to me and to other members about the need for a degree-granting institution for and in the north, but I also want to compliment the member for the lobbying he has done with me and other colleagues for that same institution.

The answer to his question is that in March I appointed an implementation planning group, the majority of which is made up of people from the north of the province who have experience in dealing with the north. Their objective and their task is to come up with an institution that can deliver university programs in the north that are for the north.

I believe, as I think the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) believes, that if you can educate and train people in the north, they are more likely to stay in the north. He knows better than I do the need for health care professionals, for teachers and for other types of professionals in the north so that the north can develop in the way it should and can develop. The people of northern British Columbia are very special people. They have a lot of gumption and get-up-and-go, and they are a determined people.

I am anxiously awaiting the report that is coming from this committee, which I've asked for by December 31 of this year. I know that they are meeting regularly, at least monthly. They've split into different task forces or committees to discuss various aspects. We've given them some pretty broad parameters to work with, but we have not given them carte blanche. We have not said that they can bring in a plan regardless of what the cost is. As I've said publicly, I don't want to be part of a plan that would have to be re-examined in a period of downturn in the economy. We want to provide programs that are sustainable, programs designed for the people of northern British Columbia and in fact programs that will draw people from the lower mainland to the north if they want to take those programs.

MR. KEMPF: I would like to thank the minister for his very candid comments with respect to the possibilities of building a northern university in Prince George, on behalf of those people you spoke of. I'm sure those people themselves will be very closely monitoring what will be happening in the next few months. It's very important to us that we keep our young people at home in the north. A northern university built and operated in Prince George will assist us to do that.

MR. R. FRASER: You mean you don't want them to see the rest of the world?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask all members to address the Chair.

MR. KEMPF: I was going to be very brief, Mr. Chairman, but with the interjections of the first member for Vancouver South, I would suggest that should the Fisher report be sanctioned by this Legislature we'll not only build a university in Prince George but we'll build our own parliament buildings.

MR. JONES: While we're on the topic of the university of the north, I'd like to ask the minister a few questions with respect to that situation. The minister announced some details of a degree-granting institution for Prince George on March 21. In that announcement he indicated that the provincial government had accepted the concept of a self-governing, degree-granting institution in and for northern British Columbia. However, nowhere in that announcement or any of the announcements that the minister made in and around the major access announcement did he use the word "university."

Northern British Columbians, through the Interior University Society and others, have indicated very strongly that it is their wish not just to have a self-governing, degree-granting institution, which I think really is the situation that will evolve in Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo over a period of time very clearly will become autonomous, and very shortly they will be granting degrees. I think all the institutions that the minister has named in his "Access for All" announcement are degree-granting and, over a period of time, will be self-governing. However, the minister studiously avoided the word "university." I'd like to ask the minister: has he rejected the concept of a university for northern British Columbia? If not, why did he not use that word in his announcement?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, I'd like to clarify the member's statement that Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo are degree-granting. In fact — and I think he understands this — they are not degree-granting.

[ Page 8345 ]

Students there will be able to get degrees from the three existing universities.

However, he is right when he says that in the future — and I think that the time-lines will vary between those three population centres — the hope and the plan is that they will in fact be degree-granting institutions. I guess I draw a parallel to the University of Victoria, for instance, which started out granting degrees from UBC; or UBC, which started granting degrees from McGill. So that plan, although it seemed a brilliant conception of the minister, has been used before in the province — not to this extent, but it has been used before.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: For those who wish to give the minister the credit for the brilliant scheme, I am quite prepared to accept it.

Let's just talk about Prince George. The Interior University Society in Prince George were not prepared to accept the programs that were put into the other three centres. I have no difficulty with that, because their point was that not all regions of the province are the same, and not all of their needs are the same. I agree with that, so I had no difficulty in looking at Prince George separately.

The concept that the Interior University Society proposed was indeed the concept of a university. The concept involved full university degrees, northern direction and control and programs directly relevant to northern British Columbians, and I fully support that concept. Secondly, the proposal contained the concept of a charter — or in other words, separate legislation — and if the implementation planning group concludes that a charter or separate legislation is required, then I am prepared to accept such a recommendation. But I think it would be highly inappropriate for me, as the minister — or the government, for that matter — to prejudge what the implementation planning group is going to recommend. Therefore I'm not prepared to prejudge what they're going to recommend. I have not changed my view on what the possibilities are for northern British Columbia.

MR. JONES: The people of the north very clearly wanted a number of things. They wanted an autonomous university. They had probably one of the best developed lobbying groups this province has ever seen, and the minister smiles because he has felt the brunt of that lobbying group. They were very clear in what they wanted. They wanted a university; they wanted start-up funds; they wanted to hire a president; they wanted to get on with the job. They had done their homework, and they had done a report. They saw this as an important economic development tool for the north and as serving the needs of northerners and northern young people. What did the minister deliver? The minister delivered an implementation planning group.

The membership of that group I find interesting, because although there appears to be a former administrator from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, again the minister sets up a committee or group to study an educational proposal with a tremendous absence of any academics on the committee. We have representation from pulp and timber, nurses, accountants, lawyers, B.C. Hydro, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment, but a tremendous absence of academics. Rather than deliver what the people of the north had worked so very hard for in their lobbying efforts.... It was very clearly indicated what they wanted, and it was not delivered by this minister. What was delivered, very sadly, was I think a ruse: a further study group to purportedly do some planning, when that group really did not have the ability to do proper planning.

I assume that the ministry itself has done its homework and looked at the Dahllof report. Does the response of the minister, by rejecting the recommendations of the Interior University Society, indicate that the minister has studied the Dahllof report and has rejected it?

[10:30]

HON. S. HAGEN: Let's just talk about the makeup of the committee, which may not excite the member from the lower mainland, who I doubt has very much knowledge about the north, but I can tell you the people of the north are excited, pleased and satisfied with the makeup of the committee. He neglected to mention that Dr. John Ellis, a former dean of education at Simon Fraser University, sits on that committee. In fact, the staff members on that committee are Dr. Les Foster, a former faculty member of the University of Victoria, and Dr. Sheila Wynn, a former faculty member of the University of Alberta. The committee has the opportunity and ability to draw on the expertise of any academics that they wish to, and is doing that.

With regard to the Dahllof report, let me just refresh the member's memory of what the Dahllof report contained. The Dahllof report request was for a university with only third and fourth year, with 14 satellite campuses across the north.

MR. JONES: I read that.

HON. S. HAGEN: Well, I'm not sure you did read it, because I don't think you would have asked the question if you had. It was also for a series of graduate schools across the north. Yes, I have rejected the Dahllof report, because it would not have delivered to the people of the north either what they thought they were asking for or what they would be satisfied with. The plan of the government, through the implementation and planning group is to determine what the citizens of British Columbia can deliver on for the people of the north, and also what programs can be sustained for the people of the north.

MR. R. FRASER: I just can't resist this opportunity one more time to go on and on about the members opposite, who take a first-class committee, organized

[ Page 8346 ]

by this government, and then insult them, tell them they don't know what they're doing. That's another example, just one more in an ongoing series of examples, to show that they don't do their homework. They pander away to their special interest groups, of course, and then say grandly: "Let's build a university in the north." It doesn't seem to occur to them that it's going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars — or maybe they don't care; I don't think they do.

Maybe it would be better for students to go to different schools across the country. That wouldn't hurt, would it? I think the members opposite actually went to school In cities other than Vancouver from time to time — and it's an enriching opportunity. Maybe the kids from the north should go to schools outside the north. Maybe the students from the south should go east or west or some other place. Always bricks and mortar. They never talk about the mind — always bricks and mortar; never thinking. We talk about distance education. Why don't you get into that? When you get going on this program of working on the mind instead of on the bricks and mortar.... Think about what the taxpayers are going to have to get into with: "Let's build another university in the north or the south or the east or the west."

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: Another university in Langley? Sure, why not? It's only money. Right? Exactly, my friend. It never seems to occur to the members opposite that what we should be building is opportunities for the students, wherever that might be, and the best program might be to move the students around the province and around the country so they can learn something other than what they get at home. It would be an enriching opportunity — a chance they shouldn't be denied.

Interjection.

MR. R. FRASER: I can see those members opposite building a university in the north and saying: "Now you can't go anywhere else. You go there and take what they're giving you." Not this government. Let's get on with doing it right.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I just wanted to thank the minister for the recent approval of the new college facility in Salmon Arm that was recently announced The acquisition of the property is to take place this year and construction will commence next year.

I want to say to the minister for the record that that announcement was received very warmly in my hometown of Salmon Arm. From an acceptance point of view, it probably rated higher than anything we'd ever announced before, whether it be the community centre, the community Expo legacy wharf or the four-laning projects in the constituency. It was very well received, and on behalf of all my constituents, particularly the people in the Salmon Arm area, I thank the minister for that speedy approval to make that project a reality in our community.

I know that time lines will be tough, and I know a lot of people in the community would like to see the project completed by the opening of the 1990 school year. I would urge the minister to do the best in trying to meet that time line. I do know, however, that with the various phases of planning and capital and tendering, that will be a very tough date to meet.

I look forward to taking the minister to my constituency for the sod-turning. I think he will be extremely pleased with the site. It is the prime location for a college facility in a very desirable area of the Salmon Arm community

I must not sit down without making some mention of Knowledge Network. I believe I now have either 100 percent or near 100 percent of my constituency covered by the Knowledge Network. There's not very much said about that as the years have ticked on, but it's certainly something that is very well received by the interior communities and people living in isolated areas. It's truly a tremendous benefit to those wishing to improve their education credentials. Keep up the good work, Mr. Minister. There are a lot of positive things happening in my constituency.

MR. JONES: One further question to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training with respect to the university of the north proposal and the report of the implementation planning group. I understand that report will be received by the minister on December 31. I'm wondering if that report will be made public. Secondly, when can we expect the minister's response to that report and will that be a speedy response, or, like some of the other responses that the minister has made, not made particularly with alacrity? Can we expect to see the report after the minister receives it on December 31 or at that time? Will the minister's response be a speedy one after receiving that report?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, the report will be made public. Secondly, I just want to refer to my speech in Prince George on March 21, I think it was. I said that I must also talk of timing. The Dahllof proposal spoke of the possibility of a university accepting the first students as early as 1992 –– I believe that the implementation planning group will be able to develop a staged proposal that will allow for third-year degree programs to be offered by 1990.

MR. JONES: I'd like to respond to a couple of remarks that the minister made earlier this morning with respect to a couple of items. One was the number of line items on the budget, and secondly, on the University Advisory Council. My reference to 26 line items was to the budget in the year that preceded the minister assuming that portfolio, in which there were 26 line items. Very clearly what has happened under this minister's jurisdiction is that the number of line items have been cut in half.

Interjection.

[ Page 8347 ]

MR. JONES: The minister makes light of this. He thinks it's a very unimportant item. The point I was trying to make — and it has obviously fallen on deaf ears — is with respect to the role of a minister in an open government, the importance of accountability and being open to scrutiny on the part of the opposition and the public. The minister thinks replacing the Universities Council by an advisory council, which basically does very little.... The minister has been unable to respond to my questions as to their work, their contributions, how often they meet, the academic credentials of those people to provide advice to the minister, which indicates to me that this minister does not take very seriously his responsibilities in terms of being open and accountable. He seems much more interested in streamlining and providing a closed and hidden agenda so that the operations of his ministry are not open to the light of day, to public scrutiny by the people of British Columbia so that they can actually see, and maybe even appreciate, the efforts of the minister.

At the end of yesterday we had begun discussing the access report. I indicated that it was an important promise to the people of British Columbia, a promise that was certainly well received, but I tried to put it in the context of other promises on the part of this government, promises that had not been fulfilled by that ministry or that government. I did read the Times-Colonist article. The minister's typical response to criticism is to decide that the editorial writer was obviously some left-wing socialist. All the editorial was saying — and I don't think the minister would really dispute this; it's fair comment, in my view — is that the efforts of this minister are primarily trying to deal with problems created by previous successive Social Credit administration. Very simply, he is trying to resolve problems that the minister's own colleagues foisted on British Columbia in terms of post-secondary institutions. So while everybody welcomes the relief from the pain created by those previous Social Credit administrations, it has to be put into that light: that it's merely dealing with the tremendous neglect over a decade or more on the part of the governments of the day.

With respect to the question of regional access, the issue of degree completion in the regions of the province does go back a very long way. When I was in university in 1962, Dr. Macdonald, president of UBC at that time, issued a report that called for degree completion, in particular in the Okanagan region of the province. Since that time there have been longstanding calls. I read from Hansard yesterday one call by the opposition some four or five years ago, from a predecessor in my role, Lorne Nicolson. Very clearly those calls have come from a wide-ranging number of sources around the province.

We've seen the concerns of students who have been turned away from institutions. They have given up jobs, have committed themselves to the post-secondary education experience and have tragically been turned away from those institutions. We've seen administrations around this province so fed up with the inability to deal with the tremendous number of students who were seeking access to post-secondary education in this province that they were imposing or threatening to impose enrolment caps so that more and more students would be turned away. We've seen numerous briefs from groups like the Canadian Federation of Students and other advocates for education in this province offering positive suggestions on degree completion in the external regions of the province.

[10:45]

After tremendous lobbying on the part of such groups as the chambers of commerce in various areas, the Interior University Society and individual MLAs; after the work of the provincial access committee and the regional access committee: after all that work, going back to 1962, on the part of a tremendous number of people in this province, the minister was finally dragged into making a commitment to regional access in this province. I have to ask, after all that tremendous amount of input for so many years, who gets the credit for this particular announcement? I guess we could even say that the Premier was the one who gave the minister the assignment in the first place.

However, I know the Minister of Advanced Education is a modest and humble person, not a particularly glory-seeking individual. Yet we produce eight pages in the Provincial Report. It suggests in that report that this is a "much deserved personal triumph." I recognize that the minister didn't say those words himself, but he or his staff chose to repeat those words in the Provincial Report, which went to every household in British Columbia at tremendous taxpayers' expense. My colleague the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) asked yesterday the amount of taxpayers' dollars that has been spent on advertising that particular minister.

After all this effort went into that, we see the minister himself grabbing credit, not giving credit to those many British Columbians over so many years, including members of this side of the House. I would like to ask the minister: will he now acknowledge the tremendous contribution of all those people over so many years and will he now reject the notion that the access report announcement and that which will flow from that is a personal triumph?

HON. S. HAGEN: I have no difficulty in denying that the achievement of the "Access for All" announcement was a personal triumph. I have never said that myself. Those words, as a matter of fact, I believe were the words of one of the university presidents who said that about me. I want to tell you that I did not write that article that you were referring to. Those were quotes that were legitimately used.

I want to tell you where the credit for not only the "Access for All" announcement but the student financial assistance announcement belongs. That credit belongs first and foremost with the Premier of this province, who in fact gave me those two things to work on when I was first appointed to this ministerial position. The credit goes to the MLAs who have

[ Page 8348 ]

worked for many years representing their constituencies and bringing the messages to government that are necessary for their constituents. Those MLAs are continuing to bring those messages to me.

I must say that I very rarely hear from an opposition MLA on anything that they think might be good for their constituents. But I can tell you that I hear long and clear. The first time that I ever met the MLAs from the Okanagan and from the Kamloops area and from many other areas of the province, they started talking to me about the need for degrees and the availability of degrees in various parts of the province. So in the order of priority, the credit for "Access for All" goes, in my opinion, to the Premier, to the MLAs and to the people of the province.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the remarks of the minister and very clearly his more modest and humble side has come out. I'm very pleased to see that. I think it's a true reflection of the situation that the credit is deserved by the minister and by a wide number of people, including members from this side of the House, over a long period of time. The minister did say that he did not write the article that was seen in every household in British Columbia; however, I think that denies ministerial responsibility. I'm sure the minister has to accept responsibility for those things that go out under his ministry.

I'd like to get back to the question of degree-granting status in various places in this province.

MRS. GRAN: You're going to criticize it?

MR. JONES: I'm going to criticize the timing of that announcement.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member can proceed with his remarks. Please address the Chair.

MR. JONES: The Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training received the report, as he indicated, in early fall of last year. It is my recollection that the minister promised that his response to that report would take place in November; and when it didn't, he indicated that it would take place in December. When it didn't take place in December, I understand that the minister indicated that it would take place in January. However, it didn't take place in January; it took place some four months later. It seems to me that, despite how welcome that announcement was, it was a little slow in coming and even much slower than the minister himself promised.

I am wondering if the minister did not realize that during that period, while he was.... I will say "dithering," and the minister can correct me if I am wrong. In that lengthy period, while he was reviewing this particular important proposal, did he realize that he was jeopardizing the potential success of programs in Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo for the 1989-90 school year?

HON. S. HAGEN: My only comment on those scurrilous questions and that vicious attack by my critic from my old hometown of Burnaby is that the third-year university programs will indeed be in place in September of this year, two or three months from now, in all three centres: Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo.

MR. JONES: I think the minister is aware of the planning timetable that those institutions had. They had anticipated having their national advertising campaign up and running in January, which would have given them eight months in terms of their ability to hire. However, they couldn't pre-empt the minister and begin their advertising campaign until the minister had made his announcement. I suppose that's how things work, but that announcement was promised in November, in December and in January. They wanted to get their national advertising campaign up and running by at least mid-January. They expected that their hiring decisions would be completed by the end of April. They expected the process of screening, selection, allowing people to extricate themselves from their contracts and having people arrive on campus to be complete by June 1. They expected to have timetabling for their courses and programs completed by May. They expected to get underway with the necessary construction, renovations and purchase and installation of equipment by August 31. They had an eight-month window to do all of this planning and preparation so that these programs of third and fourth year would be well underway by September. However, the delay, while the report sat on the desk of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training, cut that timeframe in half.

Very clearly the minister is involved in these kinds of efforts. He has been the chairman of a school board. He knows that these things take time, that they can't happen at the snap of one's fingers. While that report was on the desk of the minister, much of this important work was held in abeyance; it could not be done. Does the minister not recognize that the success of those programs was at least potentially jeopardized while the delay occurred?

HON. S. HAGEN: There was no delay. The interesting thing that my critic from Burnaby North is missing is that had he been the minister at the time and had he proceeded on what he sees as the correct time-line, Nanaimo would not have been part of the announcement. Malaspina College would not have third- and fourth-year degree-granting programs. Nanaimo would have been left out.

Also, had he run with the access announcement, which he insinuates he would have, the announcement in Prince George would have been for a university college, which would have been totally opposed by the people of the north.

I think it's pretty obvious that the timing was right, the homework was done and the plan was well thought out and implemented. As I said before, the courses will be on stream and running in September

[ Page 8349 ]

of this year. I might add that the response for the advertisements for faculty in those places has been absolutely overwhelming.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the answer, and it does help clarify the process that the minister went through. It seems to me that there was some risk there, and the minister suggests now that it was a calculated risk and that it was in order to include Nanaimo and to set up the planning group in Prince George.

I recall that in estimates last year the minister talked about access in the regions, and he did talk about Kamloops, Kelowna and Prince George. He also talked about the east and west Kootenays during that period, and he did not talk about Nanaimo. The access committee report, which the minister says was the product of a tremendous amount of public involvement and public input, did not recommend Nanaimo, and I'm just wondering why the minister would treat the efforts of so many British Columbians in such a cavalier manner.

We set up these committees, and they make recommendations. In this instance the minister delayed a response to do something quite different than the committee itself recommended; and the report, which was so widely accepted in the province, was neglected by the minister. I guess what the minister's saying is that the committees erred by not including Malaspina in their report. I'm wondering if that's what the minister is saying. I'm wondering why he neglected the efforts of all those people on those committees and the public in British Columbia.

[11:00]

HON. S. HAGEN: I know this is going to come as a shock to the critic from Burnaby North, because he doesn't have to deal with this, but the job of government is to do it right and do it right the first time, and that's also the job of the minister.

MR. JONES: I can only take it from the minister's answer that he is suggesting that the committee erred by not including Malaspina College in their recommendations.

It was quite a surprise in the education community that Malaspina was included, given its geographic proximity to the University of Victoria, whereas the east and west Kootenays, which the minister talked about last year as being important areas that were definitely in need of degree-granting status on a par with Kamloops, Kelowna and Prince George, were omitted by this minister.

I'd still like to ask the minister what the thinking was that went into the choice of Nanaimo, which was quite a surprise to the educational community, and why were the Kootenays dropped as part of the minister's thinking in terms of expansion of degree granting status in the province?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm saddened to hear the comments of the member for Burnaby North, who is stating that he would have gone with the recommendation of the access committee instead of with the decision of the government. I'm just wondering how his colleagues from Nanaimo would react to that statement. I'm very saddened, as the minister, to hear that he is opposed to the program being offered at Malaspina College, one of our finest colleges and institutions in this province. I can tell you that the administration and staff at Malaspina are very excited about the program, and I can tell you that the people of the Parksville, Qualicum, Duncan and Courtenay areas are very excited about the opportunity of being able to complete their degrees by traveling to the campus at Malaspina College.

It doesn't say much for the members opposite when they are of the opinion that they would rather go with the recommendation of a committee than take the recommendations of a committee and develop them into a plan that is widely accepted by the people of this province.

MR. JONES: I find the minister's response very strange if it was a response to anything I said. I did not suggest what I would do or what this side of the House would do.

Part of the minister's role here in estimates and in his role as Minister of Advanced Education is to be accountable to the public, and one of the arenas of accountability is right here and now with the opposition. What I was asking for was some information, some explanation and some defence on the part of the minister of his program. Very clearly, the minister said in this chamber last year that he considered that the areas that needed expansion in terms of degree granting status were Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna and east and west Kootenays. He didn't mention Nanaimo; the access report didn't mention Nanaimo. I still ask the minister to explain — to defend his program — why the east and west Kootenays were dropped from what was very clearly your thinking one year ago, and why Nanaimo was added. You must admit that Nanaimo is geographically very close to the University of Victoria. In the thinking of many in British Columbia, other regions were in greater need of increased access to degree-granting status than Nanaimo was.

I wasn't suggesting that we would do anything different. I'm not criticizing the minister. I'm asking for some explanation — some defence — of his program.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm pleased that he has reaffirmed that he's opposed to the program in Nanaimo. Let me say that the opportunities that were afforded to Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo were based on presentations made to government, not only from the access report, the chamber of commerce report and the IUS report, but also from correspondence, letters and meetings that took place.

The request for degree granting for the Kootenays was not raised in the access meetings. It was not raised by correspondence or by presentations from the Kootenays. However, I would like to stress with regard to the east and west Kootenays that — and the

[ Page 8350 ]

opportunity is there to all of the smaller colleges around the province — as their population grows and as their college regions increase in size, we're not only enhancing the first- and second-year university transfer programs together with the job training side of the programs, but the opportunities will be there in the future to add third- and fourth-year programs at those smaller colleges as well, as their population increases and as the population dictates.

MR. JONES: Very clearly, it was in the minister's mind a year ago that there was a need in the east and west Kootenays. Because that wasn't confirmed by the access process — the committee process — he suggests it should be dropped.

HON. S. HAGEN: It wasn't confirmed by the people.

MR. JONES: Neither was Nanaimo confirmed by the access process. The minister just indicated that it was after that process that the representation took place.

There seems to be some contradiction, but I think I'll leave it at that. I'd like to get on to the major thrust of the access announcement, which was the concept of the creation of 15,000 new spaces in post-secondary education in this province over a period of six years. The minister very recently — prior to that announcement — made an announcement about equipment upgrading. He indicated that a long overdue commitment to upgrading equipment in post-secondary institutions in this province to the tune of some $26.5 million — $13.75 million for BCIT — was made. Again, in one of those announcements the minister suggests that money is not the solution to the problems of post-secondary education in B.C. Certainly those announcements are most welcome. A longstanding need was there.

However, in that press release the minister neglected what I considered to be an important fact: that money was to be made available over a two-year period. Very clearly, when the minister makes an announcement of $26.5 million and doesn't include a time period, it's assumed by all and sundry that it will be a one-year announcement and that money will be made available very shortly in those sums. However, when I talked with people in the institutions, I said: "You've really had a good addition to your budgets for the upgrading of equipment." They would say: "No, no, that was over two years. That's really not helping us catch up nearly as much as you might think. We're still pretty poorly off in terms of outdated equipment in this province."

Maybe it was just an oversight on the part of the minister. Maybe he just neglected to mention that it was two years. Assuming it wasn't and assuming the worst possible scenario: that the minister was trying to give the impression that a two-year announcement was really a one-year announcement....

Then the minister comes out with the creation of 15,000 spaces over six years. If the minister was attempting in the first announcement to really obfusticate the time-limit, and hence I think the credibility has to be questioned in that announcement, how then can we trust the second announcement that we will create these 15,000 spaces over six years? If the minister wasn't forthcoming with two years on the earlier announcement on equipment upgrading, how does he think he's believable in terms of the six-year announcement?

HON. S. HAGEN: Is the member for Burnaby North saying that the minister can't be trusted?

MR. JONES: Well, I suppose the minister can ask questions of the opposition during debate on the estimates, but it's really the role of that minister. I think we need some levity in this House, and the more the merrier. But I think it's a serious point when the minister issues a press release that makes a major announcement of equipment upgrading and doesn't include the time-frame in which that announcement is made. That's a serious omission. What I'm suggesting is that the credibility of the minister is in question, so I'd like a little more assurance that he is going to stick to his commitment of the six years. There isn't a lot of evidence in the kinds of recent announcements the minister has made to give people the kind of assurance that's necessary. I guess I'm saying: "Here's your chance, Mr. Minister: explain why the two years were omitted, and then maybe we'll trust you on the six years."

HON. S. HAGEN: That certainly clarifies the position of the member for Burnaby North. The money in question that was allocated for equipment purposes to the colleges and to BCIT was in fact all paid out at one time. The money is in the hands of the colleges and the universities and BCIT. The letters that were sent out to the institutions all stipulate that it was a two-year program. So there was never any question about that. The meeting that I held with BCAC prior to the announcement stipulated that it was a two-year program. If they choose to spend it all in one year, that's up to them, but the allocation is for a two-year period.

MR. JONES: I wonder if the minister can help me. He seems to have said two things there that contradict each other. It sounded initially like the letters were sent out to the institutions and the meeting with the BCAC was held, and indicated that that money would be available over a two-year period. At the same time, the minister now says that the money can be spent in a one-year period. Why then were the meetings held and letters sent that indicated it would be available over a two-year period? I'm not understanding the minister on that.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm not surprised that he doesn't understand it. Let me simplify it. As your colleague for Nanaimo would say, "Read my lips" — or something like that.

The dollar amount was for a two-year allocation. However, because the money is in the hands of the

[ Page 8351 ]

institutions, if they can make better deals by buying larger quantities at one time, that's certainly up to them; but they understand that that's the special equipment allocation that they will have for this year and for the following fiscal year.

[11:15]

MR. JONES: I thank the minister for that explanation.

Let's have a look at this announcement and its implications. Let's assume that within the next year we have a provincial election, and at the time of the provincial election the mandate of the Vander Zalm government, the Premier's government of 1986, expires. The minister was assigned to improve access to post-secondary education in this province in the fall of 1986; so by that time he will have had approximately three and a half years in which to improve access of young people to post-secondary opportunities in British Columbia. If we have a six-year program and it was announced in March, I assume by next March we will be one-sixth of the way along the road to achieving those 15,000 spaces — or approximately.

Maybe I should ask a question first of the minister. The announcement says two things. In one it says 15,000 spaces and in the other it says the national average over a six-year period. Could the minister clarify whether the announcement really is 15,000 spaces over six years or whether it will be achievement of the national average six years hence? I expect the access of other provinces to increase, and that might be quite a different number. Is the announcement 15,000 spaces, or is the announcement the national average in 1995?

HON. S. HAGEN: The announcement is up to 15,000 spaces over six years, assuming that the students appear.

MR. JONES: So the minister would be satisfied? Not that that's not an accomplishment to be proud of, but would the minister be satisfied even if that figure is considerably below the national average?

HON. S. HAGEN: The answer is no.

MR. JONES: I'm pleased to hear that, because very clearly the young people in this province are above average. I think the times when I support the Minister of Education most is when he is expressing his pride in the achievements of young people. Two very recent examples are how 13-year-olds did, not just nationally but internationally, in math and science competitions. They outstripped all competition in this country in math and science at that age level and outstripped a number of other countries — in particular, English-speaking countries but also some non-English-speaking countries that we normally think do better than Canadian and British Columbian students. Those young people, as well the young people that do so well in the Euclid Mathematics Contest in British Columbia relative to students elsewhere in Canada, clearly indicate that the young people of this province are far above average. I think it speaks to the tremendous need for providing opportunities for these young people that have been neglected for so long by provincial administrations. I'm pleased that the minister suggests that he would not be happy with striving to be average, even if that's below average. I think we should be striving to be the best. To my mind, it really speaks to something I referred to yesterday: every young person who has the skill and ability to profit from a post-secondary educational opportunity should be given the opportunity.

We see what happens in other parts of this country when provincial governments encourage their young people to participate. We see participation rates in Ontario and Quebec that make British Columbia's pale in comparison.

To achieve the goals that the minister has suggested is going to require a tremendous effort in terms of increasing institutional capacity. Post-secondary education facilities in high demand areas are greater than 10 percent oversubscribed at present. Obviously what the minister is going to have to address is a very concerted effort to increase institutional capacity, which means embarking on a very serious capital program.

I'm wondering if the minister would respond to this question. First of all, in the very short term, can the minister indicate to this House how much additional space will be created? How much increased institutional capacity will we see by September of this year?

HON. S. HAGEN: If I could just clarify the question, Mr. Chairman. Are you asking how many of the 15,000 new spaces will be available in September? Okay. Then I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question.

MR. JONES: The minister and I have had a conversation before that I think we're going to have again. Let me repeat the minister's line: I don't have any problem with that. I think the figures were something like 3,000 and 1,000 for this September.

When I indicated that the long-range goal of 15,000 is going to require a tremendous increase in institutional capacity, the minister agreed by nodding his head, and he agrees now. I don't expect that to happen overnight; I don't expect all this to be in place. What I expect is that those spaces be there, whether they be storefront, using more flexible time schedules and swing shifts, or rental accommodation.

I think the minister and I agree that the priority is creating those spaces, and it will be over a period of time. I hope that those students are housed in the kind of facility that they deserve as students in British Columbia, but the priority now very clearly is the access itself. However, I'd still like to know whether the minister has an answer to the question: have we made any strides in preparing for this September by increased institutional capacity? Is there going to be construction of X number of new

[ Page 8352 ]

classrooms to accommodate those 3,000 and 1,000 — a total of 4,000 — new spaces for students?

HON. S. HAGEN: I appreciate the member for Burnaby North clarifying the question. The amount of capital allocated for the access program over a six-year period is $210 million. That, we feel, will provide the 15,000 new spaces over the six-year period.

This is in addition to the ongoing capital programs of my ministry. This year's capital budget, in round figures, is $99 million; next year's is $152 million. As you probably know, we are now on a two-year cycle for capital, so this year we will be determining — or agreeing with at the Treasury Board level — the amount for the '91-92 fiscal year.

I am sure the member is aware that we have under construction a new campus for Kwantlen College in Surrey. We have acquired property for a new campus for Kwantlen College in Richmond. We have also instructed the lower mainland colleges, where the pressure points are, to rent the space they will need to handle the additional students expected in September.

We are in the process of receiving submissions from various colleges not only in the lower mainland, but from Camosun and some of the Interior colleges with regard to projects they want to bring on-stream. The member is quite right when he says that these things don't happen overnight. It's generally a two-year planning, designing and building process. I'm not sure if those numbers assist you, or if those projects help you.

I'm sure you are aware that we're just about ready to open up a new addition at the Cariboo College in Kamloops. As my colleague mentioned, we just announced the purchase and planning money for a new campus for Salmon Arm. I just announced a new bio-science building — a $25 million project — at Simon Fraser University. I think we will be ready in September to open up a new chem-physics building that I announced two years ago at UBC.

Interjection.

HON. S. HAGEN: Okay, he surrenders. Thank you.

MR. JONES: I'd like to thank the minister for that response. I'd like to inquire about the $210 million over six years. I had planned to ask, and I'm pleased that the minister responded that that is on top of the regular capital budget. However, when I look at the amounts, and I know the kinds of requests the minister receives from the various institutions, I'm really skeptical that the amount of money allocated for capital construction is in any way going to meet the needs, at least of what the institutions perceive their needs are. I'm sure there needs to be a balance between what the province can accommodate and what the institutions feel they need. Over six years, $200 million to create 15,000 spaces.... I'm wondering if the minister could break that down a little bit, and how he is going to achieve that with that kind of money. I imagine construction costs will double in the next six years. I think he has a Herculean task if he thinks he can create 15,000 spaces with that $210 million. Perhaps he could elaborate further.

HON. S. HAGEN: Because you waved the white flag in surrender, I was not able to get into some of the other exciting programs that we have underway. I didn't, for instance, talk about the $110 million matching capital program at our universities, which is again an addition. I think you have to look at $210 million for the access programs for capital, the $99 million this year, $152 million next year and whatever we can squeeze Treasury Board for in the following years for our regular ongoing capital programs. You have to look at the $110 million matching capital program. Admittedly some of that is used for chairs, bursaries and major equipment, but the largest sums will be going to buildings — at least at the present time — on our three university campuses.

The amount of money out there in the private sector, from alumni members and industries that want to contribute to our universities, is outstanding, and indicates to me as the minister that the private sector is indeed supportive of the system and the people that are coming out of the system. I believe if they weren't satisfied, they wouldn't be contributing the way they are.

[11:30]

I am sure you are aware of the kickoff of this program that UBC had in May, I think. From the time the Premier announced this program in May 1988 until May this year — 12 months — UBC has had $46 million contributed. I have to keep on reminding Dr. Strangway that this indeed is a six-year program that we are not going to be able to match. Mind you, their money is coming in over a six-year period as well. But it's been very successful.

We have targeted some of the access capital money for the '89-90 fiscal year. One of those projects is the SFU classroom retrofit, which I announced at the same time as the SFU bioscience building. The retrofit is $1.9 million. For university college temporary space we have budgeted this year $2.4 million. The Okanagan, or Kelowna, expansion, which is tied into access, is $2 million. I should say that that's not out of the $99 million; that's in addition to it. With the access money this year, I think we're at $110 million for capital. I'm sorry; it's $99 million inclusive, I've been informed. I apologize for that. I thought it was $99 million plus.

Let me clarify this then. The $152 million for next year includes $37 million for access.

MR. JONES: If you take the first recommendation of the access report as a top priority — I don't know whether it was intended by the authors of the access report — very clearly it was that they desired to see government make a multi-year commitment to both operating and capital grants. I'm pleased to see that the minister has adopted at least a two-year cycle for capital grants. I'm wondering what his response is to

[ Page 8353 ]

the access recommendation for a multi-year operating grant proposal.

HON. S. HAGEN: The response really is this: we have been working over the past two years with the administrations at the universities, colleges and institutes to try and project for them what budgets will be on a five-year cycle, bearing in mind that each year's budget has to come to the House for approval. So we are unable to do with operating what we've been able to do with capital because of the way the system works, because we're dealing with a pay-back amount in each budget. We have tried to outline to them on a noncommittal basis, if you wish, what their budgets will be so that they can do longer-term planning. I have recognized the need for that ever since I took this position. I think I understand some of the difficulties that the administration and the various colleges, universities and institutes have in projecting ahead.

MR. JONES: I was arguing earlier to have the minister table the real budget that had more than a dozen line items, but I guess I'm arguing now for the reduction of one of those line items. Why was the $35.1 million treated as a separate line item? That money seems to go to operating and capital expenditures. The $35.1 million is the access amount. I recall that at the press conference where the minister made his announcement he was asked to break down that $35.1 million into operating and capital, and I was quite surprised that the minister at that time indicated he was not able to do so. I'm wondering why it's a separate line item, why it's not broken down into operating and capital, and how that $35.1 million does break down.

HON. S. HAGEN: That's a good question. I should clarify that it's operating only. It's designated as a separate line because it wasn't in last year's budget and it had not yet been allocated between the colleges and universities.

MR. JONES: With the access announcement, the minister has made a long-term commitment on the part of his government. I earlier questioned the credibility of the government to deliver on these promises, based on some past behaviour in education. I think what happened following the last federal election is all too clear in the minds of Canadians; many promises were made prior to that election, yet we discovered all kinds of new problems, like deficits, that precluded the government from carrying through on a number of its promises. Certainly British Columbians have felt the brunt of some of those changes of mind of the federal government.

I'm wondering whether the minister would at this time put any caveats on his announcement. Are there any conditions that the minister might see, for example a turndown in the provincial economy, that would preclude the government from carrying through on that promise — should the government still be in office after the next election — on the commitment of 15,000 spaces over six years? Is that a hard and fast commitment on the part of the government, or is it going to be subject to a number of prevailing conditions that we cannot foresee at this point?

HON. S. HAGEN: The program we developed under the Access for All program was one we attempted to make a sustainable program. In other words, I did not want to jeopardize the future of the program by making it more attractive at the present time than what we could sustain down through the years. As the member knows, I'm unable to commit future legislatures to budgets, but in developing the announcement we felt we had to give some indication of what the plans of the government were. I dearly wish that I could commit the government for six years down the road, but I think you understand that I can't. However, the program was very carefully thought out, and takes into consideration the growth of the province and opportunities that may come up in the future.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the candour of the minister. He cannot make the kinds of commitments that were in the announcement, but I think it indicates the directions that are so very necessary for British Columbia to go in the next six years. I appreciate that it cannot all be accomplished at once.

The minister will understand, though, that given the record of successive Social Credit governments, a record that was clearly much better at cutting education as opposed to expanding it, and given the record of broken promises of this government — the price of beer, open government, television in the Legislature, JobTrac and the funds for excellence in education — I'm sure the minister appreciates that there is some skepticism out there in the province, and I wish him well in carrying through on the promises that he has made to the people of British Columbia.

Just a quick few points on some other aspects of the access report. First of all, literacy and adult basic education was a second priority in the report that indicated that in this year there would be supplementary funding provided to colleges to assume the direct cost of literacy and adult basic education courses. Has that funding been provided? How much is that funding? How is it targeted? The advisory committee that the minister talks of, with literacy and adult basic education, is to report next fall, with funds set aside for that committee to respond. I'd like to ask the minister how much will be available at that time for the response to that committee's report, and will that report be made public?

HON. S. HAGEN: As you know, I actually established that committee on literacy prior to the access report coming in. But I don't think there's any question in anybody's mind as to the importance of literacy training and adult basic education, particularly as it relates to the college system. I expect to have at least a preliminary recommendation from the Paul Gallagher committee — at least I'll call it the

[ Page 8354 ]

Paul Gallagher committee — this fall, hopefully in September.

We do not know at this time what the funding levels will be to carry out those recommendations, because we don't know what the recommendations are. We do have a sum in our budget for adult basic education, student assistance, which doubled from $500,000 to a million dollars in this year's budget. I'm not sure if we can pull out the amount — and I'm just asking my staff — for literacy. I feel confident that we will be able to deliver on the recommendations that the committee brings forward. And maybe I'll have some recommendations of my own to add to that committee's recommendations, which sometimes happens.

MR. JONES: The section for native Indians in the access report indicated that immediate steps would be taken in consultation with native Indian groups to develop and implement a detailed strategy to address the diverse advanced education and job training needs of native Indians. First of all, is there a time line for the report of the task force on native Indian post-secondary education? Again, will there be funds to respond to recommendations? And again, will that report be made public?

HON. S. HAGEN: I know that the member for Burnaby North agrees with me that this is a very important part of the access study results. The committee is really a standing committee. In other words, it's not set for a specific length of time, but is a committee that will be reporting to meet continually on matters relevant to native education. It is currently examining the access information that came in. It's examining the Sullivan commission to see what recommendations will come out of that. It's also examining federal funding and what's happening to federal funding and how we can possibly make better use of targeting federal funding. It's having a look at retention and completion rates with regard to native students.

I really am very positive with regard to what I see as a good process in assisting native students in the province. The committee, I should note, will also be taking the proposals that it develops to the native communities around the province before it brings them to me.

[11:45]

MR. JONES: I appreciate the minister's response and his interest in this important area. Probably the most tragic area we've seen in recent times in terms of native Indian post-secondary education is the funding cutbacks by the federal government that resulted in very strong demonstrations on the part of the native Indian community to the point where young native Indians were fasting in Ottawa to protest the actions of that government. In the spirit of the minister's concern about this area, has the minister made any expression of British Columbia's concern, particularly in the light of this minister's goal to increase access to the native Indian population? Has the minister had made any expressions to the minister responsible in Ottawa over this very serious situation?

HON. S. HAGEN: I have expressed my concern to both the federal minister of native affairs and also the associate minister of native affairs not only in writing but in personal conversations.

MR. JONES: I thank the minister. I think it's very important that the federal government be made aware of this province's serious concern about those cutbacks. I think all cutbacks in post-secondary education are to be fought with considerable vigour.

Another area that was included in the access report as an underrepresented group was that of the prison populations in British Columbia. That report indicated that it was recommended that a review and strategy for funding and delivery of educational upgrading and job training programs in the province's jails be conducted. I consider this another important underrepresented group in post-secondary education. Why was this recommendation dropped? Why was it not followed up on?

Clearly the area is an important one. It would not have been one that would have brought a major cost to the province. Even to indicate a degree of interest by striking a task force, even giving the appearance of being concerned about this situation, I think would have been welcome. Clearly the minister must understand the relationship between literacy and crime. That minister must be interested not in just warehousing people in our prison population but in looking to rehabilitation and educational opportunities as probably the best vehicle we have for that rehabilitation. I'd like to ask the minister why that recommendation was dropped.

HON. S. HAGEN: The recommendation was not dropped. As a matter of fact, I've asked the colleges with correctional facilities or institutions in their college regions to develop programs that can best address the needs of the individuals incarcerated in those institutions.

MR. JONES: I'm hopeful that that amounts to something. It seems to me that the responses in a number of other areas, such as native Indians and literacy, were given a profile. That's not to suggest that this work cannot go on quietly behind the scenes. I'm hopeful that we see something as a result of the government's efforts through the colleges in this regard.

Let me mention another underrepresented group in post-secondary education that was not mentioned in the access report: that, of course, is women. I've raised this issue several times during this session in the House; very clearly women are underrepresented in terms of faculty appointments to our universities

[ Page 8355 ]

and colleges. They're well represented in part-time positions in colleges, but not well represented in full-time positions in colleges. They're certainly not well represented in the administrations of our institutions of post-secondary education. Of the top 300 salary earners at Simon Fraser University, some 13 of those are women, and those 13 are right near the bottom of that 300. I appreciate the difficulty of providing leadership, but I think that leadership is necessary.

This ministry has the women's secretariat in it. I recognize that UBC and Simon Fraser have established offices to begin to address these questions. I think much more can be done. I would like to see the minister begin to address the under representation not only on faculty and administration, but also in graduate schools and in programs of science and technology for undergraduates, as well as the under representation in terms of job training in non-traditional areas. The only recognition in the access report of the problems of women was the recommendation that improved and more flexible day care facilities be made available.

When the opposition has raised the question of day care or student residences with the minister in the past, he has more or less indicated that it is not an area he wishes to address. I would like to ask the minister if he has any plans to assist those institutions in improving representation on the faculties, in the administration, in the grad schools or in programs that are traditionally not areas that women pursue. Also, does the minister see this need for day care and student residences that the access committee saw in their report, or is this one of those areas where the minister disagrees with the access committee?

HON. S. HAGEN: As a matter of fact, I've long recognized the disparity in the number of women in senior positions, not only in government institutions but in the private sector, and I have given several speeches on the subject, had many discussions on the subject and tried to set an example in my own ministry. As a matter of fact, when we last had a ministry retreat some months ago I think that 50 percent of the administrative people from my ministry at that retreat were women, which I was very pleased to see.

As you know, the women's secretariat of my ministry has identified key individuals in each ministry across government whose responsibility it is to make sure that women at least have equal opportunity in bidding for a particular position. I know that things have moved slowly — as a matter of fact, I referred to that in a speech I gave to women employees of government a few months ago — but we are advancing.

We have also promoted programs like Scientists in the Schools and identified women scientists to go out on that program to encourage young women to go into science and technology and other non-traditional types of employment, as some people call it; I'm not sure I would agree with that description.

The other program we sponsored that has been very successful is the one for women in science, which also deals with the question of young women or girls becoming interested in science not only as a career but in science programs and courses throughout school.

My ministry has provided $50,000 to Kwantlen College to develop and deliver an introductory management training program for women faculty and staff in colleges and institutes across the province. Last year my ministry, along with the Ministry of Education, provided funding to the principals' institute at the University of Victoria to deliver a conference to increase the representation of women at senior management and administrative levels in the education system. My ministry has also provided an additional $60,000 to the principals' institute at the University of Victoria to deliver similar conferences in regions throughout the province in this fiscal year. So we are concentrating on this area.

With regard to residences, one new residence that I can think of off the top of my head is under construction or will be under construction at Kamloops. I'm sure you're aware that we do not provide funding under the capital portion of our budget for student residences. However, the private sector seems to be willing to construct them. They are quite successful in drawing students to Malaspina and other colleges where it's an asset to have the student spaces.

On the question of day care, I did get a recommendation on that from my standing committee on student financial assistance, which I have sent back to my administration because I'm not satisfied with the recommendation. My senior staff is carrying out discussions with the senior staff of Social Services and Housing to see if we can't come to an agreement on that issue; I don't personally understand why we can't. I'm very hopeful that over the next short period of time the staff of the two ministries will come to an agreement so that there isn't a penalty to be paid for young women or single parents on social assistance who can then qualify for the extra money through the student financial assistance program. Unfortunately, I'm not able to give you a more positive or definitive answer than that at the present time.

MR. JONES: In the couple of minutes remaining — perhaps there is really not time; I see the Speaker arriving — I would like to get into some of the arrangements between the universities, particularly UBC and the University of Victoria, on degree-completion programs at Nanaimo, Kamloops and Kelowna.

I appreciate the difficulty. It's the kind of thing I talked about earlier in terms of cooperation between the various components. I think the minister lists it as one of the success stories. This afternoon I'd like to explore a little more some of the difficulties I see arising with those arrangements.

Very clearly the people in Prince George recognized the problems with those arrangements. The Interior University Society did reject that cooperative

[ Page 8356 ]

model, which I think is a good one, but it certainly has to have a lot of assistance in order for it to work effectively. I really don't think there is any time this morning to pursue that; I would like to pursue it this afternoon. With that, I ask that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.