[ Page 9637 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Customs preclearance of Alaskan cruise visitors. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9637

Mail-order sale of lottery tickets. Mr. Sihota –– 9637

Forest Resources Commissions. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9638

Nurse retraining program. Mr. Perry –– 9638

Rent review policy. Mr. Blencoe –– 9639

Park Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 25). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Messmer)

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 9639

Mr. Cashore –– 9640

Mr. Gabelmann –– 9641

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 9642

Ms. Edwards –– 9643

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 9643

Mr. Barlee –– 9644

Mr. Williams –– 9644

Mr. Perry –– 9646

Hon. Mr. Messmer –– 9646

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 9647

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Rose

Mr. Loenen

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today on behalf of yourself, the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to introduce to the House Mr. Miguel de Calheiros Velozo, consul of Portugal, stationed in Vancouver. Would the House please make him welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It is with great pleasure this afternoon that I introduce some very good friends to the House. Visiting us from Abbotsford are: Karl and Erna Steyrer; Karolina Wildeman, Erna's mother; and Mrs. Wildeman's sister, Stefie Hackl, visiting from Austria. I ask the House to give them a good, warm welcome.

Oral Questions

CUSTOMS PRECLEARANCE OF
ALASKAN CRUISE VISITORS

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Tourism. Last week I raised the very serious problem to our tourist industry in British Columbia of the U.S. Customs' refusal to preclear cruise-ship passengers destined to British Columbia. Could the minister tell the House what steps he has taken to solve this problem and what response he has received to date from the federal administration?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It's unfortunate that the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) isn't present today, as this certainly has an effect on him. Let's all hope he's doing his inaugural visit to his constituency today.

There is probably nothing more important to tourism than the question of customs and entries between British Columbia and the United States. I would like to inform the member that it's not just the Vancouver area that has the problem with customs; it's a problem in other areas of the province as well. It's a serious problem in the city of Victoria. I can assure the member that I have met with the top Customs officials in Victoria. I have had my staff meet with the senior Customs officials in Vancouver. We have talked to the United States consulate in Vancouver. We have sent a very strong letter to the federal Minister of Tourism asking for his intervention with his counterpart in Ottawa to make strong representation to the United States. I say, in all sincerity, that it is probably the greatest problem we have in British Columbia in the area of tourism. I'm very pleased the member on this side of the House is addressing the problem on behalf of her constituents.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the minister to take the occasion to read page 19 of the Standing Orders in terms of responses to oral questions.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Until such time as members understand the rules are there.... If the members want to change the rules, that's fine, but while the rules are there, the Chair is bound to enforce them. There are strict terms and conditions under which questions can be asked in question period. I will allow one supplementary.

MRS. McCARTHY: I appreciate the answer given by the Minister of Tourism, but I'm concerned about the time. We are getting into the peak tourist season of our province, and this is going to affect very many tourist industries throughout our province. If the minister does not get an answer that is positive for this province in the next few days, will he go back to Ottawa and fight on behalf of our constituents in the hospitality industry?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We are awaiting a response from Ottawa. Once that response is received — we have already had discussions in Victoria with intergovernmental affairs — the decision will be made whether the Minister of Tourism or intergovernmental affairs will follow up with Ottawa when the response from Hockin is received.

MAIL-ORDER SALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS

MR. SIHOTA: Approximately $100 million a year is generated by the sale of lottery tickets offshore through mail-order operations. Could the Provincial Secretary confirm that his office has received a report from CLEU dealing with the matter of the mail-order operation and their selling of lottery tickets offshore?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I definitely am aware of CLEU, but when and how that report was received I will have to take on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: New question to the minister. The report is entitled "Offshore Sales of Canadian Lottery Tickets." Will the minister confirm that the report expressed the concern that these mail-order operations are subject to fraud and will inevitably be the object of takeover attempts from the criminal element?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I believe that relates to the first question the member asked, and I took that question on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: New question, again, to the Provincial Secretary.

This is a report that is dated June 1988. One would think that the minister — once he took assumption of his office — would have had it brought to his attention. In any event, will the minister confirm that the report concludes that upwards of 50 clearing-houses which operate in Canada are making a fortune reselling Canadian lottery tickets? The majority of those operations are in British Columbia. The report

[ Page 9638 ]

goes on to express the view that these operations are contrary to the Criminal Code and should be shut down.

Could the minister advise the House what steps his ministry is taking to shut down these operations?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: That was a new question.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have another new question?

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, I have another new question.

MR. SPEAKER: Let's have it.

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Solicitor-General. This report has been forwarded, as I understand, to his ministry as well and they have had the report for two years and the opportunity to act on it. Could the minister explain why British Columbia has not shut down these operations, as they have in Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not the minister responsible for the Lottery Corporation.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the report has made its way from the Ministry of Attorney-General through to the Solicitor-General to the Provincial Secretary and back again. It's touched the desk of each one of these ministers. The report expresses the concern— this question is to the Provincial Secretary — that no action is being taken in British Columbia with respect to this questionable activity, because British Columbia has no law in place banning this type of activity. Could the Provincial Secretary tell this House what steps his ministry is prepared to take to now bring forward the law that the report recommends and calls for?

MR. SPEAKER: The question calls for future policy.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, obviously the member opposite is having some difficulty hearing and understanding. He's got a script in front of him, which he continues to read from. All the questions he has asked have been subsequent to that first one that I took on notice; therefore I think they are out of order.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the silence of this government on this 400-page report is stunning, because the report estimates — as I said earlier on — that about $100 million a year is generated in lottery funds to this province.

MR. SPEAKER: There is another time in this chamber to debate issues. Question period is the time for asking questions. If the member has a question, I would ask him to ask it within the confines of our standing orders.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the question to the Provincial Secretary is this: is the reason that your government has chosen to be soft on crime due to the fact that this type of crime is paying big bucks to the government?

FOREST RESOURCES COMMISSION

MR. RABBITT: My question is to the Minister of Forests. In recent days, some individuals have called for the removal of IWA president Jack Munro from the Forest Resources Commission. Can the minister assure this House that under this government, the workers in British Columbia's forest industry will continue to be a part of the decision-making process regarding the future of British Columbia's forests?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can assure the member that nobody has approached me regarding Mr. Munro's position on the Forest Resources Commission. But I do want to assure him and all the members and all of the workers in British Columbia that Mr. Munro represents them very well on the Forest Resources Commission, and I have absolutely no intention of removing him from that. In fact, he's one of the strongest members on the commission.

NURSE RETRAINING PROGRAM

MR. PERRY: The federal government recently suspended their job retraining program, affecting 100 licensed practical nurses, who were upgrading their status to that of registered nurse. In light of the critical nursing shortage in this province, which continues, has the Minister of Health decided to reconsider his position that this problem is none of his business?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, health care is very much our business and very much this government's business. We're committed to the provision of quality health care in British Columbia. What I said was — and I'll repeat for the member, and perhaps that member would be so pleased as to take that message to his federal MPs, who are very quiet about this issue: that's a federal program, unfortunately, in terms of unemployment insurance funding. I would hope....

MR. G. HANSON: More GST Tories?

HON. J. JANSEN: If that member wishes to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he could do so.

That program the member is referring to, Mr. Speaker, is a federal program. What I said was that I didn't think it was the province's responsibility to interfere with a federal program. Having said that, we're very much concerned about the shortage of nurses in British Columbia. The ratio of licensed practical nurses to registered nurses is a decision that

[ Page 9639 ]

rests with hospital boards in British Columbia — how they're to be hired and what numbers. I addressed the Licensed Practical Nurses' Association, last week, and talked about this issue with them. I'd be pleased, if the member has a genuine interest, to discuss those issues with him at another time.

[2:15]

MR. PERRY: A supplementary. We're not talking about the ratio of licensed practical nurses to registered nurses. We're talking about a program which allowed licensed practical nurses, who have families to support, to retrain through an unemployment insurance payment so that they could upgrade their skills and help meet a critical nursing shortage. We had a 25 percent jump in the number of nursing vacancies last year. Virtually two-thirds of the recently registered nurses in this province come from outside British Columbia. We have a critical shortage. Has the minister decided that he has some responsibility to help out these people — largely women — who are trying to upgrade their training and to help deal with the shortage in British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN: Unfortunately, many times it seems like members opposite have a number of questions, and they don't listen to the answer to the first question. We are very concerned about those issues as they pertain to health care in British Columbia, and we're very concerned about the response of the federal government in dealing with these issues. That is what I said, and that is what I repeat to you now.

RENT REVIEW POLICY

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the minister responsible for residential tenancy in the province. We continue to receive evidence that a minority of landlords continue to gouge their tenants. I have notices of rent increases here today ranging from $175 to $223 a month. These increases come from Surrey, Port Coquitlam and Victoria.

The question is: has the minister decided to review these increases as he did recently with a Victoria tenant and introduce, as he did, a closed-door policy of rent review? Will he introduce a decent legal approach to rent review in British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Future policy. The question is out of order, but the minister may wish to answer.

MR. BLENCOE: Has the minister decided to review these increases as I have suggested?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member who asked the question is a little bit behind time, because the opposition first talked about rent controls, and then they talked about rent reviews, and the latest that I see is rent referees. But if you read the fine print, it's still the unworkable system of rent control. We are very concerned about the people who are having difficulty finding rental accommodations or who may be faced with excessive charges for their accommodation, and we are monitoring that situation very carefully.

But I want to say that our policy has been that we would increase the supply of accommodation, and that would be the one way that problem would be resolved. I'm happy to say that there is evidence that the situation is beginning to change. The latest figures that I've been advised of show that the rental vacancy rate in Vancouver is improving; it's also improving in Victoria. It's only a small amount, but each month sees an improvement, and we know that it doesn't have to go very far before we get back to that good, healthy, competitive situation of free enterprise. That kept the rents down for the past five or six years, and it will keep them down for the years to come.

MR. REE: May I have leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Introductions were only 15 minutes ago, but if members wish to grant leave....

Leave granted.

MR. REE: On Saturday evening I attended the Canadian Jewellers' Association annual meeting in Vancouver, and at my table was a lovely couple from Providence, Rhode Island, who are now in the gallery. I would ask this House to give a very warm welcome to Michael and Doris Salvadore.

MR. SPEAKER: The Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) seeks the same leave. I'll ask the question carefully and listen for the no. Shall leave be granted? I hear several noes. Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and move second reading of Bill 25.

This bill demonstrates our government's commitment to protecting provincial parks by defining the legislation and boundaries of 23 more parks. This bill provides maximum protection for these parks.

In the Ministry of Parks we are fond of saying: "B.C. parks put the beautiful in beautiful British Columbia." We have three of Canada's highest waterfalls in our parks, and our marine park system is the best in Canada. We have 36 parks on the coast, and three of our most popular interior lakes have parks for borders. Mount Robson Provincial Park is home to the highest peak in the Canadian Rockies.

As I said earlier, our provincial parks put the beautiful into beautiful British Columbia, and that is

[ Page 9640 ]

exactly why, through legislation and policies, our government has given provincial parks the greatest protection ever. Our class A parks are dedicated to the preservation of natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public. No logging or mining are allowed in any of our class A parks.

As the Speech from the Throne foreshadowed, I am now coming before the House with a request to increase the protection. This bill attaches schedule C to the Park Act. It adds 23 parks to the list already protected by legislation. These are parks which receive our greatest protection. With this amendment, 103 parks covering 79 percent of the land area within our parks will be designated in legislation. This amendment more than doubles the area of parkland protected by legislated boundaries.

Let me say a few words about how we chose these parks to be added to schedule C. It is all well and good to enshrine park boundaries in legislation, but to do so without doing the legwork and the necessary planning beforehand would be an invitation to disaster. So how did we get to the point today with these 23 parks? Easily. We consulted the public. Each of these parks, with the exception of Strathcona, has a completed and approved master plan, a blueprint for the future which was adopted after full public involvement.

As you know, our government promised in December 1988 to legislate the boundaries of Strathcona. After extensive public consultation, we are now keeping our commitment to legislate its boundaries. We are working towards developing master plans in each of our 388 parks and recreation areas. I will come before you in the future with additions to schedule C once master plans have been adopted in even more parks.

This bill also undertakes minor housekeeping matters. For example, the bill repeals improper references to the Mineral Act and the Mining (Placer) Act and replaces them with a correct reference to the Mineral Tenure Act.

In conclusion, this bill will show the public how serious we are about protecting our natural heritage. Legislated boundaries are the best protection any government can give its parks.

I move second reading of Bill 25.

MR. CASHORE: This has been my first opportunity to face the new Minister of Parks across the House on a matter such as this. I want to thank the minister. He has been extremely fair in keeping me posted with regard to matters that were coming before the House. I very much appreciate the attitude, which I think has been a very parliamentary one.

We're going to support this bill. I am waiting for government applause.

Interjections.

MR. CASHORE: There are a few comments that I and a few of my colleagues would like to make.

The first is that during the time the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was the Minister of Lands and Forests in this province, the principle of establishing park boundaries was firmly put in place, and that process was entered into. Sadly, it has been the decision of subsequent Social Credit governments to manipulate and downgrade that to a process of using OICs.

This bill now before us is tacit evidence that this government has admitted the historic error of its ways in having allowed the political decision-making that is facilitated by that OIC process to be the order of the day to the detriment of public policy and our provincial parks. Sadly, and at considerable cost, the people of British Columbia have to pay for those mistakes.

The fact is that the people of this province, who have every reason to be very proud of the parks that we have.... I would remind you again that when the first member for Vancouver East was the minister, we doubled the amount of parkland in the province. That is something that has been a legacy for the province. It has worked very well, has enhanced efforts towards tourism and has been a most worthwhile thing.

What does this bill do? As well as doing the things that the minister says it's going to do, it enables the government once again to take credit for something that it has already announced, and so we're into that season of trying to get the greatest number of announcements out of something like this, which obviously has a positive ring to it.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: I would say to my friend from Yale-Lillooet that it shows your government's desperation to find something to be applauded now in this province. It really shows desperation. Further evidence of that desperation is the way that Thumper over there keeps going on and caterwauling and making all sorts of noises, because he really doesn't want to hear the appropriate things that we are saying.

It's an opportunity for yet another "B.C. Government News Update" on TV. I expect we'll see these ads coming out very soon, at a cost to the taxpayer — not to the Social Credit Party, I might add, which seeks to receive the benefit from those ads, but at great cost to the people of British Columbia. Yet there will be another issue of "B.C. Government News Update," I'm sure, that's going to cost about another half-million dollars to try and influence the voters with their own tax dollars.

[2:30]

The fact is that the government has swung back and forth like a yo-yo when it comes to boundaries. The policy of "a park is a park is a park" certainly hasn't been followed by this government. All we have to do is look at the situation of Bedwell Valley in Strathcona Park. So often we point to the errors of previous Social Credit governments, but this time we point to an error of the present Social Credit adminis-

[ Page 9641 ]

tration, an error made in 1987, when mining exploration was allowed in that park, an error that is going to be very costly to the people of British Columbia, because the ministry's steering committee has recommended that claims in that area be handled "in a fair and equitable manner." That means that because of the shortsighted decision that the government made to allow mining exploration in that park, the taxpayers are now going to have to pay compensation if that recommendation is carried out.

We can see a new category coming up on the Vancouver Stock Exchange: public policy futures. People will be able to invest in public policy futures without knowing where the boundaries are going to be at any given time. It won't have anything to do with whether there's question of extracting minerals; it will be extracting a pound of flesh from the public — for which this government seems to have too much disdain. Is this Socred good management? I think not; it's not good management.

I would like to ask the minister to state during this debate how many such claims there will be, given the other boundaries that the minister is legislating in this act. And what is the estimated amount of money that the people of British Columbia will have to pay to bail out this government mismanagement?

Another thing I want to point out is that again the government has admitted by virtue of this bill that the people who protested in Strathcona Park were right. By this bill, the government has admitted that the people who protested in Strathcona Park had a point. This government has committed the public disservice of forcing caring people in this province to go to those extremes, to risk being placed in jail, to do things they never in their wildest dreams thought they would do, because they recognized the disastrous impact of government policy in this area.

I think we should take a moment to recognize the significance of what those people did and how terrible it was that they were forced by this government into taking such a stand. This legislation indicates that this government recognizes that it was very wrong in the way it handled the issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. When we're on second reading of a bill, it is the principle of the bill that has to be discussed. I've read the bill up to and including schedule A, and from there on it appears to be merely physical definitions of the different parks being established. In second reading we should really be discussing just the principle of those items covered under sections 1 to 16. It's reasonably narrow in concept. This is not the time to debate items which might be put more properly during the committee stage or estimates of the Minister of Parks, so I would ask the member to judge himself accordingly.

MR. CASHORE: I think the point is well taken that this can be covered during committee stage or estimates, but it also indicates that in a general sense we're very interested in finding out just what it is going to cost the taxpayers of B.C. now that those boundaries have been established, and at least in having the record set straight with regard to "a park is a park." I would appreciate the minister's comments on that.

At this point, the bill also fails to follow through on a commitment this government made to support the Brundtland commission, which recommends that 12 percent of the land of any given area be set aside. Since this government is signatory to that, I am pleased to hear the minister say that there will be other park boundaries legislation coming in. But it would be more reassuring to have an indication that the government is going to keep the commitment to make available 12 percent of space to be protected, as is recommended by the Brundtland commission, which this government claims to support.

I would now say to the minister that I thank him for having introduced this bill.

MR. GABELMANN: My comments will be brief this afternoon. First of all, I want to ask the minister, when he sums up the second reading debate — and I recognize the potential conflict in terms of section 16 — to answer the question of how many provincial parks in British Columbia are not included in this legislation by statutory boundaries, so we have an opportunity later, when we get to committee stage, to deal with that question with the information.

Mr. Speaker, the minister in his comments included a line which went something like this: "There will be" — or there is — "no mining in British Columbia's class A parks." He didn't say it, but presumably he also means industrial activity. Technically that will be true, but that is true only when you draw a line around the mining operation and take it out of the class A park, even though it's entirely within the class A park.

So when we talk about how wonderful class A designations are, let's recognize that the reality is that we do have mining within British Columbia parks, in at least one case. I'm not advocating that it should be otherwise. I'm talking about Strathcona Park and Westmin Resources. There is general agreement that not much can be done about that until the ore body has run its course. But it should be remembered that the ore body is right in the heart of Strathcona Park — which is not in a class A park only because it has a line drawn around it.

We'll get into this in more detail during committee stage, but I think the minister has an obligation to provide the House with more information about the mining claims within those areas — in particular in Strathcona, because that really is a central issue here — that have been staked since 1987, when portions of Strathcona Park were excluded by cabinet order, made available for exploration and now are back in. But in the meantime, claims have been made.

We have no information. I've gone through all the government press releases, ministerial statements, committee statements and everything else, and I can't find any information that sheds some light on the status of these mining claims and the anticipated costs to the taxpayers. I appreciate you can't deal with it in precise terms; these are to be determined.

[ Page 9642 ]

But we don't have any ballpark understanding of what the implications of these claims might be. I think that is useful to this whole process.

Let me just say briefly in general terms that it's really a shame that we have this bill, because people were prepared to put themselves on the line and in some cases go to jail to protest government action which — to put it mildly — in the last four or five years has been absolutely disgraceful in respect to the constant revision of the boundaries in Strathcona Park and the attempts to open up that park for so-called recreation use, which is really another way of describing industrial use.

A couple of years ago, people were prepared to leave their work, their homes and their families to go up into Strathcona Park and put themselves on the line, to camp in the mud and rain in that particularly bad winter they were in there, and to face the consequences as they did — full civil disobedience — in order to get this government to come to its senses.

Finally — thankfully — the government is facing two things, which has led to this bill being introduced, in my mind. It is facing an election soon, and it is facing the fact that it's behind....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Not soon enough.

It's facing the fact that it's behind in the polls. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that if the government were not behind in the polls and the election were a few years off, we would not be having this legislation to enshrine park boundaries.

In 1987, a year after the election, when there was no fear of political consequences looming immediately on the horizon, the government was prepared to massacre at least one of our provincial parks in this province. That needs to be put on the record, because this kind of cynical politics really is what undermines people's faith and belief in democracy. I think that this sorry history in respect to provincial parks, in particular in respect to Strathcona, needs to be put on the record.

There is much to talk about in terms of that park, and I intend to take advantage of that during committee stage. Many, many questions remain unresolved, and I want to deal with those later on.

But I did want to put those comments on the record now, because hopefully this is the beginning of the end of a sorry chapter in British Columbia history. I hope, Mr. Speaker, it's not the end of a chapter; I hope it's the end of the book.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say a word in support of this bill because, as the last member who spoke said, it's very important that we be definite, first as to what is a park, and second as to what activity is allowed within parks.

When I had federal responsibility for parks, I could say quite handily, "A park is a park is a park," and no commercial activity, certainly of the character of commercial fishing or commercial forestry or mining, would be allowed in a national park.

We've had different kinds of parks in this province: class A, B, C. Essentially, we're consolidating into one class; it's "park." A park is a park, and it's a large area, generally speaking, in which no commercial activity, other than perhaps something related to tourism or recreation, will be allowed ever. It'll be a natural area, and left in its natural state to evolve naturally.

The mining industry, the forestry industry and industry in general ask one thing of government: that it be definite and that it lay down the ground rules with clarity and stick to those rules. The mining industry, to my knowledge, has no problem with the essential concept that a park is a park, and that there will be no mining allowed ever in a park.

While there have been circumstances — Strathcona is one in which we have had some mining activity within what was generally defined to be a park — those circumstances will not be repeated. Westmin Resources will continue to mine out the ore body within the area of claims that it has in Strathcona Park, but that's the end of mining activity in Strathcona Park.

As I said, the industry wants to know what the ground rules are. We still really have to tidy up the ground rules insofar as they apply to recreation areas. I would much prefer that they be called "limited use areas," because mining activity is permitted in recreation areas — certainly exploration is allowed. And if exploration is allowed, there's an assumption, at least on the part of those investing in exploration, that they'll be allowed to mine an ore deposit if they find one which is commercially viable. So we have to continue to improve the rules, the principal objective of which is to be very definite.

[2:45]

The Strathcona situation, as it evolved, is interesting. There was quite a specific recommendation by the Wilderness Advisory Committee advising the government that the boundaries be changed, that there be add-ons and exclusions from the old boundaries of Strathcona Park. The add-ons and the exclusions were enacted by order-in-council.

Essentially, the add-ons are remaining, and the exclusions — at least the substantial exclusions — are being put back into the park. There were, because of that announcement of orders-in-council, a number of claims staked in the Bedwell basin in 1987 and 1988. Those claims will have to be annulled, essentially by buying the claimants out. I think in most instances they don't have a claim that's worth very much.

Secondly, the amount of money involved will be relatively small, because very little was actually spent in developing those claims. Nevertheless, that is a recent series of events which shouldn't occur again.

We need to be definite about a park boundary. Legislating park boundaries is important. We will — I think the minister has said — be covering park boundaries to at least 80 percent of the total boundary of parks in the province. The intention, firmly, is to legislate all of the boundaries essentially for all time.

[ Page 9643 ]

I did say, Mr. Speaker, we still need to clarify and improve our use of language when it comes to recreation areas. But there should be no doubt, after this legislation is passed, that a park is a park and that parks will not be subject in future to any degree of commercial exploitation, especially of the nature of resource industry activity.

I have no hesitation in supporting the bill. I think the mining industry also supports it. Its concern is whether it will be drawn into other areas or be active in other areas which suddenly are proclaimed to be parks. We must have a process whereby areas that are desirable from a park point of view can be clearly identified as such, as early as possible, and we'll avoid or at least minimize this conflict between commercial interests and the broader public interest which wants to see parks remain as parks forever.

MS. EDWARDS: It's always pleasing to see that the minister has been reading what the popular will is, and the popular will currently is in favour of more parks and protected parks and areas that in fact protect the wilderness that is very precious to the population these days. Obviously the minister has been reading his polls. Good.

What he has also recognized, I'm sure, is the increasing resource conflict that is there. I have to hope that he has done that and recognizes that had he taken the warnings that were available to him he would have done this earlier, and would have legislated the boundaries earlier. As we become more populated, more industrialized and more technical, there is greater conflict over the use of the resources.

I am going to repeat what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) said. Frequently the minister and I do agree on some things. We just sometimes disagree on the interpretation of it, or how we should go about doing something about it. I agree with the minister that we need the certainty that comes with drawing these boundaries, which is why they should have been legislated in the first place. But what happens, of course, is that the minister did not say that several years ago; he didn't say it in 1987; he didn't say it when he introduced legislation talking about recreation areas and so on. It's only now that the minister has pointed out how important it is to resource industries to know where the boundaries are, and to know if there is a spot where they cannot explore and cannot develop and if there's a spot where they can.

This is extremely important to the mining industry, at any rate; it has become what they call their most important issue, as to where they will have access for exploration and so on. This bill certainly does give some degree of certainty to something that wasn't there before.

However, we still have Strathcona Park sitting there, with the problems that were created from another time. We have the particular problem of the Bedwell basin that everyone has mentioned, where the only staking that was done was of the public purse, because it's the public purse that is going to pay for the mistake that was made by not making clear earlier that there should be no claims in that area.

Mr. Minister, you referred to the public process that has gone on with every park — as you have said, every park that has been designated in this bill except Strathcona. Well, first of all, even if we lay aside Strathcona and why it's here with this particular process, we look at the other parks and the boundaries that you're talking about that are covered by the bill. Some public process has gone on that has not really been completed to the expectation of the public. I'd like to make it clear that that really should not happen. There are some public processes that have been in the works for a while, but the public still expects some proposals to come back to them, and that's not complete in every case, I believe. That being the case, it would have been just as well to complete a public process, to make the circle complete, before the minister goes ahead with this kind of thing, because it's very popular these days to legislate parks, and so we're going to legislate them as well as having them done by order-in-council.

However, in general I support the idea of legislating the boundaries and therefore will be voting in favour of the bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This debate is no stranger to you, Mr. Speaker, because in other movies we had the responsibility for parks, and had the responsibility for some of the issues that are being discussed today, particularly Strathcona.

I wanted to rise briefly, though, to speak to the issue of Strathcona, because there were comments made with respect to its creation and government's responsibility. I do want to set the record straight, because I think some errors.... Particularly the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has maybe left a little bit unsaid.

To give you some brief history, sir, in 1985 the government of the day, the Ministry of Environment, under the stewardship of the current Deputy Speaker, established the Wilderness Advisory Committee. This was a committee that toured the province and did an awful lot of good work. It was really well balanced in terms of its constitution and in its membership. It presented about an 80-page report to government, indicating how parks and other wilderness areas should be managed. In 1987 the government of the day responded to that committee. You'll recall, sir, from your previous portfolio, the orders-in-council that came from the Wilderness Advisory Committee.

There was some concern with respect to the boundaries at Strathcona and some of the activities that would take place there. By that time I had become Minister Responsible for Parks as well as Minister of Environment and was faced with the public concern.

I want the record to show that the government listened to that public concern. We appointed a committee which I called the Peter Larkin committee. Peter Larkin had been one of the members of the Wilderness Advisory Committee and was then asked to chair the committee looking into the boundaries of

[ Page 9644 ]

Strathcona and to make recommendations to government. Dr. Larkin and his committee did. The report was first-class. It surveyed the area that was of interest and concern to the people of central and north Vancouver Island. It made some strong recommendations to government about what should happen. It noted that the recommendations came from the entire central and north Island business community, the chambers of commerce, the municipal governments, the regional districts and the environment community.

It was on the basis of that that government really brought forward the regulations and the boundaries and made some input into the bill we currently see today. The second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts), who was Minister Responsible for Parks at that time, received that report and had cabinet recommend it.

I think this has to be on the record, because there have been some accusations that government has not acted in a responsible fashion with respect to the creation and maintenance of park boundaries and the expansion of parks. That is not correct. The record will clearly show that in all cases this government has, when alerted by the public, been most forthcoming in putting study groups in place, listening to the people of the community and indicating to them that it is going to listen.

MR. WILLIAMS: Come on!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've had more public input into the creation of parks in our government than you ever did in yours. There's no questioning that, and the record will show it. That's why I wanted to rise, because the Larkin report was really the genesis of what we're seeing this afternoon in the minister's bill. I think it has to go on the record that at all times this government — at least, this administration — has been responsive to public opinion, to the park needs of the province and to the people of the communities surrounding the parks.

With that said, I strongly endorse the bill. I urge all members to support it, and I thank the minister for bringing it to the House today.

MR. BARLEE: I am rather curious about several things in the bill. First of all, I think that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources compared things that shouldn't be compared. He said that there would be compensation, and he said that compensation would be made to the timber companies and the miners. Well, miners are a different breed than loggers. First of all, you can see the trees, but you cannot see the ore body. Many of the old claims in the parks are Crown-granted claims, and have been there since the 1890s.

What is their real value? Do these guys — some of these individuals are extremely sharp operators — want to mine the ore body, or would they rather mine the public? I'm rather experienced in the mining business, and it's most probable that they — most of them, by the way, side with the government — are going to mine the public much more easily. I don't think you've taken into consideration what you should do. Is there an individual, independent assessment of these properties? Have you gone over the index to the Ministry of Mines reports from 1874 to 1936? Was the original ore body exhausted? Is it depleted? Is there nothing left?

I think you really must assess this extremely closely. Otherwise you're going to end up paying $50,000 or $60,000 for a claim that is virtually worthless. But you won't be paying for it — the public will be.

I'm saying that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources was a little careless in his comments.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: He's a clever man, but I don't think he knows mining. If he did, he wouldn't have made those statements. So I'm saying: "Make sure your assessment is independent." For heaven's sake, don't take the word of the mining companies. The mining companies might drill right on the vein; they won't cross-cut the whole ore body. So if you are considering compensation, be extremely careful.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What have you got against mining?

MR. BARLEE: I've got nothing against mining or the operators in those areas, but I think we have to be cautious when we handle them. I hope that you will be cautious.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's fortunate that some work is being done by the present minister in this regard; there's a long way to go, though. Much was achieved during the '72-75 years. You people have been so busy spending 15 years rewriting history that you don't have any idea what history is in this province.

MR. RABBITT: We remember lest we forget.

MR. WILLIAMS: Do you indeed?

I'd just like to go through schedule B and note the parks that were dedicated during that period: Atlin Park, comprising some 232,000 hectares; Carp Lake Park near Prince George, comprising 19,000 hectares; Kwadacha Wilderness Park, some 114,000 hectares; Naikoon Park, comprising some 72,000 hectares....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Where is it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Naikoon? At Rose Spit on the northern end of Queen Charlotte Islands. Indeed, it is one of the most magnificent beaches in the world at Dixon Entrance.

[3:00]

St. Mary's Alpine Park was dedicated, 9,146 acres; Tatlatui Park, some 105,000 hectares, was dedicated during that period....

[ Page 9645 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What year was that?

MR. WILLIAMS: In 1972-75, Mr. Premier, when you were busy rezoning in Surrey.

Kalamalka Lake Park at Cosens Bay — the most beautiful park, in my view, in the Okanagan — is part of the Coldstream Ranch and was acquired during that period. Only in that period did we actually put cash money out for parks on a scale that has not been seen either before or since in this province.

In addition, Mount Assiniboine Park was dedicated during that period; Ruckle Park, just over here on Saltspring Island, was dedicated during that period because the Ruckles were so impressed with the administration of the day....

MR. REID: They probably left the province right away, too.

MR. WILLIAMS: And they sold the park at far less than it was worth, in terms of the public interest.

Schoen Lake Park came out of that period; Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Park in the far north — some 656,000 hectares — was dedicated in 1975; Top of the World Park was dedicated, 8,791 hectares, in the Kootenays. There you are — all in this bill, indeed.

So I would like to establish the record for the benefit of those who don't know anything about the history of this province and have been listening to the nonsense of their compatriots through the years and thinking it's the gospel; that's blasphemous enough.

The Friends of Strathcona are the ones I'd like to recognize today as well. If the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is talking about public input in that form, then indeed there has been more public input during the Social Credit years than we've seen before, where 70-year-old grandmothers had to stand in front of the drilling rigs in Strathcona Park to prevent any further desecration of the park.

Let's get it straight. This bill comes out of the hard work of the people in the Campbell River region from Denman Island, Hornby Island and the Comox Valley who fought to have that park preserved because they believed it should stay and be a park. Now I tell you, when some 70 responsible — often elderly — people are ready to go to jail because they want to see a park preserved, I commend them. If that's what the member for Prince George South is doing in terms of commending that public input during their regime, then I second the motion, but I don't think that's what he had in mind. So there you are.

What I find really interesting is that this bill doesn't include a lot of parks. That's the interesting question, and the member for North Island has said he wants to hear from the minister in that regard. And don't we all? Why aren't all of the parks included? There's a map here with lots of parks that aren't in this bill. Some of them aren't defined as parks per se. For example, the Purcell....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You were doing so well by staying in order for so long.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) could contain himself just for part of the day, it would be so pleasant.

We can't deal with things that aren't in this bill; I think the member is aware of that. Just the principle of the bill, and those matters in the schedule actually point it out very clearly. Those that aren't mentioned really can't be discussed at this time. Of course, estimates, when the House is in committee, will afford a wonderful opportunity to discuss these matters, or even perhaps in committee, but certainly not when the Speaker is in the chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: We all have our own interpretations.

I certainly wouldn't want to mention the fact that the Purcell wilderness and other areas are not in the bill. That wouldn't be in order, and I think it's not in order that they're not in the bill, but there we are.

The Brundtland commission has recommended that essentially 12 percent representative of the ecosystem of the regions within the jurisdiction should be preserved. Let's get it on the record in this debate that the New Democrats doubled the amount of preservation land and parkland during three short years, '72 to '75. That has not been equalled. Nowhere in the history of this nation has that kind of dedication toward wilderness preservation occurred in such a short period. It was a doubling of the park space and wilderness space in British Columbia in three short years. That's essentially why the map of parks in British Columbia looks the way it does.

You think about it: Naikoon Park, Spatsizi Plateau Wilderness Park.... These are incredible gems in this province. They would not be there in their present form had it not been for that period. So let's just make that clear.

But Brundtland is saying that even though we doubled it in '72 to '75, there's a need for doubling again in terms of their perception — and these are thoughtful, global leaders. And if you look at British Columbia — this incredible landscape of ours.... For those that have been around this province and have had the opportunity, as I have, to land on Mount Edziza, the extinct volcano in the Stikine country, or to travel the Grand Canyon of the Stikine, which is one of the wonders of the world, or to have helicoptered the river systems back of Bella Coola and Ocean Falls....

MR. RABBITT: Who paid for your trip, Bob?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, there you are. I think it's important. Maybe some of my colleagues here on the other side have not seen these parts of British Columbia. There are incredible places and very special places on this planet. And the Brundtland recommendations are probably seen in terms of jurisdictions that don't have as wide and rich a landscape as we have. So the Brundtland recommendations — in

[ Page 9646 ]

terms of the incredible natural heritage of this province — are probably modest in terms of the assets that we are lucky enough to govern in this province. So with that in mind, the bill has to be kept in perspective. It's an extremely modest step forward in a long journey that more and more citizens in our society are ready to embark upon. And we think that the future steps will be in the hands of others and that the Brundtland goals will be met in a very short period of time.

Are you still in that nasty mood? Get up and speak!

MR. PERRY. It is a pleasure to listen to the first member for Vancouver East, because I remember the excitement of that era when the new parks were created and announced. I remember the wonderful photographs of Dan Conrad, if I remember correctly, who went out and flew over some of the parks that the member for Vancouver East just mentioned: Naikoon and Spatsizi and Atlin. I remember in those days of government advertising we didn't have to borrow a deer from the provincial museum to make a good publicity photograph. In fact, it was even before the days when we tried to convince Americans that we could outdo Las Vegas in show business or sex promotion, or whatever it was we were trying to attract them here for, back in Expo year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps the member could relate this debate to the principle of this bill.

MR. PERRY: The relation to the principle of the bill is that I would like to second the argument put forward by the first member for Vancouver East. I see this as a positive step. It's only a modest step. It's something that we have long discussed and called for — making permanent park boundaries and legislation. So I welcome the bill, and I see it as a very constructive act in that sense. But I also eagerly await, as does the first member for Vancouver East, the expansion of the park system towards — or even surpassing — the Brundtland goal of 12 or 13 percent of the total surface area.

I would like to mention that I look forward to subsequent bills, since I don't see anything anywhere in this bill that would incorporate the Skagit Valley as a provincial park — a subject that's dear not only to the Speaker and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources but I hope to the Minister of Parks. It's where the Minister of Energy and Mines is presently promoting mineral development in an area that should be a class A park. I look forward to seeing that designation in a subsequent bill, if possible this session, so that once and for all we can put the issue of mining in the Skagit Valley to rest.

I look forward to seeing some inclusion in the future of heritage rivers and finally British Columbia's subscription....

MR. SPEAKER: Once again, hon. member, many of the issues you wish to bring up are not covered in the bill. This is not the format to do it. I must ask you to speak to the principle of the bill. The minute we start to stray on these things, the subject gets broader and wider. The Skagit isn't included, so we can't discuss it. We can only discuss things present in the bill rather than ones you may wish to have included. There is an opportunity for debate at another time, but not now. I ask the member to continue.

MR. PERRY: I beg your forgiveness, Mr. Speaker. I'll await instruction as to when I can raise those further — perhaps in the estimates debate. Let me just say that I look forward to visiting a few of the details during committee stage and that I am pleased to congratulate the minister on the positive aspects of this bill.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like everyone in this House to join me in welcoming 60 grade 5 students from Bakerview Elementary School in Central Fraser Valley. They are here to listen to some of this great debate, and later on I'm going to meet them in person. They're here with their teacher, Mr. J. Hardington, and some parents and other teachers. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the Minister of Parks closes the debate.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to say how much I appreciate the fact that both sides of the House support this bill, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have in the committee stage.

A specific question, though, was asked by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), which I thought I should give an answer to, and that was the number of class A parks in British Columbia today. There are 321, and 103 of those parks are legislated, in total, through Bill 25, which means that 218 are not legislated. Those remaining class A parks, by our policy, need the master planning process. What we have said in the past — and say today — is that the public must be involved in the master planning process. Once that process takes place, then we as a government will bring them before this House to legislate the boundaries.

The other question we've talked about today is the one that has really had a checkered past — Strathcona. I had the opportunity of going to Courtenay, first for a public hearing and later to make the announcement on Strathcona. There is no doubt that it has had a checkered past; there are many scars on the public who live in the area. Yes, we're the first to admit that possibly there were some mistakes made. But in the process of this government, we did listen to the people, and I believe that this cabinet and

[ Page 9647 ]

government have accepted the recommendations and made the right decision. Consequently, legislating the boundaries at this early date shows that this government certainly supports the Strathcona. As I said in a challenge to the people when I was there, the past is behind us, and we have to look to the future. We should get on with managing the parks, and the people have to start enjoying the parks. There's no doubt that it is a great park for all of us.

I must say that we consult the public before we take action. It's called evaluation before designation. As has been said before, there is no mining or logging in our class A parks. We believe that we have the finest park system in all of Canada, and this bill will make it even stronger. In conclusion, I move second reading of Bill 25.

Motion approved.

Bill 25, Park Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[3:15]

HON. MR. FRASER: 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, $265,076 (continued).

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I can't recall where we were when we left off, but I'm sure we were having an enlightened....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: SFA. Oh yes. The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) brought some discussion about student financial aid, and indicated that in her opinion perhaps we weren't doing well enough. Of course, in our opinion we feel that we are, although I did indicate — and I'll advise the committee again — that we are putting together an expanded database to better understand our own student financial aid system, to have a better look at and an analysis of where we may have some problems in applying student financial aid.

With the incredible enrolment pressures that we see throughout British Columbia, we know that tuition and lack of financing is not really an impediment for students to attend a post-secondary institution. At least, that's generally.

However, we feel that specifically there may be a class of students — single parents, for example — who don't have the advantage that many others have, and we're going to assemble a better database to try to identify those students who may need particular and specific assistance. I think that really sums it up for my comments on student financial aid, unless the members opposite — or anywhere in the committee — have more questions.

As I indicated in my discussions last week when we first entered this estimates debate, we have increased the amount of student financial aid considerably. We feel that we're treating the students well. We have established a ceiling on how much money they will have to pay back upon degree completion. We feel that that's adequate.

I think we're serving those students in the best manner possible. Of course, we're also serving in the best fashion the taxpayer of British Columbia, who is putting up some of that money for the loan system.

That said, I'll take my place and anticipate further questions by the members of the committee, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PETERSON: I have a few questions I'd like to ask that deal with long-range planning.

There have been some recent studies in terms of population growth over the next ten years in the Fraser Valley. The projections, because of our strong economy and the attraction of a beautiful place to live, most certainly show that population for the Fraser Valley over the next ten years is going to be increasing rapidly.

What I'd like to first of all know is: is the minister in tune with these studies? Is there some long-range planning to deal with the demands on our advanced education system — our colleges and universities? Basically, we have a lot of younger families moving in there who will be having children, and when they graduate from our excellent education system and want to go on for further training, we're going to have to have the ability to meet these demands. I wonder what the ministry is doing in terms of addressing them over the long range.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member addresses a very topical point. The Fraser Valley has the fastest growing population in British Columbia, and is the largest portion of the population of our province which is not served in a degree-completion capacity. In 1989 an estimated 13,500 full-time students participated in post-secondary education, but this is less than half of the national average participation rate.

The lower mainland communities, from Vancouver to Chilliwack, are forecast to grow by 640,000 people over the next two decades. Of this total, approximately half a million will be in the Fraser Valley.

In answer to this concern, we struck some time ago the Fraser Valley access committee which was convened by the three presidents of the community colleges, as well as Dr. Bill Saywell, the president of Simon Fraser University. They indicated to us in a report, which is going to be released on June 4, that there was considerable need for a degree-completion capacity in the Fraser Valley,

That report was largely internal to those four presidents, and it also begs some questions. So without trying to tip now what I'm going to be

[ Page 9648 ]

announcing on June 4, I do want to say that we need considerable public input in terms of how degree completion is going to be delivered in the Fraser Valley area.

There's a lot of difference of opinion there. Some say another campus of Simon Fraser University; others say a college-university model with the colleges — Fraser Valley College in particular. So that's something that we have to look at. That will be done, and I think that report can give us a good, sound basis for the development of degree-completion facilities in the Fraser Valley.

However, I would like to say that in response to the enrolment pressure in 1989-90, the last fiscal year, the ministry has added over 1,150 full-time equivalent student spaces for the Fraser Valley area, broken down in this fashion: 600 at Simon Fraser; 248 at Douglas; another 40 at Fraser Valley College; and Kwantlen, 276. So we have been responsive in that sense. In the 1991 fiscal year we're going to add another 1,243, broken down in this fashion: Simon Fraser University, 495 extra FTEs; Douglas College, 264; Fraser Valley College, 177; and Kwantlen College, 307. So we are increasing the profile of SFU and the three community colleges in the Fraser Valley considerably, and I think we're being quite responsible in that.

As I've indicated earlier, there is some work to be done. I think there is some analysis to be made. We will carry that out this summer and in the fall, to further identify the method by which we want to deliver degree completion in the Fraser Valley.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his question.

MR. PETERSON: I'm extremely pleased to hear that the minister and the ministry have got the future consideration and the demands well in hand; that certainly will make my constituents very happy.

If I could talk about the immediate future, I heard in the minister's reply that he'll be talking additional capacity in Kwantlen College. Kwantlen College has a campus site in Langley. I wonder if the minister could advise me, Mr. Chairman, if indeed the Langley site would be part of the consideration for the additional enrolment capacity. I know there is a lot of interest in that site; they've had it for a long time.

At the same time, there has been a big interest in the horticultural faculty at that site. Will that be addressed?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the second member for Langley for his genuine interest in post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley. I think, out of courtesy to all the Members of the Legislative Assembly who reside in and are responsible for the Fraser Valley, I had best leave further detailed answers to the member's question until our announcement of June 4. The member will be pleased, I am sure, and I would ask him to join me on June 4 in Langley, when we announce our future extension plans and our way of arriving at the design and the profile for the Fraser Valley area.

MR. JONES: I'm a little surprised, although it has been some time since we previously discussed his estimates, that the minister did not remember that the discussion of SFA was not about student financial assistance.

Maybe I could start off in what I think is a non-partisan way. If the minister would recall, at the end of our session a week and a half ago, on a Monday afternoon, it was my colleague the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey who described most eloquently and almost poetically the situation in Nelson. Perhaps the minister will recall that the member described Nelson as having a great history, a very proud history, as a university town, and how it has suffered greatly, not only economically but also culturally and socially, as a result of having lost the opportunity to be a centre of post-secondary education in the Kootenays. However, I think all members in this House, and members opposite in particular, who I know admire the entrepreneurial spirit, would be most impressed with those in that community who have worked tenaciously and hard, never giving up on the dream of resuming their rightful place in the Kootenays as a centre of post-secondary education.

One of the recent developments that I hope the minister is aware of is that of Nelson University Centre. It is a very small, city-sponsored, community-supported, non-profit, independent, non-sectarian, liberal arts academic community. That is one part of that dream of which I spoke that the community holds for the future.

They have a small staff of 14 who work largely, I think, on a volunteer basis. Half of that faculty have PhDs. They have a small number of students and they are working in conjunction with several other institutions, some of them in Washington State — in particular Eastern Washington University.

They would like two things, and they have probably made this request of the minister. I would be very interested in the minister's response to see if he has decided to do anything to help the Nelson University Centre in their quest to become a post-secondary centre in the Kootenays.

[3:30]

What they want is very simple. First, they want transfer credit. They believe that their courses are pedagogically sound, are effective and will stand the scrutiny of the post-secondary community. They already have transfer credit with Eastern Washington University and with a university in Halifax. They want students to be able to take some courses in Nelson and go on to other post-secondary institutions in this province and receive credit for their undertakings in Nelson.

The second thing they want is to attract more students — and I am sure the minister will appreciate that in order to attract students it would help greatly if those students had access to the student financial assistance program and the Passport to Education program. Students would then be able to be treated as they would in other institutions in British Columbia. I think the minister would appreciate some of the

[ Page 9649 ]

arguments that community uses, which are the same ones people used in establishing the University of Northern British Columbia.

They want the young people in that community to be able to take post-secondary courses in that community; to stay there; to not have to travel to other parts of the province, to travel to the lower mainland or southern Vancouver Island. In order to do that, they need transfer credit; they need access to the B.C. student loan program. Has the minister decided to assist that fledgling post-secondary community in any way?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I had forgotten. I was so charmed by the first member for Point Grey and her SFA comment that I had forgotten what she was referring to when she said, "SFA." She was actually just using that as a speaking point around the topic of David Thompson University Centre in Nelson.

For the benefit of the committee, in the summer of 1983 the David Thompson University Centre was closed due to low utilization which had resulted in exceedingly high per-student operating costs — essentially double what they were at any other institution in British Columbia. The government of the day — as a matter of fact, it was my colleague from Prince George who happened to be Minister of Education at the time — had to take the most unpleasant step and show some real courage in saying: "The public can just not be put to this expense any more. We cannot be spending twice as much per student in Nelson as we do in other centres and really be able to look the public in the eye with any responsibility or credibility."

So we took the difficult step in 1983 of closing down that institution for that reason and for reasons which are still applicable now. Nelson is a charming community; it's one of my favourite towns to visit in the southern part of the province. I've spent some time there and I quite like it. It's just a lovely city in the summertime. As a matter of fact, I spent a bit of my vacation there last summer. Nevertheless it has a declining population.

The area has had a declining population since its former role as the southeastern capital of British Columbia in the beginning of this century. So things have changed in Nelson. There is nothing more constant than change, and that's the reality of communities. It would be nice to have a university in Wells, British Columbia, but it has a declining population as well. So those are the facts of life with respect to Nelson.

I do want to answer a couple of the member's questions. In terms of transfer credit, the University Act prohibits me as minister from being involved in that process. However, there is a process — and I'll make the committee aware of it — to transfer credit which is dealt with by the council on admissions and transfers. Rendina Hamilton and Grant Fisher are on that council; they are both well-respected people in the field of education in British Columbia. Rendina Hamilton is a lawyer and is a former president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association; and Grant Fisher, of course, is a civil servant of long standing and excellent reputation. So that is transfer credit, and transfer-credit discussion and articulation is available to Nelson — or the Kootenay Educational Society, operating in the Nelson University Centre — through the council of admissions and transfer.

In terms of student financial assistance, that could take place, but I'm going to advise you, Mr. Chairman, that it might be better discussed under a bill which is currently before the Legislative Assembly: the Private Post-Secondary Education Act, which I tabled in this House yesterday for first reading. We might have many more opportunities to discuss Nelson and other private institutions when we begin debate on that bill, so I'm going to leave it at that. If the member has more questions about Nelson or any other issue, I'm more than happy to answer them. But with respect to the private institute bill and Nelson's fitting into it, we would have to wait until it is debated. I'm sure the Chair and the member understand that.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the minister's comments. I certainly wasn't asking the minister to grant transfer credit to Nelson University Centre. However, my understanding is that that group has run into some difficulty with the process. Not that the minister or the previous minister haven't set up a good process, but there does seem to be some frustration at that level. If there is a bureaucratic problem, then it is quite within the purview of the Minister of Advanced Education to smooth out the wrinkles.

On the minister's response with respect to financial aid to students at Nelson University Centre, I hope that something can come of that. Perhaps through Bill 24 we will see something available for the students at that city-sponsored, community-supported, non-profit, independent, non-sectarian liberal arts academic community.

I'd like to move on to another brief topic that the minister and I have discussed, both in our last discussion on the estimates and again last Friday in private members' statements: literacy. The deputy minister can turn to that page in his files.

The minister commented in his estimates on what a fine committee we had — the Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee. It produced an excellent report which holds out great promise for this very serious problem that affects some 360,000 British Columbians. As I said in private members' statements last Friday, the ministry received that report in September 1989. If you think about it, any sort of planning process for an international year — and 1990 is the International Year of Literacy.... One would expect to have had the report on literacy in September 1989. The committee worked from September 1988 to September 1989 and produced an excellent report. However, there was a deafening silence after the receipt of that original draft report, which didn't have costing in it but was certainly very complete.

I realize that the minister only assumed his new responsibilities shortly after the receipt of that report. However, Mr. Chairman, we are almost halfway

[ Page 9650 ]

through the International Year of Literacy, and I would like to ask the minister why he has been so slow in responding to the good recommendations of the very worthy committee appointed by his predecessor. Why has it taken so long for the minister to respond to those recommendations?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I told the member last Friday during private members' statements, the final report did not come in September, but rather on December 4. I had the report with me that day; I recall the date. As the committee will appreciate, it had some very serious and extensive spending recommendations. One does not just get out one's chequebook when one receives a report like that. There is a process in our government called Treasury Board, and there is a process called budget submission. One has to do many things when one wants to spend money — particularly considerable sums of money — and we are going through that process now.

I have a considerably good amount of money in my budget for this. There are a couple of issues to be dealt with by Treasury Board, but I can assure the member that the money will be spent wisely and will be forthcoming as soon as we get Treasury Board and government approval to do what we want to do. I can also assure the member that many things recommended in the report are being done now: for example, assisting volunteers, assisting community colleges and assisting in any way we can to help stamp out illiteracy.

The member may feel he has got a point of criticism for saying that we haven't responded as quickly as we can to a December report, but I would say that we are taking that report seriously. We are committing funding and resources to it. The results will speak for themselves. I'm sure we can all see that. We know with the work we're doing, with the work being done by the community colleges and by volunteer groups, by the work being done in some non-educational institutions.... I spoke last week of the Royal Jubilee, which has an excellent program right in the hospital just to help many of the employees there who are not literate to become literate.

We're seeing very good work being done all over the province. I'm quite proud of our accomplishments to date. I can assure the committee they're going to be more and more extensive as we develop our funding and resources to combat the problem of 17 percent illiteracy in British Columbia.

MR. JONES: I'm more concerned with the British Columbians who need assistance with the literacy problem than I am with scoring political points. However, it is clear that the ministry — not the minister — did have the draft report in September. The recommendations of that report were well understood. They were reported, in fact, in the Times-Colonist in October. Much later, we are still waiting for any official government response to those recommendations. I don't want to belabour the point, but it's been a ten-month wait for a response. We are halfway through the International Year of Literacy.

The minister indicated last year that $1 million had been set aside for literacy. I would like to ask the minister: were those funds spent? In what program areas other than the advisory committee itself were those funds spent?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to give you some budget numbers — I think this is what the member wants. Budget allocations for the fiscal year '89-90 for literacy were $4.2 million for the colleges and $650,000 for federal-provincial cost-shared. In '90-91 again the $4.2 million for the colleges and the $650,000 federal-provincial cost-shared. Then there's a further item that I can't reveal yet, because I haven't had Treasury Board approval, which will become public soon, I would suspect.

One more thing I did want to advise the committee: the report the member refers to that was delivered to the ministry in September was a draft. It was drafted for public response. It was not final and was in fact left open so the public could respond to it. One could not take that report and say we knew what we wanted to do then. Clearly the report was not complete; it did not have the benefit of the public input we wanted. The first final report we received was in December, not September.

[3:45]

MR. JONES: The report to which the minister refers ended up as the final report, basically — substantially unchanged. So I do conclude that the ministry was aware and did have ample opportunity. Here we are now.... I appreciate that the minister has to go to Treasury Board and has to plan a budget and that there are not unlimited funds. However, I'm amazed that we're almost halfway through the International Year of Literacy.

The minister says the funds in the budget as we know them are identical to what they were last year. The $4.2 million for colleges and the $650,000 in federal cost-shared programs were the same in the '89-90 year as they are in the '90-91 year. If in times of inflation there is no change in the budget, that means a decrease in the amount of service that can be offered.

I'm amazed, given all this time, that with the good planning that went on from September 1988 with Paul Gallagher, whose college is in the riding of the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Fraser), we have a decrease in the funding for literacy programs established at this point — almost halfway through the International Year of Literacy — and the minister is still going to Treasury Board, still trying to establish his budget.

What are we doing here in estimates? I thought we were debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education. I thought by this time the minister would be able to give a full accounting of the funds we are approving at this point. If he can't, what are we doing here? What are we voting on? Why is the minister still going before Treasury Board when his estimates are before this House? Perhaps there's

[ Page 9651 ]

something I'm missing, because it sure doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe the minister could explain.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have given you the numbers that are in the budget for literacy, both from the year before and for this year. I am seeking more dollars from Treasury Board as a result of this report. The budget preparation comes to the government in the fall of the year. We work on this, and the Ministry of Finance officials would have received it well before this report was delivered to us.

What I am telling you about now is a request that I am going to be making for funds additional to what we see in the budget.

MR. JONES: Maybe I'm about to learn a little about the finance of the province here. If in fact there are funds appropriate to the recommendations in the report of the Literacy Advisory Committee, we would see a substantial increase in the efforts of the province to meet the tremendous needs of those people who need help with reading and writing at a basic level in this province.

First of all, what will happen to the figures in the ministry budget? Secondly, where do those funds come from? Do they come from the BS fund?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the Ministry of Finance estimates there's an item called "New Programs Vote." That's where the money will come from. That's where I or other ministers who have new programs they are developing will go to.

MR. JONES: Can the minister give a date when a decision will be made — hopefully sometime during the International Year of Literacy — as to when these programs might be approved by Treasury Board?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It is our intent, Mr. Member, to have the announcement made well before the end of June so we can begin programs in earnest by September — the fall semester at the community colleges. You will appreciate, of course, that we want to let the colleges know as quickly as possible the amount of funding we have for this new program so they can in turn do what they have to do and assemble their resources, instructional staff, materials and all the equipment they are going to need to spend the money we are giving them.

MR. JONES: So I take it then that beginning in September we will see funds available from Treasury Board to respond to the report of the advisory committee. We will see these programs in place in the last four months of the International Year of Literacy. I appreciate the minister's response.

I'd like to go back to a topic we were on briefly last Monday, and that has to do with labour relations. The minister, in discussing the very serious situation that occurred at two colleges in this province where a strike protracted to the point we hadn't seen before in this province....

Mr. Chairman, could I ask that there be order in the House? The member for Delta and the first member for Vancouver South seem to have another agenda going on here, other than the estimates.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this great debate to talk about what this government has done for the post-secondary industry in the province of British Columbia. I know how well we do. I know how many millions we spend. I know more about literacy than he ever will, and I want to tell you that this government is determined to make sure that every student who graduates from grade 12 can go to post-secondary. That's what it's all about.

The harping and the carping and the whining of the NDP is just unbelievable. I read a little article in here today, and I rise specifically to talk about this. The education of engineers.... I happen to like engineers; most engineers are pretty reasonable, and I can't think of one who isn't, come to think of it. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis)....

But the one thing I really like about engineers is that they do think ahead and they do plan.

I am very proud of my whole industry, in fact, because not too long ago — and not too long ago can mean different things to different people — my industry decided they wanted to encourage more and more women to go into engineering. To that end, the Canadian industry has raised almost 20 percent of a million dollars being sought by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers to fund education in engineering for women.

They are going to produce a number of incentives to encourage women to take engineering, which I think is very positive. There is certainly no question about the fact that there is lots of talent there, and we should encourage all students to take the courses of their liking, whether it's engineering, truck driving or whatever. Incidentally, it's very difficult to drive trucks these days; they're so sophisticated and hightech. It's not the simple changing-gears system that it used to be.

MRS. BOONE: It never was simple.

HON. MR. FRASER: The member for Prince George North says: "It never was simple." Well, it's more difficult now than it ever was. The trucks are bigger than they ever were, the loads are heavier than they were, and so it is more difficult — which is the point I was making. You obviously have to concur.

It's interesting that they're going to be giving annual awards for female or male engineering students who initiate a project with the greatest potential to attract female high-school or community-college students into engineering. It's an interesting point that you would give a prize to men or women or both, so that they would encourage one — the females — particularly in high schools and colleges, to get into engineering. It's a very positive step. I think it's a reaction of the profession to a need for more scientists in the land, and in the world for that

[ Page 9652 ]

matter. Indeed, we have scholarships for women in high school or community colleges entering engineering and bigger scholarships for students to come up with projects that would likely encourage women to take engineering. We have wonderful engineering schools in British Columbia, and I was very pleased to have had a chance to serve on the Universities Council, which came to the point of promoting the idea of opening another engineering school in the province. Now we have three: at SFU, UBC and the University of Victoria.

I wouldn't be surprised if, before too many years go by, the minister is able to promote, develop and encourage the university of the north — for which this government takes great pride — so that people from the north can go to school closer to their homes and people from across the province can go to schools almost wherever they like. One of the things I happen to think is very important is for students to travel away from their homes to go to post-secondary institutions if they can; and this way they can. In fact, you can take university degrees almost everywhere in the province now, and increasingly more so.

I'm sure that under the leadership of this great minister and this government, more and more students will understand the value of post-secondary education, and we'll find the average student age going up. Indeed, in many of the colleges in the lower mainland, the average age of students is much higher than that of students graduating from high school, which indicates that more and more people are going back to school. It means that we're doing a good job of promoting post-secondary education.

MR. REID: They're not even listening to you.

HON. MR. FRASER: They don't want to hear it, my friend; they don't want to hear how good a job we're doing.

I hope the minister will get into the issue of student aid, which has increased significantly in the past few years. Maybe they should hear it again, because I don't think they believe it. It is wonderful what this minister is doing. I would like to support him in his efforts to continue with the good work, to promote those universities throughout the province, to advance the interests of the students through the college system, which was developed by Social Credit governments many years ago.

Oh, I know the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) doesn't want to hear it, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that he was one of the two who made the big promise: "I will give away the raise; I will give it all to charity." I wonder where that's gone. But this government makes promises and keeps them, and that minister is one of those good ministers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: just before the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) continues, the Chair must recognize that I wouldn't want the member to think he was ignored in the request he made just before the Solicitor-General got up to speak. The member complained to the Chair that some of the noise going on in the chamber while he was making his point was disconcerting. He has a point in saying that, although I should point out that it is quite customary on both sides of the House for conversations to be carried on in well-modulated voices between members while debate is going on. However, I'm sure that all hon. members are aware of how disconcerting it can be to have a lot of chatter going on while you're trying to make a point. Having said that, I see that the member for Burnaby North wants to rise. Or does the minister want to respond?

[4:00]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would like to respond; I will be brief. I do want to speak to the issue of more females attending engineering schools as well as entering other science areas. It's something we clearly have to look at and encourage in every way we can.

There is a lot of good work now being done through this ministry and also through that of my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). Scientists in the school, for example, is something that we support, and I think that it's turning an awful lot of young ladies on to considering a science career, outside of the more traditional ones that ladies might think of — that is, science teaching and maybe medicine, that type of thing. So that's good. We know that if we're going to increase the number of productive scientists in our province, we have to really encourage young girls in grades 5 and 6 to start thinking about how they're going to proceed through junior and senior secondary school and get those science credits so that they can enter the fields of science and engineering.

I'm just going to close with this anecdote, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. In January of this year I spent some time touring Canada, as I've already told the committee, and looking at small universities, with an eye to what we will need at the University of Northern British Columbia. I ended up in Halifax — not that Halifax is a small town, but it has an interesting small university. It's called TUNS — the Technical University of Nova Scotia. It graduates all of Nova Scotia's engineers. About 75 percent of its enrolment is in applied science for engineering; the other 25 is food sciences and computing sciences. So it's an engineering school, in the first sense of the word. The other interesting thing is that it does not teach first and second year. You do sciences at another university and come into TUNS in your third and fourth years. They also have graduate programs.

I met the president of the students' council at TUNS. Here is this engineering school in Halifax, and the president of the students' council is a charming lady. So I said: "It's interesting that you would be the president of the student society at an engineering school." As soon as I said that, I knew she was thinking: "Who's this old guy trying to lay this sexist trip on me?" So I immediately apologized for that, tongue in cheek, and she was in quite good humour; she took what I meant.

[ Page 9653 ]

But then we got discussing the participation of women at TUNS, and I was advised that they have the highest participation rate of any university in any engineering school in Canada. The reason for that is that TUNS has its own profile in Halifax. It's known as a very good engineering school. It's unique in Canada, and because of that, female students in grades 5, 6, 7 and 8 don't set aside the possibility of going to an engineering school. They think about it, because they know of an aunt or a sister or someone else who has gone to TUNS and successfully completed an engineering degree.

That awareness of women in engineering exists in Halifax and causes TUNS to have a higher participation rate. I think that's what we really need. Halifax has a different attitude about women in science than any other community in Canada. That's clear, because they have a higher participation rate at that school.

I'll leave it at that, but I did want to share that with my colleague the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and also the rest of the committee, because it is important, I think. If you establish that attitude change, if you establish the awareness that you can take a certain program and be successful at it, then you will have a better participation rate.

MR. JONES: I did want to raise a question with respect to labour relations and the strike situation that we talked about last Monday. In that discussion the minister was explaining, I suppose, that we had had a number of settlements. He was pointing out that the two difficult strikes we had must have been due to some other reason.

I found the words that he chose particularly unfortunate. He said, "They successfully concluded a very good settlement, so obviously it's not the funding process that's doing it," indicating that it wasn't the overall funding that's producing these strikes — a fair position for the minister to take in defending his argument. He goes on to say, though, that there must be something else: "Maybe there's a political agenda." I'd like the minister to clarify what he meant in that situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Exactly what I said. I know what the budgets are for the colleges and institutes, and I know that many of them have successfully concluded negotiations. I gave the example of the College of New Caledonia in Prince George. I met with the president of the faculty association there during the time that they were negotiating, and we spent.... She was quite forthcoming — Kathy Conroy is her name — and in confidence she told me where they were in the negotiation process, as much as she could. Then they had a successful conclusion to their contract, and they're signed up again, I think, for another 30 months.

I know that the funding is there, I know that it's adequate, and I know that when you have two responsible parties at the bargaining table— the employee association and the employer — you're going to arrive at a just, fair, equitable, responsible settlement. In two cases we didn't have that happen.

Knowing that throughout B.C. we have responsible faculty associations and responsible employers, and knowing that the institutes are well funded — I know that from my point of view — I have to conclude that there's something else happening when we have these protracted strikes. It could be a political agenda — which in some cases, I'm advised, it was. I'm not going to discuss that, because I was given that information in confidence. But I do know that if we had so many successful settlements, then there....

MR. BLENCOE: Name names.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll give you the names. I've already told you CNC is one of them. There's a whole bunch that settled quite nicely. Here we are: Emily Carr, Fraser Valley, New Caledonia, Selkirk, Northwest and Camosun. Camosun, in your own home town, Mr. Member for Victoria, settled quite successfully. Those are the names you wanted. Again, I think we can look at those names and see that this is the result of responsible faculty associations meeting with a responsible administration and arriving at a fair and equitable settlement.

MR. JONES: I'd like to try and clarify for the minister what he has just said, in my view. He is suggesting that the funding is adequate, that the government is responsible and that the boards and the administration are responsible. He's suggesting, in these two instances where there was a labour dispute, that it's the faculty that had a political agenda and were being irresponsible. I know the minister wants to clarify that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't say faculty. I said that in these instances there was maybe a political agenda. But I didn't name the party.

MR. JONES: It's very clear. I know when the minister reads the Blues it will be very obvious what was said. He didn't say faculty, but he mentioned everybody else involved in the process as being responsible. The one party he omitted was the faculty, by which he meant that they were irresponsible and they have some sort of political agenda that he won't discuss in this House — that I still don't understand it.

Let's just have a further look at what the minister said last Monday. Again, it's passing strange that the Minister of Advanced Education would talk about political agendas and, in my view, take a very partisan view of a labour dispute. He said:

"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...demands were, a settlement was reached at 7:30 that evening. The public was finally 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."

[ Page 9654 ]

I suppose the Minister of Advanced Education believes that nonsense, but that is not at all the situation as the strike unfolded. My understanding is that several days before the conclusion of that unfortunate strike, the college had several conditions under which they would sit down again at the bargaining table. The afternoon of the day of the settlement, they agreed to sit down unconditionally. There was a move there on the part of the board.

I don't think the ads played any role in the settlement of the dispute. In fact, it was generally agreed that the ads were quite misleading. Some of the issues mentioned in those ads had already been settled. The college was embarrassed at some of the details being inaccurate in those ads. What the faculty were demanding was parity with New Westminster public school teachers in one year. Those demands were met in the settlement. The faculty feel — as I hope both sides feel — that their demands were met. That was the basis of the settlement.

Another suggested factor in bringing about a resolution to that unfortunate dispute was the suggestion that the Industrial Relations Council step in and order the faculty back to work. When that happened, my understanding is that the B.C. Federation of Labour were very concerned, and it was only at that point that things began happening. I think the minister's view of the resolution of that dispute.... His unfortunate remarks I don't think accurately describe the situation that occurred in bringing about that resolution. I think it is important that the records show at least the other side of those unfortunate comments that the minister made last Monday.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Since we're examining the record, I want to point out to the committee again that probably three or four times this afternoon, prior to the member's statement about my feeling on faculty, I have said that in the case of the faculty that have settled, they were responsible faculty associations. I made that statement many times.

Now the member has delivered a series of opinions with respect to the Douglas College settlement and the successful conclusion of those negotiations, and he may or may not be correct in his opinions on how the negotiation was going, carried on and finally finished.

My comment about the newspaper ad disclosing the bargaining issues is fact. There was an ad in the Vancouver Province in the morning, a subsequent ad in the Vancouver Sun in the afternoon, and at 7:30 that evening there was a settlement. Those are the facts. You can take any opinion you want from those, but nevertheless you can't dispute them. That's what happened. That's all I was trying to point out.

[4:15]

MR. JONES: I think I would be remiss if I didn't raise, at least briefly, an issue that is important. One of the avenues that we as a party have long promoted in this province is the opportunity for degree completion in the regions of the province. We were very supportive of the minister's announcement last year which created that opportunity for students in Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo and now Prince George. So that concept has the support of this side of the House. In fact, we have been calling for that since the mid-eighties, if not before.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: I'll repeat for the minister.

We were calling for and were supportive of degree-completion opportunities in the regions of the province.

However, this is a new area. We are embarking on a new concept — the university-college concept — and very clearly the melding in what I hope is an interim phase that will lead to autonomous degree-granting institutions in those regions. During this interim phase and during this marriage between the university and the colleges, there are very clearly some jurisdictional problems that have arisen, I suppose partly as a result of the slowness and then the speed of implementation of this process.

Very clearly there have been contract problems with the college faculty in terms of selection, appointment status, seniority, departmental organizations, salary and benefits, workload, the requirement to do scholarly work and the transfer of pensions and benefits. Those are some of the contractual things that clearly have been difficult for the institutions to work out on their own.

It seems to me that the arrangements that have been made with the colleges haven't necessarily taken into account the goals and aspirations of the college faculty that had long been there prior to this arrangement. I am wondering if the ministry has concerns about this area, if there is any leadership being shown on the part of the ministry and if there is anything planned in terms of bringing about a resolution to these difficult problems that have arisen as a result of a concept that I think we all support.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member raises a very good point. It's reminiscent.... I was at the College of New Caledonia in the early and mid-seventies when we had the same type of problems with transfer, and we had articulation committees that would decide whether or not a program from a regional college would be accepted for transfer at the universities. It was a difficult process.

Dr. Ian McTaggart-Cowan, a noted environmentalist and a friend of mine from another movie, a zoologist extraordinaire with an international reputation as a scholar, was responsible for assisting the universities and the colleges in terms of articulation and accreditation — would a course transfer or not. He did a remarkable job.

We have the same thing here. We have some problems.... I shouldn't say problems; I guess we'll call them challenges, to use a more positive term. We have some challenges with the three universities and with the three university-colleges, Malaspina, Cariboo and Okanagan. But we also recognize that we're bound to always have those questions and challenges

[ Page 9655 ]

when you bring two institutions together; and as you quite adequately pointed out, the research load, the teaching load, and all the questions that arise when you have two different philosophies coming together in order to serve the student.

But I can tell you that an assistant deputy minister in our ministry, Shell Harvey, regularly meets with all of the presidents involved in this situation. I understand that the meetings go reasonably well and are productive. I'd be darned surprised if we didn't have those problems. As a matter of fact, maybe it's good to have those problems and challenges, because quite often the successful resolution of those questions really does set out good government policy that's going to be sustaining and will benefit other areas.

So I don't see any problem with that. I think you're absolutely right in bringing it to the attention of this committee, because there are some questions there. But I feel positive that with good, clear thinking and management on behalf of the presidents and of the staff in this ministry, we can resolve all those unanswered questions, and turn those challenges — if you will — into successful solutions.

The bottom line is something that was instilled in me by the first president of the CNC, Dr. Fred Speckeen, whom I worked for and who, in all of our deliberations, continually told the administration at CNC — and I was in the student services office — "Always think student first, and if you do that, you'll be okay."

That's one message I want to leave with the administration at the colleges and at the universities I know they are going through a lot of navel-gazing and discussing how they're going to better serve their own particular philosophies. But if they maintain the notion that it's the student first and our bureaucracy second, they'll be well served. The educational community will be finely served if they maintain that philosophy.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, the minister simplifies the situation far more than it deserves. I got the impression that the minister was talking about a situation with negotiations between two equal partners. We'll put those partners in the room, and they will hammer out a solution to the problem, keeping in mind the interests of the students.

However, that's not the situation. It's a very complex situation; it involves university jurisdictions, college jurisdictions, established practice and jurisdictional problems with people who have been there a long time and with people who are doing new and different things. And it's not simple.

I have faith in those people too. Ultimately that situation will be resolved. But I think some guidance to ensure that one of those jurisdictions doesn't have inordinate power in that process.... I think that's something that the ministry and the minister have to watch.

I'd like to go back to a comment I made last Monday, more or less summing up a major effort that the province has made in terms of promises, providing hope for post-secondary education in this province.

We had some difference of opinion, the minister and I. I was suggesting that at this point in time we are still far behind other provinces in terms of participation rates, in terms of degree-completion rates and even in terms of student financial aid,

I quoted some 1989 figures that substantiated that. In 1989, in university enrolment per capita, we're tenth out of ten provinces in Canada. In terms of number of degrees per capita, we were ninth out of ten. I know the minister is not happy with those figures any more than I am. However, he didn't accept those as representing the situation that exists today.

I turn to a Times-Colonist article of Tuesday, March 20, which again underscores my comments: "Next to Prince Edward Island, British Columbia grants the fewest degrees per capita of any Canadian province, Statistics Canada figures show." It pointed out that the Canadian average, excluding B.C., was 376, and B.C. awarded 259 university degrees for each 10,000 population between 18 and 24 years old.

I don't take any joy in pointing out those figures, because I think everybody in this province, regardless of political persuasion, wants us to take more of a leadership role than we have in the past. I think this current administration is largely saddled with problems created by previous administrations.

I would like to look at the efforts of this government to address that serious problem, just for me to arrive at a better understanding of those efforts. I was at the minister's press conference, I believe it was March 20 last year. The minister indicated, in leading up to that announcement, that this was the most important decision made in post-secondary education in British Columbia in some 20 years. So last year we had the Access For All announcement, very strongly supported in the post-secondary educational community and on this side of the House as well. Last year we saw a budget item of $35.3 million, a special fund created for access and enrolment, and $8,250,000 of that was to go to universities and $26,340,000 was to go to colleges.

Maybe I could begin by asking the minister: were the moneys in that special fund for access and enrolment, the $35.3 million, spent? If so, how much went to universities and how much to colleges?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a quick comment on the arrangement with the universities and colleges; I don't want to leave that alone. The member and I agree, I think, that there's a lot of work to be done with respect to the arrangements, and there are challenges. But I also want to advise the committee that when we put the university and college arrangements together, we put the colleges in the driver's seat so there would not be that sort of father-knows-best attitude by the universities. The colleges were given some advantages.

With respect to the question on budgets, the access budget of last year was totally spent. The answer is yes. I don't at this point have a breakdown between

[ Page 9656 ]

the universities and colleges, but it was according to the budget. Whatever the budget in March of last year said was going to be spent at universities and colleges for access was spent, and it was spent in the same ratio.

MR. JONES: Could you repeat that? I'm sorry, I missed it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The money announced last year by my predecessor in March for Access for All was all spent. In the relationship between colleges and universities, it was spent exactly as it was described it would be. I don't have those percentages, but whatever was said in the March press release was spent and in that fashion.

MR. ROSE: I'm grateful to my friend the critic for letting me, in the middle of a meeting, burst in here with little warning and even less preparation. But that's never held me back before, so I don't anticipate it will this time. I've already mentioned a couple of things to the minister, and I'd like his comments.

Some colleges — it may be some, but it may only be one that I have heard rumours about — propose using a grade-point average as an admissions screening device. Wouldn't the institution of that kind of technique be contrary to the objectives of a community college? When I hear his answer, I'll perhaps elaborate more on that one.

Would you like to have them all, and you can deal with them one after another, or do you want to deal with each one individually?

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm easy.

MR. ROSE: Be your guest?

It is also the practice, I hear, among some instructors not to give As to anybody on the grounds that in certain courses in a junior college — I was thinking of English composition as a particular one — nobody could possibly be good enough at that level to get an A. In view of the competition for academic placements in such things as law and social work and other things afterwards at a higher level, at universities....

MR. CLARK: At a different level anyway.

MR. ROSE: At a different level, okay. This practice — that I call academic snobbishness — can really have dire consequences. Let's take two equally good individuals attending different colleges or the same college with different instructors. One has the attitude I've mentioned, and one has another attitude, which might be described as more liberal. I know the minister would hesitate to get into this with both feet, on the grounds of academic freedom, but at the same time, there is academic freedom and also power-tripping. I was around colleges and universities long enough to know about things like that, so I would like to have....

MR. CLARK: Whose side are you on?

MR. ROSE: I'll leave that for you to understand, but I just want to tell you that I was just as generous with my students in college as I have been with you since you've been here.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask whether the minister has changed the practice of diverting the EPF funds away from post-secondary education as was the practice between '83 and '86 — that is, the federal grants for health and education. B.C. during those years was actually making a profit on the federal grants. They looked after it in the health field by changing the Canada Health Act, so you had to be accountable; but no such provision exists federally for post-secondary financing. I know my friend from Richmond will be desolate when he hears that this happened, but it happened before his time. Lots of things happened before his time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to comment generally and thank the member opposite for his questions.

Grade-point average is a screening device. I don't really know how you're coming at that, because community colleges will of course enter students from....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Entrants. Some people have prerequisites. If you look at a college calendar, you'll see that there are certain prerequisites and a certain mark required.

Let's take first-year calculus. It says right in any college calendar that you have to have math 12 and a good mark. Everybody knows that; otherwise you're going to fail. So I can't criticize colleges for doing that. If you don't have grade 12 math and you can't enter that calculus 101, the college says: "Here is calculus 106. This is for folks who don't have that gold-plated grade 12 transcript." This brings them up, so they take 106 or whatever the number might be, and then they can take 101 in the spring semester. There are all sorts of arrangements; that's what colleges do best. Then they have study skills programs. These are services that colleges offer and universities don't, and I think that's where they have their value. But I certainly can't disagree with their setting prerequisites and standards, as long as they are offering an alternative to the student who doesn't have that gold-plated grade 12 matriculation and does require some extra help.

In terms of the instructors not offering As, I don't know of any who do that, but if they do, it's certainly not a practice I would condone. Having had the opportunity to get a couple of As in English myself — at the 100 and 200 level — I know that it didn't exist with the people who taught me. Maybe it should have, but it didn't, and I guess you're right — some faculty are power-trippers.

I'll just make an off-the-cuff comment about that. I've been in this ministry since November 1 and have

[ Page 9657 ]

had the good fortune to meet some brilliant, international-class scholars — for example, John MacDonald of MacDonald Dettwiler, who taught at MIT and has made a substantial contribution to science in the world — an internationally acclaimed scholar; David Scott, University of Victoria, an international leader in hydrogen research; Tom Paine, who worked for NASA; Willis Hawkins from Lockheed, the famous skunk works. All are brilliant men; none are on power trips. It seems that it's only the people who haven't made it to the top-scholar level who have to, for whatever reason. There's something in their psychology. They have to show some strength, do some power-tripping. But if you look at real scholars, first of all, none of them are eggheads; they're all very exciting, very interesting people. Secondly, they're all genuine and down-to-earth and are never on any academic power trip; and thirdly, they're just darn fine folks. I imagine that at one time or another they have all been remarkable instructors in their institutions, remarkable employers and remarkable leaders. I think I know where the power-trippers come from. It's too bad that we have those people, but I guess we do.

What was the last question? Oh, EPF. Well, EPF was always a bone of contention, but I can assure you that we spend a lot more in this ministry than we get from Ottawa. I mean, the budget is a billion dollars, and EPF covers health and.... What's health — $5.5 billion? So Ottawa's contribution to post-secondary education and health through EPF is nowhere near what we spend totally.

This government has always taken the position that EPF is a gratuitous contribution to general revenue and that our cabinet will set our spending priorities. That's been the position of this administration and of Social Credit governments since 1975. It's a good thing, too, because as you recall, Mr. Member, the EPF was cut back this year. Yet my budget wasn't; my budget increased in spite of a decrease in the EPF.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm talking about the policy we have had since 1975 that EPF is not for health or post-secondary education. In our view, it's a contribution to general revenue, and we as a government set ministry spending priorities.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his usual eloquent and forthright comments. A couple of mine, which I would define similarly, are these. If we — or I, or anyone — happen to criticize a policy, we're not criticizing a person. So I don't think it's necessary to run up the flagpole all of the fine scholars we have in British Columbia.

I'm acquainted with Mr. MacDonald, and I had a lot to do with David Scott. I don't think he's always been at the University of Victoria; I think he's from Windsor or somewhere down there. I happened to be on a task force on alternative energy — if you ever care to look at the report, it's in the library — in about 1982 or '83, and he was the one who twisted and.... Persuaded is a better word than twisted; it sounds less political. He was the one who persuaded us of the future of hydrogen as a fuel. It's a non-hydrocarbon and is non-combustible, and has its source elements in plentiful supply in the earth. So I am well acquainted with the enthusiasm of Dr. Scott.

I don't think there is any question that for certain courses at what we used to call junior colleges — now community colleges — there have to be some sort of entrance standards. I have no problem with that for those courses that require a prerequisite. But, obviously, many courses don't require a prerequisite. Certain courses that I can think of in some fields.... Let's say you're studying romantic literature. I don't think it's necessary to study classical, Elizabethan or Renaissance literature in order to key in on that. It's like saying that you have to study Vivaldi before you can study Mozart. I am using an analogy that I'm sure....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I know. If you're stuck with the chronological world, you might do that. But I'm not; I'm a bit more liberated than that.

MR. PERRY: What about Scarlatti?

MR. ROSE: Born the same year as Bach — 1685 — and so was Handel. That's Domenico Scarlatti, not the father, Alessandro. Do you want more? Enough of that.

Anyway, I feel that in certain areas you need entrance standards, but in others you don't. Therefore the entrance standard, if it's the GPA, should be confined to those areas that are vital, for a reason I know the minister will agree with; that is, community colleges were not just supposed to be prep schools for the universities. They were to present themselves and fulfil a different community need. I think that until they were centralized through appointed boards and that sort of thing, they probably were a little bit more adept at doing it than they are now.

Because of the paucity of entrances, because of finances during those wonderful years of '83 to '86, they're playing catch-up. There are tremendous lineups at the door. It works a real hardship on those students, and I think the minister will recognize and admit that. People who have left school and gone around — if you like, knocked around or even bummed around — until after they were 30 before they finally went back to take college courses.... You can't really say that that person hasn't learned anything in those years. The minister would be the first one to deny that. As a general policy, I just don't think it's valid. I think we should be looking for other means of assessing young people for prospective entrance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How can I argue with the member's eloquent logic? He well knows that I was a barroom piano player until I was 30 years old, and

[ Page 9658 ]

then went back to school. If it weren't for the community college system, I wouldn't have been able to do that. So I fully recognize what community colleges have done for an awful lot of people in terms of....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He was heckling me, not you.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He was heckling you.

I totally appreciate what community colleges have done for an awful lot of people — tens of thousands now — in the province of British Columbia. I will accept what the member says about rigorous admission standards. They should not set themselves up as having the same type of standards as a full university program. They have to accommodate people like me, and people who have been out of school for some time. As long as they have that in their institutional policy, then that's fine. I would argue that they do. They have many courses that refresh a student in order to take the heavier university transfer-type load. They have many programs, such as study skills, speed reading, how to take notes from a lecture and tutorials.

MR. ROSE: Very good ones, too.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Very good ones. That's where community colleges really shine. That's why I maintain — and an examination across Canada will show — that our comprehensive community college system is the best in Canada. There's really nothing else like it. It works extremely well.

The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) talked about funding and that type of thing. I will share with the committee now that the letters have gone out to the community colleges. Their budget increase this year will be 6.53 percent, which is well above the rate of inflation. Many of them, of course, have asked for additional funds for one thing or another, and in most cases we've been able to assist them as much as we can. We're seeing a good increase there.

In terms of Canadian comparisons, in many provinces the colleges will be getting similar letters from their respective Ministers of Education indicating the lift is in the order of 2 percent to 3 percent. I would argue — successfully, I'm sure — that the system is being served well by this government, and that we see education as a priority. We are certainly putting our money where our mouth is. That can be demonstrated without question.

MR. JONES: I wonder if I might return to the access part of last year's budget. The minister, I think, agreed that there was.... I've seen two figures: $35.3 million and $35.1 million. Last year, the minister broke that down into $8.25 million for universities and $26.3 million for colleges. The minister agrees with those figures at least in a very general way. He indicates that was the budget, and that all those moneys were spent for that purpose. I wonder if the minister might clarify how those funds were expended last year.

[4:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Essentially, in increased FTEs. You will recall the numbers I read to you about the Fraser Valley increase. Well, that happened throughout the province. They were just FTE allotments to raise the profile of all the colleges and universities.

MR. JONES: The $8.25 million for universities and $26.3 million for colleges was strictly operating funds. They were used specifically to improve access, meaning that we were able to accommodate more students in our post-secondary institutions. It seems strange, if we had this formula — this breakdown — and these were just operating budgets, that they would be included in a special fund. Why didn't we just add $8.25 million to the universities operating grant and $26.34 million to the colleges operating grant?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, there's more to funding FTEs than just operating budgets. Of interest to me was the three-quarters of a million dollars that was spent on the implementation planning group for the University of Northern British Columbia. That was an access item and needed. Then there was funding for infrastructures, such as library additions and other costs that a college or an institute would incur when it is accommodating those extra students. Then there were start-up costs. Everything was taken into account. What costs would be incurred if you were going to enrol that many more students? All concerns were addressed.

MR. JONES: Maybe I could try the same question from a different tack. The minister's announcement of a year ago was the promise of creating some 15,000 new student spaces over six years with a cost of $690 million. I'd like to ask the minister what the definition is of "new student space." Is that a full-time equivalent? Does that mean a new student space or a new full-time equivalent above the normal enrolment increase?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a net increase in the amount of full-time-equivalent students.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The actual in the previous year.

MR. JONES: I'm going to have to ask that one again, because I'm still not clear. I'm interested to know from the minister whether these 15,000 new student spaces, which were, I think, a very important and a very well-received commitment on the part of the minister last year, although not completely understood — certainly not by me.... To me, a new student space would mean a full-time-equivalent student

[ Page 9659 ]

occupying a space in a post-secondary institution, and the space would be above the normal growth rate. We're not talking about just enrolment of 15,000 students; we're talking about the enrolment of actually more than that. Some students attend part-time, and so the only logical way to refer to student population is in terms of full-time-equivalent students. When I see "student," I think "full-time-equivalent student." When I see "new space," I assume "above normal enrolment growth," but I don't know whether I'm accurate in that or not. I'm a year late; it should have been understood by me at the time, and it wasn't perfectly clear. Perhaps the minister can assist me with that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We don't consider a normal enrolment growth; that is not a factor, so we'll discard that. We consider the funding we're providing to provide more seats. I'll give you an example. Let's assume this Legislative Assembly is a classroom. Right now it has 69 seats. We know that it's soon going to go to 75, and that would be FTE. Of course, some of us aren't full-time; there are a few that are part-time, like my friend the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). That would assume a full-time-equivalent increase of six, and that's essentially what we're looking at in terms of the classroom. The number we are funding for at the universities is 60,000 FTEs now; within six years we will be funding for 75,000 FTEs at our universities.

MR. JONES: I just want to get that last statement clear. Maybe the minister could clarify. He did say 60,000 FTEs going to 75,000 FTEs, an increase of 15,000 FTEs at universities. I don't know if he meant that all the increase in new student spaces that were promised last year would occur only at our institutions called "universities." Clearly there must be— and there was promised — an increase at our colleges and institutes as well. Maybe he could clarify that last statement.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it's university seats, which includes UT at the colleges, the degree completion programs at the university colleges and the universities. So it's that whole spectrum of student: anyone who was in a university transfer or university course.

MR. JONES: We had this fund of $35.3 million, although the breakdown was almost exclusively for universities and colleges. Although it was operating funds, it wasn't operating funds necessarily to those institutions, because the minister indicated, for example, three-quarters of a million dollars for implementation planning group. The promise was that we would have 3,000 new student spaces in the first year — 1,640 at universities and colleges in the lower mainland; 1,360 across the province; plus 30 new programs in addition to that, which would involve 1,000 non-university level courses; so a total of actually 4,000 new spaces in the first year, and a promise of an increase of 2,400 per year subsequent to that.

I think I saw at one point that the ministry had exceeded its target of 4,000 spaces, but I don't think that was ever announced. I would like to get that clarified from the minister.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is correct. We overachieved or overproduced last year. We budgeted for 4,100 and had about 4,300. I like that term "overachieved." When I was Minister of Environment, we used to call a forest fire that had escaped "an overachiever." It's a kind way of putting it.

MR. JONES: So there was the promise of 3,000 plus 1,000 — 4,000 — new student spaces in the first year, and in fact 4,300 new spaces actually occurred in the first year.

Again, I have to assume that the analogy the minister used — when somebody comes in to the Legislature, they are a full-time MLA no matter what part of the province they come from — agreed with mine, and that these are really full-time equivalent students the minister is talking about. So that in fact we as a province created 4,300 new full-time equivalent student spaces; 4,300 more full-time equivalent students were enrolled in our post-secondary institutions last year than in the previous year. Is that accurate?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR. JONES: I wonder if the minister could advise the committee of the enrolment increase of full-time equivalents in the previous year. I guess that would be 1988-89 over 1987-88.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Sorry. I can't provide that to you right now. I don't have it with me at this moment.

MR. JONES: I was hoping the minister could confirm the figure that I believe is the increase in the previous year, which is some 2,900 full-time-equivalent spaces. Although very clearly there was a change in the mid-eighties, I would suggest that the increase in the year before could be considered a somewhat typical enrolment increase for the latter half of the 1980s. So if we take that 2,900 — and I am not suggesting that the minister agrees with that, because he didn't have the figure — and subtract it from the 4,300, that would have been actually new student spaces over the enrolment increase that we could expect would normally transpire.

Some 4,000 new student spaces appeared to me to be the promise of the minister's predecessor in that first year. If we talk about new spaces, meaning new full-time-equivalent spaces above and beyond normal enrolment growth, I think we have to come to the conclusion that the figures are much lower — even given the minister's belief that he or the ministry was overachieving — and that the overachievement was much less than the public relations exercise we saw

[ Page 9660 ]

last spring in terms of 15,000 new student spaces. If we multiply this over six years — and the first year was the big year — we see a very modest improvement that will not produce the results that British Columbians expected from this government.

[5:00]

Very clearly, the issue of post-secondary education in the October 22, 1986, election was a major issue, and everywhere the Premier went in this province on campuses, he was very seriously harassed because of the understanding on the part of people in this province that we were the bottom of the barrel in terms of participation rates, degree-completion rates and student financial aid. Three and a half years later we see some improvement in the student financial aid package — a modest improvement, and I would like to talk more about that — and a modest improvement here. But certainly it was not the expectation that British Columbians had at the time of that election, and it did not in any way fulfil the expectations that were created in the Access for All announcement of March 20 last year.

What we have is overachieving in the public relations department and underachieving in delivering the goods that British Columbians expect in this province. What we're going to see, down the road when the figures are available in terms of participation rates, is that we were at the bottom of the barrel and we improved in our efforts to improve participation of 18- to 24-year-olds, and others as well. But other provinces have the same concerns, and we are way behind those other provinces. What's going to happen, I believe, when the figures are made available is that they are going to demonstrate that we have slipped further and further behind the national average.

The promise of the previous minister was that, through the efforts of this government, we would move over a six-year period to the national average. I would be willing to wager that we will be miles off the national average in student participation rates for 18- to 24-year-olds six years hence, should this current administration have the opportunity to carry on with this program. It's not there; it's smoke and mirrors; it's public relations.

The 4,000 promised were in fact some 1,400 — much less than half the expectations the government indicated they were prepared to live up to.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd be willing to accept your wager, because I can tell you, Mr. Member and members of the committee, that in six years we will increase university enrolment by 25 percent. We will do this in a time when the population of 18- to 24-year-olds is decreasing. So we will significantly increase university attendance.

I don't know where we'll be at the end of the six years in relation to other provinces, because other provinces will have a more serious decline in that population rate, and it's hard to predict at this point where they will be. For example, provinces like Quebec, which has an extremely low birth rate, are going to naturally see far lower participation at their universities and CEGEPs — and some of the maritime provinces as well.

But we will see a significant increase here. So if you're willing to wager, let's get the details because I'll take that bet, and I'm sure I'll win.

MR. JONES: I'd be happy to do that, and I outlined the details: that is, that within six years.... I think we could fairly easily calculate who will win this bet, based on the figures that we already have.

We know what the other provinces have been doing in recent years in terms of improving access for their students, We know what this province did in its major year last year for improving access. Very clearly, when projected against the other provinces, it will be inadequate to get anywhere near the national average.

I have a very short question to the minister. The order paper has a lot of questions at the back. I put a question on this subject on the order paper at the beginning of this session. How long ago was that? It's certainly well over a month — maybe even a month and a half. I know some ministers are very conscientious about this and do answer those questions. Maybe the question was not an easy one for the minister to answer; maybe there is some good reason. But am I wasting my time by putting questions to this minister on the order paper?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, Mr. Member, a question on the order paper is never a waste of time. It may appear like it, but it isn't. It's part of our parliamentary process. One of the great freedoms of democracy and of this assembly is that you can put a question on an order paper and expect a response from the minister, such as you're getting now.

Seriously, there will be a response to you. It's a technical detail and a lengthy question, but I guarantee you that in the fullness of time, there will be an answer to this question.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I think it's very easy to see the flip attitude of the minister. He does not take seriously questions on the order paper. I would be very pleased to receive an answer to that question, and I look forward to that, but I certainly won't be holding my breath.

Still on the access concerns that I have, in order to achieve the goal that the minister talks about.... The analogy with the Legislature is a good one. When we increase the number of MLAs from 69 to 75, there is going to have to be some accommodation of those individuals. We're going to have to, at a minimum, add six new desks and chairs to this chamber.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Although there were 1,400 spaces created beyond what I suggested was the normal enrolment growth, the first year is the easiest year, because in the first year the institutions can lease space, rent space or they can accommodate more students in the space they have; but to achieve the goal that was promised

[ Page 9661 ]

of increasing by 15,000 the number of new spaces over a six-year period is going to require considerable capital expansion. I believe the promise at the time was some $210 million over six years for the access part of that capital expansion.

I have really not seen any evidence. I know there have been capital expenditures. The minister, for example, made an announcement the other day: a $40 million expansion set for Simon Fraser University. But the senior project manager of that institution indicated that those projects to be completed in 1992 would not lead to increased enrolment but would create more room for the students already there in overcrowded facilities. We have that kind of situation all over the place. Many students are still housed in trailers and are in overcrowded classrooms. Just to create the proper space for the existing students is a major undertaking on the part of this government, and a costly one.

The projects I have seen are similar to the one I just described, at Simon Fraser. They are not creating new spaces but are improving the accommodation of existing students. That has been repeated, I think, in virtually all the announcements the minister and his predecessor have made. I don't see — I'm expressing my skepticism, and I think it's been demonstrated in the first year — that the institutional capacity will be there. Can the minister give me some concrete and specific assurance that these 15,000 new spaces will be new spaces like the six new chairs in the chamber to accommodate the six new MLAs?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: These are interesting comments coming from a member of a party who, when they were government, decreased capital funding by 25 percent during the years '72-75. Serious cutbacks — cut capital spending right to the bone.

That aside, the member is aware that in his own riding at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, we've contributed $40 million to a building program. We essentially will have increased our capital spending budget threefold in the last three years. I'll give you the examples here. As a matter of fact, it's a little over three times.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but you guys cut it back 25 percent. Building on yours was easy to do.

MR. CLARK: How much did you cut back in '83?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Never mind that '83 nonsense. If you're going to deal in political anthropology all the time.... Those were restraint times. When you were government they weren't. You were just spending your money in other areas.

Listen to me. Fiscal '88-89, $49 million in capital; fiscal '89-90, $99 million in capital expenditures; and fiscal '90-91, $167 million in capital expenditures. That is remarkable. The record speaks for itself.

I have to excuse myself momentarily, and I'm going to ask the second member for Richmond to take his place and talk about the great capital programs and building programs that are taking place at Kwantlen College.

MR. LOENEN: I am delighted to take my place here and talk for a few minutes about the importance of education and particularly advanced education. Increasingly I think we recognize what it means for the future of our children, of our communities and of this province, because education is like the infrastructure of highways, roads and railways: it provides the means by which we can develop the resources. In this case, our most precious resources are the young minds of our children and of the generations.

I know that from my own experience, education has meant much to me. It means much to our children. I've seen a lot of studies which indicate the correlation between level of education and so-called earning power or the ability even to obtain a job in the first place. There's a remarkable correlation.

I just want to advise all our young people and those who are not so young to make use of all the opportunities that are provided through our advanced education programs. Here we have to think not only of the universities but also the community colleges, which provide training for people who suddenly need to be retrained because their jobs have become redundant.

We just heard the minister comment on the fact that we have increasingly been able to direct more and more dollars to education. When I think of the last budget, clearly it's an indication that this government is committed to education at unprecedented levels. Overall, we have seen an increase of 15 percent. We have seen a commitment to proceed with the degree-granting programs in Nanaimo, Kamloops and Kelowna, and with money to start to fund that great university of the north in Prince George. Those are commitments that I'd like to commend the minister for, because they're significant, they're important, and they will increasingly pay dividends for our province and our young people.

[5:15]

I want to draw attention to a community college that is close to my heart. I am talking about Kwantlen College in the community that I represent. Kwantlen College has branches in Langley and Surrey. I'm just delighted that the minister has made a commitment whereby we can look forward to a brand new campus in our community. I want the minister to know how appreciative the people of our community are with that initiative. For 20 years Kwantlen College in Richmond has been housed in rented facilities in old warehouses, and now we can look forward to the start of construction on a brand-new campus that is very centrally located on an excellent site. The community has been involved in picking that site. The municipality is immensely supportive of it. As I said, I'd just like to commend the minister for those initiatives, and I hope that he will carry through on the initiatives that were taken by his predecessor in relation to that new college that will be constructed in Richmond.

[ Page 9662 ]

In addition, I also know that Langley is very anxious to see a start to its permanent campus. In particular, they would like to have a school of horticulture attached to the campus. I cannot express strongly enough my belief that that would be a very positive move. Up and down the Fraser Valley and also in my riding, there are people who make a living out of growing some of the finest cut flowers in the country. There is a tremendous export opportunity for some of these greenhouse operators when they look south of the border. I had occasion to relate this once before, but for the benefit of the minister.... When I met with the Farmers' Institute at a breakfast meeting, I was sitting beside someone who was telling me that a very significant part of his crop went south of the border. I said: "How is it possible that we have an army of trucks every morning heading south along I-5 to the Seattle market to feed it fresh cut flowers? How is it possible that we in British Columbia would be able to penetrate that market?" He said: "It is very simple. It is because we are able, with our local talent, to produce a superior product."

I think that is very encouraging, because it means that we have a proven track record. By providing the kinds of educational opportunities that the proposed horticultural centre in Langley would provide, by making that available, we will be able to capitalize on that. In fact, it will lead to economic opportunities, to jobs here and to increased activity across the border into that market south of us. So I would hope that the minister will come through in a big way for the people throughout the Lower Mainland who depend on the horticultural industry. I look forward to that because I know that it will be of great economic benefit to my residents and to the entire province.

MR. JONES: The minister wants to talk about New Democrat governments, and he talks about '72 to '75. But he should be broader in his knowledge of history than that. He should know about the Douglas government of '44 to '60, and he should know more about the Schreyer government, and he should know about — even if he wants to talk about 1990 and beyond — the second term of the Tony Penikett government in the Yukon Territory, which is doing very well, thank you very much. It's important that we have these little historical things, but what the minister is looking at now is a new generation of New Democrats who are going to move beyond the next election into government and be able to fulfil some of the promises that this government has fallen short on.

I'd like to echo the remarks of the second member for Richmond. I think the development of the campus there is an important development and a long overdue one. In the words of the minister in describing other similar facilities as second-rate, we're moving from second-rate facilities to first-rate facilities, as we should. However, it underscores my point that we are not creating new spaces, as was promised in the Access for All announcement. What we're doing is improving the facilities that already exist and not accommodating those 15,000 new spaces.

The minister indicated on the capital fund that we had $99 million in the province's budget last year and a promise of $167 million in the budget being proposed. I'd like to ask the minister: was the $99 million that he referred to in the capital budget from last year entirely spent? If so, were any of those funds actually used to increase the number of spaces in a particular institution, and in what institution?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The money is all spent or committed to be spent in construction. It doesn't happen immediately; there's a phase process. Yes, there are new buildings all over the province — Cariboo, for example. I'll read a sort of list of our major-project capital allocations coming up. I will not read the dollar figures we've budgeted because those are still subject to bid, but here is the list: Douglas College, New Westminster campus; Cariboo College, Kamloops university college additions; Malaspina, to benefit the university college; Okanagan College; Kwantlen; Camosun; North Island, Courtenay campus; Douglas College, Maple Ridge campus; Capilano College; Northern Lights College, Fort Nelson and Fort St. John access additions; Okanagan College, Salmon Arm campus. I looked at that site two weeks ago — a beautiful site overlooking the lake, and they have a remarkable increase. I know that one for a fact because I recall the numbers. It goes from a student enrolment of about 250 to 580 when it's finished. So those are actual new seats; those are actual dollars being spent to provide new seats. In every way, shape and form, I don't know how you can not agree that we are expanding the system and expanding the number of seats available to students to attend post-secondary education and training.

MR. JONES: I think it's fairly obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the projects that the minister mentions are valuable projects. There's no question that we are going to improve the facilities in post-secondary education in this province as a result of those projects. However, they are primarily projects aimed at replacing inadequate facilities and improving upon those facilities rather than adding new spaces.

I pointed out to the minister the response from Simon Fraser University with the $40 million announcement the other day. It was very clearly to accommodate the existing 12,000 students at that institution rather than expand opportunities for new students to be housed on that campus. I think the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) would agree that that's basically what's happened with the campus of Kwantlen College there. We're replacing inadequate facilities; we're not expanding— and the same thing would be true for the Surrey campus of Kwantlen College.

By and large those new spaces are not there and we are not going to achieve our goal of the national average in participation rates. The promises of this government will not be achieved. There is not the kind of political will there to reach that national average, which was a very modest goal in the first place. We would like to see British Columbia as

[ Page 9663 ]

leaders in post-secondary education rather than at the bottom of the barrel and making false promises about getting to the national average.

I'd like to get back to SFA, and in this case student financial aid is what I'm referring to. The previous minister used to talk in very glowing terms, as did the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), about our student financial assistance program being the best in the country. They would often take off on flights of fancy — delusions of grandeur — about the improvements in that program. There were improvements, though clearly modest improvements.

The minister indicated the other day that we have a standing committee on student financial aid that is charged with reviewing all aspects of the program, and that they are the appropriate body to consider that program. I agree with the minister. The problem is that we do have this excellent committee, but they meet infrequently, and many of their recommendations are ignored. They have made recommendations for years, particularly focused on low-income families, that have not been achieved.

They've always expressed interest in the importance of adequate publicity of the financial aid program. It was echoed by the ministry's own access committee. The minister indicated earlier, with respect to Prince George, what I thought was a very valuable part of the planning of that institution: that there would be an awareness portion built into the operating budget. I think it's bang on. It's necessary up there. It's going to improve participation rates. But it's a good idea that shouldn't be housed only in the minister's own riding. We need those kinds of awareness budgets.

The minister talks about improving the participation of women in science and engineering programs. Let's get an awareness budget built into the programs of our colleges and universities so they can do the kind of thing that the University of Northern British Columbia is going to be able to do.

Let's do the same thing with our student financial assistance program. Maybe we don't want to, because the budget we see before us is the same as the budget figure from two years ago. The minister is promising an increase in enrolment, so at the same time as we have an increased enrolment, we see the same budget figure as we saw two years ago, even though the budget — as I'm sure the deputy minister is telling the minister — was underspent. Only two-thirds of that budget was spent at the time.

Part of my problem.... The minister should perhaps think of being in opposition, and of the opposition's perspective. We see these promises and these funds, yet we don't see the results.

For example, I wrestled with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) for a couple of years on the funds for excellence in education — $600 million to be spent over three years on projects for excellence. What happened to the fund? Half the money was spent — not the $600 million. It was not spent over a three-year period; it was cut off after a year and a half. It was not used for the purposes for which it was intended. It was used for normal operating kinds of things, not the purposes that the budget was set up for.

So when I see promises of $167 million in capital for 1990-91, I'm skeptical; I don't think it's there. When I saw $58 million for a student financial assistance program two years ago, I was skeptical — and I was right. Only something like $40 million of that was spent.

[5:30]

Perhaps I could elicit a point of information from.... Two points. One is just on the capital budget. The minister quoted the figure of $167 million. A while ago he helped me, in terms of the money for the literacy program. Perhaps he could help me by explaining where in the estimates that $167 million appears.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It won't appear, Mr. Member. What appears in the estimates is a repayment for loans. The institutes financed these, and we, through capital, let servicing pay it down. So that's the number you would see.

But the $167 million is real. I can assure you that it would be our political life if we didn't deliver, because, as you know, boards and administrations have done the planning for these capital projects. They are anticipating having them go. And they have to go, or we will be in deep gobs of trouble.

But I can assure you that they are going to proceed, and you will be invited to every ribbon-cutting and sod-turning that we have so that you can see for yourself that we really are spending that money.

MR. JONES: I thank the minister for the answer. That's what I assumed was the situation, but it's very hard to relate the figures the minister quotes to the debt-servicing for those previous expenditures.

Back to the student financial assistance program. Maybe the minister can help me in this area, too. We see that budget figure of $58 million, and yet when we look at the auditor-general's report, we see some $15 million for non-repayable assistance for equalization or supplemental funds for students, we see $7 million for scholastic loan remission, we see $5 million for interest paid for loans to students while they are in attendance at a post-secondary institution, and we see an additional $5 million for loans that students have defaulted on. That adds up to $32 million. just in terms of the accounting — and I am sure the minister has a better accounting background than I do — why is it that we show a total of some $58 million? We see a difference of $26 million that, in my understanding, is loaned by financial institutions and is not really a loan from the province. The province guarantees those loans, but that additional $26 million is not really an expenditure of the government, in that it's loaned by financial institutions — banks, I suppose. It's a loan to a student from a financial institution. Is that the difference between the $32 million that I see and the $58 million that we see in the estimates?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.)

[ Page 9664 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We pay interest. We also have the cap of $12,000, and we pay over and above that if there have been costs. There are also administrative costs. There is a cost to the taxpayer for that program.

MR. JONES: Perhaps I missed the first part of that, because clearly there is an administrative cost. The figures that I related to, which are the costs to the government to support students in this province, added up to $32 million. My question wasn't really answered by the minister.

My question is: is that $26 million, which is the difference between what I accounted for and what the auditor-general accounted for — which I see as loaned by institutions to students, not loaned by the government to students — what appears in the budget? If it is, how is it that we can include in the budget of the province moneys that are lent by institutions? Clearly the minister is not saying that there is a $26 million administrative cost to administer $32 million worth of financial assistance to students.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, your figure of $26 million is not correct, and we're at a loss to understand how you're arriving at it. Our expenses are: loan interest, loan remission, loan write-offs and the equalization payments.

MR. JONES: That's exactly my point, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I'll go over those figures again; they are from the auditor-general's report. I assume that the audit was done in the last year, so that these figures would be relatively current and could apply in rough terms to these estimates.

There was $15 million for non-repayable assistance for equalization or for supplemental funds. Okay? There was some $7 million for scholastic loan remission. There was $5 million for interest paid on loans while students were in attendance at a post-secondary institution. The financial institution loans money to the student at a certain interest rate, and while the student is in attendance, the province pays the interest — that's part of the cost to the province. So that was $5 million.

Then the last one is that a certain percentage of loans are in default. Students don't finish their program, the loans can't be collected and that's a $5 million annual cost to the province. So if you add up the $15 million, the $7 million, the $5 million and the $5 million, it comes to $32 million. To me, that seems to be the cost to the province, and as well, as the minister correctly points out, there would be an administration cost. But if we have a budget figure of $58 million, and the hard costs from the auditor-general's report add up to $32 million, and the only things I've left off are administrative costs, clearly there can't be $26 million in administrative costs on a $58 million budget.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay, I'll give it to you slowly, and you can write these down: British Columbia student loan quarterly interest, $8 million; claims for loss, $2.8 million; loan remission, $9.3 million — and I think we've arrived at the big one, which you'll maybe find surprising — equalization costs, $25.5 million; supplemental, $250,000; rural scholarships, $190,000; adult basic education, $1 million; athletic awards, $1.2 million; student societies, $100,000; Premier's excellence awards, $100,000; matching endowments, $1.5 million; loans for the disabled, $100,000; co-op education, $2.8 million; graduate assistance, $2.4 million; and work study, $3 million. Those are rough, but they will come out to $58 million.

MR. JONES: It's often difficult to have a dialogue in estimates on figures like this. Clearly the figures that I got from the auditor-general don't match the minister's. I'm not disputing the minister's figures or the auditor-general's; I just had a question arising from the auditor-general's report. The $25.5 million for equalization costs — the auditor-general, I assume, had that as more like $15 million.... Why the disparity, I don't know. I appreciate the minister's attempts, with the logistics of bringing information into the House, not knowing what specifics are going to be required.

Let me just comment briefly on the adequacy of that $58 million. There have been increases, and they will assist students to meet the costs of inflation. However, there is a high level of unmet need, that being defined as the difference between the amount of assistance that students apply for and that which they actually receive from the student financial assistance program. If we take the average amount of unmet need experienced by students in this province and multiply it by the number of students experiencing that unmet need, we come to a figure of some $9 million. I'm sure there are always going to be shortfalls in government programs, but I think the minister should be aware that, in terms of the amount of unmet need — the amount of money being applied for and not being received by students — we would have to add another $9 million to that budget just to meet the need of those students who are already applying.

Let's leave SFA and move on to something that I know the minister is interested in, particularly coming from Prince George: the question of native Indian education.

The previous minister was given the challenging job of improving access and quality for our native Indian population. The programs we see in our school system and in our post-secondary institutions have not met the test of responsiveness to the native Indian community, and it is a tremendous challenge to involve that community in making those programs more meaningful. The previous minister did strike a Provincial Advisory Committee on Post-Secondary Education for Native Learners — as the minister has mentioned in the past, an excellent committee, very much representative of both the post-secondary edu-

[ Page 9665 ]

cation community and the native Indian community in this province.

[5:45]

The mandate at that time was that the government would take immediate steps, in consultation with natives and with universities and colleges, to develop and implement a detailed strategy to address the diverse advanced education and job training needs of native Indians. I think the committee did an excellent job. They produced an excellent report. Again, very much like the situation I mentioned earlier with the report of the Literacy Advisory Committee, we see excellent committees and excellent reports, and one has to wonder what happens to these reports. Do they sit on the shelves and gather dust?

As I mentioned earlier, the post-secondary institution that the minister had long lobbied for had been part of the advocacy for the University of Northern British Columbia. When the implementation and planning group presented their report, it was only ten days after that that the minister — and I have no criticism of that — clearly responded with alacrity, when it came to a post-secondary institution or a post-secondary program in his own riding.

But when it comes to the Literacy Advisory Committee report or the native Indian education report, we don't see the same degree of responsiveness. That committee produced an excellent report. It was well represented; the co-chairpersons of that committee, Gordon Antoine and Peter Jones, are highly respected in this province. The minister held a press conference on the release of that report, which made 21 recommendations. The cost in the first year of those recommendations is $4.1 million. At this point in time we are really going into the fifth academic year since the Premier assumed his responsibilities as Premier in this province, and the modest $4.1 million recommended in that budget has not been responded to by this minister.

I would like to ask this minister: can the native Indian community in this province expect a response from him? Is that response going to be 50 percent of that $4.1 million? Is it going to be 25 percent of that $4.1 million? What reasonable expectations can the native Indian community have after over four years of the current administration, with no progress in terms of providing the much-needed programs for our native Indian community in this province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to the committee with a couple of comments I have to make dealing with the general line of questioning and innuendo that the member is presenting.

First of all, I can't accept the criticism that there's something wrong when we take the literacy report and don't really have it developed until the fall semester of 1990, half-way through the year. Mr. Member, I'll tell you now that literacy and the challenge of illiteracy is far more important to us than just to focus on it for one year.

We received a report in December. We've acted on it very quickly, and the report will be announced in time for the various institutes to begin their programs in September of this year, programs that will carry on forever until we decrease that 17 percent illiteracy rate to zero.

So I will not accept the criticism that we drag our feet; we don't. We have clearly put these committees into place to produce recommendations for government, and we are acting on those recommendations.

It follows, as well, with the native Indian education report that Gordon Antoine and Peter Jones produced for us. As a matter of fact, they were a year early in terms of their presentation to government. We took that report. We made it public as quickly as we could. We are costing it and working on it now. There will be a presentation to cabinet, as is the normal process for this type of arrangement. That will proceed as it should.

Similarly, with the University of Northern British Columbia, I received a report in January. I spent considerable time visiting all the communities. We have now acted with response to the IPG report in terms of putting together an interim board of governors. We are currently drafting legislation.

We have been forthright; we have been as expedient as possible on all those issues. And I will not accept criticism that we're dragging our feet or slow. We take these studies very seriously. We don't take them with any sense of glibness. We study them cautiously. We ensure that once the recommendations are put before us, we have a control process in place to deliver, and we are going to do that. I will make no apology whatsoever for the way we're managing any of the studies we put in place, because we're managing them in a first-class fashion and we are going to deliver the results.

To suggest that we should be faster, that we should not have Treasury Board scrutiny, is irresponsible. That's probably why your government wasted so much money when you were government in 1972-75. There is a process we go through for proper fiscal responsibility to the taxpayer of the province, and we've done so in all these three cases.

MR. JONES: The minister may not like criticism, he may not accept criticism, but the criticism is valid. If we have a look at recommendation No. 7 from the Provincial Advisory Committee on Post-Secondary Education for Native Learners, it recommends that the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology provide direct formula funding to existing and developing first nations post-secondary institutions by April 1, 1990. We're well past that date. The minister has not responded to these recommendations. To suggest that the minister is treating the reports of these excellent committees in anything but a cavalier fashion is unfair to the committees and to the work that they've done.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, we can carry on with this at another time. So I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 9666 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.