[ Page 9419 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Privatization subsidies. Mr. Harcourt –– 9419

Customs preclearance of Alaskan cruise visitors. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9420

Privatization subsidies. Mr. Harcourt –– 9420

Mr. Clark

Pension policy at Simon Fraser University. Mr. Rose –– 9421

Federal abortion bill. Ms. Marzari –– 9421

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 9422

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Jones

Mr. Rose

Mr. Zirnhelt

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Clark

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Marzari

MONDAY, MAY 7, 1990

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. DE JONG: Mr. Speaker, May 5, 1945, is a day that will never be forgotten by people from the Netherlands. It was Liberation Day, after five years of German occupation as a result of one man's desire and obsession to conquer the world. This past Saturday, that historic event was celebrated in a very real way in the predominantly Dutch town of Lynden, Washington.

The Premier, Mrs. Vander Zalm, my wife and I were extended the honour and privilege of celebrating this great event with some 20,000 people, many of them British Columbians of Dutch background. Celebrating with the people of Lynden were some 500 legionnaires from all over the lower mainland, together with a representation and display of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The joy and enthusiasm of the Dutch people have not diminished at all since 1945; in fact, I believe they have increased. As many legionnaires, most of whom are now in their sixties and early seventies, paraded through the main street, there was much joy on people's faces — and tears of joy as well as sadness, recognizing that freedom for the people of the Netherlands and many other European countries had cost the lives of many young Canadians.

In conclusion, the Premier asked me to convey to the House and to all British Columbians his sincere appreciation to all of those who fought so hard for the freedom of others. He also asked all members of this House to join him, although he is absent from the House today, in remembering those who gave so much of their lives — and, in many instances, their lives — for the freedom of the people of the Netherlands and many other European countries.

MR. ROSE: I am proud to join the second member for Central Fraser Valley in the tribute he's just expressed to those Canadians who, along with others, served in the military forces between 1939 and 1945. They deserve our respect and our gratitude for fighting for the kind of country and democracy that we enjoy here in Canada, an ideal which other countries — notably in the East bloc — haven't yet achieved. We pay our respects to the courageous Canadians who served in Europe and elsewhere in World War II and who came back; also, our thanks to those who served but didn't.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, visiting the precincts today is Gayle Farrell of the Multiple Sclerosis Society of British Columbia. That is why you see a number of red carnations today. It's in connection with their annual carnation fund-raising effort. Will the House please make her welcome.

MR. PELTON: In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, we have three delightful people visiting us from Sidney: Mr. Irv Lang, and Mr. Mike and Mrs. Judy Millard. Will you please welcome them to the House.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's always nice to welcome a constituent and, in this case, a neighbour of mine. In the gallery today visiting us is Chris Devlin.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a number of grade 5, 6 and 7 students who are the winners of a science fair competition from the interior of British Columbia. They are accompanied by a number of parents and teachers, and some representatives of Fletcher Challenge. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon is a very good friend and confidant of mine, Mr. Tony Cox, and I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask all the members of the House to join me in paying tribute to a young grade 12 student from Mount Boucherie high school in Kelowna. She placed first in the persuasive speech category at the World English-Speaking Speech Contest in Reading, England, last week. The grade 12 student was third in debating, made the finals in impromptu speaking and finished sixth overall among 42 debaters from ten countries. I'd ask that all members join me in paying tribute to Tracy Bethune.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, sitting in the gallery and wearing her "Vote Yes for the Referendum" sweatshirt is Alayne Keough from Point Grey, who is the west-side parent representative to the Vancouver School Board and represents our interests as parents at the school board.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION SUBSIDIES

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran).

The auditor-general's report exposes a $13 million subsidy to BCBC to cover the rental shortfall from privatized highway operators, a cost that was hidden from the account of the so-called privatization benefits.

Would the minister not agree that in your government's haste to make privatization look successful, you made a bad deal and then cooked the books to cover up a $13 million subsidy to BCBC?

MR. SPEAKER: The rules actually require that questions put to ministers need only be answered for that period of time that a minister was responsible for a particular area of responsibility. The minister

[ Page 9420 ]

may not wish to reply, because it's the Chair's information that this took place prior to this minister's appointment.

CUSTOMS PRECLEARANCE OF
ALASKAN CRUISE VISITORS

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism. U.S. Customs has announced that it will no longer preclear American passengers arriving in Vancouver on cruise ships from Alaska. This will cost our tourism industry many millions of dollars in lost revenue, as arriving passengers will have to now board buses and go directly to Vancouver International Airport rather than spending dollars sightseeing and shopping in the city of Vancouver and the surrounding area. I would like to ask the minister if he can tell this House what action he is taking in order to overcome this with the government of Canada and with U.S. Customs.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It certainly is a very important and tragic blow to tourism in the lower mainland. The cost is going to be in the tens of millions of dollars for businesses in Vancouver. I can assure the member that we have sent a very strong letter to my federal counterpart, and I expect to see a response to that soon. I can also assure the member that the tourism industry in general in the lower mainland has sent similar protests to the federal minister.

MRS. McCARTHY: A supplementary. Would the Minister of Tourism assure this House that if he does not hear back within a very short time — no longer than seven days — from the federal administration, he will be prepared to go to Ottawa to fight on behalf of the tourism industry of this province?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I certainly do expect to hear back shortly. As I said earlier, it's a very important issue. Failing a satisfactory response from the federal government, I will certainly be prepared to go back and represent the tourism industry by a trip to Ottawa.

PRIVATIZATION SUBSIDIES

MR. HARCOURT: My question, then, is to the Minister of Finance, who was the Minister of Finance through all these bookkeeping deals. He heard the first question. On August 14, 1987, the Premier said about privatization: "There won't be any specials; there won't be any giveaways." Can the Finance minister tell us how he reconciles his $13 million subsidy with the Premier's commitment in 1987?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: If the questioner wishes to get into that subject, I think he will find a mixed bag of answers in the sense that there are a variety of different situations around the province dealing with the privatization of some of the highway yards, in particular, which I take it is what the member is referring to.

[2:15]

If the member is referring to the situation in district No. 1, which I think is southern Vancouver Island, he will find that the facilities requested by the Ministry of Highways were, as events proved out, to be far overbuilt, overengineered and overdesigned. We know that the local contractor took plans for a new garage off the shelf and was astounded to see that by the standards then in place, which were far in excess of national or normally required standards, he was able to cut the cost of building that garage by 25 percent of the capital cost. Clearly in the instance of that particular highway district, the evidence would show that the private sector was able to do the job more cheaply and therefore didn't need to have that outlay.

On the other hand, I am aware that there are other districts in the province where the private contractor, upon taking the highways contract, was able to use his own yard and facilities and therefore did not require use of the existing provincial yard. In that process, the provincial yard or garage became redundant.

So there were a variety of different circumstances, all of which can be explained. If the hon. member has a genuine curiosity in this respect, I am confident that we would be very pleased to provide him with all that detail. All these valuations and adjustments were vetted by private sector consultants to verify the sums and ensure that they were treated impartially and without fear or favour, because the government was well aware that cynics and critics might choose to zero in on some of these contentious issues. So we're very comfortable that that documentation is available upon request.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Minister of Finance. The minister has agreed that there is a $13 million subsidy. That fact has been established, and he has established it again in the House. Why have you hidden it from the taxpayers by bookkeeping means? Will you now adjust the privatization benefits fund accordingly to reduce it by $13 million as the auditor-general suggests?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The second question really points up the difficulty the members opposite have when they come into the House with a prearranged sequence of written questions. They frequently forget the fact that the answer to the first question means that the second question is unnecessary.

But in any event, let me just repeat what I said earlier. We have obtained private estimates of valuations and proper amounts to be calculated in this privatization issue. So there were outside advisers retained to assist us with that question, and the explanations for the sum total would vary depending on the district. But the cumulative effect of all those valuations and assessments of fact were that they totalled a lump sum.

The members opposite are incorrect when they characterize that as a subsidy required. The fact is that, as we suspected when we embarked on the

[ Page 9421 ]

privatization initiative, the private sector can do exactly the same service — in many cases, a better service — for far less money, and the facts support that.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the minister of obfuscation. The minister has stated in very convoluted language that he has tried to defend his position. The books show that $13 million was transferred to BCBC to cover the shortfalls as a result of privatization. Do you agree with the auditor-general and the books, as you put them forward, that $13 million was transferred? Will you now reduce the privatization benefits fund accordingly?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I don't quite know why the first answer didn't answer all three questions. I suppose the members opposite have some problem filling the time available.

In any event, the hon. member must be careful not to confuse operating costs with capital costs. The hon. member must recognize the fact that if a private operator does not require the use of a government yard or garage because he has his own yard or garage, then that competitor or bidder shouldn't be expected to have to use the government garage. The government has in some instances retained ownership of those idle facilities so that in the event that the current contractor does not win the bid when those contracts are let out for renewal, the government has a facility to ensure that the valuable public service is able to be maintained because we will have our own yard or garage in reserve. That situation prevails in some highway districts — not all.

The evidence quite clearly shows that we have saved significant sums of money not only on the capital side of the privatization — which, by the way, was not recorded in the accounts but there are considerable savings on that side of the ledger — but our records also show that we saved $100 million by privatizing highways, and independent outside assessment verifies that fact.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is having another bad week. He has admitted that they have overdesigned and built facilities that were too expensive, and they're now losing $13 million that was hidden in the books.

I would now like to direct a question to the Minister of Government Management Services, now that we've confirmed that Socred politics is costing this province big bucks. I would like to ask the minister responsible for BCBC if she has any assurance that the Buildings Corporation will continue to receive the money necessary to cover the built-in cash shortfall on highways privatization. Where will the money come from?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to take the question on notice.

PENSION POLICY AT
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. Simon Fraser University is a publicly funded institution, as everyone knows. As the minister responsible for pension policy, has the minister advised Simon Fraser University that a pension-contribution holiday, such as the ones the administrator and support staff are being forced to accept, are contrary to the long-term interests of the people working there and contrary to the public policy of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I would be happy to take that question also on notice.

MR. ROSE: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the minister's policy that pension funds in the public sector in British Columbia are the private preserve of the employer? Or is it the policy of the government that they are deferred compensation for employees?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would say that's part and parcel of the same question I just answered. I would be happy to bring the answer to the House.

MR. ROSE: Maybe the minister can answer this question. Is the minister aware that British Columbia is the only province in Canada without a pension benefits standards act to protect contributors?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

FEDERAL ABORTION BILL

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. This week the House of Commons in Ottawa is going to be finalizing debate to bring forward third reading of bill C-43, the abortion bill. Can the minister tell the House anything about her recommendations or comments to the federal Minister of Justice regarding this new abortion bill?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I have not been asked, nor have I offered.

MS. MARZARI: Would the minister affirm to this House that abortion — and the fact that abortion is soon to be criminalized in the Criminal Code of Canada if third reading goes through — is a women's issue?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the opposition won't like my answer, but it's the answer I've given throughout the province in the six months that I've been minister. It is a federal issue, and it is a women's issue. It's a human issue, and it's a women's issue; I acknowledge that. My ministry can do absolutely nothing about abortion; it is a federal matter. For me to get involved in the abortion issue would

[ Page 9422 ]

simply mean that I would never have time to do anything else. So I'm leaving it with the federal ministers to deal with.

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 ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

On vote 5: minister's office, $270,100.

MR. ROSE: I think on this beautiful spring day — the first day of estimates — that I'd like to have clarified and confirmed that we won't be rigidly clinging to a particular vote within a ministry, but that we will deal with the minister's office in a very general way, and probably the votes to follow would be approved automatically after we approve the vote of the minister's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is confirmed, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: I want to have that in writing and in the record forever.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It certainly is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that what the opposition House Leader has advanced is acceptable to me in terms of my debates of this portfolio and discussion about my estimates. That is, we will really run through everything that the committee wishes to discuss. Then when the committee feels it is time to conclude, we could satisfy all the votes at one time. I think that is an acceptable arrangement for the committee and especially for my purposes. I have no problem with that. If that satisfies the opposition House Leader, with respect to my position at least, I will carry on forever and ever.

At the outset, I welcome all members to this committee. I'd like to introduce Gary Mullins, who will be with me and who is Deputy Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Gary has been with the ministry for about a year and a half now and has done a remarkable job in putting together what he has characterized as a confederation of orphans. Advanced Education, Training and Technology is a ministry that is composed of the post-secondary institutions, the science and technology work that had been done with another ministry and the apprenticeship group and their issues. It was rolled into one in the last little while and has done very well.

To begin with, I'd like to ramble a bit about the college system, having spent some time in it and having been both a sort of beginning student in the early seventies in the college system and, latterly, an employee. I will begin on a philosophical basis by pointing out what a good thing it was for B.C. It's a very good, comprehensive community college system. From what I've learned, it's one of the best in Canada and is unique in its arrangement.

[2:30]

I can tell you, as someone who entered that system in 1971 as a mature student –– 30 years old — it was probably the best thing that ever happened to me. If it weren't for that type of community college system, I doubt if it would have been at all possible for me to attend any post-secondary education facility. As one of the consumers of the service, I feel very close to it and can assure members that I and, I guess, hundreds of thousands of other students who are now graduates of that system have benefited.

It's a good system to put in place. It did satisfy a lot of the world needs of my community of Prince George, and now it serves communities throughout the province. There really isn't a community large or small that doesn't have some access to post-secondary education, particularly at the university transfer level.

I had the good fortune yesterday, coincidentally, to be at Salmon Arm where I looked at the new site for their branch of the Okanagan College. I looked at the old buildings and learned that they had about 250 university transfer students there. With the new facilities being planned and subsequently completed, they could probably get that university transfer enrolment up to about 500 students.

It's a very good system. As I said earlier, It's a system that doesn't exist anywhere else in Canada. It's comprehensive and it's throughout the province. Its most important feature is the fact that it has transferability to our B.C. universities and this, of course, has made it extremely attractive. So a student in Prince George, Castlegar, Terrace or really anywhere can take at least first-year and in many cases second-year university level work before having to go to one of the larger cities for their 300- and 400-level courses. With the advent of the university college system at Kamloops, Kelowna and Nanaimo, those cities will have degree-completion capabilities soon. That, of course, is another advantage to the system.

One of the things that I was pleasantly surprised with when I accepted this portfolio on November 1 of last year was the good relationship I found between the community college principals and presidents, and the community college system in general. I understand that in other provinces there is at times animosity, but that certainly doesn't exist in B.C. My predecessor, the member for Comox, the current Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen), is to be credited for a lot of the good feelings that he brought to the community college system.

The presidents meet on a regular basis. The presidents are very much authors of what they want to do. They're very much the people who determine the direction of not only their particular institutions but also the system in general — the community-college community. They do get along very well, and

[ Page 9423 ]

that says a lot for those chief executive officers of those various community colleges throughout the province.

The same thing I also found in the university system. When I heard that I was going to be appointed to this ministry, I made arrangements to meet Dr. David Strangway, Dr. Bill Saywell and Dr. Howard Petch in Vancouver. They didn't know why they were meeting with me, because they hadn't heard of the portfolio change. But they did know that someone wanted to see them in Vancouver. That was a couple of days after the cabinet shuffle.

It was a very pleasant meeting, and I was delighted to learn.... When I asked them about how they got along together, they said very well. Howard Petch, I think, was the most constructive. Of course, he is our current "dean" of university presidents, but he's soon to retire — regrettably. He'll be leaving UVic in June.

Howard Petch put it to me this way. He said: "When I first came to British Columbia, things were not that way. It was a cold war, actually a heated war, out there. University presidents did not speak to each other. There was no such thing as good communication between the universities, no such productive features as inter-library loans or any sort of arrangements we could make to help each other out and therefore help our students. It was a very, very bitter and divided scene in British Columbia."

He said that fortunately has changed. It's changed considerably. I guess the fact that the three presidents were all in the same room was indication of that. I found that a very, very positive feeling — the fact that they did work together and discussed their respective budgets together. They discussed how they were going to approach the ministry together, and they talked of many features that they share — library resource sharing and many other issues. I found that to be very positive.

They also told me that the good feelings that had just come to exist here in British Columbia didn't generally exist in other provinces So to see that type of cooperation was indeed gratifying. To hear those presidents speak so well of each other and of their community was gratifying as well. That's good to hear.

The other good thing I wanted to say about the universities — and we might get into this more in the debate — is the centre-of-excellence awards that have been granted to our British Columbia universities. It was a peer review, essentially, of various faculties and departments, and of work that's being done throughout Canada. When all the evaluation was done— we learned of this in late October — it showed us that British Columbia universities placed well on top.

If you look at a review, particularly in the field of sciences, of the universities in Canada, all three British Columbia universities rank right at the top. UBC clearly leads Canadian universities in scientific endeavour, and in getting first-class marks when any type of peer review is done. That's been encouraging to know.

It's always nice to come into a ministry and have a certain constituency that is regarded as the best in Canada. I can't take any credit for that, but I certainly do want it acknowledged that we do have a remarkable university system network in British Columbia and that any peer review supports that in the strongest terms.

One of the things I think we're probably going to get to soon in the debate is student financial assistance, and I did want to make a few remarks about that. Prior to 1987 and prior to my predecessor taking over this portfolio, British Columbia ranked tenth in its support of student assistance in relationship to other provinces.

In November of 1986 when my predecessor was appointed to cabinet, he appointed at the same time an advisory committee to review all aspects of financial assistance available to British Columbia students and to make recommendations for improvements. An advisory committee was appointed. It was comprised of representatives of the public, students in university, college student services personnel and ministry officials, and it presented its first report in March of 1987. A new, improved program resulted, and the first year of a three-year phase-in occurred in the '87-88 academic year.

The result is this: overall, British Columbia has today reached a mid-point in comparison with assistance programs in other provinces. Specifically we have moved to fourth place in maximum annual assistance to single parents and to single independent students, and to third place for married students with dependents.

I think that's an important priority. I think married students with dependents, having been one myself when I went to school, certainly should have priority, and it's nice to know that we are ranked in third place for those people.

The Standing Committee on Student Financial Assistance is, by its very name, a standing committee. It is charged with reviewing all aspects of student financial assistance and is the appropriate body to consider those concerns. As a matter of interest to the committee, Pamela Frache of the Canadian Federation of Students is a member of this committee, and they have done very good work. I just wanted to get that on the record right at the beginning because it is an important point. I know that my critic — and I'm sure other interested members of this committee — will be discussing student financial aid. It's a pretty critical item to our constituents throughout the province.

The other aspect of the ministry that's taking me a bit more time to learn about and to understand the vocabulary and the alphabet soup that goes with it is the science and technology side. That's a very exciting aspect of this ministry. It involves some very good relationships with some very good committees. It involves understanding a very sophisticated — and I would say leading — group in British Columbia. We can't take a back seat to any province in Canada, in terms of what we've done on a per capita basis in research and in leading science. We have some remarkable contributors: John MacDonald, Vern Dett-

[ Page 9424 ]

wiler, the Eppich Brothers and others, who have really led and are internationally known for their research development and scientific advancements.

I know I can't discuss legislation, so I won't, Mr. Chairman. But I'll look forward to a certain bill that has arisen out of the budget when it is debated; it deals with the science and technology funding. I will discuss more about science and technology at that point. I think that's a good initiative, and it does point out that this province is clearly interested — in a large way — in bettering the science and technology development in our province.

There's no question that we have to do more. I know my critics and others are going to point this out. But in terms of research and development, scientific advancement and an attitude, Canada really doesn't fare well in the world. Recently at a major conference, John MacDonald said that too many Canadians still feel that they are simply hewers of wood and drawers of water and can't accept in their minds that Canada can in any way lead in high-tech advances and research. That is regrettable.

For example, when we look at MacDonald Dettwiler, the Canadarm and some of the major scientific advances that have taken place in Canada by Canadians, we really have nothing to be ashamed of. As a matter of fact, we should be quite proud of what we have done as a country. Regrettably, we are not. Many of us still don't feel that because you're Canadian, you can be the best in the world. That's an attitude we have to change.

Clearly we do not have enough students going into the sciences; we're working on that. But there's a lot more work to be done. We do not have enough women going into the sciences. I don't think anyone in this committee is going to deny that we need far more women doing nontraditional work, or what have been considered nontraditional studies: engineering, the hard sciences and mathematics. There just isn't enough at this point. I think that in engineering schools, about 11 percent of their students are female. That should be increased considerably, because we do need more people with scientific training. If more young ladies in elementary and junior or senior secondary schools would consider the sciences as a legitimate profession and a legitimate enterprise, our country would be far better served.

It's interesting that where you have an engineering school with a higher profile, you'll have a greater percentage of females participating. One such an example, which I found out about in January when I visited the Technical University of Nova Scotia.... This is a school in Halifax that graduates all the engineers for the province of Nova Scotia; it has an excellent reputation and is well known in the Halifax community. It has a higher participation rate of females than the Canadian average.

When I asked the student president — who by the way is a woman — her reply to me was: "It's because this university itself has a very high profile in Halifax, and students, like myself, take an interest in engineering when we're in elementary school. We just consider it a natural thing to do. We don't consider it to be unladylike. We don't consider it to be a totally male domain. We know that it's a good school. We know that other girls go there and that it's something we should legitimately consider and study for when we are in high school." The result has been that the Technical University of Nova Scotia does have a higher participation rate of women in their engineering faculty. That is good to hear.

[2:45]

I'm going to close shortly. I would just like to end with a couple of things. The budget, as you know, was pretty cheery in terms of what we wanted to do: going from $963 million to $1.1 billion and showing a 13 percent increase. It's clear that our cabinet and our Treasury Board do see advanced education as a real priority for this government. Since this administration formed government in 1986, it has seen some remarkable increases in our capital financing. It has increased sixfold since 1986. We've seen some remarkable increases in the funding of contributions to the universities and to the colleges.

Also, the matching program that was introduced by my predecessor has met with remarkable success. The Access for All initiative — again a remarkable success. Many other initiatives.... The native studies — a report that was recently filed with me — is a very good initiative. The literacy program, a report chaired by Dr. Paul Gallagher of VCC, was first-class work and really leads Advanced Education into some very exciting times and initiatives. I will be delighted to speak to more about those later.

With that said, I will take my place. I am sure my critic has many constructive thoughts to offer, and I am sure other members of the committee have too.

MR. JONES: I would like, on behalf of this side of the House, to welcome the deputy minister. I appreciate his contribution to this debate. I am sure that it will be significant. I would like to thank the minister and to repeat what I wrote to him when he assumed this portfolio; that is, I wish him very well in his responsibility. I am sure he is enjoying working in Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and knows that it is a critically important area to British Columbia and that it is staffed with thousands of very dedicated, talented individuals.

It is very clearly one of the areas of provincial responsibility that have a major contribution to make in assisting and creating the future prosperity of British Columbia. We in this province have a long history of wealth based on resource industries. As the minister indicated in his remarks, we have been known to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. However, I think the future of British Columbia will be sustained if we do more than that, because of the question of sustainability and renewability; and there is no question about our vulnerability to world market fluctuations of those resource industries. So we must do more.

That's nothing new. British Columbians have known that; British Columbians have said that; governments have promised that decade after decade.

[ Page 9425 ]

But it's more important than ever that we rise to that challenge to produce a more stable, more productive, more self-reliant and more diversified economy for this province.

The post-secondary education area of provincial responsibility has a major role to play in advancing our economy. In addition to the traditional role of conserving and advancing knowledge that our post-secondary sector traditionally fills, we have the opportunity and the challenge to produce graduates whose skills and values can make British Columbia a more attractive place, both socially and culturally. It can at the same time create the economic opportunity that will create wealth and produce prosperity, so that we don't have to depend upon resource industries and be victims of fluctuating world markets.

In the future we are going to need the knowledge, skills and abilities of the graduates of our post-secondary sector. We are going to need those skills to help save our environment. The current minister was formerly the Minister of Environment, and I am sure he understands that.

Those graduates are going to help develop the non-polluting knowledge industries that are going to help add depth to our economy. Those same graduates will find ways of adding value to our natural resources so we can take our place as world economic leaders, as we should. And those graduates are going to improve the efficiency and productivity of both our public and private sectors so that we can enjoy the prosperity of our natural and human resources, leading more fulfilled lives as British Columbians, with greater opportunity for all.

The minister has indicated some of the good people in post-secondary education he is working with. I have found the same thing myself. I speak very highly of the officials in the ministry and in the administration of our institutions, and of the faculty, the students, of course, and the support staff.

I would just like to mention the support staff. It's interesting that there was a question in question period today relative to support staff. It's often the support staff — and I think we appreciate this, working with our support staff in the Legislature — who go that extra mile, who take on extra responsibilities in the post-secondary sector. When enrolment increases, there are adjustments made in a variety of areas, and often the support staff are left out. They are a very talented and capable group of individuals, and we should never forget the important contribution that they make. I am hopeful that the pension situation at Simon Fraser, where it appears that they have been misled concerning their pension contributions, will be quickly resolved to the satisfaction of that support staff.

We have all those talented people and a post-secondary system that we can be proud of, despite succession of Social Credit governments. If there's one lesson we can learn from our experience in the eighties, it would be that we cannot treat our education system as shabbily as we did in that decade.

Californians learned that a decade earlier, when they brought in Proposition 13, and they are working very hard to overcome the deficiencies created by that black period in their education history. We are doing the same to some degree, as a result of the cutbacks, squeezes and confrontations that took place during the eighties. The lesson is that unless we are willing to sacrifice a generation of young people and risk the long-term prosperity of British Columbia, and unless we want to remain in the backwater, the cellar of education, then we should never again treat our education system as we did during the so-called restraint period.

In the past I have been rather lavish, for an opposition member, in my praise of the previous minister, and I did so in reflecting the views of the educational community that he served. Clearly, following Dr. McGeer and the current Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), it was not a hard act to follow. The previous Minister of Advanced Education was recognized as an advocate for post-secondary education, and that was greatly appreciated by the educational community.

As the current minister indicated when he was appointed, he took on the two major challenges of improving access and improving the student financial aid program, and I think he has made a good start on addressing those very serious concerns. But I did criticize that minister for not having the vision, nor providing the overall leadership that would do the necessary planning work and provide the necessary vision to take post-secondary education into the next decade and the next century. There was no overall vision nor leadership in terms of a comprehensive review of post-secondary education in this province. There was no comprehensive approach to how to seriously address the issue of quality at the same time as expanding the system to accommodate for the past shortcomings in access and participation, or to how we accomplish the absolutely essential quantitative growth.

The minister mentioned the cooperation between university presidents, which is a welcome and new aspect to post-secondary education in this province, but at the same time there is no ongoing forum for debate on post-secondary issues. There is no broadbased group that sits, studies and reviews the post-secondary issues of the day and plans for the post-secondary education that students will get in the future.

To leave it up to those chief executive officers, as implied in the minister's remarks, is not good enough. As valued as those chief executive officers are, they represent only one perspective of the many that need to be brought to bear through ongoing debate on post-secondary education.

The minister mentioned awards for centres of excellence. It's an important question that needs to be answered. What specific centres of excellence are going to be developed in this province, and where are they going to be developed? We are proud of the accomplishments of the University of British Columbia, but there needs to be an overall rationalization and review of our system. We need to focus on those areas where we shine, where we can do best, and to

[ Page 9426 ]

establish centres of excellence in those areas. Or should we focus on one main centre at the University of British Columbia, as the president of that institution has suggested?

How are we going to address the serious question of an aging faculty? I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to review the demographics of the faculty in our universities and colleges, but very clearly, in a few years a major number of faculty members are going to retire. They are not being replaced by the young and energetic, those younger faculty members who bring fresh knowledge, ideas and experience to bear on the faculties in this province.

I was very pleased that the minister mentioned the role of women in post-secondary education, but when he was making his remarks I couldn't help being struck by the fact that he sounded like the opposition. He was lamenting the shortcomings of our post-secondary education system in not providing the kinds of opportunities for young women in this province that they so richly deserve.

That minister and that government have the levers of power, and they're not using them in terms of increasing the opportunities for young women in British Columbia. Lamenting year after year about those shortcomings doesn't get us anywhere. There has been very little progress in terms of women participating to a larger degree in faculties; something like 80 percent of university faculties are men.

It has done nothing as a government to ensure that the graduate schools have a proportionate number of women students represented as compared to the population. A very small number of students in graduate schools in this province are women. They're not in the faculties and graduate schools, and they're certainly not in administration. A very small percentage of those in leadership positions in the post-secondary education system are women. Of the top 200 salary-earners at Simon Fraser something like 13 are women and, by and large, they're at the bottom of that 200.

[3:00]

There has also been lack of leadership in terms of determining the role of the private sector in research in this province. That's a contentious issue on this side of the House, and it's a concern that we have. It's an area that needs to be addressed and discussed, and is one of the topics on the agenda for the forum that needs to be established to debate the issue of post-secondary education into the next decade and beyond.

We need to get a clearer picture of the mandate for our universities and colleges. The minister mentioned in glowing terms the role of colleges in terms of university transfer. Are we satisfied with the numbers of students going from our colleges to the universities in this province? Can the colleges play a larger role? Could there be more first- and second-year students going on to university, having taken university transfer programs in the colleges? Or is that not the way we want to pursue it in this province?

What is the role of the private sector in terms of assuming some of the roles and responsibilities of public institutions? We are the home to over a third of all the private training institutions in Canada. I have raised year after year, with previous Ministers of Advanced Education, my concern that there is not adequate supervision or monitoring, nor any assurance of quality. I know the minister is planning to bring in legislation which I will debate vigorously in this House when the opportunity arises, because he's going about it in a wrong-headed manner.

Lastly, the other area of major concern in British Columbia — and it's not a concern of this government — is that we need to have a look at the governance structure of our universities and colleges. The public is not dissatisfied with the individuals that sit, for example, on our college boards — which should reflect the needs of the community, not just the chief executive officers as the minister indicated — but they, the students and the faculties are unhappy with the method of their appointment.

The public is not satisfied with order-in-council appointments and the fact that we have college boards, for example, who represent not the province, their communities or post-secondary education, but a particular political philosophy that's certainly not held by the majority of British Columbians, according to popular opinion polls at this time. So there's an issue that needs to be put onto the table and debated openly and publicly, but I don't believe this government wants that kind of open debate.

Let me take my seat now, just in case there's.... I noted the minister making notes, and I'd like to give him an opportunity to respond to some of those remarks.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It was a rambling but pleasant discourse from the member opposite.

The first note I have is more perspectives, more advice, more direction, more vision for post-secondary education. I would argue — and I think if you look at my opening remarks, it's clear to see — that the work of this ministry since 1986 has been visionary, far more so than it had been as a ministry for the 75 years we'd had universities in British Columbia, and probably far more so than the Social Credit administration at the beginning of 1975, or including your administration of '72-75.

In terms of Access for All, the native advisory issue, the literacy issue, the Youth Advisory Council, the student financial aid standing committee, the centres of excellence.... That's the next comment I want to make. In terms of seeking vision and in terms of seeking direction for vision, clearly the changes and the work that has been done in the last three years have been quite remarkable and very productive. That's one thing I have to underscore: it's been most productive. As you know, as an MLA I'm one of the substantial beneficiaries of that productivity.

I would have to discount that we have not been visionary. I would accept the criticism that we must be more visionary. I would accept that we can't rest on our laurels and look at the work that we have

[ Page 9427 ]

done in the last three and a half years and say: "This is fine. We need to do no more." There's no question, we're always going to be exploring for better ways of providing the service this minister provides to the public, and we're going to be continually looking for more ways to provide that input.

In terms of centres of excellence, I don't have the list with me, but it is publicly available. I'm sure the member saw it. I think UBC led in four and participated in 14 areas. UVic was next, and SFU was last. What's going to happen is.... The announcement was made on October 26, 1989, when the feds announced the election of the 14 networks of centres of excellence. British Columbia universities are partners in 13 of the 14 approved, equalled only by Ontario. We lead on four: three at UBC and one at UVic.

British Columbia universities will receive $43.6 million in federal funding over four years, and the government of British Columbia has been requested by the three universities to provide $20 million over four years to support indirect costs associated with the research to be conducted by these centres. Approximately $1 million of provincial support is requested for each $2 million of federal funding. We will be making responses to that later as our budget unfolds, as it will.

I want to point out that the member questioned whether or not UBC would become the centre of excellence. The answer is an unqualified no. There are going to be centres of excellence wherever they occur. I think one of the most dangerous things a politician or a minister could do would be to designate one school where everything is going to happen. Things just don't happen that way. There's a dynamic that develops within, which encourages a faculty or a department or a university to become a centre of excellence in one area or another. To have something predetermined by a politician is dangerous and not very democratic. I know the member wasn't suggesting that; he was simply asking the question. I don't want to say that I'm opposed to what he wants to know, because he's seeking information, not telling me his opinion on something. But let me share my opinion with the committee, Mr. Chairman, that to have a government decide on where a centre of excellence is going to be and what a centre of excellence will do is undemocratic and certainly doesn't fit with what normally happens in education in the free world.

A fast remark about women in education, both in classrooms and in administrative positions. I'll point out one thing to the member: in terms of undergraduate enrolment, females outnumber males. It's not the case, as we both know, in graduate schools, but there are more women enrolled in undergraduate programs than men. That doesn't follow through, regrettably, into graduate programs, but I'm certain the trend is increasing.

Also, senior administrative positions in universities and colleges are, regrettably, still a male field. However, there have been some notable changes made lately. The dean of arts at UBC — I forget the lady's name...

MR. JONES: Pat Marchak.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you.

...was recently appointed, and I'm sure we'll see more and more appointments like that.

On the private institutes, Mr. Chairman, I'll tell you — and the member knows — that there is a bill coming, so there's not much more I can say at this point on that, because Committee of Supply does not allow the discussion of coming legislation or the necessity for legislation. We will be discussing that when the bill comes forward. If the member has a contrary opinion to what the bill proposes, I will be more than happy to hear it when we get into debate.

Coming back to the member's opening comments about this being a resource province, the member is absolutely right. We both know that. I don't think that's necessarily bad, and of course we have to look at it from the point of view that it's been very good for the science industry to be working so closely with a province so aligned with resources. That doesn't mean we have to put all our eggs into that resource bucket, but nevertheless it has spawned some very interesting developments.

For example, one of the industrial leaders in R and D in Canada is MacMillan Bloedel. They have a superb facility. I think it's in your riding, isn't it? I guess not; I guess it's in my colleague's riding. Nevertheless, it's in Burnaby, in your community. They are a Canadian leader. There's a resource company that some people hold a different opinion of and which sometimes isn't too cheerily regarded by some members of our British Columbia community; nevertheless Mac-Blo does remarkable research. They have taken the position that they are going to spend serious money on research and development, and they do. One of the better-known results of their endeavours has been the development of Parallam, a wood-based material that is extruded or pressed and can make a very strong beam of some length. It was first introduced in building components at Expo 86 and is coming on the market now — a good example of how a resource-based company can apply pure research to sort out a delicate problem, which not only adds tremendous value to the wood itself but also is quite remarkable in terms of the research it has done.

MacDonald Dettwiler, of course, which we all hold out as one of British Columbia's leading companies, in terms of its research and scientific capacity, is developing as an international leader in the area of space remote sensing. Again, it is a technique put in place to enable the resource industry to develop better.

So it's from that resource industry that we have seen some significant scientific advances made in Canada and in British Columbia, ones that really are international leaders. Post-secondary education has very much a major role in shaping the way our province is developing, and I see it doing that ever more.

I want to speak briefly on the restraint period of the 1980s. I was part of it; I was with Bill Bennett

[ Page 9428 ]

during those years; so I know what it was like. I hope we never have to see that type of recession again, although with the increasing interest rates and with some downturns in our economy we are, as we said earlier in our budget comments, enjoying a very fragile prosperity and one that we have to watch very carefully. But let's look at restraint and what we did this way.

First of all, I can't accept that it sacrificed young people. Students continued to go to school during those years, in both the public school system and the post-secondary system, and did well.

Then there's the larger philosophical debate that the member and I and his party would always have: do you continue to spend and build up a massive debt during those times of economic downturn and decreased revenue to the Crown, or do you restrain yourself so when economic times and your tax base increases, you don't have a massive debt load to manage, such as the federal government has, and you can in fact put all your resources into doing things? I guess that's a philosophical debate that we'll always have. But I can't characterize the restraint period as being all that harmful; as a matter of fact, in some cases it probably served us well in the sense that it gave us a good base to deal with now. It certainly showed that we were fiscally responsible, and it has allowed us to carry on in years of prosperity without having a major debt load such as other governments have.

[3:15]

Just to give you an example, if you look at budgets this year, you'll see that those provinces which didn't manage their resources and their budgets well are having to entertain cutbacks now. For example, I'll tell you, Mr. Member, that my colleague in Ontario is going to get about a 2 percent lift this year, and I will get a 13 percent lift. That's because we were fiscal conservatives in the mid-eighties. There may have been some pain, but from that short-term pain we now have long-term gain. That's a good result and one that I would agree with. Even George Pedersen, on his last visit to British Columbia — you may recall, Mr. Member, that he was dissatisfied, to say the least, at the time he left our province — said that we are doing very well and no doubt leading Canada. I know we're leading Canada in terms of spending and spending increases. Any Ontario president will tell you that they'd just love to be in British Columbia, where they're part of a system that is well financed, well governed and managing itself well.

One more concern I did want to answer is the question: do just the CEOs get together, and how is their input to the system...? As I said, I think there's very good input to the system. There's the British Columbia Association of Colleges; the Council of Principals; the University Presidents' Council; JPAC, an association of senior executives; the Standing Committee on Student Financial Assistance; and the B.C. Youth Advisory Council, which is another advisory committee to this ministry. I think there are all sorts of ways that we are responsive to the general post-secondary institution community in the way that we handle their concerns and in the way that we as a government and as a ministry listen to them.

I have met on any occasion with anybody who wanted to meet with me, even with some students during some very difficult times of a labour dispute. I have no problem with that, and I think my predecessor was of the same opinion and had the same feeling. He would meet at any time with anybody who wanted to meet with him.

One of the fortunate things I was able to do upon being appointed to this ministry was to get out and travel. I visited all of the community colleges and all of the universities just as quickly as I could. I missed Douglas, because there was a certain labour dispute at the time. I have to get to Douglas, but it wouldn't have been appropriate for me to have gone there during November and December. Regrettably, I missed East Kootenay, and I feel badly about that. But I'll endeavour to do that — and also Capilano. For whatever reason, I missed Capilano College.

I have spent a lot of time at the rest of the colleges and institutes, and I found it most productive. I found it edifying, to say the least, because there's a far better system out there than I think a lot of British Columbians realize. Maybe if there's one thing the institutes can be criticized for, it is that they're really not blowing their own horn as loudly as they could, because there are some remarkable stories out there.

I see that my green light is on, and I am sure that the member wants to rise and continue the debate and his comments. With that said, I'll take my place.

MR. JONES: I suppose I started it, but I think there is nothing more boring and futile than rehashing old political battles.

Let me respond to the minister on the so-called restraint period of the mid-eighties in the province. We had an election in 1983....

HON. MR. SMITH: Who won?

MR. JONES: Perhaps the Attorney-General remembers that election. The strategy of the government at that time was to take the Premier, who was not doing too well publicly, and create a new image for him — a tough-guy image. That tough-guy image followed the election in 1983 — to the detriment of this province, I suggest, in a very serious way that will take decades to recover from.

Let's make it clear. The minister suggested that we had to bite the bullet and restrain certain spending during that period. Education and post-secondary education were just one of the many areas that had to be cut. We didn't hesitate to spend millions of dollars in that period, pouring money into wrong holes in northeast coal and Tumbler Ridge. We didn't hesitate to spend hundreds of millions of dollars.... In fact, I think the net cost for Expo 86 was $300 million. That would work out to, let's say, $300 for every family in British Columbia, on top of the money they already spent in attending the fair. We didn't hesitate to fast-track the Coquihalla Highway — I am sure the

[ Page 9429 ]

Attorney-General remembers that as well — and we know the half-billion-dollar bill for that.

I think the position of the government was epitomized by the statement of a previous Minister of Advanced Education who is now the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), in his famous Marie Antoinette statement of the day, which basically said: "Well, if students can't afford to take out a loan for their post-secondary education, then they should think about postponing it." That was not a period of encouraging young people to develop their skills and talents so that they could make a greater contribution to the prosperity of this province and to their own personal prosperity. It was a period when students were basically told: "We can't afford you."

In this province we have a very highly trained and highly educated population. But we have probably imported the vast majority of those people. Annually we are short something like 3,300 bachelors' degrees, compared to the national average. In a ten-year period, we imported something like 20,000 university graduates. That's why we have the highly educated population that we have.

Successive Social Credit administrations have not made a priority of education or post-secondary education. We have had to attract those people by importing them, rather than by taking our own young people, whom we know have the skills and the talent.... Probably more than any other place in Canada we have a highly educated and talented population, and they are producing highly educated and highly talented young people. We know the results of math and science competitions among 13-year-olds around the world. British Columbia young people do better than those from other provinces in Canada, better than those from other English speaking countries in the world and better than those from many of the non-English-speaking countries that we expect to have a highly motivated and highly talented pool of young people.

So we have young people who, at 13 years of age, are skilled in math and science, and so many of them, when they have an opportunity to participate in post-secondary education, are turned away. That is our legacy; that is the legacy of the eighties. There is not the political will on the part of this government; there is not the institutional capacity. That is partly because of the so-called restraint period of the mideighties. Despite the best efforts of this government, it will take years and years for us to get anywhere near the national average of participation rates and degree-completion rates.

The minister did not accept my criticism of the required vision for planning for the future of post-secondary education in the province. I listed ten areas where important questions need to be answered and important planning needs to take place.

The minister quite rightly said: "It's not for the minister to designate centres of excellence or make these kinds of decisions from the top down." But I suggest to the minister that it's not up to a particular faculty either, or a particular university, or a particular college to provide the leadership. It is up to the government to provide the leadership, to set up the processes.

I was suggesting earlier to the minister that we need a forum, not just an advisory committee on native Indian education, or on literacy, or on where to develop in the Fraser Valley. We need a forum with representatives from all the broad-based interest groups to discuss post-secondary education, to help the government, to help the minister establish the vision and establish the plan so that we're not just, as the minister said, "listening."

That leadership, in conjunction with the broad-interest groups, should be happening on an ongoing basis. Consensus should be achieved at that discussion, and the minister would then be free to provide the kind of leadership that is necessary.

But those ten questions that I listed aren't being addressed, aren't being discussed. There's no open debate on those things. There's no forum for debate other than this Legislature. As the minister is aware, this is not the best forum to establish resolution of serious issues affecting the province of British Columbia.

There was some vision, some response. Let me correct that. There was some response, very clearly, to student financial aid, and to the question of access. For many, many years, going back to when I was in university, there was a call for improved access from the regions of this province. The Macdonald report of 1962 is an example. When the previous minister was appointed, he did address the question of student financial aid, participation and access. There has been modest improvement in those areas.

Let's have a look at the situation as far as student financial aid goes. The minister mentioned that we went from tenth.... The reason we were tenth was because of the Social Credit government of the day in the early eighties — the only province in Canada to respond to the economic downturn of the time by viciously attacking students through eliminating student financial aid programs. That's why we were tenth.

But we have a new administration and they did begin, after serious criticisms from the opposition, from students and from the public, to address that very serious situation. The minister said: "We went from tenth in '87-88 to the point now where we are at fourth place in one of our maximums and third place in another one of our maximums."

This is where we're really at: in the first year of the program we moved from tenth place to eighth place; in the second year of the program we moved from eighth place to sixth place. In terms of dollars per full-time-equivalent student — and the figures I have only go up to '88-89 — my guess is that we are still in sixth. That's an improvement and I grant the government that.

[3:30]

However, that $673 per full-time-equivalent student still pales in comparison to the national average. It's slightly more than half of the national average in terms of financial support for students — $357 below the national average. It's $1,753 below the amount

[ Page 9430 ]

given to a full-time-equivalent student in the province of Saskatchewan. It's $1,130 less per full-time-equivalent student per year than is given in the province of Quebec. It's still $961 less than the amount given to support a full-time-equivalent student in the province of Alberta.

So we're slightly more than half of the national average, and we're not even half of Alberta. We're about half of what Quebec gives to its students, and we're a little more than a third of what Saskatchewan supports their students with in terms of student financial aid.

It's a good beginning. It's a good start. The direction is right, but I would suggest that we still have a long way to go even to get to the national average of financial support per full-time-equivalent student. I would like to talk more about that later, and I'm sure the minister will as well. It's an important program, and we've got a long way to go.

In addition to financial aid for students, the other question was access. As I mentioned, it was a long, overdue desire of British Columbians to have their children educated and able to get a degree in their area, in Prince George, in Kamloops, in Kelowna, in Nanaimo, to train there and to hopefully stay there. It must be tragic for parents to have to send their children far away from home for training, and that will still be the case in the majority of towns in British Columbia.

We have a number of other centres we didn't have before. The previous minister set up the access committee, and we have those places as a result of the work of the minister and the work of that committee. I commend the government for those centres that have been established. At the same time, as we have increased regional access, the picture in terms of access for the young people in this province is basically the same as it was in 1986. Every fall some 30,000 highly qualified, highly talented, highly capable young people are accepted to the post-secondary institutions of this province. Another 10,000 students are turned away. I suspect the minister will want to debate that figure, and I would be happy to do that.

We waste a tremendous amount of potential for those young people and for this province by their not having access. There is no greater misnomer of a program than the government program Access for All. Even in terms of the highly qualified — those who expect to get in — we are turning down one for every three accepted. That's not good enough. We don't need to waste the talent and the skill that those young people can develop and bring to the prosperity of this province.

The lucky ones get in, but even they suffer because of the tremendous overcrowding and the lack of resources in those institutions. I don't have any figures, but my guess is that a very high percentage of those young people that get in don't get the program that they want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether my hon. colleague was asking me to get up so I could be an intervening speaking or if he wanted me to say something. If he could nod one way or the other, it would be very helpful, because I'm very anxious to hear him continue, because it's fascinating, exciting and everything. I wish he would. I invite him to continue, and I'll act only as the intervening speaker, which is perhaps my correct role in this situation.

MR. JONES: I see that the minister wanted to respond, so I'll just wind up what I was saying here.

I was saying that turning away students in tremendous numbers hurts our young people and hurts the province. I'm saying that those that get accepted are still hurt in the sense that they end up taking courses they do not desire. They are not able to get so many of the courses they would like to take. That's a tremendous waste as well. It's a waste of their time if they end up taking a Japanese course and they don't want a Japanese course. If they want a chemistry course and they have to take a Japanese course, that wastes the time of the instructor, it wastes their time and it wastes a tremendous amount of institutional resources.

When I was at university, I don't ever recall people not getting a course that they wanted. You just signed up, and you got the courses. It was not all that difficult in those halcyon days — many years ago — to have the young people that went to university and college accepted for the particular program they wanted and able to get those courses.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was that?

MR. JONES: Probably before you were born, me lad.

That is a waste, and is the product, I think, of those black days. We have not built the institutional capacity for those young people to get those opportunities for space, faculties and resources to accommodate those young people who want to add to their lives and contribute to this province. It is a tremendous shortcoming, and given the best will in the world, it will take many years to address. I'll leave it there and let the minister respond.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll respond sort of in the order that the critic presented his last debate.

Back to the restraint issue — and I'll just be brief. It was mentioned that in 1982 the issue was restraint. The issue was a seriously declining economy, and we went to the polls with that as an issue. There was no question about that. The NDP had one position, we had another and the people returned us with 38 seats out of a total of 55 in the old House — a remarkable increase over the 31 we'd had in the election of 1979. Had the election been held ten days later, I think we probably would have increased by another ten seats over that 38 — well, five.

Interjection.

[ Page 9431 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. You see, the leader of the day — Dave Barrett — said, "I am not in favour of restraint, " and that changed things. It totally changed the attitude.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He said it in Nelson — yes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what the electorate thought, in any event. We were returned in a very healthy fashion.

I want to briefly deal with your criticism about some of the economic development.... You're not going to win any seats or votes for yourself in Tumbler Ridge or Prince George by saying you're opposed to that. Probably one of the best benefactors of Tumbler Ridge has been Prince George, because of the railroad employment. There are 200 more railroad employees in Prince George because of northeast coal — steady jobs year in, year out; employees sending their children to school, paying taxes....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll talk about the Kootenays on another issue. What I'm....

MR. JONES: That's old history.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I know it is history. What I'm telling you is that the economic development that has taken place has been balanced and has had to be done. Also, I can't accept that Expo was not successful — 32 million visitors, thousands of jobs for students and schoolteachers. I met a lot of schoolteachers working at Expo as guides, hostesses and that type of thing.

Let's get back to what you do with restraint. I'm going to leave this as well because I'm getting a little bored with it myself, and we should get on to things that are more current.

Sure, restraint was tough but, as I said, the short-term pain has resulted in long-term gain. What would you rather be: a student in the system now in British Columbia or an administrator or a teacher seeing a 13 percent lift, or living in a province such as Ontario — and they're all going to be the same — which did not practise restraint or any sort of fiscal responsibility?, This year those ministers of post-secondary education will generally be receiving about a 2 percent lift in their budgets, because those provincial treasuries just cannot afford to provide a 13 percent increase.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They've contributed to a deficit. They had lots, and now they've got a remarkable deficit. The point is, I'd much rather be this minister in B.C. today than this minister in Ontario today, and I think that's obvious.

The member also mentioned that a lot of university graduates came to our province. Well, that's good. They came here because they saw opportunities.

I guess we're going to get into access. First of all, the member's enrolment numbers are incorrect. We did a study in September 1989 — the last heavy enrolment period — of students who attempted to register at a lower mainland college or SFU in first-year university or university transfer courses and were denied admission at any institution. The findings were that of 18,000 successfully registered, 692 — or 3 percent — were unsuccessful.

I don't find that number cheery at all — don't think I'm trying to defend that. There can be a lot of reasons why students were denied admission. It could be their own inability to meet the prerequisites, course combinations that didn't work for logistics reasons or whatever or that the courses were simply full with other students. Nevertheless, in the study that we did in the lower mainland, which was the most stressed area, 3.6 percent could not get into the classes they wanted — not one in three as you indicated earlier.

I guess the most interesting thing that I have to suggest to you, Mr. Member and members opposite, is that I was a student and, latterly, an employee of the community college system when the NDP was government. You talk about access. Capital funding to post-secondary institutions was slashed by the New Democrats by 25 percent; it went from $14 million in 1972 to about $11 million. So I think you're in a very difficult position to discuss access to education and enrolment pressures as a party when your party philosophy obviously indicates you are not in favour of increasing access to post-secondary education. The budget numbers are clear, and I suggest you read them.

With that said, I do want to clearly indicate that as we move forward and attempt to develop better access in the province, we of course are introducing some very innovative programs. The college-university model, as I indicated earlier, in Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo, the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George, encouraging some of the excellent programs like the Alaska Highway teacher initiative in the Fort St. John–Dawson Creek area and the Simon Fraser PD program, which have been very good.... These are courses of their own initiative, but nevertheless ones that have encouraged and taught an awful lot of students outside of the lower mainland.

[3:45]

Nothing is ever perfect, and we want to do a lot more. As a member for the central interior, I can assure you that that's one of my first priorities, and my former colleague from Comox felt the same way, which is why he did what he did. We are going to continue to be a government and an administration that encourages access for all. We're not happy with the participation rates. We will shortly be making a major announcement in the Fraser Valley — I see my colleague from Chilliwack is encouraged — with re-

[ Page 9432 ]

spect to the Fraser Valley College situation and the direction that we are going to go. I think the member for Burnaby will find that we are showing vision, that we are seeking public input, that we are establishing a forum for listening and for advice, and that our initiatives are really at the forefront and truly in the interest of the best post-secondary education system that we can offer.

MR. JONES: I don't think my remarks really need clarification. The minister knows that when I was talking about Tumbler Ridge I was talking about economic mismanagement; when I was talking about Expo 86, I was talking about priorities. The minister knows those things. He knows that what we will have to do as a government after the next election will be to clean up a lot of these things. We will carry on with some of the things that the previous administration initiated, but an Expo party when we're cutting back millions of dollars from education won't be one of those things.

The minister, as I anticipated, disputed the number of students who are turned away. If you check with the University of British Columbia, you will find that some 2,200 qualified students were not accepted, and at BCIT — also in the lower mainland — some 4,000 are turned away annually. Right there we have 6,000 just in two institutions.

I want to mention something that I know the minister is aware of, and it has become an annual problem: the question of student fees. This year we saw, as we do every year, students exercising their democratic right to protest increased financial expenditures that they are forced to make because of the extremely high tuition fees in British Columbia. Of 23 of the most prominent universities in Canada only three, all located in the Maritimes, had higher tuition fees in the 1989-90 school year. We saw increases again at UBC, SFU and UVic, and at the latter two institutions we saw vigorous protest by students. We saw students sleeping on the floor of administration buildings. We saw students occupying buildings in the institution, reminiscent of the 1960s. That is a phenomenon of student activity in this province that we have not seen for a very long time.

The minister, in response to that serious situation, agreed to meet with the students, and they ended their protest with that understanding. The minister agreed as well to study the effects of tuition fee increases, and also to arrange a meeting with the Premier, as I understand. The minister, while he agreed to study that serious question, also indicated that he thought the tuition fee increases were responsible and that fees were not too high, and that they were not restricting access. Yet at the same time he was making all those pronouncements and while he was supposed to be studying the issue, he indicated that any move on the part of a Minister of Advanced Education to freeze student tuition fees would be inappropriate. So while we have a study going on, we have some very strong pronouncements on one side of the issue by the minister who is supposed to be conducting that study. I don't know whether the meeting with the Premier ever happened, but I'm certainly not aware of it.

Students at Simon Fraser, in my community, did quite a magnificent job of community relations — again, a pretty new phenomenon, as far as I'm aware. They visited all the school boards and all the municipal councils and a variety of other public groups in the area and got support from those groups. The minister is aware that the Burnaby municipal council provided support for the students of Simon Fraser in their quest for a freeze on tuition fees. They wrote a letter to the minister, and the minister responded.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Read the letter.

MR. JONES: I won't read the letter, but I will certainly read an excerpt. The minister wrote to His Worship Mayor W.J. Copeland and members of council on January 25, 1990:

"In my opinion, the Simon Fraser University board of governors have taken a most responsible attitude in proposing a 5.8 percent tuition fee increase. This increase is generally reflective of increased inflationary pressures and, indeed, is similar to the recent mayor and aldermanic stipend increases approved by your council."

The responses boggle the mind.

First of all, I think it was tremendously audacious of the minister to bring aldermanic stipend increases into a debate on student fee increases. However, that by the board, let's take the statement that, "this increase is generally reflective of increased inflationary pressures." Bear in mind that in the 1983-84 school year, the students at Simon Fraser contributed something like 11.5 percent of the total operating budget in the form of their fees. Now it's closer to 18 percent, 19 percent or 20 percent, which is almost a doubling within a seven-year period.

The minister says it's reflective of inflationary pressures. Due to the fact that he just became minister in November, he might assume that to be accurate. I think if you look at the 5.8 percent increase in tuition fees in a one-year time-frame and compare it to inflation, it's bang on; no argument.

But the problem the students have that the minister should be aware of is that in the past nine years at Simon Fraser University, student tuition fees have gone up by 167 percent. Inflation during that same period has gone up 45.6 percent. So although in a one-year snapshot the tuition fee increase may be in line with inflation, student tuition fees in that nine year period have risen at roughly triple the rate of inflation.

Not only that, but the students understand who the real culprit is in this problem, and it's the funding levels of the provincial government. In that same nine-year time-frame, the rate of increase in provincial funding, in terms of grants to universities, has gone up by 26.6 percent. So the students are paying at triple the rate of inflation and at six times the rate of increase in terms of funding the operations of those institutions.

Very clearly, looking at those figures, no wonder the students are upset. I can't believe that merely

[ Page 9433 ]

having a meeting with the minister, the promise of a study or the promise of a meeting with the Premier has done anything to assuage their concerns. In fact, the headline in the Burnaby paper was "Strachan Not Listening, Students Say."

The minister has prejudiced any study that might be held — in terms of his responsibilities for looking at student tuition fee increases — by his statements and actions.

It's a serious problem, and it's only one factor of many that the economics of student life impacts on, but it is a major one. It comes in a lump sum; students struggle with that. Student tuition fee increases very clearly have an undue impact on student economic life. The reason those fee increases have taken place — almost doubling in seven years, in terms of percentage contribution to the operating grants of the universities — is that they are the most vulnerable target. They have experienced increases at triple the rate of inflation and at six times the rate of provincial funding because they're there, and they are the most accessible source of funds.

When the province underfund those institutions, the institutions respond not just by cutting programs, but by increasing student fees. That's what we've seen for the last decade in this province. The Minister of Advanced Education cannot judge the response of the students to a fee increase in one year; you have to take it in context. The increase has been staggering.

The minister quoted some figures in the budget. Let's talk about the increase in the universities' budget. My understanding is that it's something in the order of a 6 percent increase in operating grants to universities. We now have something like a 5.8 percent inflation rate, so a 6 percent increase clearly covers inflation. But it does not cover any of the desired catch-up by the institutions.

It does not cover enrolment increase. It really leaves nothing for making up those programs that had to be cut. It has nothing to offer for the necessary updating of equipment that very quickly becomes outmoded on the cutting edge of research. It does nothing to address the important student services that have been lost — to say nothing of the enrolment increase which at some institutions is as great as 10 percent.

Let me leave it there. I think the minister probably wants to respond to some of those concerns that I raised.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I would like to discuss the issue of tuition increases and the meeting of January 25. First of all, I should tell you that the meeting of January 25 had been scheduled for some time. It was my regular meeting with Pam Frache and the Canadian Federation of Students. I was going to be in Vancouver that day, so it was agreed that we would have that meeting.

As it happened, the Simon Fraser students were also in the administration offices at the time. So a day or two before, knowing I was going to be meeting with the CFS, I said: "I'll meet with those students as well." I had no problem with that. We held a reasonably good meeting at our former cabinet offices in Robson Square.

[4:00]

I'll tell you exactly...because you don't seem to quite understand what was discussed at that meeting. First of all, I said: "In my opinion, the tuition fee increases at SFU and at other institutes are responsible." They are approximately 17 percent of the cost of that student's education, which by the way, is down considerably from when you went to school. In the mid-sixties, when you graduated, you contributed closer to 30 percent of the cost of your education.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, you did. If you graduated in '65, '66.... I'll admit it went down in the seventies, but in the mid-sixties, you were contributing significantly more to the cost of your education. You graduated in '65, didn't you? I thought I heard you say that.

MR. JONES: I'm older than that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In any event, I met with the students, and I didn't say I would study the whole question. I doubted if there was a question. As a matter of fact, we both know we have a tremendous stress on enrolment; more and more students want to get into the system. Obviously tuition fees are not keeping them away.

But what I did discuss — and I'll make this perfectly clear to you, because I made it perfectly clear to the students, who did present some argument which obviously you missed.... If we know that enrolment is increasing every year, we know that tuition is not a major factor in keeping students away, or we wouldn't have enrolment increases. However, both the CFS and I agreed that maybe there were some students who were falling between the cracks. They indicated single parents may have a certain problem. I agreed to gather further data to see if there was a group of students or a class of students who could not afford to attend a post-secondary institution and find a way of remedying that.

The CFS, the Simon Fraser students and those of us who met — and there were UBC students and some staff there as well — agreed that that would be a good thing to do. We also agreed, at that January 25 meeting, to have a further meeting, at which time I said I would invite the Premier. I didn't commit the Premier to attend, as I couldn't. If I'm not mistaken, the Premier was on vacation at the time or out of the country. But I did indicate to the students that I would invite the Premier to attend the subsequent meeting with them. That invitation was given to the Premier. We were unable to make an arrangement for the Premier to be with the students the next time I met with them; nevertheless, I did hold a subsequent meeting. I think it was in the first part of April.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

[ Page 9434 ]

At that point, I agreed that we would expand our database to further understand if we had a problem. We didn't know if we did. If we did have a problem, we needed to know what students did not have the opportunity and why they did not have the opportunity to participate in post-secondary education. We have done that now. We have staff and resources working and addressing that expanded database, working on accessing that problem of access — understanding how we can improve the system and if there is any class or socio-economic group which is being disadvantaged and cannot attend. We will identify those people and develop remedies to assist them.

You mentioned that British Columbia compared very poorly, in terms of tuition fees, with the rest of Canada except the Maritimes. You are partially correct on that, although I think it's probably worth the committee's benefit to hear the order of magnitude of some of the tuition fees across Canada. You are right: we all know the Maritimes has the highest tuition fees in Canada. I'll give you three examples: University of New Brunswick undergraduate fees are $1,875 for the year; Waterloo, $1,812 for the year; and Dalhousie, at Halifax, $1,805. UBC, SFU and UVic are $1,605, $1,560 and $1,545 respectively, so they are about $300 below the Maritimes. In Ontario we see a lessening of tuition fees: Western Ontario, $1 517 that's not that far from UVic; and Wilfrid Laurier, $1,516 — again, very close to UVic. In the Prairies they get considerably less: the University of Saskatchewan, $1,344; and the University of Alberta, $1,069.

The real bargain in the country is the Quebec universities. They had a tuition freeze some years ago. Mind you, that's been to the detriment of the system. I have spoken to students who have attended universities in Quebec, and they tell me that it's not going very well there at all. Staff cuts, because of the loss of revenue, have been high; faculty cuts have been high as well, the result being that it's very difficult just to get a course changed in a Quebec university. It's very difficult for them to mount any type of capital program. When you see the lessening impact of some of the great institutions like McGill, you can understand what's happening. However, the Quebec government has taken the position that it's going to have to change that, and it is increasing tuition rates by 50 percent per year until they get back to the national average.

The other thing I think I should point out is that in all of the studies we have done and all of the studies that are available to those of us who look at post-secondary institutions, there is no correlation between tuition fees and participation rates. The best work we have is from Australia; we have before and after numbers from there. Some years ago Australia eliminated tuition fees. In looking at the participation rate of Australian students, they found that before and after eliminating tuition fees, nothing changed. Participation rates were identical, and the socio-economic backgrounds of the students attending university before and after tuition elimination did not change at all either. So there doesn't appear to be any wisdom in cutting off that good source of revenue.

Finally, although there was a protest at SFU of some 200 students, tuition is generally not the concern among the students I meet — and I speak to an awful lot of them, as you can imagine. They are far more concerned about the high cost of housing in Vancouver and about other increases far beyond the control of you or I or the ministry. Tuition is just not a factor at all in their ability or their desire to go to university.

A lot of other factors are expressed, but at 17 percent of the cost of their education, it really is quite a bargain. I will maintain that what I have seen the university boards of governors do in those operations is responsible, and I will defend it. If it went extremely high, I would probably have to take a position; I am sure we all would. But at this point I am satisfied with what I have seen.

I understand that one of the members would like to make an introduction, so I am going to take my place and advise the committee that I am going to be leaving the chamber for about a minute and a half; but I shall return.

AN HON. MEMBER: For a smoke?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I don't smoke anymore. I gave that up. I'll tell you why later!

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like the House to recognize Ken Sawatsky. He is past president of the Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association. With him today is Suzanne Fong, who is in the promotion area for the Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association. Also, my assistant deputy is sitting with them in the gallery. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. JONES: I suppose I should address my questions to the deputy minister. Now we see where the real power in post-secondary education is on that side of the House. I do want the minister to hear my remarks, and I also have some questions for him.

Very clearly, his response that because we are oversubscribed at our post-secondary institutions tuition fees are not keeping students away.... Any study of the demographics of post-secondary institutions in this or any other province will clearly demonstrate that those who comprise the student population are not from the lower socio-economic classes, but from middle- or upper-income families. What we need in our post-secondary institutions is a reflection in the demographics of the student population that reflects the population in general. Because young people come from a disadvantaged, low socio-economic background does not mean that they do not

[ Page 9435 ]

have the skills or ability to profit from a post-secondary education, or to make a contribution.

The minister indicated that it's not a problem, but if we find a problem we're going to develop remedies. I'd like to ask the minister how he's going to do that. How is he going to identify those in the potential student population that are being turned away right now, or are not even bothering to apply to our post-secondary institutions in this province? How is this study going to take place?

Secondly, the minister says that he has regular meetings with the Canadian Federation of Students. I'd like to know how often those meetings are held.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I advise the member that I had one on January 25, which I pointed out to him had taken place. Then there was one in March; I can't recall the exact date. We will be meeting again as we develop our programs.

What I wanted to share with you is the fact that we do have an ongoing standing committee composed of student representation and others that looks into the matter of student financial aid.

The database that we are developing, and the one that I explained to the students — by the way, it was agreed to by CFS — was essentially that: an expansion of our database so that we could further identify where there were deficits, where there was any impediment to any class or group of students, and any impediment to their attending a post-secondary institution. Again, as I said, we generally know that there can't be that much of an impediment if we have increasing enrolments; the students are there, beating the doors down. But are there a few or are there a class that aren't making it?

You can't say that it's just all rich kids who go to school, because that's nonsense and you know it.

HON. MR. VEITCH: My son goes to Simon Fraser

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, my colleague's son goes to Simon Fraser, so it can't be that. I know many personal experiences of families, students from Prince George. I know their backgrounds, and I know it's not very good at all, but they have worked very hard and they are attending the lower mainland universities. You see an awful lot of interior students here in Victoria because the cost of living is a little less than it would be at Burnaby or Point Grey. Many are from quite humble backgrounds. So I will not accept the notion of yours that you have to be wealthy to attend university in British Columbia, because it's just not true.

MR. JONES: That was a good non-answer from the minister. I asked two simple questions. The minister had said that he has regular meetings with the Canadian Federation of Students' Pam Frache. I asked how many meetings he has had in the six months he was minister, and he didn't answer Secondly, I asked how he's going to identify those people who, because of their economic circumstance, don't apply. They can't afford to go. They know that the debt load of attendance at a post-secondary institution is high. I don't know how the minister's going to identify them.

[4:15]

Let me throw in a third question. Has the minister looked at the demographics of the student population in terms of their socio-economic class? If he has, he knows it is predominantly middle-class and upper-middle-class families that spawn young people who go on to post-secondary education.

How many meetings has he had with the CFS? How's he going to identify those people who clearly have financial impediments to attendance at a post-secondary institution? Thirdly, has he seen the demographics?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll repeat my answers. Actually, I've had three meetings with the CFS. The two I identified were on January 25 and in March. I think I had one before that, one shortly after the appointment. You're like my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) ; you perhaps need a hearing-aid. I've said quite clearly the dates and the occasions that I met with Pam.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I haven't met with them as a body. I have met with the CFS and particularly with Pam, the president, a charming lady, as you know, and one who never hesitates to inform me of her opinion about financial aid and the plight of the student in British Columbia.

Secondly, with your larger question, you asked questions about developing a database. You asked a question about how we are going to find out who is not attending. Those are good questions, and we're developing the database to better understand those things. I'd like to be more forthcoming at this point, but we're working on that now.

It is difficult to know who didn't apply. You always know who did apply, because there's a record of application, but we don't know who didn't apply. But I can tell you — and I'm sure you know this already — that the biggest factor with respect to determining who is going to attend a post-secondary institution is not finances or proximity to a university; it's the attitudes that are shaped in a child from ages 12 or 13 to 16. If those attitudes are shaped, if encouragement is given at home and the expectation is there, the students will attend a post-secondary institution. If it hasn't happened, the students will not.

That's another issue I have some serious concern with. Because of that, at the University of Northern British Columbia I am advocating an awareness budget that should be built into that institution's operating budget. It will ensure that there is considerable awareness by northern students that there is going to be a university in the north for the north. That is the biggest determining factor. If you have a parental and a student expectation that university is the way to go, you will have good participation. If it's

[ Page 9436 ]

not there, we know that the participation rates — we can see it geographically in the province — will decline.

The participation rates in Vancouver and the lower mainland area within commuting, biking or bus distance of SFU or UBC are double those in the rest of the province. It's just because there is the expectation — that ease, that knowledge — that a post-secondary education is achievable: it's within reach, within grasp and within commuting distance. It's something the student seeks. If it becomes a bit more difficult or the parents have some sort of aversion or lack of interest, you won't have the participation rate.

One more note I would like to pass on to you is that the socio-economic profile of students in European countries where tuition is free is similar to B.C. and Canadian patterns where tuition is charged.

MR. JONES: I can see I'm going to make no headway with this minister with regard to the impediment that the financial situation creates for students in attendance at post-secondary institutions. The minister believes that because we've had an oversubscription of places, because we turn away students every year and don't have any extra spaces left over, the fees that students pay are not keeping them away. It's a specious argument that the minister uses. If he studies the demographics of the student population in British Columbia, he'll know that financial considerations are a major factor in keeping students away.

I do agree with him about attitudes — they are important as well. I don't dismiss his argument about attitudes, although he dismisses my argument about economics. It's not just two times that of the lower mainland. For example, the participation rate in the lower mainland is roughly three times what it is in Prince George. Hopefully, the University of Northern British Columbia will be a major step in addressing that one.

Again we go back to the root cause, and that is the underfunding by this provincial government of our institutions which has resulted in these high tuition rates. Very clearly what we see is a government that does not give the appropriate priority to funding our post-secondary institutions.

This minister and members opposite love quoting figures — as the minister did a little while ago — from the 1972 to 1975 period. The operating grants to universities as a percentage of the total provincial expenditure in 1972-73 were 6.6 percent. In 1986-87 they were 2.7 percent. So they were going down between 1972-73 and 1986-87 when this administration assumed their mandate.

Guess which direction it's gone since then. Is it going up, or is it going down? It was 2.7 percent in '86-87, and right now it's down a notch to 2.6 percent. In terms of percentage of the provincial expenditures in the overall budget, we see post-secondary education becoming smaller and smaller. We see no commitment or priority there on the part of this government.

The bottom line is that only Prince Edward Island pays less in terms of the provincial operating grant per full-time-equivalent student. On a per capita basis in 1989-90, the Canadian average was $475 per capita; in B.C. it was $389. That was in 1989-90 — last year. We see the fundamental underpinning is years of neglect, and years of education not being a priority with this government.

Still, today, the minister talks about Ontario and the small increase there. Ontario still contributes far and away a higher number of dollars per capita to post-secondary education than does British Columbia. Only Prince Edward Island contributes less.

We see turnaways. We see students not being able to get the courses they want. We see fees going up. We see class sizes going up. We see students with less opportunity to meet with their professors. We see less tutorial time. We see less staff support services for those students. We see more demands on all the employees of the institutions. We see an aging professoriate. There's only one conclusion we can come to when we talk about the student experience: they are paying more and getting less.

We've also seen in recent years the cancellation of a number of programs for natives and for the women that the minister talks about. Despite promises, we have seen very little action on improving the serious problem of literacy in this province. We see very little action in terms of this government's responsibility for English-as-a-second-language classes for adults. In my community, only a couple of weeks ago, one hundred people were turned away from adult ESL learning experiences in one school. This government is not living up to its responsibilities to provide new Canadians with the opportunity to develop language skills. At one school there were one hundred turned away in my community.

Another disturbing trend that I would like to discuss at length with the minister as we go through the estimates is labour disputes. We have enjoyed a long history of relatively harmonious labour relations in the post-secondary education sector. The minister talked about the Douglas College situation, which was quite a turning-point in our history — protracted, bitter, difficult labour disputes, which for the first time in British Columbia history put students at serious risk of losing credit for the programs they had taken.

We see a second instance with the Vancouver Community College dispute. We see those 1,500 students sponsored by Employment and Immigration Canada losing their sponsorship, losing their support for child care, having to take their children out of child care facilities and perhaps not getting them back in, having been put on a waiting-list for some two years. It was a very serious disruption to the lives of those 1,500 students. Had that strike been settled a week earlier, that would not have happened; those students would have maintained their sponsorship.

For the first time in British Columbia history, we see labour disputes seriously impacting on the lives of students as they never have before. We see students losing courses. They study hard all semester;

[ Page 9437 ]

they give up jobs. Then they get caught up in a labour dispute and end up suffering greatly.

This Minister of Advanced Education appoints, through order-in-council, the employers in the colleges where these disputes are happening. The minister suggests that it would be inappropriate for him to interfere, yet we talked about the president of the CFS. It was reported that you had said to her that you would do what you could to get the talks rolling again in the Vancouver Community College dispute.

Very clearly there needs to be something done; some leadership needs to be brought to bear. We cannot afford to have these disputes carry on to the lengths they have and to see the students suffer the way they have. The minister has a responsibility here to design a process for a quicker resolution to these unfortunate labour disputes.

We have some problems. In 1989, despite all the words of the government, we still see in the participation rates of university enrolment per capita that British Columbia is still tenth out of ten. In number of degrees granted per capita British Columbia is still tenth out of ten. As I mentioned, there has been some improvement in the student financial aid program, but it's still a long way from those of other provinces We are at or near the bottom in virtually every category, except tuition fees.

It's a sad state of affairs in post-secondary education in British Columbia. I know the minister will want to respond, and then my colleague from the Cariboo would like to make a few remarks.

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I'll argue. I don't think any examination whatsoever will agree with what the member has said. The post-secondary community in British Columbia is extremely well served by this government. It's an extremely good system. It's comprehensive in its design, in its process, the transferability of college students, the ability for it to deliver programs, and I speak of the Open Learning Agency as well. I don't think you'll find any credible critic of our system in British Columbia, and I will put it up to any review that you would care to suggest. I'm very proud of it, and I think we all should be. As a matter of fact, my notes from your first comments indicate that you said it was a good system, and so I would have....

MR. JONES: Despite Social Credit.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've been the government since 1975, so if we were going to bring the system down, I'm sure we would have done it by now. It's a good system and it's because of it.... Don't forget, you say "Despite Social Credit, " but which government built Simon Fraser, your alma mater? It was the Social Credit government. Which government introduced the comprehensive community college system with university transfer? The Social Credit government. W.A.C. began that in 1968, and it was a very good process.

MR. JONES: Kicking and screaming.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, nonsense! Listen, I was there. It worked very well, and it's a system unlike any other in Canada — a superb system.

In any event, I wanted to discuss a couple of things, and I understand my colleague for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is going to make an introduction, so I'll take my place, but I do want to respond with a few more comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has asked for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to introduce to the House today Mr. Brian Herrin, a teacher from Hillside Middle School in West Vancouver and 50 of his students.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member introduced some statistics from Ontario, and I want to comment on those. We spend the same amount per student as the Ontario government does. They have a higher per capita cost because they have better participation. I don't particularly think that's good for British Columbia, but I can assure the committee that we are spending the same amount per student as that other province, and I do want to do everything I can — and my colleague for Comox did that in terms of access — to make every effort to improve the participation rate.

Let's get down to labour. It's been strongly suggested during the two labour disputes we've seen in the post-secondary community in the last six months — Douglas College and VCC of last week — that government shortage of funding is causing these disputes. That doesn't answer the question of the very successful labour negotiations that have gone on. Seven colleges have settled quietly and quite successfully and with everybody happy, including the College of New Caledonia in Prince George. They went to negotiation in the fall of this year. They successfully concluded a very good settlement, so obviously it's not the funding process that's doing it. There must be something else. Maybe there's a political agenda somewhere that I am not aware of, but when I see so many colleges settling successfully, I have to know that the system is funding adequately.

It's interesting to note that in the Douglas College situation most of the students were accommodated. Simon Fraser was quite accommodating in terms of the transfer students. I know a few non-credit courses were lost, but for the large part the transfer students were very well looked after. It's interesting that as the Douglas College dispute became more and more critical in terms of time and dragging out, when the Douglas College administration published ads in the morning Province and in the afternoon Sun stating what the faculty demands were, a settlement was reached at 7:30 that evening. The public was finally

[ Page 9438 ]

made aware of what the demands were. Obviously the faculty themselves felt the demands were very high, and when they reached the public eye, there was a decision and a conclusion and a settlement reached at 7:30 that evening.

So I cannot fault the system. We believe it's appropriately funded. I think the majority of British Columbians do. Obviously an awful lot of faculty do, because they've been settling successfully. For me to, as you suggested, intervene in a labour dispute.... That may be something your party would do, but I can assure you that it's not something we would do. There is a labour relations bill in law in British Columbia and we abide with it, and when an employer and employee group have a difference of opinion, I think the last thing government should do is intervene.

With respect to the last comment you made about my comments to Pam Frache, they were this: I said I would urge both sides to return to the bargaining table. That's what I told her, and that's what I've always said. That's consistent with our position, and I think to do otherwise would be foolish and not in the best interests of good labour relations practice, and I'm sure you're aware of that.

I think that covers off just about everything you wanted to discuss, so with that said, I'll take my place again.

MR. ZIRNHELT: It's now some four weeks — or will be on Wednesday — that I raised a question with the minister in question period about the closure of the advanced education and job training centre in Williams Lake. I hope that he has had time to gather the technical details that he wanted to provide to me and will provide them when I finish speaking.

I would like to underscore the fact that the municipal councils in the Cariboo have both supported the continuation of an operation there, and the minister has said, I believe, through the program that it's somewhat more efficient to provide the service through the office in Prince George. I would like to ask him if he would provide us with his definition of efficiency in terms of servicing the population in the Cariboo, which includes the Bella Coola area and so on. I would also like him to comment, if he wishes or if he can, on the fact that there is a large number of native people — 10 percent of the school population — who have difficulty getting access to higher education and may find themselves better served by a local office — that is, those who wish to go into technical training.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: About the only thing we can say at this point is that we have consolidated our staff into a smaller number of centres, and we believe that's the efficient way to manage things. I don't think the door is totally closed on that consolidation, but it is at least for this budget period.

Apprentices will still have a designated apprenticeship counsellor, and these counsellors will still visit with the apprentices. I'm convinced from what I've seen, in terms of these discussions with staff, that the apprenticeship system will be well served and so will the apprentices.

I'm glad you asked me about natives and native education, because I know that's very important to you. I think it's important to all of us who represent the central interior and other rural parts of the province. I would commend to you the report that was published and co-chaired by Gordon Antoine and Dr. Peter Jones with respect to native education in the province. It was a first-class work, finished about a year ahead of schedule because of the enthusiasm of the committee members, and one which I am going to be implementing in conjunction with the Premier's task force on native affairs and the Cabinet Committee on Native Affairs as quickly as possible. It points out a lot of things, but most convincingly it points out to me, in its studies, that the best native education is done by natives. The Nicola Valley Institute is one example of that; that's a Cariboo College operation. At Cowichan there's an example of native education going on that is excellent.

Clearly we see that if we're going to succeed in the area of native education, if we're going to take a very low and embarrassing participation rate and improve it, it's going to be done by the natives themselves. They're clearly the best teachers when it comes to putting programs together for native people, and they're the best at curriculum design. Anything they implement seems to work remarkably better than what is done by the non-native community. That's one of the major thrusts of the recommendation given to us by the native education advisory committee. I can assure the member, and all hon. members, that we are acting on that one just as quickly as we can, and with some enthusiasm, because we really know that we're in a deficit position here with respect to native education.

I think what the Gordon Antoine committee pointed out to us was a remedy. We put a lot of money and energy into native education prior to this, but it didn't appear to be all that successful. We feel that we've been given a better recipe. We feel that the work that has been done is going to be productive, and we feel that by implementing the programs that have been suggested to us, we will have a far better participation rate.

I don't know what more I can say at this point. I'm sure you've read the Antoine-Jones report; and if you haven't, I will certainly see that one goes to your office. I would commend it to you, because it contains some very good suggestions and, as I said, ones that I want to see implemented as quickly as possible.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I have read the report, and I have discussed the findings with Mr. Antoine on the occasion of being in Merritt. I have followed it with interest, because a lot of students from our area attend that college. I agree with the principle that the more it's under their control and the more they're involved in the teaching the more effective it will be.

My second area of concern has to do with the line in the estimates under job training, apprenticeship

[ Page 9439 ]

and labour market policy programs. I notice a drop of approximately $1.1 million. This line in the budget includes the development of human resource development strategies. This is also the funding for the Provincial Apprenticeship and Training Board. I would like to ask the minister if he could explain what cut in services we can expect from this decrease in funding.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm just trying to get a handle on the technical data that has been provided to me, if you'll just excuse me for a moment, Mr. Member.

The change is because of one of the components of that line item in the estimates, which is the B.C. summer program. It dropped from $10 million to $8 million, which is why you see that decrease. For colleges and universities, $2 million, which is no change, and support of $5 an hour, to be topped up by institutions. There was a reduction in the federal summer program, but not in ours.

The other components of the program are the tourism component — we support travel information centres — at $2 million; that's up from 1.4 million in 1990. Support of $6 an hour is up from $5.50 last year, which is a bonus of 50 cents per hour for those who complete the full contract. The small business program is a job subsidy for small business. We support one-third of the cost, to $7.50 an hour, compared to half the cost, to a maximum of $6 an hour, last year. The total cost is $4 million, down from $6.6 million in 1991, but we also recognize that unemployment levels are down and the private sector demand is less.

MR. JONES: I want to pursue for a minute the situation that my colleague from the Cariboo raised with respect to the training and enterprise centre. In that community there is economic development activity that is going to require that those resources be there. The minister seemed to imply that that region would be adequately served from Prince George — that site visits, as are appropriate, would be made. I'd like to ask the minister: has there been an increase in staffing in Prince George? If not, given the heavy caseload of the current staff, how does he see it as being possible that the Cariboo region — a tremendously large region at a tremendous distance from Prince George — is going to be adequately served without increased staffing?

[4:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, it's not a tremendous distance. Secondly, although we are enacting efficiencies, we are going to continue a high level of service. You'll recall, hon. members, that this is an age of a lot of technologies that didn't exist in years past. There are many methods we can use to ensure that the apprenticeship system is well served.

I'll tell you further that if you or the second member for Cariboo can identify serious deficits in the system, I'll be more than happy to revisit that concern and have a look at it, because I don't want to see deficits in the system any more than you do. If you can identify any, or if you have apprentices who are not being served as well as you think they could be or as well as you think they were before we made this change, then I have no problem at all with looking at those concerns and doing whatever I can to identify, address and correct them. It's not in my best interest to have any apprentices fall through the cracks, get bad information or in any way be disserved.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to ask a couple of questions about your old alma mater, CNC. As you know, we're minus a principal there, but we are also minus an academic vice-principal. From my discussions with some people in that area, that is a grave concern to them. I wonder what the minister is doing to try to assist or to make sure that staffing is up to appropriate levels at CNC.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is an answer that probably only the member will understand, and perhaps some of my staff. The answer to number one is probably as a result of number two, but I'll leave that alone.

In terms of institute financing, all institutes are funded on an FTE basis. As students come, financing flows to them. There is adequate funding for CNC to enter into contracts with a principal, and they're recruiting now. And there's adequate funding for them to form and have other administrative positions as well, including an academic vice-president.

MRS. BOONE: I certainly understand that there's adequate funding; I wasn't questioning the funding. But I understand that they're not making the move right now to replace the academic vice-principal, and that's a concern to many in that area. I just wonder if you are in discussion with the board, assisting them in getting a vice-principal, or what. I know that a principalship is obviously something that you have to go to great lengths on and probably quite far afield in order to fill, but I believe that the academic one is of grave concern to many of the people in that area. Can the minister please advise me?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All I can say is that the job.... The CNC board is now describing — as is common throughout the province — the position of the chief executive officer as president. They have a presidential search in place, and I understand that's going along as well as it can be. They have been looking for some time now, and I would suspect they will soon have an announcement to make. But I don't think any board would want to hire a 2-I-C, an academic vice-president, in the absence of a president. One would hope that the president would have input to that very important position. As a matter of general principle, I would not advocate anyone stepping in and hiring an academic vice-president without the president being in place. So I think what they're doing in terms of sequence makes absolutely good sense.

[ Page 9440 ]

MRS. BOONE: It may make good sense to you, but it's leaving a void in that establishment that I think a lot of the people are feeling very strongly about.

I'd like to ask you some questions about the expansion money that was applied for some two and a half years ago. There was some $7 million expansion money to get rid of those portable classrooms that actually should have been replaced 20 years ago. That money has not been coming. I know at some point they were questioning whether they needed it because of the planned university. But the classroom space is there for the college, the classroom space is still in those portables, it's still inappropriate and they still need that $7 million for the expansion.

Can you tell me, please, if that $7 million is in the budget for the expansion of CNC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The capital budget for CNC is going to be contingent upon the University of Northern British Columbia and its plans for first- and second-year university programs. As you know — or maybe you don't know — we have agreed that there should be no discussion of who is going to do first and second year, and to what extent at Prince George, until both presidents are in place. I think that's the appropriate stance. I came to the conclusion a couple of months ago that to mandate university work at one institution or the other was really not appropriate in the absence of the chief executive officers of both institutions. So what we have said is that those two CEOs, in conjunction with the CEOs in the other two community colleges in the north, will have to discuss how they are going to manage the whole university transfer, first- and second-year offerings. We will make capital decisions at that point. I realize that may not be acceptable to the member, but nevertheless that's the position we have to take as prudent managers.

There may be a vacuum at CNC now in terms of an academic vice-president, but there hasn't been an academic vice-president for at least a year now, since Don Anderson moved out to Terrace. So they are able to get along without one, I guess, reasonably well. Now that they're in the stage of hiring a president, I think it wouldn't be prudent management for the board or for me to suggest they hire an academic vice-president in the absence of a president. I think it would create a bigger problem if the board were to go out and actively recruit a very senior person without the president being in place to be part of that recruitment process.

MRS. BOONE: I hear what the minister is saying, and I can accept the reality of the two heads getting together to figure out the best means of delivering the services and therefore trying to figure out the classroom space and the expansion contingent upon that.

Obviously you are going to have to make a decision within this next year as to what's going to happen. If the decision is made within this year as to who's going to deliver what, where is the money going to come from for the expansion at that time? Is there any play in this budget to allow for that expansion if it turns out the college does need the money to expand to get rid of the portables? Is there money in this budget to apply for?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a good question. Yes, there is, because the first money would be planning money, as it always is in post-secondary capital financing. You advance the money to do the planning. That's an amount that's available now, and in the following fiscal year the heavy capital construction money would be in place. But there is a planning budget available in my budget now to do whatever planning would take place within this year, if it was to take place.

MRS. BOONE: This planning budget, then, would be on a one-year basis. Is that correct? The minister can just nod if I'm correct on that. Okay.

Out of the $6 million for the access program and enrolment, can you tell me what portion of that budget is allotted for start-up for the university?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's been in the paper. It's $2.5 million. It's public knowledge.

MRS. BOONE: Out of that $2.5 million, is that all of the total money that is coming into Prince George at this time? Are there any additional moneys allowed for CNC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, the $2.5 million is for the board of governors of the University of Northern British Columbia, and it's for their operation as a board for this fiscal year. There's another amount for CNC on top of that, because $2.5 million is simply for the UNBC. I'll get the CNC figures for you as best I can. We don't have them here, but their budget will be nominally increased by the standard amount that all institutes are going up by this year. I can't quite give you — nor the committee, nor the institutes — an exact figure, but it would be in the neighbourhood of 6 plus percent. I wish I could be more forthcoming and that I could give you a hard number, but at this point we're still unravelling our budget, and I can't. I can assure you that it will be enough to allow them to operate. I'm not anticipating any serious problems at CNC or at any other institute with respect to their budget.

MRS. BOONE: You anticipated my next question, but you never really answered it. Can you tell me what will be paid for out of that $2.5 million? Will the site selection or the site actually be paid for? What else will be paid for out of that $2.5 million?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's at the board's discretion now. As you know, Madam Member, we are looking for Crown land, so site could be no cost at all. But there would be....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not completely, but nevertheless it's not something we have to cough up a lot of money for.

[ Page 9441 ]

I'll tell you something else. It's common practice a within the lands branch, when you are looking for I land for public purposes, that if there is a very good piece of private land, and the owner of that private land would do a trade for some Crown land, then we can do those types of negotiations as well. That process is available to the university, and that's a common process. In terms of that site acquisition, we're not considering it a major budgetary expense.

[5:00]

What we are considering doing with the $2.5 million is having the board run their operations. As you know, they've already hired an executive assistant to the chairman. They have recently leased some space in an office building in Prince George. Of course, they have travel expenses, because there are members from throughout the region. There are two academic members of the board from the lower mainland region. They are going to have to start spending some serious money on recruiting, and that's an expensive business. Of course, when a president is recruited, that person will have to be paid a salary. They are developing institutional policy. They'll probably be doing some preliminary spending with architects and that type of thing. There are lots of things they have money to spend on.

Murray Sadler, the chairman of the board, described it to me this way. He said that it's like a box of sausages: every time you pull one out, there's another one linked behind it — another idea. There are more things we have to do; they just keep coming and coming.

I think the $2.5 million is certainly going to look after their operations and expenditures for this year.

MRS. BOONE: As the minister knows, last week Mr. Sadler stated that he doesn't think the university will be able to open until late 1992 now. I'm going to ask you a question I asked you when the implementation planning committee made its report, and that's with regard to making sure our students have access right now.

As you know, a couple of years ago — or maybe it was just last year; it seems a long time ago — the previous Minister of Advanced Education made arrangements with the colleges to provide third and fourth year through the colleges. At that time, our own college board refused that because they wanted to go for a full university, which obviously was something we all wanted.

Right now, though, it appears that it's going to be a longer wait than we had anticipated. Our students are being denied access. I'd like to ask the minister if he is prepared to go to the board with a deal similar to what they have in Nanaimo, Kelowna and Kamloops — for our students there to have third and fourth year on a temporary basis until such time as our university is in place.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The committee should know that some time ago the Interior University Society arrived at the conclusion that they would not have a college university model. It would not be acceptable to them. The reason was that they saw it as a branch plant operation. They saw that this had happened too many times in Prince George, and that hey were going to have something different from what exists at Kamloops, Kelowna or Nanaimo. There would be a fourth university — in the true sense of he word "university" — located in Prince George with its own autonomy. Autonomy was the important word and the important issue. It had to be that way. I don't think anyone will accept anything less.

I can assure the committee that if I were to suggest, as the member for Prince George North has, that I saw an opportunity for a university college even in the interim, it would be viewed with some alarm by the university and Prince George communities because it would be seen as second-best and as a half-baked arrangement of what they really wanted.

The chairman of the current board of governors said that what he wants to do in terms of a university is not do it quick but do it right. Pardon my lack of adverbs. I agree with him, and I think most of the community does. I don't see any major disadvantage to students as opposed to the year '91 or '92. Who knows? The new president when hired may take the opportunity — particularly if that president is quickly hiring faculty — to run out of facilities other than the completed or partially completed university. That's a decision that will be made by the full board in conjunction with the president.

However, I'm in total agreement with the president of the university interim board of governors, who has said: "We are going to do this properly. We are not going to have portables. We are going to have a full university facility. We are not going to have a second-rate institution; we are going to have a first-class institution. If that can't be put in place till 1992, then that's the way it has to be." I totally agree with that. I'm not going to accept, as the NDP would suggest, a second-class institution.

MRS. BOONE: I don't think anybody is suggesting a second-class institution, and certainly nobody wants to see us go on an ad hoc basis and have our university working out of portables. However, our students are the main purpose here, and they are who we're working for. Our students should have access to education right now.

When the university society and the existing board at the college made the decision not to go with a university-college model, they did so on the basis that they wanted, as we all do, an autonomous university. That's something that I think we've achieved. We've got that; we have our commitment.

Let's make sure that we have access to our students today — or, rather, not today but certainly in September 1990. Our students should not have to travel to Vancouver or, as they are doing right now, to Kelowna or Kamloops in order to get their third and fourth years of university. We are not going to have our university till 1992, because we want a first-class university and will not accept anything less than that.

But in the meantime our students are suffering, and I think that it behooves this minister to make that opportunity available to the college; once again, to

[ Page 9442 ]

offer them the ability to have third- and fourth-year university. If they choose to turn it down, so be it, but surely the minister can see that the first priority should be to make sure that access, as stated in the ministry guidelines, is available to our students. It is not available to the students in Prince George, Mr. Minister.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You can say all you want. I don't think I'm going to change my opinion, and I don't think the board is going to change its opinion. I think we're going to carry on as quickly as we can and ensure that we have a full, autonomous university in place as quickly as we can. As I said, when an incoming president is hired, he or she may decide there's a better way of doing it.

As you may know — and in the case of Simon Fraser, where you attended school — when one begins hiring faculty, many of them come with graduate students. There may be something that can be done quite quickly in temporary quarters. That approach just isn't in the cards right now for the chairman of the board, and I can't say I disagree with him. That's the way it's going to be.

I would like to say, however, that I have an answer for you with respect to the CNC budget. We have increased their access by 163 students; that's about a 7 percent student increase. So we recognize the increase that has to take place at CNC in a financial way. I can't tell you how that translates in terms of cash, but the important thing, as you said, is the student and that student access at CNC has been increased by that amount.

MR. CLARK: I'm delighted to participate in this debate for a few short minutes. The nice thing about the minister's comments about them going a little slower is that in 1992 it will hopefully be the member for Prince George North who gets to cut the ribbon on the new university. So we appreciate the government taking a little time to take us into the next election so that we can have the privilege of those opening ceremonies.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Yes, of course. Unlike the other side, we will invite them to participate in the opening ceremonies in 1992. They might even get to hold one-half of the scissors, if the member is still a member after the next election. We'll ask him to participate with the government of the day in the opening ceremonies.

I don't want to take too much of the House's time on the university of Prince George, but I've long been a believer in the University of Northern British Columbia and other universities. I think the model in the Scandinavian countries is a useful one in terms of universities being throughout British Columbia rather than centred just in the lower mainland.

I wonder if the minister could clarify for me briefly.... I know he has talked about it being a full university. I presume there won't be a medical school, a law school or an engineering school. I wonder if that has actually been nailed down in terms of the full range of services that would be provided by the university.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a good question. Just for your benefit — and I don't imagine you looked at it, because this would have been informative for northern members only — we did two major studies. One was commissioned by me as minister of state, and I had some other ministers of state help me with it.

The previous minister commissioned a major work that was called "The Report of the Implementation Planning Group." It was extensive. As a matter of fact, it was about $700,000 by the time we were finished, but they used consultants and did some major research....

AN HON. MEMBER: That was expensive, not extensive.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's easy for you to say. It was extensive and expensive. It surveyed the employer community. I'll get to your question quickly. It pointed out that the biggest need from the employer community is for teachers. As we surveyed school boards, we saw the retiring people.... People aren't coming up; lower mainland graduates aren't coming to fill in as teachers, so there's a need there. That's one professional school that is an obvious one.

Social work was another. The business community had a need for business administration and computer science graduates. That was identified. Aboriginal studies was identified, and then the whole area of resource management.

There was a very good — about a 40-page — work done by the Council of Forest Industries and the RPF group of the central interior, saying that there should be a forestry school at Prince George with representative forest studies done throughout the interior. Those were the recommendations.

Engineering may come, but I would suspect, in terms of the applied sciences, that forestry would be first. Resource management, as well, is a major thing. One thing we found out is that there are a lot of people who are interested in funding chairs for resource management. B.C. Hydro was one, in terms of what they want to look at, and they've got a lot of money to spend in the north. Other industries and associations have come forward saying: "We would like to be part of research here." That's the whole resource management.... Briefly: education, social work, business administration, aboriginal studies and the applied sciences as they apply to resource management studies.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's answers. They seem rather obvious, in terms of fitting nicely with the needs in the community, particularly resource management and forestry,

[ Page 9443 ]

which is an area of growing importance as we move into scarcity of resources.

I wonder if there was any analysis done as to the differential that might be required to attract faculty to Prince George. I assume it's a very competitive world for faculty. We've lost some international people in resource management to other places in the world: for example, Buzz Hollings, who is a renowned ecologist from the University of British Columbia. Given that our lower mainland universities have had some difficulty in attracting staff — although it's not quite as bad now as it was a few years ago — I wonder if there is a differential looked at in terms of attracting faculty.

Secondly, related to that, I wonder whether it's likely that the operating costs, as a result of that, will be higher for the university of Prince George than the B.C. average, and what that might entail — if you can give me a percentage figure.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: IPG was given the task of identifying and presenting a viable university operation in Prince George serving the north, using the figure of 135 percent of the cost of what happens in the lower mainland to justify the successful operation.

On the basis of that, Treasury Board has accepted that. I am having some lively discussions with Treasury Board about maintaining that 135 percent figure. I want to win that battle, and I'm sure I will. Generally, we've concluded that the government is sort of the kick-start percentage you need.

The legislation, when it comes through, will be far more informative. I think we could have a healthier debate. I know your background in economics, in terms of what you finally see in the bill with respect to the above-average funding....

Let me tell you briefly about attracting faculty. I spent January 1989 and January 1990 going across Canada looking at smaller universities. In 1989, just as a point of interest — because I had an interest — and this year as the Minister of Advanced Education, I found out that the small universities can attract first-class faculty, and they can attract first-class faculty for a couple of reasons. They will allow good faculty to be far more flexible in terms of the research they do, There is far less administrative bureaucracy in a smaller university. Time and time again, I saw and was given examples of international-class faculty going to small universities.

While I was at Laurentian in Sudbury, as a matter of fact, I saw an international-class rock mathematics physicist attracted from the University of Alberta to Laurentian, and this guy is a world leader. But he was allowed to do more of what he wanted to do in terms of geological studies at Sudbury. There's a good mining school there, and they took him away from the very well funded, oil-patch-funded University of Alberta. Those are some examples of how a small school can be a very good school and attract good faculty. Faculty aren't in it to make money; otherwise they'd be doing something other than teaching at a university; they're in it for the pursuit and love of their discipline. I think if you can give them that, they will come to your school.

[5:15]

MR. CLARK: I actually might come back to this. I want to talk briefly about university and college tuition fees. I know the minister has made some comments about this. I think they're too high. I realize the financial constraints that exist in the province. But I also want to make the point that I personally don't think I could go to university today. In fact, I know I couldn't go to university today if I were graduating from high school in East Vancouver. From my high school, of about 100 students graduating — and that was a private high school — four or five of us, or a few more, went to university, and only about three or four of us graduated. That hasn't changed much, but I don't think I would be one of that handful going to university. I say that because tuition fees are now becoming onerous.

There are two ways in which the government can move. One way in which the government has moved is that tuition fees have risen dramatically, but support for student loans and grants appears to have recently risen somewhat. So there is a philosophy that says we could have tuition fees that are high and would restrict access, or we could have tuition fees that are high and we could subsidize people who can't afford to go. That's a second option. Or we could have lower tuition fees and perhaps a different arrangement for subsidy. Those are all within the realm of political debate. But my problem is that I think high tuition fees and a high level of subsidy or a high level of student loans is inappropriate, because I think tuition fees are psychological barriers to entry, particularly among working people or children of working people. It's that initial barrier.

When I went to university, my parents made barely too much money for me to be eligible for any student assistance but not enough money to be able to afford for me to go. So I worked through it, and I also was privileged enough to get an academic scholarship for every semester I attended. But today, looking at the numbers, my family's income in today's dollars would still make me ineligible for any assistance, and tuition fees now, I think, are onerous. In that respect, even with the part-time job I had then, if I had it today — and they're becoming scarcer — I couldn't attend.

With respect to that, I'd like to ask some questions about government policy. As I understand it, student fees now comprise about 18 percent of the operating costs of a university. When I went to school, I think it was about 9 percent. I want to know if the minister could tell me whether that is likely to rise. I've heard rumours that 20 percent is government policy.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The member for North Vancouver says 25 percent. Is there a government policy with respect to moving those fees up to a fixed percentage of operating costs and then freeze them at that

[ Page 9444 ]

percentage to rise with operating costs? Does the government have a policy in that regard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I took the position, when the concern was raised in January about tuition fees, that I would not make a comment on it, nor would I impose a freeze, nor would I impose a rollback. With that same philosophy in mind, I certainly would not impose any percentage increase or raise; it is not government policy to do that. I think we have responsible boards of governors, and they will make those decisions as they see fit. Also, as I said, I felt that the tuition increases I saw were responsible. I can tell you that they were less, in percentage terms, than the amount of funding we have provided to the institutions. Our general lift last year was 7 or 8 percent, and their increases were 5. So one cannot say that we're shortchanging them — as many did. We felt that they were making appropriate and responsible decisions. I certainly would not advocate at any point the government policy being that a politician — a minister — should set tuition fees. I think we have responsible boards, and they can make those responsible decisions.

MR. CLARK: With all due respect to the minister, it's not good enough to hide behind the board of governors. You appoint the board of governors — the government appoints the board of governors. Okay, let's put it this way. The government is condoning an action by the board of governors which moved rates up from 9 percent when I was in university ten years ago to what they are today, 18 percent of operating costs. Surely, if you look at all the post-secondary institutions, and they're all moving to roughly 18 percent of operating costs, there's a policy in place. The government can perhaps say it's not their policy, but I don't know how they can really say that. Presumably there is a policy of moving those rates up to a higher percentage of operating costs, and the indications are that the boards of governors of various institutions have indicated that they feel 20 percent is the optimal rate. Does the minister have a comment on the fact that over the last very few years the percentage of university costs covered by students has risen dramatically?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Twenty percent, 18 percent, 15 percent, 17 percent — no matter what figure you arrive at, it is not government policy. I'll say again, we have never stated that we will tell boards of governors what we feel tuition ought to be. We feel that we have a responsibility to fund the institutions on an FTE basis, on a demand basis — which is what we do — and we certainly let them manage their own affairs as best they can, and I think they do a responsible job.

One more comment I would like to make. The board of governors under the University Act in British Columbia is 15 people in number, six of whom are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so it's not a majority of the board that we appoint. It's a minority of the board that we appoint, and there are a variety of other bodies that contribute and nominate members to the board of governors, but the government is not in the majority.

Although you make a point that in the 1970s students paid far less in percentage terms towards the cost of their education, in the 1960s they paid far more. Who knows what's right? As I told your colleague from Burnaby, it would appear that with the increased stress on enrolment, with students knocking on the doors of every institution in the province, tuition fees are certainly not an impediment to education.

MR. CLARK: First of all, just to comment on governors of the university, surely it's the government's financing decisions which have an influence on tuition fees. Indirectly they influence the board of governors through their funding mechanisms. That has presumably resulted in the rapid rise through the restraint years. When government was constricting the financing of universities, the result was rising rates.

I didn't see, by the way, the half-dozen appointees of government issuing minority reports or commenting negatively on the direction of the board of governors. So presumably, while the government doesn't have majority control, it has some influence over their decisions, and presumably that influence has been to support the direction they've moved in with fees.

I differ very strongly with the minister on the difference between what's right and wrong. As I say, I'm a product of the 1970s, a product of that small "l" liberal approach to education, and I probably wouldn't be here if I had been under today's regime with its tuition fees. I also think that it is an impediment, and even though there are many students knocking on the doors of institutions, clearly our participation rate is still too low. I think the minister has acknowledged — at least previous ministers have — that it is still too low, and if we want to address it in an equitable way for parents of modest means, then tuition fees are the appropriate mechanism to do that.

To bring me to the Prince George university and tuition fees, the boards of governors of institutions have been levying tuition fees at roughly 18 percent, linking tuition fee increases to the operating costs of the university. That is now consistent. Whether or not it's government policy, it's certainly the universities' policy across the board to have a percentage of operating costs paid for by students. Given that the operating costs are significantly higher in Prince George, is it fair to assume that the tuition fees in the university there will be 35 percent or so higher than in any other institution in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The implementation planning group presumed in their deliberations and their conclusions that their tuition fees would be the same as the lower mainland universities. The 35 percent over was to account for the lack of economy of scale that we have in the big universities in British

[ Page 9445 ]

Columbia. Let's face it: all of our universities are big, if you look at them in a Canadian context. In the North American context, they're all very big. I think Stanford is 8,000 students. Some of the major universities in the U.S. are smaller than any of our current three.

MR. CLARK: I want to go very clearly on the record for the minister. I know he's stated that the board of governors are independent of government to a great extent. But we have a consistent policy of 18 percent of operating costs being paid by students. I want to have the minister stand here and give an assurance that the students will not pay more than the provincial average because of those higher operating costs which are going to take place in Prince George — higher faculty costs, higher heating bills and other associated operating costs with respect to the distance from some major centres.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a charming and seductive invitation for me to respond to you in that manner, but I'm not going to take the bait, if you don't mind. I'm going to say once again: I don't believe it's appropriate for me to set policy with respect to tuition. We have stated a policy at UNBC with respect to how we would fund them. I want to deliver that, and I'll be doing that in legislation. But I would decline to say that there's going to be a 17, 18, 19 or 20 percent policy imposed by me. The board of governors will set what they feel is an appropriate tuition fee regime for that university. They will certainly have the freedom and the responsibility to do that. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they came in at the undergraduate level a little bit lower than a lower mainland college, but that will be entirely their determination to make.

Of course, there are all sorts of other wrinkles they may consider, such as travel subsidies and other things. And don't lose sight of the fact that accommodation in Prince George is far less than it is in Vancouver or Burnaby, and less than it is in Victoria. So a student attending in Prince George has a big advantage already, plus the fact that travel distances aren't as great. There are many monetary advantages in going to a university in Prince George rather than Burnaby, Point Grey or Oak Bay.

MR. CLARK: I'll just end by saying that I strongly disagree with the minister when he says it's not appropriate for the government to be looking at the question of tuition fees. I think it is precisely a critical impediment to access to university, both in real terms and psychologically. I think the government has an obligation to show some leadership in terms of their position with respect to tuition fees. I think they should be lower. The minister has said he thinks the current rates are, I guess, acceptable.

[5:30]

Beyond that, with respect to Prince George.... I know the minister said it was an inviting comment, but I think it would be appropriate for the minister and the government, who are looking at a university in Prince George and have made a commitment to a university in Prince George — and we support him on that.... He's looking at higher operating costs, and I think it appropriate that those higher operating costs not be a burden on the individuals who attend that university. Given what the minister has said, I think it is very likely that tuition fees in Prince George will be significantly higher than elsewhere, especially in light of the minister's comments that there are other economic advantages up there. He has opened the door, I think, to say to the board of governors and others that the Prince George university will likely see a 35 percent higher tuition fee than any other university in British Columbia. I don't think that's acceptable, if we want to promote equity among the regions. I don't think it's acceptable for the government to absolve itself of responsibility with respect to tuition fees.

I certainly would support a modest tuition fee freeze, as some students have suggested. The financial implications for the province of British Columbia are minor. I think the psychological and real impact it would have on student access would be significant. I think it would be nice to see some leadership from the Minister of Advanced Education, but I'm afraid we're not going to get any.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're getting a lot of exercise leaping to conclusions, but I'm not going to let you get away with it. When the IPG studied the question of tuition rates at the University of Northern British Columbia, they did so on the basis that tuition rates would be the same as at the other institutions. They will maintain that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Forget the percentage: the dollar amount. That was the basis they used in advancing the argument to government that there can be a university in northern British Columbia. I will not accept your conclusion — that the tuition costs are going to be that much higher — because they won't be. That's an incorrect assumption, and I can't let that stay on the record without commenting.

You said one more thing that I disagreed with on the general issue of managing tuition fees. I'll say it again: I think that most boards of governors, most university presidents and most people who have studied this situation — including a lot of students I've spoken to — will agree that what the boards of governors do is responsible and is not an impediment to students entering post-secondary institutions. For government to meddle, as you are perhaps suggesting you would if you were government, is in itself irresponsible.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Just a quick question to the minister, and then I will take my place on the list of speakers. Thanks to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) — he's given me a spot.

Quite frankly, I just couldn't resist. When the minister was talking about the university of the

[ Page 9446 ]

north, he promised his commitment to a first-class university. He wasn't going to settle for second-best; he wasn't going to settle for portables. If I correctly understood him to have said that, I would ask him to join me in convincing the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) that we need more attention paid to the general education system so that our kids don't have to put up with a second-class education in communities such as Surrey, Richmond and Delta, where we have to put up with portables. I'm just asking for your commitment in that lobby.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The public school system in British Columbia is just first-class, thanks to that great minister from North Peace.

I understand that you've had remarkable growth in Surrey. Because of this great Social Credit government, Surrey and the Fraser Valley are taking off in terms of growth, and that's remarkable to see. It's the sign of good government, I guess, and it's one of the growing pains one has when one has such remarkable economic development in Surrey, Richmond, Langley and Chilliwack. I will talk to the minister, and I will say: "Because of good government in Surrey and British Columbia, we need to improve their school system." I'm sure he'll listen to me. I thank you for your compliments and suggestions. We'll look after Surrey as best we can.

MR. BLENCOE: I hadn't intended to get into the debate about the university in Prince George and the minister's comments about the independence of fee setting and the fee structure. On the one hand, he says he's not going to interfere, but somehow he guarantees that the fees will not be as high as my colleague is saying. I just don't know how he intends to ensure that that happens, if he's going to follow his earlier comments that he would not interfere. It will be interesting to see how all that comes about, when the operating costs are clearly going to be higher in the university in the north.

I have a couple of issues I wish to raise with the minister. The minister may not be able to say much about the first one, but I just want to get something on the record about it. Maybe the minister can comment as far as he is permitted to do at this time, because there may be legislation pending.

Over the last year or two, I and a number of my colleagues have had to deal with the question of private training institutions. One in particular in my community is CompuCollege. Some time ago I had cause to conduct a fairly extensive investigation by my staff by talking to instructors and students who had a number of concerns about that institution. There are others, of course, that have come to light.

In a nutshell, the issue is the problem of course content, poor equipment, low quality of instruction, private institutions that claim to do certain things and guarantee certain kinds of credentials, equivalency to university training or public college training, extremely high fees and students generally feeling that they are entering those institutions to get something that in the end they really don't get, in terms of the training promised to them.

The difficulty is that these institutions advertise that they are provincially registered; the inference is that they have the stamp of approval of the Ministry of Advanced Education. Consequently, when students see that, they think it's being monitored and supervised, that the instructors are fully qualified, and that the ministry is monitoring and checking these institutions. Without going into details, there clearly have been some problems in the past.

Many students that I have come in contact with have been able to document that they have paid $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000 for some of these courses. Many of them have gone into huge debt, and when they come out, they then, for instance, have a course in accounting and go ask the various accredited accounting agencies or chartered accountants if they recognize these institutions. "No, we have nothing to do with them." The diploma they've got is virtually worthless, but they've spent a lot of money.

I wonder if the minister could share with us what we can anticipate. Is this area going to be cleaned up? Are students enrolled in these facilities going to know that the ministry is going to have tighter accreditation, monitoring and supervision? When students pay their good money, are they going to get what they say is offered to them in the training program?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a former Deputy Speaker, I will handle this one as delicately as I can, because we have a little procedural problem here, but I want to answer the member anyway. We know from our standing orders, Parliamentary Practice and Journals that one cannot discuss the necessity for legislation during estimates. We won't do that, will we? Nor can one discuss a bill, but we don't have one right now.

Let me just say that later on this session, Mr. Member, we may have an opportunity to better discuss your concern with respect to a legislative remedy. Let me put it that way.

However, let's get back to your specific concerns, and I know you've had a few in Victoria. I appreciate what you're saying.

CompuCollege was a problem. As I understand it, there was an overzealous registrar who decided he or she would increase enrolment considerably. The institute was just unable to handle the number of students that were there. But the problem was corrected, and that registrar is now seeking other employment. Everything is going well. I have other notes here. The school has appointed a new administrator, has provided students with appropriate textbooks for their courses of study, has arranged for the disgruntled students to receive additional training at no extra cost and has assured ministry staff of its willingness to keep open its July 1988 offer to provide additional training at no extra cost to students who felt that the training was deficient.

So our job training branch has insisted that CompuCollege live up to what they have promised and deliver to the consumers what they expected when they applied to CompuCollege. I am satisfied at this

[ Page 9447 ]

point that they have lived up to what they were supposed to do.

MR. BLENCOE: There may be some other little issues I could take up with the minister vis-à-vis CompuCollege, and the minister's quite correct that if there's legislation coming forward, we don't want to get into that. Suffice it to say, Mr. Chairman, that we will certainly welcome changes.

AN HON. MEMBER: We haven't seen them yet.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, we'll welcome them and hope they'll be good. To finish this section of what I want to bring up today, all I can say is that I've met and talked to many young people who, very simply, have been taken to the cleaners, lost a lot of money and got nothing afterward. We now have over 400 of these institutions in this province, and I think one of the basic problems is just that there is not the staff to monitor them, to check on them, to make sure they are doing what they say they are.

I want to move on to one other issue, and then I will leave my part for today. I had reason to correspond with the former minister on the concept of a two-year training program for early-childhood educators. The Vancouver Island Cooperative Pre-School Association had asked the former minister to consider a two-year training program for early-childhood educators. They put forward good reasons for why they felt that would be a good, necessary idea. The former minister, by the way, did respond, saying at the time that the ministry — this was at the end of June last year — "will be reviewing all social service and health programs in British Columbia," that a comprehensive review would be carried out and that appropriate delivery systems would be investigated. I wonder whether the cooperative preschool associations, not only in my community but across the province — there are many of them — are going to be considering some changes to expand the training program for these early-childhood educators.

[5:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At this point, no. First of all, I wasn't aware of the letter that had been sent to my predecessor. I believe the early childhood education training that's taken throughout the province is adequate. If there is a deficit there, I'll have the staff review that submission, and I'll review it myself. But at this point I wouldn't be prepared to comment further. I do thank you for your interest, and I'll look at that.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his response. I will take the liberty of sending the information I have to his office.

MS. MARZARI: What a delight it is to face a budget in which post-secondary education is probably receiving more money than ever. I have to say, having been a critic of post-secondary education for some years, that it's wonderful to see some money finally being pushed towards post-secondary education. We stood here in the House and discussed child care educators having their training cut from two years to ten months a few years ago, against the protestations of all of the childhood educators. We've seen women's programs and training programs literally being cut, with no real sense of the inventory of programs in the province. We've seen improper inventory of women's programs and improper matching of jobs to training. We've canvassed the student financial situation over the last number of years in post-secondary. Students are less and less capable of having their housing needs met and their tuition payments made.

But just for one brief moment in this discussion, I would like to take us to a kinder and gentler place: the possibility of a small liberal arts college nestled in the hills of the West Kootenays — a ready-made university that existed for British Columbia just a few short years ago. It was developed with the idea that students should go to university to learn to read, write and think. What a pleasant scenario: four years of university education in which people talked to each other, small student body, qualified faculty, a lovely setting, people learning and actually broadening their minds, doing the business of educating themselves rather than being trained up and shipped out into a hostile world.

That university actually did exist. Some people think of it as Brigadoon now. It did exist, and six years ago it disappeared. A couple of things have disappeared in Nelson-Creston over the last couple of months. For example, one morning people woke up and found the Robson ferry had disappeared. Six years ago the university disappeared — the David Thompson University campus was closed down. Five hundred students found that they didn't have a university to go to — a beautiful campus, a high demand, a willing community, faculty and students who actually read, wrote and thought, and a willing city council. You couldn't imagine a more apt community or a more appropriate place for a small university.

But this Social Credit government looked at the $3 million budget for this small university and said it cost too much. A $3 million budget is a tiny amount compared to a $250 million budget for UBC; it's a tiny amount for 500 students — and growing. If it had been kept open, we could have been looking at a student body that numbered 2,000 by this point.

But here we are now with a closed campus that this government managed to put out of business. For six years the community has been saying: "Reopen this university." Why are we looking at creating a new university in the north and developing transfer programs for third and fourth year in community colleges for university degrees? Why indeed should we not be looking at reopening the Nelson university?

We even have assistance along that line. We have an active society in Nelson that has never given up. It is a small group of diligent souls who actually believe in reading, writing and thinking. They've managed, with the help of their city council, to keep the library open. They've managed to keep the space clear and to

[ Page 9448 ]

actually think about retaining and developing the new spirit of the Nelson university.

They have worked closely with the Canadian International College which has opened on their campus, I should say, with millions of dollars worth of subsidy from federal and provincial levels to provide funding for a college that is basically privately owned and from which the profits are distributed offshore.

Yes, we do have a small group there ready to give rebirth to the notion of the David Thompson University in Nelson. What are they asking for? The society has put together a small brief, and what they are asking for is such a pittance. They're asking for student financial assistance — SFA. They're asking for student financial assistance so that the students who go there will be able to qualify for the assistance they need. They do have 50 or 60 students actively engaged in learning on their campus. They're doing correspondence and work with Eastern Washington University, and they're working with volunteer faculty. They're asking for student financial assistance. They're asking for a little bit of capital so that they can keep the library going and perhaps expand their little campus. They're looking for a letter from the member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Dirks), a simple letter giving their society some status as a non-profit charity, able to issue tax receipts. They have been asking for this letter since December 1989.

What does this society get and what has it received? What has your ministry given to this small society, asking for the pittance it's asking for? What has it received? It's received no letter. The member for Nelson-Creston has not considered giving the society a simple letter declaring them a legitimate society, capable of perhaps receiving charitable status. It has not received one cent of capital, although the city council has been putting forward a little land grant for them and a small amount. No capital from this government; no assistance.

They don't ask for much. They ask for books, not big machines, and they ask for faculty, not dust-free environments for fancy computers. They ask for students, not for postgraduate salaries. What they have received is SFA; that's exactly what this government has given them. Not in the form of student loans and grants — just SFA.

What you have given that community, however, in the form of lottery grants, is $1.5 million. What you have given the Canadian International College, which sits on the old campus, is — with the federal government — millions of dollars in land grants and money. This is very difficult to understand. How do you manage to take a good thing — where people read, write and think, and fill all the qualifications for what a university should be about — and allow it to be turned into a private college?

Everybody is in support of the college; there's no problem with the private college. But think of the human capital of our own kids who could have gone there. Think of the potential of that small university tucked into those hills. Think about it for a minute, and then think about the member for Nelson-Creston, who, at the time it was closed down, said: "Well, there's a silver lining in that closure." I gather those words were used. Basically it made sure the NDP vote around Nelson-Creston would be disappointed. Think of the politics that were played in the closure of a small, pretty, intellectual university that believed in the liberal arts and believed in all the things that you want to spend millions of dollars on in the rest of our province. Think about it.

While you're thinking about it, may I ask the minister: do you ever intend to give the old David Thompson some status? Do you ever intend to see that campus opened again to give some support to the small society that struggled for six years to give it life?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, can I use the same language she did?

First of all, there's no Advanced Education money in that private school, I can assure the member. There never has been and never will be — nor has there been a request.

You may recall my discussions with the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). We discussed a proportionate kick-start for the University of Northern British Columbia of 135 percent. We saw that as appropriate, and the studies we did concluded that you could in fact operate a university in northern British Columbia with that type of increase and assistance.

I can tell you that at the time of closure, Nelson was running at 200 percent over the cost of the lower mainland universities, which we found totally unacceptable. For the 500 students going there, we could have educated 1,000 at any other institution. That was not acceptable to the people of British Columbia, and it would not be acceptable to your voters in Point Grey either, Madam Member, I can assure you. When you take that amount of money....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The university was declining; it could not have worked. It was the right decision at the time, and it had to be made.

In the meantime, in the Kootenays, we are increasing funding to Selkirk College. It's a grand institution. It's doing very well, and the people in the Nelson-Castlegar-Creston area are being very well served by this ministry.

I have been told to wrap it up. So with that said, I move the committee rise, report great 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. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.