[ Page 9667 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Structured Compensation Act (Bill 29). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 9667

Oral Questions

Mail-order sale of lottery tickets. Mr. Sihota –– 9668

Relief from GST. Mr. Loenen –– 9668

Ministry of Highways land acquisition. Ms. Pullinger –– 9669

Silviculture funding. Mr. Miller –– 9669

Rent review policy. Mr. Blencoe –– 9670

Rental and social housing supply. Mr. Blencoe –– 9670

Mail-order sale of lottery tickets. Hon. Mr. Dirks replies to questions –– 9670

Ministerial Statement

Impact of federal monetary policies. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 9672

Mr. Rose

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

On vote 5: minister's office –– 9673

Mr. Jones

Mrs. Boone

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. Rabbitt

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Mr. Miller

The House met at 2:01 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today an alderman from the municipality of Surrey, the chairman of the water and environmental committee of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and a man who aspires to be the next mayor of Surrey: Ald. Bill Fornich.

While I'm on my feet, I would also like to introduce Mr. Ben Marr, a former deputy minister for the province of British Columbia and now general manager of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. It's a pleasure to have Ben back in the House.

MR. BARNES: I would like the House to join me in welcoming a group of English-as-a-second-language students from King George Secondary School in my constituency, along with their teachers Mr. Denis McMahon and Shirlene Shelfontiuk.

While I'm on my feet, I would like to remind the House that King George will be celebrating its seventy-fifth anniversary this weekend, starting Friday, May 18, through to Sunday. If anybody is around B.C. Place Stadium during that time, they would be welcome to help them celebrate 75 years of successfully educating students.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I am pleased today to welcome a group of 24 grade 7 students from Aberdeen Elementary School. They are visiting the House with their teacher, Mr. Carl Gustafson, and parents Sharon Parker, Karen Collins and Judy Littke. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: In the gallery today we have a Miss Katy McLean, visiting our capital city from Nunawading, Victoria, Australia. Katy is being hosted by the Sidney and Brentwood Bay Rotary Clubs. Accompanying her is my constituency assistant, Mrs. Jayne McCurrach. I'd ask the House to give them both a warm welcome.

MR. ROSE: A school group from my riding is with us today, a civics class from Moody Junior Secondary School, with their teacher, Mr. Dave Maronuk. I'd like them to be welcomed as well.

MRS. McCARTHY. In the gallery today are two friends who are visiting our house: Inez Ridley and Dorothy Gray. They are members of the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew constituency association, and I'd like to ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker and members of the assembly, I have two introductions to make today. One is related to an intermediate-care facility in Vancouver South, and representing them today are Mr. Felix Berg and 37 members of the home.

I also take great pleasure in introducing Mr. Christopher Richardson, who is here on a conference. He's chairman of Youville Residence intermediate care centre. He's also vice-chairman of the Vancouver Parks and Recreation Board and, incidentally, has been a member of the reserve constable force with the Vancouver city police for 17 years. Would the House please make these guests welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: Joining us in the galleries today are two individuals from Toronto, one who has frequented this Legislature in the past and has worked here: Dennis Robideau. And joining him is Nicki Davis. Would all members please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER: I ask the House today to welcome two friends from Smithers who are in the gallery: Geoff Jackson and Tommie Trotter. Would the House make them welcome, please.

Introduction of Bills

STRUCTURED COMPENSATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Structured Compensation Act.

HON. MR. SMITH: This matter was introduced into the House last year and has been the subject of a considerable amount of consultation with a number of groups and individuals around the province.

Mr. Speaker, with leave I move that the subject matter of Bill 29, intituled Structured Compensation Act, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations to examine, inquire into and make recommendations on the matter of the Structured Compensation Act, with particular reference to the purposes of the bill and the policy considerations behind the bill; and to report to the House as soon as possible, or following any adjournment, or at the next following session, as the case may be, and to deposit the original of its reports with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during a period of adjournment. Upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the Chairman shall present all reports to the Legislative Assembly.

In addition to the powers previously conferred upon that committee, I would ask that the committee have the following additional powers: namely, to appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; to sit during any period in which the House is adjourned, during the recess after prorogation until the next session, and during any sitting of the House; to adjourn from place to place as may be convenient; and to retain personnel as required to assist the committee.

I would now put the motion to refer the matter to the committee.

[ Page 9668 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, for such a matter to proceed to committee, leave will be required. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations.

Oral Questions

MAIL-ORDER SALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS

MR. SIHOTA: I raised a number of questions in the House yesterday with respect to a report done by CLEU on mail-order operations selling lottery tickets offshore. It has now come to my understanding that a second study was done by the British Columbia Lottery Corporation.

My question to the Provincial Secretary is this: could he explain why the B.C. Lottery Corporation chose to do a second study on this issue?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I will take that question on notice.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister, who doesn't seem to know what's going on with the lotteries in British Columbia. One must wonder what he does in his office all day — play tiddly-winks or something? Could the minister advise the House what matters were investigated by the British Columbia Lottery Corporation in its review of mail-order-purchase operations?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, with due respect to you, I point out to the member that that question was taken as notice, and his follow-up question is clearly out of order.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the intervention wasn't out of order as well, because if you look at the rules, my hon. friend.... It is still out of order that I'm up trying to bring us back to order.

MR. SPEAKER: The difficulty the Chair has in these matters is that where a question is asked, and rephrased and asked again, it's a question of whether the question is substantially different from the one asked previously.

I would cite, for example, that where a motion is on the order paper and a question is asked, the question is out of order. However, if the question is asked in a different way, the question is not out of order.

Where these questions seem to all run along the same lines, if the minister chooses to answer the question, we will deal with it. If the minister does not choose to answer the question, I assume it's being dealt with by the question being taken as notice, and I will recognize the next person standing. If the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has a new question, I'd be delighted to hear it.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have another question, and this time it is to the Solicitor-General. Could the Solicitor-General advise this House what steps have been taken to determine that B.C. companies operating in this field — namely, the selling of offshore lottery tickets — are in compliance with both British Columbia law and American law?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question was taken on notice yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is taken as notice. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has a new question.

MR. SIHOTA: In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I don't think the minister took the question on notice. He said that this question was taken on notice, but it's a different question.

Let me put it to the minister this way. I have in my possession a cease-and-desist order from the state of Kansas in the United States.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, the members like to heckle.

Let me make it very clear. This government is soft on crime, and the point we're trying to make is that it has chosen not to respect foreign jurisdictions....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I ask the member to take his seat.

The interjections are only as a result of the fact that the member refuses to ask a question. I've asked the member on a number of occasions if he has a new question. There are a number of other people who have indicated they wish to ask questions. I'll allow the member to ask one more question, if he actually has a new question to a new person. But if he wants to engage in dialogue prior to the question, then I can't protect him from interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: The question to the Solicitor-General is this: why is your ministry not cooperating with the American jurisdictions who have shut down these operations in the United States, and why are you continuing to allow these operations in British Columbia?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll take it on notice, Mr. Speaker.

RELIEF FROM GST

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, the question is to the Minister of Regional and Economic Development. In

[ Page 9669 ]

view of this morning's report that Michael Wilson is considering some form of relief from the GST for small business, will the minister make representations to the federal Finance minister on behalf of tourist and other small businesses in our province, which stand to suffer a particular hardship as a result of this ill-conceived and punitive tax?

[2:15]

HON. S. HAGEN: It's great to see that the federal government, and particularly the federal Finance minister, is finally listening to the people of Canada, to our Premier and to our Finance minister — listening to complaints about the GST and about the harm it's going to do to small business and tourism. He's finally listening and coming down with some possible changes. I have to report to the House that I have not seen the specific details of these changes, but I think that a reduction in the GST rate for small business — if that's what he's going to do — is positive. Also, the proposal to base the calculation on gross revenues is encouraging. I think that will help to reduce the financial sting and cut the red tape.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of tourism, this province, of course, is experiencing a very positive tourism economy. Many of the tourists come from outside the province. I'll be very interested to see how the federal minister plans to deal with any GST relief with regard to tourists who come here from other parts of the world.

MINISTRY OF HIGHWAYS
LAND ACQUISITION

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question for the Minister of Highways. Can the minister tell this House whether it's the policy of her ministry to legally acquire title to required land before beginning highway construction work?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I am not sure that I entirely understand the question. Was the question whether we normally acquire title to land before we do highways work?

Not in every case. In some cases there are expropriations taking place; in some cases there are negotiations. But an attempt to secure the property by way of a title transfer is always undertaken.

MS. PULLINGER: I have a new question. Can the minister confirm that clearcutting for the Vancouver Island Highway, immediately south of Mill Bay, has begun in advance of the ministry acquiring the required property?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the members from Nanaimo supported the construction of the Island Highway. The questions put forward today would raise doubts about that. I can't confirm or deny the present status of the title on those properties.

SILVICULTURE FUNDING

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. We are aware that the government is trying through advertising to convince the public that they know what they are doing. Could the Minister of Forests explain why his ministry was not advised in advance that the silviculture budget was being stripped, and confirm that his ministry is desperately trying to process payments to silviculture contractors, and that it's all being done manually?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I think somewhere in that political statement there was a question, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure, but I think that once again that member of the opposition has his facts all wrong and is incorrect.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the facts will speak for themselves. That in fact is correct.

A new question to the minister. The budget documents boast about increased silviculture funding. Could the minister confirm that one of the largest spacing contracts in the province –– 1,200 hectares in the Squamish forest district — remains unfinished, with 40 workers languishing on UI, and that the contractor has been advised that there is no money available to complete the contract?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I repeat, Mr. Speaker: on the first question, the member's facts are totally incorrect. On the second one, I'll have to take that as notice and bring an answer back to the House.

MR. MILLER: A new question to the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Forests confirm that a 103-hectare spacing contract on the Queen Charlotte Islands worth $170,000 –– I can give him the contract number if he likes; and by the way, the previous one was a $1 million contract — has been awarded, but the contractor has now been advised that he can't proceed because there is no money available for this spacing contract?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I can neither confirm nor deny that, but going on the basis of the accuracy of questions from that side of the House in the past, I would not take what that member says as gospel, and I will bring a report back to the House.

MR. MILLER: To speak of accuracy, given the false advertising that they are perpetrating on the people of British Columbia.... Has the Minister of Forests finally decided to commit the necessary expenditures to intensive silviculture — and I hope he knows the difference between that and tree-planting — which offers the only hope we have of meeting some of the timber shortages that we're facing around this province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I know full well the difference between planting trees and intensive silviculture. We recognize that by intensive silviculture —

[ Page 9670 ]

which is a formula we are following in this province — within the next few years we will be able to increase the annual allowable cut in this province and not decrease it, as is usually said by the members opposite.

So the answer is: regardless of the member's comments about false advertising and misleading the public — which are unparliamentary — we are on a course of intensive silviculture and reforestation in this province. I would ask him to check some of his facts before he gets up to ask his questions.

RENT REVIEW POLICY

MR. BLENCOE: A question to the minister responsible for residential tenancy. The minister said yesterday that the rental housing crisis was virtually over in the province. Now the minister knows better; CMHC has provided him the real facts and the real numbers. Tenants need help now. Has a decision been made to help tenants by bringing in a fair rent stabilization program? Or do tenants in this province have to be gouged or forced to leave their homes?

MR. SPEAKER: I would advise the member that there is a Hansard, if he would like to see what the minister did say yesterday.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, you have corrected the member, so I don't need to do that.

I agree that with the dynamic economy in British Columbia, we do have a problem with rental accommodation, because so many people want to come here to live and participate in the jobs that we have available. But I still maintain that the indications are that the situation is slowly beginning to improve There are many areas of evidence of that. I understand that there has been a substantial increase in listings of residential units in the greater Vancouver area. I realize that is not necessarily affordable housing or suites immediately, but it is the trend. There is increasing availability of housing, and that soon begins to reflect in housing becoming available at a proper and competitive price.

I think the situation is improving. I think we will see it returning to more normalcy in a reasonably short time. The type of government intervention the member is speaking about doesn't really work; it hasn't worked anyplace else. Their own leader has said that he doesn't support it, because it doesn't work. I don't know why they would advocate that we try something that doesn't work when they themselves admit that it would be, and has been, a failure So the answer is no.

RENTAL AND SOCIAL HOUSING SUPPLY

MR. BLENCOE: Since the minister responsible for tenants in the province refuses to take any action and have a rent review process, I'll ask this question of the Minister of Housing. Would the minister confirm that only $36 million is being spent on social housing programs in the province this year, and less than $5 million on the rental supply program? That is roughly 0.27 percent of the entire provincial budget being spent on housing. The housing program you've announced is a real sham.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, words are cheap, and you can call our housing plan a sham — you can call it anything you want. But the facts are....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not working.

HON. MR. DUECK: It is working.

The facts are that under our rental supply program, I have authority to put up 8,000 units. It's up to the developer and the municipal authority to give the zoning, and they can proceed just as quickly as they possibly can.

Over and above that, last year we produced just under 2,000 social housing units; and above that, the private sector had roughly 40,000 housing starts last year. That is the most that has ever occurred in this province. It is the absolute maximum. Never before in history have there been so many houses started, or so many units built.

But I will tell you another thing, Mr. Member. All your barking in the world isn't going to build a single house — not even a dog house.

MAIL-ORDER SALE OF LOTTERY TICKETS

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to questions taken on notice in this House yesterday.

During question period yesterday the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), in the guise of a series of questions to do with lottery ticket sales, made some very serious allegations concerning the conduct of business of the British Columbia Lottery Corporation and ministers of the Crown.

Unfortunately, that member saw fit to further embellish his allegations in comments to the press. The member created the impression that he had a copy of a report prepared on this subject by the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit. Both in and outside this House he purported to quote from the CLEU report. I have since obtained a copy of what that member handed out to the media as excerpts from the CLEU report of June 1988....

MR. ROSE: I wonder whether this is really an answer to a question taken on notice or whether it is a ministerial statement in disguise. I would just like to point out to the House that the difference is.... This member has refused to answer questions during today's question period on the same subject. He has chosen to stonewall it, like many of his colleagues have done, and he gets up in the guise of an answer to a question taken on notice yesterday to give a ministerial statement which goes way beyond the metes and bounds of what we would expect. And therefore, if it is a ministerial statement in your judgment, this side intends to respond to it.

[ Page 9671 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, in the past, members who have been asked questions and who have taken answers on notice often took the opportunity to give replies to those questions during question period. In that case, the opposition lost the opportunity to use the time that was available in question period.

I was advised by the minister, prior to the commencement of today's session, that he wished to respond to questions taken on notice yesterday and to do so after question period. The Chair was thankful to have the notice. Until such time as I hear the reply, I can't determine whether that reply is an answer to a question or a ministerial statement — and of course the colour of that general area of discussion is grey.

[2:30]

However, it is better for the House that answers to questions taken on notice be given after question period, as opposed to being used to filibuster during question period. On that basis alone, I would like to hear uninterrupted the minister's reply. Now if the minister's reply goes beyond the bounds of the answers to questions, the Chair will determine at that time whether a reply will be allowed or whether we will wait until the next question period for the next instalment of this exciting adventure.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I must advise the House that the member has deliberately misinformed this House and the press on this issue. What he purports....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether there's a statement or a thing taken on notice, that's a pretty blatant charge, that the member deliberately misled the House. That's a matter of parliamentary privilege, and I think he should withdraw that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has been asked for the withdrawal of a statement. It's tradition in this House that when an unparliamentary statement or a statement that other members find objectionable is made, withdrawal takes place.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I would conform to your ruling. I will certainly withdraw the remark. I would remind the member opposite, though, that the allegations made by the member yesterday were very serious indeed. The member purports that excerpts from the CLEU report — and my staff has been advised by the director of CLEU himself — are not excerpts from the report at all; they don't even come close. I find such conduct of a member of this House to be reprehensible,

As far as the CLEU report is concerned, the Ministry of Solicitor-General advises me as follows: (1) the CLEU report was put forward internally in August 1988; (2) the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) does not have a copy and has never had a copy, although he is aware of the issue; (3) the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) does not have a copy and has never had a copy, though he is aware of the issue; (4) the Provincial Secretary does not now have a copy, nor has he ever had a copy, though I am aware of the issue; (5) the report is a police intelligence document which contains general observations and theories concerning potential issues of concern in the lottery ticket sales business; (6) the report does not contain evidence to warrant prosecution of anyone, nor does it suggest prosecutions; (7) our legal opinion is, and has consistently been, that offshore lottery sales are not a crime under current legislation; (8) neither the police report nor the director of CLEU is critical of government; and (9) to release such a report could indeed prejudice police intelligence and future works, and unfairly slander people by innuendo.

I suspect that the member has nothing more than an article that appeared in Equity magazine in October 1988. In that article, the reporter makes a number of inaccurate statements and inferences regarding the content and distribution of the CLEU report. Following the publication of that article, the director of CLEU, Peter Engstad, by letter dated November 7, 1988, wrote to the editor of Equity magazine, pointing out the serious errors and unfounded allegations contained in the article. I wish to read into the record pertinent excerpts from Mr. Engstad's letter:

"In the article...you make a number of inaccurate statements and inferences regarding the content and distribution of the Coordinated Law Enforcement Unit's (CLEU) offshore lottery report. These errors and innuendo have done your readers, the B.C. Lottery Corporation, ministers of the Crown and CLEU a serious disservice which deserves to be corrected.

"For example, the supposedly sinister recommendation that the B.C. Lottery Corporation not be shown the contents of the report simply recognizes that the report contains confidential information which, following accepted practices, cannot be disseminated outside the law enforcement community. For the same reason, and contrary to statements in the article, the report has not been provided to the Hon. Bill Reid or his predecessor, the Hon. Elwood Veitch.

"...I want to assure you and your readers that the CLEU report contains no evidence or allegations of criminality on the part of the B.C. Lottery Corporation or any of its officers or directors."

That letter was published in the January-February 1989 issue of Equity magazine under the title "CLEU Sets the Record Straight." Again, this member's statements have not only misled this House but have also misled the media. The piece of paper which he distributed yesterday does not contain excerpts from the CLEU report or excerpts from any other document produced by CLEU.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I appreciate that the member is probably reading from a prepared document. Unfortunately, people who prepare these documents are not always familiar with parliamentary practice, and we are not permitted to say — whether we feel it or not; whether we even suggest it or not —

[ Page 9672 ]

that any member has misled the House. I would ask the minister to withdraw the remark that the member "misled the House."

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'll withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd better be absolutely sure. The question is that the member deliberately misled the House. Obviously the House has been misled unintentionally in the past, so I'd ask the member to withdraw the words that the member "deliberately misled the House," and then conclude the matter.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, my statement was that the member's statement has not only misled the House.... I'll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. DIRKS: But obviously, from what I've seen and the report I've got, offshore ticket sales are not new, nor are they limited by any means to British Columbia. The corporation will continue to closely monitor these activities and take appropriate action wherever necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair determines that such a statement is in fact an answer to a detailed question given as notice. Members will have sufficient time to digest the answer — read it in Hansard. And we will have other opportunities in the rest of this session to discuss it at another time.

MR. ROSE: I've been reading the questions, Mr. Speaker. This diatribe has gone on now for about ten minutes, and it seems to have gone way beyond....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt your heckling.

This has gone way beyond the scope of the questions, which were rather limited. I would be grateful if Mr. Speaker could take this under advisement, when he's had a chance to look at it, and perhaps rule that this is, in effect, a ministerial statement, and give this side an opportunity to reply to some of these very serious charges levelled against one of our members.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Chair dealt with that area of accusation of a member deliberately misleading the House.

In terms of the other matter, as I told you earlier, this is a grey area. The Chair would have to decide that, knowing full well that next week and the weeks to follow will offer ample opportunity for further questions on this subject, should the members decide that that's the way to use question period. That's the way the matter will be dealt with.

Ministerial Statement

IMPACT OF FEDERAL MONETARY POLICY

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement. I have written to the Prime Minister on matters of great economic importance and concern to all British Columbians and all Canadians. I would like to advise the House on these matters by reading this letter. It's addressed to the Prime Minister.

"Western Premiers issued a communique on May 7, following our annual meeting in Portage la Prairie, stating very strongly our concern about the crippling impact of federal monetary policies on the Canadian economy and on individual Canadians. Along with my western colleagues, I am deeply concerned that the combined effect of high interest rates and an artificially high Canadian dollar will lead this country into a 'made in Canada' recession. Signs of such an eventuality are now apparent.

"The federal Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada are persisting in a high interest rate policy on the basis of current inflationary pressures. Those pressures, as you know, are not spread evenly across Canada, and where they exist, there are other, more appropriate fiscal or other instruments to achieve correction. The high interest rate policy is merely inflicting economic damage in the short term, and perhaps an economic devastation in the longer term.

"In the foreseeable future the most significant and predictable inflationary pressure will flow from the goods and services tax. At a minimum, it is estimated to have an inflationary effect of approximately 1.5 percent; although in our view that is conservative.

"The introduction next January of the goods and services tax will have precisely the inflation-igniting effect federal policy now seeks to avoid. I would be most concerned if the federal Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada were operating in anticipation of the GST, inducing an artificially high interest rate structure which could be reduced on the introduction of the GST. The combination of interest rate policy and the GST constitutes, in my view, an equation posing an unacceptable threat to economic stability in our country.

"I would urge you, Mr. Prime Minister, to recognize and act on the need to diminish interest rates, allow the Canadian dollar to decline to appropriate levels, and abandon the GST. Our country cannot afford these policies at this time."

Mr. Speaker, these are issues of critical importance to all British Columbians, and I urge all members of the House and the Leader of the Opposition to support me in opposition to the federal high interest rate policy, the attendant high Canadian dollar and in our unaltered and complete opposition to the GST. I would urge your support.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Premier has finally decided to join us in our opposition to the GST, to the high dollar which cripples our exports and also to a number of other things that affect our economy.

I would have hoped this statement from the Premier would have come a little earlier, because there was ample time when we saw this coming, and

[ Page 9673 ]

nothing was done. It seems to me that the high Canadian dollar and the high interest rate policy of this country, adding to the GST, are inextricably linked with the free trade and are designed principally to beat down wages and cut social programs. That's what it's all about, and that's all it's about.

To cripple the economies of eastern Canada — central Canada is where the inflation is, western Canada is where the trouble is, and our economy is so fragile, according to the Premier — in order to dampen down the inflation in central Canada is un-Canadian. So we have no difficulty at all in supporting the Premier on that score.

[2:45]

We are told that our economy is fragile. The Premier and the members of his party, by uttering those phrases over and over again, are destroying the confidence of investors in British Columbia. So like St. Paul on the road to Damascus, I am pleased he has taken our point of view after all these months.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, just before we go the regular House business, I would ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Tourism and Environment to sit this afternoon at 2:45.

MR. SPEAKER: I would accept an amendment to make it 2:50, because 2:45 is past.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I withdraw my request for leave then.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has already been granted. Next order of business.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I'd like to conclude a statement I was going to make yesterday but didn't have an opportunity to, as my critic opposite adjourned the House. My critic had made reference to the auditor-general's report and student financial aid and how there appeared to be a discrepancy between the auditor-general's statement and what we were currently saying.

The committee should be aware that auditor-generals' statements are always at least a year old. The member was dealing with year-old information and could not compare it with current information, and I'd just like to explain the reason why. It's because the numbers are different. The correct funding is as we described it in yesterday's debate, and the numbers that the member is dealing with, particularly the equalization payments, the discrepancy between $15 million and $25 million, are due to the fact that he's using old and outdated material.

MR. JONES: If the Minister of Advanced Education would take the time to read the auditor-general's report, he would see that the figures roughly add up to those he was referring to, except that $26 million for student loans is mentioned in the auditor-general's report. The simple point I was trying to make yesterday was that the $26 million for personal loans comes from lending institutions. We talk about interest, defaults, scholarships and all those things that are good and worthy programs of the ministry and that provide assistance to students of this province to help them pursue their post-secondary education careers. But in my view, in no way does the $26 million loan package, the discrepancy that I talked about, come from the government treasury; in fact, it comes from lending institutions. It was a simple point of inquiry. I was not trying to score any political points; I was after clarification from the minister regarding the auditor-general's report. The minister was unable to provide that, and that's fine. He's been in the portfolio a short time. I thought that if he was going to raise it again today he would shed some light on it. Unfortunately, what we traditionally get from that side is more heat than light.

The minister made reference to a term that I don't take exception to, but I'd like to get clear that what happens between myself and the minister opposite is not personal. This minister and other ministers keep talking about "my critic." I am not a critic of any person; I am the critic for Advanced Education, Training and Technology. I am not the minister's critic. The minister is a spokesperson for that ministry, and that's the area I am responsible for on this side of the House, to point out the many shortcomings in government operations in that ministry. I've never found any shortage of ammunition to do that, but it is not in any way personal. So perhaps the minister could take to heart my concern and not call me his critic. He could say, "the member opposite, " "the critic opposite" or whatever he likes, but it is not personal. We're here representing the interests of the people of British Columbia, and it's far from something that personalities should ever enter into.

Having said that, I'd like to move to the area of the ministry that this minister is most familiar with, having been involved probably for many years in being a northern representative, understanding the aspirations of people in northern British Columbia and being part of a very effective movement which has persuaded people all over British Columbia to get behind the development of a university in northern British Columbia. I have only a few concerns about that development, and one of them has to do with the college system in that area.

The minister is well aware that we have the College of New Caledonia, Northwest Community College and Northern Lights College, which all serve the educational needs of northern British Columbians at the community level. In the development of the

[ Page 9674 ]

University of Northern British Columbia, there is very clearly going to be an impact on CNC, NLC and NWCC. We are going to see the second-year university transfer programs at all northern colleges being taken over by the university. As for Prince George, the prediction is that at least 50 percent of the first-year university transfer students will take advantage of the new university — which is clearly understandable on their part. The problem, however, is that the community college system in the north in many ways is disadvantaged in competing for students. It will suffer a loss of students, will suffer a loss of prestige as a result, and will not be able to offer the well-rounded kind of program that we expect of our community colleges.

Does the minister have concerns in this area? Has he taken any steps to ameliorate the effects of the local community colleges in the north?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, back to this little debate we were having about the auditor-general and the current report.

I was dealing with the $25 million, which is 1990-91. The member — if he is dealing with auditor-general's numbers — can't be dealing with those numbers, because the auditor-general's report is always a year late.

Also, with respect to the reference to personal pronouns by my critic, I take that criticism with no problem at all. I don't prefer that term myself, and I don't know why I said it. I guess it just slipped out The member is quite right in that criticism.

With respect to the large issue of the three colleges' relationships to the University of Northern British Columbia, you are absolutely right. I will advise the committee that when the implementation planning group report was made public on January 9 of this year, it said that there should be representation on the first board of governance from, first of all, the aboriginal community — which was there — but also the northwest area, the central interior area and the northeast area. The member will know that I then spent some considerable time visiting communities from Prince Rupert to Williams Lake to Fort St. John explaining the IPG report to them; explaining how we saw representation on the university board constituted, and assuring them that we would follow the recommendations of the implementation planning group with respect to this.

I would like to read into the record a letter that I have. I am going to skip through this and send a copy to the member for Burnaby North, but I will read into the record some highlights of correspondence that arrived in my office May 14. It's signed by Mike Caisley, the chairman of the Northern Lights College board. It says that they applaud our efforts in developing the University of Northern British Columbia.

"We thought we should keep you apprised of current discussions among the three northern colleges. To this end, subcommittees of each of the three boards recently met to determine what common themes there are in local discussions among our institutions. Those of note are outlined below.

"1. All three college boards fully support the creation of the new university and commit to assisting it in establishing its credibility throughout the north. The boards envision one integrated post-secondary system comprised of the four autonomous northern institutions, each of which must work towards coordinating and facilitating the offerings of one another. Complementary rather than duplicate programs, resources and facilities should be the norm, and this integrated system should allow for each of its elements to work with whatever post-secondary institution can best serve its constituents.'

I agree totally with that. You will recall my remarks yesterday when I told of a comment I heard from the principal of the college when I worked there — Dr. Fred Speckeen. He said, "No matter what decision you make, always think 'student first,"' and that's obviously the theme contained in this first paragraph from Mike Caisley of the Northern Lights College board.

"2. All three college boards endorse your decision to appoint a majority of members of the interim council from outside the city of Prince George."

Just let me elaborate on that briefly. In my public meetings from Prince Rupert to Williams Lake to Fort St. John — it included Terrace and Dawson Creek and Quesnel — there was a paranoia that exists in the north about Prince George the same way we in the north feel about Vancouver: it's the big centre that is always felt to be dominant. So I told all the communities that I visited: "If I follow the implementation planning group recommendations to the letter, that's going to axiomatically mean that there will be more representation from outside the city of Prince George than from within the city of Prince George." And that did happen. There are two representatives from Terrace; there is a representative from Quesnel; the chairman and one member are from Prince George.

There is an announcement I just made today: a student — Jean McFee, the president of the British Columbia Youth Advisory Council, who is from Bums Lake — is going to be on the board, and there are two representatives from the Northern Lights area. So Prince George members are in the minority in terms of that representation. Of course, Edward John is representing the aboriginal community, and there are two academics: John Chapman and Ron Baker. Ron Baker's appointment was just confirmed by cabinet this morning. That is what we have done, and we have ensured that there is adequate representation.

[3:00]

Mike Caisley — I'll go on with his letter:

"It is felt that this is an appropriate approach to maintaining a regional mandate of the new university. There is also unanimous support for the concept of having one university council member representing each of the three colleges in the northern region, so that there will be a continued inducement for all four institutions to maintain a cooperative stance as the system evolves.

"In addition, all three college boards recognize the need for the new university to have representation on its governing body from outside the northern region to ensure that its stature is equivalent to that of the existing universities.

[ Page 9675 ]

"3. The northern colleges wish to ensure students access to education regardless of which institution delivers it, and it should be the student's choice as to which institution he or she registers with.

"It is further recommended that government be made fully aware of the need for existing colleges to maintain first- and second-year courses as integral components of their other services. It would also be beneficial for the new university to develop a system of faculty secondment for upper-level courses to best utilize existing resources.

"As well, the notion of a credit bank at the new institution is encouraged so that students' credits from all legitimate institutions are acceptable towards credentials when requirements are met."

That ends his three points. As I said, Mr. Member, I will send a copy of this to you. In committee we can't table, so I'll just send it to you, and it will be your property as well as mine.

It occurred to Murray Sadler, the chairman of the interim board of governors, and to myself, my staff and some other college people that I spoke to, including the College of New Caledonia Faculty Association — I met with them on this issue — that perhaps now that we've settled some of the fears in terms of governance and representation from the region, from the aboriginal community — and those members are now in place — before deciding curriculum and who's going to do first year and second year, and before we politicians start making those decisions, we should leave it with the four presidents.

We should not make any hard and fast decisions about transfer or who will do what until the four presidents have had a chance to discuss those issues. We think that by far the best way to manage it is to have the senior executives of the four institutions — the three colleges and the university — decide how they can manage those problems and questions. I think that's a good position for government, the three current institutions and the fourth board of a beginning institution to take. I'm sure that with good management and willing people at the table, we'll be able to address all of the concerns about who's going to teach what to whom and for whom. I'm sure the bottom line for all of us is going to be "think student first."

I know that's an area of concern for you, Mr. Member. I hope the comments I've made in the last little while have addressed some of your concerns. I assure you that in principle I agree with everything that Mike Caisley has said here. I think I can speak on behalf of Murray Sadler, the chairman of the University of Northern B.C. interim board, as well, in terms of his acceptance of the principles that Mike Caisley expresses here.

I think that should satisfy the issue, but if you have more questions with respect to this, I'll be more than happy to answer them.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that response, and I look forward to seeing that letter.

It is a difficult area, and I think there are going to be jurisdictional problems. I was not raising that as a matter of criticism. When I have a criticism, I think I generally have a better way of doing it. That was raised as a concern. I wanted to hear the minister's views and I got those. Perhaps having the chief executive officers of those four northern institutions develop a program that will meet the needs of the students in the area is not an unreasonable way to proceed. So I'll accept the minister's remarks and watch with interest the development of both the college system and the University of Northern British Columbia.

The minister has a background in school board politics, and I'm sure he's aware that politics can play a minor role in educational debate and educational discussion. I hope that was his experience in his former life as a school trustee, and I think it can play a role here too. I was saddened the other day by an exchange between the minister and the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). I fully understand all of that scenario and the competition there. However, that member made a very reasonable request and expressed a concern which I support and which, perhaps down deep, the minister supports too.

In my debates with the previous Minister of Advanced Education, he indicated in this House — and I quote from Hansard of July 11, 1989: "1 believe that the implementation planning group will be able to develop a staged proposal that will allow for third-year degree programs to be offered by 1990." We had this promise less than a year ago from the then Minister of Advanced Education.

A few days ago, what we really had in this House was a request on the part of the member for Prince George North to have the government live up to that promise and to, in the minister's own words, "serve the students as the primary objective, " to in your debates always put students first in the discussion. That's what I felt the member for Prince George North was doing at that time: asking the government to both live up to a previous commitment and serve those students for whom that promise had been made.

The minister responded by indicating that not only was there a political situation between him and the member for Prince George North but that there was a community political situation. If he as minister went ahead with such a proposal to seek to accomodate, through all the agencies at his power, the interests of those third- and fourth-year northern students, the community would — and I think I am quoting correctly here — "view that with some alarm."

It seems to me that was a very inappropriate response to a request on the part of a colleague, a northern representative, who was seeking on behalf of the community that she represents opportunities for young people to stay in that community and take third- and fourth-year courses. I know the minister supports and has been part of that whole movement, and it quite surprised me that he did not deal with that in a sensitive, responsive and nonpolitical manner. He dealt with it in a cavalier fashion.

Maybe it isn't something that is easy to do. If the minister wanted to deflect that kind of suggestion

[ Page 9676 ]

from the member for Prince George North, he could have said, "I'll take it under advisement," or "I'll look into it," or something else. But he didn't even give that member the courtesy of suggesting that her suggestion was a worthy and valid one and that it was in the interests of the students of the north. The minister's response was inappropriate and contradictory to much of what he believes and what he has said at other times.

I'd like to repeat the request that the member for Prince George North made earlier. The former Minister of Advanced Education is now in the House, and he will remember his promise of July 11, 1989, in which he indicated there would be some accommodation for third-year students "to be offered in 1990." We know that we don't have a university of the north at this point in time, but we do have a college system in the north in which it would be quite simple, on a temporary basis if there were sufficient student numbers, to accommodate those students.

Will the minister at this time give any assurance to the committee that he will undertake to look into the possibility of accommodating the needs of those third-year students in existing facilities in the north?

MR. CHAIRMAN: To interrupt the proceedings for just a moment, hon. members, the Minister of Transportation and Highways asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Visiting us this afternoon are some students from Kelowna. On behalf of our colleagues from the Okanagan constituencies, I would ask the House to please welcome students visiting from Kelowna's Hudson Road Elementary They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. J. Holowchuk. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With the greatest respect to my colleague from Comox, the former minister, the committee must conclude that any comment made about what the IPG was going to report in June would be inappropriate. I am sure my colleague didn't say that.

The terms of reference given to the implementation planning group in March 1989 were many, and included a strong reference to an autonomous degree-granting institution. The word "autonomy" was underscored. The implementation planning group, under the guidance of those terms of reference, could not consider a university college model. If they had, they would have been at odds with their terms of reference, because you cannot have a university college model and be autonomous. I am sure the members opposite are aware of that.

On the basis of that, they began to look at many other models of degree-granting institutions — a four-year liberal arts college, a technical university and many other models — and finally decided that instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, they would simply offer us the model of what we know as a university in North America: that is, an institution offering standard undergraduate programs and professional schools; one having the capacity for graduate work and hopefully offering graduate work as quickly as it could. You will know, being an SFU undergraduate, that the first graduates from Simon Fraser were graduate students who had come from other universities with their professors.

It was recognized that for an institution to serve the north and fit within the terms of reference given to it by government, it would be autonomous and would be a university in the North American sense of the word, offering undergraduate, graduate and professional programs. Other recommendations were also made, of course, Mr. Member: that it do teacher education, social work, aboriginal studies and also have a focus on resource management.

[3:15]

In respect to the suggestion that we immediately offer third year, I don't know which mechanism you could use. If you invited one of the current universities to come to Prince George immediately and offer third-year programs, I think you'd probably have 15,000 members of the Interior University Society awfully upset with you. They would see that as a breach of faith, in that government was trying, for whatever reason, to undercut them or pull the rug out from under their own autonomous university.

I know it is a difficult situation for third-year students who face third year now, but it is the opinion of the community — a very large community — that we cannot accept the branch-plant mentality that others have suggested. This university must be autonomous, must have its own governance — northern governance — and must be an independent, autonomous university in the true sense of the word. We are proceeding from that, and I think we are proceeding quite well.

MR. JONES: What the Minister of Advanced Education is giving is a historical explanation of a situation that doesn't currently fit. I appreciate that the government made a decision to reject the university-college model for Prince George. Fair enough.

The Interior University Society very clearly indicated a desire for autonomy and didn't want the branch-plant mentality. If I was a northerner, I would feel exactly the same way; I have no problem with that. That doesn't fully explain, nor is it in any way a response to, a request to do something a little different.

Let's just suppose there were 20 people finishing second year at CNC right now who wanted to go into teacher training, who wanted to carry on in education. Would it not be possible, through whatever mechanisms have already been set up — through the implementation planning group or bodies that are already structured — to do the first hiring and hire one or two people who could lead that small group of young prospective teachers through third-year university to become the first graduates of the University of Prince George?

[ Page 9677 ]

I hear the minister saying that that would be perceived in the community as a rejection of what the government has promised. The politics of it seem to be what the minister is concerned about: the public perception that this is not in the spirit of the announcement he made earlier this year. Has the minister no faith in the people of the north that he has credibility, and that they will believe that he wants to carry on with the university that was promised, just because he accommodated a small number of students who could be the first graduates of that university? I can come to no other interpretation, from the minister's remarks, than that politics are far more important than the needs of third-year university students from northern British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's nonsense, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'm amazed that the member for Burnaby North, of all people, would use the example of second-year students wanting teacher training. Have you not heard of the Simon Fraser University PD program? Don't you know it has operated in Prince George since the mid-seventies? Are you not aware of that?

MR. JONES: That's not the point.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The point is, you picked a very poor example, particularly for an education critic.

You ask the question: "Why don't you hire a few faculty and teach education?" Who's going to hire them? There's not a president yet. Who are they going to be accredited to?

MR. JONES: When is there going to be a president?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: One is being sought now. You don't immediately....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Why September? There's a good question. There you go. That's why politicians shouldn't meddle. That's why you guys had so much trouble when you were government; you got in everybody's way.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Listen, we have developed this a lot more than you ever did or ever could, I will tell you. It is on its way. So what do you suggest? You just snap up a president like that? No way. We're not going to take some political hack from Burnaby who is going to be the president. Listen, my friend, we're going to establish our own destiny in the north. We're not going to have someone from Burnaby, some so-called expert, telling us what we're going to do. A president is going to be hired by the locally constituted board of governors, which I have put in place, which has $2.5 million for beginning money— and it's a good board of governors.

We're not going to have some politician from Burnaby, from the lower mainland, telling us how to do it. I know that's the New Democratic way of doing things, but we're not going to accept that. A locally gathered board of expert people representing our community — from the Northern Lights area, from the Northwest College area, from the Prince George area — is going to make that determination on a president, and not you. For you to say, just glibly, "Why don't you hire one tomorrow?" my friend, points out to me exactly what the NDP stands for: concentration of power by politicians, with absolutely no reference to local determination; absolutely no reference to the people who live there; no reference whatsoever to what the people of the north want.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You never supported regional development, and now you're insisting, as a politician: "Just go out and hire a president." You ought to be ashamed of yourself, to have that on the record. It is most unfortunate for you to make....

I see the member for Prince George North is here for one of her two-day visits to the Legislative Assembly, so I'll let her speak and see what she has to say.

MRS. BOONE: The minister just made an incredible rant there, but I won't respond to his rant and give it any sort of credibility, aside from saying that I think it's rather strange that you should comment on meddling in local businesses. Ask Mr. McCaffray about meddling in local businesses. Ask the ex-president about meddling in local businesses, and then find out what politicians meddling in local businesses really means.

Mr. Minister, I would like to talk to you about this issue, because this is something that I think that you are having a blind eye about. I don't know why you seem to have these blinders on. But after discussing it with you last time, I phoned a few people. I talked with the president of the University Society, Roy Stewart, and asked him if he would be adamantly opposed to having as an interim.... The minister seems to have difficulty understanding what "interim" means. It means in between: before we get our university. I asked if he would be opposed to having this third and fourth year available to our students on an interim basis. He had no objections to it. His only comments were that perhaps we should run this through Jim Blake and find out if it was possible.

I've talked to some people at the college about the other concern that we have and that I think the community and the college have right now: that we are losing some of our existing staff. Some of our good staff are actually putting in for transfers and leaving the community because they're not sure of what their job stability will be. They're fearful that first- and second-year arts are not going to be offered through the college. They're not quite sure what their future is going to be, so they're actually leaving. By

[ Page 9678 ]

having third and fourth year there, we would be able to provide some kind of bridging point. We would be able to keep the staff at the college and perhaps give them a bridge to obtain employment within the university structure. I know that you can't tell the university to hire these people, and certainly that shouldn't be done — I wouldn't suggest that — but there's a good chance that some of our existing faculty would be hired by the university if and when that president does come on stream. We have some top-notch faculty people at our college, and I don't think the minister would disagree with that. We may be losing that faculty in the next year or two while we wait for our university to come about.

When you were speaking earlier, you said the student was the main purpose. We have to look at maintaining educational opportunities for that student, and that means providing third and fourth year for them as soon as possible and also making sure that we have that staff there in the meantime. I really find it incredible that the minister is not even willing to look at this. If the minister will just take it on advisement that he will review this; that he will discuss this with the college; that he will find out if the college says it's possible, then that is fine. If the college turns around and says, "We're not interested, we don't have the staff, we don't have the facilities, we don't have the ability to provide those services," then I would accept that as well. But to arbitrarily discount that and to give no credibility to that whole idea is doing our people a disservice, and certainly doing the minister a disservice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Okanagan South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SERWA: On behalf of the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) — and while the Minister of Advanced Education is pondering the eloquently addressed question — I would like to welcome to this Legislature the second half of a group of students from Hudson Road Elementary School in Kelowna. I was pleased to be with this group about a month ago when they held a citizenship court in their school in which all of the students as well as the teachers participated in those ceremonies. This group is accompanied by its teacher, Mr. Gerry Kroeker, who is a graduate of Kelowna Senior Secondary, was a basketball player for the Kelowna Owls and is still an awesome player in central Okanagan. Would the House please make this group welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, I don't know if I accept what the member says about her conversation with Roy Stewart, and I'll talk to Roy about that to get the real results.

The member, of course, wasn't listening to my comments earlier with respect to governance and with respect to articulation, which I had explained to the member for Burnaby North. I read a letter from Mike Caisley, chairman of the Northern Lights College board: "We have taken the position that there should be no hard and fast comments or positions taken by politicians or board appointees with respect to how the four institutions are going to relate to each other until we have all four presidents in place." I have taken that position. I have conveyed that to the CNC Faculty Association, and they have accepted. They said that was probably the best way to manage, because for politicians and board members to operate in a vacuum, and in the absence of the presidents of the four universities, is wrong. That points out the NDP philosophy of meddling. Allow those people who are appointed, who have the expertise, to be allowed to make those decisions.

I met with the faculty association a couple of months ago, and later with Kathy Conroy, president of CNC Faculty Association. They were aware of my position on that, and they agreed that that would be the best way to go. IPG, as we all know, made some recommendations with respect to who will teach first and second year, and that may be the way the institutions arrive at things in the final analysis.

I certainly don't think it's appropriate for me to stand in this House, or for anyone else to stand anywhere, and say that that's the way it's going to be, in the absence of wise decision and good academic counsel from those professionals whom we have hired to help us lead education in the north.

MRS. BOONE: Lord knows I never want you to stand up and tell people how it is to be. But I am asking you to give the college an opportunity to make a decision on their own, and that's what I've specifically said to you. I have said that we are losing faculty members. I have said to you that these people are going elsewhere because they're not sure of what's going to happen. I have said that if we give them an opportunity to stay in Prince George, perhaps — not maybe, but perhaps — the president at that time may choose to keep them on.

[3:30]

We have to provide the opportunity. You as the minister are the only person who can give that opportunity to have third and fourth years at the college. They can't do that on their own; they don't have that financial ability right now. I am asking you to give them that opportunity. I am not asking you to tell them to do it; I am saying approach these people and tell them: "We would like to give you an opportunity to provide third and fourth year to the students of CNC or to the students of Prince George." Give them that opportunity.

If the college in its wisdom says no to it, so be it. But you, Mr. Minister, are saying no before even giving them the opportunity. You talk about centralized control; that's as centralized as you can get — not even giving people an opportunity to say no to you. Give them that opportunity to say no. If they say no, then the matter is settled. But you won't even give them that chance.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I am not a university; I can't be one. As a matter of fact, I can't

[ Page 9679 ]

even be on a board. I can't offer third and fourth year; a university has to offer it. You don't understand how the system works. A university has to offer third and fourth year. You just don't snap your fingers and have these things happen.

If you've studied at all the work that was done at Camosun, Malaspina, Cariboo and Okanagan, you would know.... And don't wave your hands like that. If you'd shown up here occasionally and listened to the answer that I gave your colleague, you would understand what's gone on. Kathy Conroy knows exactly what has to be done.

A college cannot offer third- or fourth-year university. A university has to offer that. This is British Columbia. I don't know what you are thinking about or if you've read any of the statutes, but you're so far out you'd think you were coming back!

You haven't got the foggiest notion of what you're suggesting. Not only that, but if you said that publicly in Prince George, you would be laughed off the street — such as you are now — because you don't understand how it works.

However, it makes for good fodder....

MR. JONES: Point of order. The debate has deteriorated when a minister of the Crown talks about laughing an hon. member off the streets of Prince George. I think it's a sad day in this House, and I would ask him to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair can't rule that particular thing as being unparliamentary, but I think it would help the debate considerably if.... I've noticed over the past 30 minutes or so that the hon members are not debating through the Chair; they're debating directly across the House. If you debate through the Chair, it will be a much more measured and pleasant debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Thank you ever so much, Mr. Chairman. Your wise counsel is always listened to and always heeded.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I found the remark offensive. I asked the minister to withdraw. I still ask the minister to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's the habit in this House that if a member finds something offensive to him, we do ask for a withdrawal, and I am sure the hon. minister would be prepared to do that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You betcha, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any problem with that. If the members don't understand the rules.... I'll withdraw whatever it was I said that offended them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It probably does.

To summarize this whole issue.... I feel the relationship between the three colleges, of course, is very good. I think this issue has brought them together. The relationship between the college boards and the interim governing council of the university is also very healthy, very good and very positive.

They recognize that there is probably one comprehensive education community that all four institutions are going to deal with. I think it's a very, very healthy approach they are taking in developing this. I can assure this committee that I have had substantial and productive meetings with the CNC faculty association. They had some concern at the outset, and I can't say I blame them. I know many of them personally — friends of 20 years now in many cases. But discussions since have indicated to me that they are happy and pleased with the direction we're going and with the fact that we can manage all these concerns, and that we're not seeing a bogeyman under every bed.

Also, the member for Prince George North mentioned that teachers were leaving. I haven't seen any resignations yet, but I'll tell the committee one thing: I did receive a phone call from the personnel officer of School District 57, who said that many, many teachers have been applying to his office for employment in Prince George.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, teachers in a school district....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm talking.... Well, you missed my other point. I'll repeat what I said earlier.

Many teachers from outside District 57 are applying to District 57 to teach in Prince George, citing as their reason for wanting to move to Prince George the fact that a university is coming there. That really underscores the reason why we needed one in the first place. Teachers don't need a university — at least not as much as other people do — because they have a degree already. But the fact is they know that a community with a university is a far better place to live. So in terms of thinking of their children's education — and of course, in terms of thinking of their own upgrading eduction — they are applying to District 57. I was pleased when the personnel officer at the school district phoned me and advised me of that.

The member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) made more comments about faculty leaving. I can't accept that. Faculty move all the time. I spent considerable time with a faculty member last Saturday morning, while queuing up for the May Day parade — at which, by the way, the member for Prince George North was absent....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, if you're not going to be here, you should be somewhere in your own riding. You've got to be somewhere. You should have

[ Page 9680 ]

been in Prince George on Saturday. It was a good place to be on the weekend.

In any event, I spent some time with a faculty member Saturday morning, and he felt very positive about the University of Northern British Columbia. He felt very positive about himself and about his own job. He's a 20-year employee of CNC and a fine fellow, a fine friend and a fine instructor. So I can't accept what the member is saying. I think the member is probably about four or five months old in her concern. I think that during the last little while the faculty association has realized that there is a good place for them. It's not going to be in any sense a second-class institution, and there is always going to be lots of opportunity for good instruction to be done at CNC.

MR. JONES: I am very reluctant to raise another issue with respect to the new university. I tried to inject a note of non-partisanship in the introduction to this area — obviously very unsuccessfully. The minister has been very animated, very testy, very defensive and, in fact, very abusive of my colleague.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm smiling.

MR. JONES: Doing it with a smile doesn't make it any more palatable.

Let me try one more question, and then we'll leave this topic that's obviously a sensitive one between the two members from Prince George.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I feel fine.

MR. JONES: You don't sound fine.

I am sure the minister is aware of the tremendous nursing shortage we have in this province. I know it was a desire of many in the community, as well as of the nursing profession in this province, that there be an opportunity for nurses to train in Prince George. I know this is projected as a future policy, but very clearly it was rejected. I am wondering If the minister can explain that rejection and offer any hope for the future of training of nurses in Prince George.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know where you're getting your information from. Nurses are trained in Prince George. There's an RN program at the college which has been in place since, I think, 1978. They graduate about 30 a year. The university curriculum isn't decided yet. What do you mean by rejection? Who has rejected what?

MR. JONES: The minister indicated not more than a few minutes ago a number of disciplines that will be carried on at the University of Northern British Columbia centred in Prince George. Nursing wasn't one of those mentioned. Very clearly there has been a decision — either by the implementation planning group, the government or whomever — not to do that at this time.

I know the RNABC is interested in degreed nurses and in having a nursing program at the University of Northern British Columbia. Clearly, that is not going to happen, to my knowledge — at least immediately. It has been promised "down the road." I asked the minister, and I ask the minister again: were there good reasons for that direction or for that decision? What were they? Can the minister offer any hope that this matter will be considered in the future, and that we will see degreed nurses trained in Prince George?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't see why not. I really don't know what the member is getting at. There were some curriculum recommendations made by the IPG report, and nursing was not expressly mentioned. But that doesn't mean that it won't happen.

As I indicated, we do have a good nursing program at the College of New Caledonia, which has been in place.... I think it was just being started when I left, so that's a long time ago, and they do very well.

In terms of the provincial stature, we've increased 222 spaces this year. Whether or not the University of Northern British Columbia wants to offer degree programs for nurses is entirely up to them. I would recommend it. The government now.... Come on, you don't ask a question, then cut and run; you stick around and listen, because this is important.

MR. JONES: I'm listening.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Government does require now that nurses working for government in the Ministry of Health are degreed nurses. Because of the public health side, they do need degreed people, so there's every possibility — and I think it's a very good possibility — that degree programs in nursing, BScNs, will be offered at the university. I certainly can't accept the notion that I or IPG or someone has rejected it. You can't use that word.

First of all, we don't do curriculum development. It's awfully dangerous if we do, and I believe that the board of governors and the senate will make those decisions, when they're established in the present, when he or she is there. I should also point out that on the Interior University Society is a director of our health unit, Elsie Gerdes — as a matter of fact, I was on the airplane with her the other day. I think there will be a very strong lobby for a degree program at UNBC, so I will not accept the member's criticism that I or anyone else has rejected that suggestion.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is a good point for me to enter the debate on the minister's estimates, because I want to turn our attention to women and training opportunities for them in the province.

The minister has just been talking about access to one area, which is certainly traditionally an occupation with a very large percentage of women. I would hope, as the minister has noted, that in a very timely way we will have opportunities for training for women through a full-fledged university in the north.

[ Page 9681 ]

I want to preface questions to the minister by taking a look at some situations that we face with women in the labour force and with the need for training in ways appropriate to the needs of women to enable them to participate fully in our economy.

[3:45]

First of all, it's important to note that the status of women in education and training is still below that of men in terms of the broad range of accessibility. I know that statistics will tell us that we are now seeing a reasonably equal number of men and women participating in post-secondary education. But there are certain characteristics of the profile of women in post-secondary education which need to be addressed regarding policy, funding and strategic planning, and it's around some of these issues that I want to couch my remarks this afternoon.

It's fair to note, for example, that if you look at a profile of women in post-secondary institutions, even though their number may now be reasonably parallel with the number of men, we will find that there are more women than men in what we consider to be privileged or upper-socioeconomic level. Men tend to be represented right across the socioeconomic spectrum in post-secondary institutions. Women from lower socioeconomic strata are less well represented, which tells us that women still lack opportunities for training and full-fledged degree courses.

If we look at some facts of women's lives, it's easy to know why poor women are still not as able to access post-secondary education. If we look at our economic needs, however, we need this sector of our society in order for our economy to be healthy and prosperous. So we need to develop policies and programs that will empower, enable and encourage women to take part in post-secondary education and in upgrading the skills they must have to participate fully as people in the workforce.

It's fair to say that one of the structural challenges that face women is that women in British Columbia earn the lowest female-to-male earnings of anywhere in Canada. In B.C., women are earning something like 62 cents on the dollar compared to men. That's not significantly worse than the rest of Canada; it's around 65 cents on the dollar for Canadian women as a whole. But it means that women's earnings are smaller.

Put succinctly by a young woman in Douglas College, the outcome is that young women seeking to enter post-secondary education or to enhance their skills are trying to do so, first of all, on the 62-cent dollars that they earn to provide them with savings to attend university; or if they do go to university on a student loan, they are going to be forced to pay off that loan with 62-cent dollars. Lest the minister say, "Yes, but once they have that higher level of skill and training, they will be comparable with men, " that is not true. In fact, even for people who have comparable skills and training, the figures tell us that women are still earning significantly less than men — something like 85 cents on the dollar. So women have a financial disadvantage, first off, in terms of attending post-secondary institutions.

We have, too, a figure that has improved some, but is still not at a level that I think the minister or any of us would be satisfied with. We have a participation rate in this province that is still well below Canadian averages, and the proportion of women among undergrads — people who are attending university with the intention of getting a degree — is low in British Columbia as well.

If we look at what the needs are in terms of women participating as a result of having the education, skills and training that they require, we know that the requirement for a much higher level of training is increasing all the time. We are a much more sophisticated society in terms of the jobs that are there. Canada Employment research tells us that in the next decade, 50 percent of all new jobs will require four years of post-secondary education. We know that about 40 percent of women lack the education for those jobs. Yet women are participating in increasing numbers in the workforce. Well over 50 percent of women are in the workforce now; in fact, it's getting close to 70 percent. Women across all family and socioeconomic circumstances — whether they're married, single or divorced; whether or not they have children — are in the workforce.

At this stage of the game, I'm told, about 80 percent of the people who are going to be in the workforce in the year 2000 are already there. In other words, we're in a valley in terms of the number of young people who are entering our workforce. We have 25 percent fewer young people than we had five years ago to provide for our job needs over the next ten years. So we have a need to look at this human resource, the resource of women, to ensure that they can have opportunities to participate fully in jobs that are economically viable — not minimum-wage jobs, not jobs that keep them on welfare and not jobs that don't allow them to support themselves and their families. It's interesting that even where we have two-income families, only about 7 percent of the women in the workforce have spouses with incomes that are over $2,000 a month. So the role of women, for the economic well-being of their families and for their own satisfaction in terms of the jobs that they have, is very much tied to training opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, we still have a deficit in terms of women's ability, on the basis of their current levels of education, to access post-secondary education and to carry through to a training level that enables them to have a good job that pays a decent wage. One of the ways in which we might look to providing such programs for women is in the area of what we usually call bridging programs. These are programs that take women from where they are and, through a variety of strategies, programs and resources, bring them to an educational level that enables them to participate fully in training and educational programs according to their aspirations and needs.

I think I mentioned a moment ago that about 40 percent of women in our population lack an educational status at the present time that would enable them to qualify for the 50 percent of new jobs that will require post-secondary education of four years.

[ Page 9682 ]

There are another 24 percent of the jobs that we anticipate in the future that will require some postsecondary education. There's a huge field here, where there is a need for public policy on the part of the minister's responsibilities, to be looked at.

I would note here that it's not just this minister's responsibility, but this is the first minister with whom we've had some opportunity to raise the issue. I think the Education minister, whose estimates just finished, is also involved with this kind of upgrading to continuing education in his area. It's unfortunate that we didn't have some opportunity to discuss it under his estimates. It's clear that the Social Services and Housing minister will also have interest and responsibility here, for many of the clients of that ministry are women with family responsibilities who do not have adequate skills to enable them to participate in an economy and support their families.

Of course, this requires much negotiation and consultation with the senior level of government — the federal government. I believe the four-comers agreement is still active, and this minister is still the lead minister in respect to that agreement on behalf of his government. So it's appropriate that we should be raising this issue with him.

Bridging programs are not very well known by most people, and the reason is that very few of them are available on any kind of a full-time basis. People know about very few of them. However, this ministry has been active and is to be commended for providing support for the program called "Women in Trades and Technology," which is both a national and a provincial initiative designed to provide women with opportunities to work in trades and technology, where both the challenge of their jobs and the income available to them is much greater than in the service levels.

As I said earlier, we need these women, because our workforce will not be adequately sourced without women working in these fields. Bridging programs provide opportunities for women to improve on basic literacy skills and adult basic education skills. In this year of literacy, it's appropriate that we should be focusing on that need. They provide life skills training. They provide academic upgrading, and that's particularly important in the field of math and science where women, through the public school system and into post-secondary, are still not adequately trained. That's an area of very considerable need. There is a need for programs to be both flexible and diverse, because in many instances, women have family responsibilities and may not be able to attend a post-secondary institution on a full-time basis There's a need for counselling and support, strategic planning, academic planning and the child-care needs of families.

The overall goal of such bridging programs is to provide sustained and effective support throughout an entire transition from home, through unemployment — if that's the status of women — or underemployment, to a vocational training program or appropriate employment in a job with a salary sufficient for the economic responsibility of the participants.

To my knowledge, the only full-time bridging programs at this stage are perhaps at Kwantlen College. I don't know of other community colleges that have bridging programs. There are a variety — a smorgasbord, if you like — of programs available at almost any college in the province. But at the moment, there is no really coherent program and plan in place that provides women who are academically not adequately resourced or coming from social, geographic or cultural backgrounds where there needs to be support and bridging into the post-secondary area. There is no program that I'm aware of to provide that on a full-time basis— or on a well-developed basis — across the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired under standing orders.

MS. A. HAGEN: Perhaps I will let the minister comment on the matter of programs that are available. I have some further issues that I want to raise on this subject.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My colleague wants to speak here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Solicitor-General.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I must say how delighted I was to hear the member over there talk about supporting women's programs because, in fact, it is this government that is doing exactly that.

It was announced recently — for those of you in the gallery; it's nice to see so many — that this government is committed to a program of pay equity. That is not just a program of equal work for equal pay; it's equal pay for work of equal value. There is a significant difference, Mr. Chairman, as I know you understand and I know the minister understands.

[4:00]

There are a few things that the member opposite said that I think should be corrected. Presumably the member should understand that if someone decides to go to university and get a higher education, they would have a full-time job at full-time pay. As you would also suspect, if a man or a woman graduated from law school, you would expect that person to practise law and get the same rate of pay. Engineers certainly do, and I'm very proud of that, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly why I stand here.

I also would like to point out to the member that the ministry I have the honour to represent as minister has a significant program for bridging positions for women. In fact, I believe we're the leader in that respect. We are indeed encouraging women to advance their careers in the ministry. I've said to them, at a recent conference, which was mainly attended by the women in the ministry, that we will be taking a course of action which will propel them into management positions, perhaps before they are actually ready to accept the jobs. But we will do so on the basis of the fact that there is raw talent there that can be developed into full-time administrative exper-

[ Page 9683 ]

tise, and we are willing to take the risk in this ministry with women who historically have not had the opportunity....

MRS. BOONE: A risk?

HON. MR. FRASER: As you point out, if you are not trained for a job there is some risk. I said we're prepared to take a risk with people who have not heretofore been trained for such jobs, because we wish to have as much expertise and talent working on behalf of the people of British Columbia in this ministry as we can.

I have said for a long time — and will say again and again if I have to — that I want all the women in classes in British Columbia to pursue careers that interest them, whether it happens to be driving a truck, taking engineering, medicine or whatever; and I know that they will.

There is certainly a fundamental change in lifestyles in the province. The modem woman now believes that there is a distinct possibility she will be working all her life, with possible interruptions in her work career for raising families and things like that. Now I think more girls in school are planning careers based on the fundamental concept that they will be employed most of their lives.

This, of course, is a change. This is not an historical pattern in North America; however, it's a pattern now. Everything that this government and that minister will do will lead to a greater role for women to play in society in employment, for better employment and pay opportunities and for all those things that will improve the conditions of women vis-à-vis men — whether it's work, pay or educational opportunities. For that I commend the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

MR. CHAIRMAN: just before we continue, hon members, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am delighted as always to hear what the member for New Westminster has to say with respect to women's issues. I don't think generally there is anything I can disagree with in respect to her comments, but I would like to make a few comments of my own, maybe point out a couple of things and certainly discuss what we and the institutes are doing.

First of all, I don't know where the member for New Westminster received her information; maybe I misunderstood her. But I want to explain to the committee that in undergraduate programs in the universities and colleges there are more women registered than men. Women are the majority. I am also advised that in the faculties of commerce, law and medicine, women are at an equal participation rate; the gender split is about fifty-fifty. That's something nontraditional, but certainly not anymore.

It's interesting to follow my colleague, the first member for Vancouver South, who is trained as an engineer. I'll relate to the committee a comment I made yesterday about visiting a small engineering school in Halifax, one that has a very high recognition factor in Halifax and, because of that, has a higher percentage of women attending an engineering school than is the national average.

I met the president of the student association of that engineering school — who is a woman — and I asked her about that. She said it is just the awareness that this school is very good. It is known among all students in Halifax that if you're going to be an engineer, this is the place to go. It's known among all the females in elementary and junior secondary schools that women do attend and do very well.

Halifax has a different attitude — or I should say female elementary students in Halifax have a different attitude — about attending a school of engineering, and I think that's probably what makes the difference. There is simply the attitude difference, and that, of course, is what causes more women to enter what are nontraditional areas of training.

In terms of what we or the institutes are doing — and the member made mention of this — I don't think there's any institution that isn't in one way or another focusing on bridging programs. As a matter of fact, if you look at adult basic education, that in itself is a bridging program.

Some institutions do focus more on having women enter the workforce through whatever programs they might have, and I think that's commendable. But I would say generally — and I think the member would agree with me — that we couldn't look at one institute under this ministry that isn't in one fashion or another doing whatever it can to ensure that there are bridging programs available and doing everything it can to have women enter the workforce.

As well, I would like to mention to the committee that on our Task Force on Employment and Training we're pleased to have Thelma Plecas, president of Horizon College, and Norrie Preston, coordinator of Ability Personnel. Both Mrs. Plecas and Mrs. Preston are there because of the specific expertise they offer in terms of having women in the workforce.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I'd like to point out one more thing — again, in the nontraditional area. This was passed to me from the apprenticeship branch. In some of the nontraditional trades — I'll just read three of them — we're seeing an iIncrease of females in apprenticeship programs. They are practical horticulture — 38 percent of the students in that program are now female; motor vehicle parts, 20 percent; and industrial warehousing, 20 percent. I think that indicates that in all areas — vocational, apprenticeship and university training — women are becoming more and more aware of nontraditional programs that they will be successful at.

The institutes, colleges and universities are becoming more and more aware of what they can do to

[ Page 9684 ]

ensure that women are given every opportunity to attend any training program they wish to. I don't think there is any discipline or field of training that would preclude women from attending. I think, really, we can see the post-secondary community truly into the twenty-first century in terms of their attitude towards training for women, bridging opportunities and programs for women, and generally recognizing that in that field they have a responsibility. It would be my contention that they are meeting that responsibility in a good fashion.

I guess I'll close by saying that I don't think anything's perfect. The member's comments are noted, and the points she makes are well taken. I don't think anyone would disagree with her general concern and interest in having women fare better in educational institutions and the workplace. I certainly would not disagree with that myself. But I would contend and have on the record the information and knowledge that in my position as minister of this portfolio, we are seeing the institutions react in a very positive manner towards the issues the member has raised.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would like at this point to make a few comments to the minister with regard to the ministry activities in my constituency of Surrey. I would like to commend the minister and the ministry for the activity we see, particularly in Surrey-Newton, in the finalization of a permanent college campus. Kwantlen College will be opening its permanent campus in August. It is something that is certainly much needed and much appreciated by my constituents.

There has been a great deal of interaction and comment here with regard to females in our workforce. I would like to say that we have a very capable female president of Kwantlen College. Her involvement in not only our college but the community of Surrey at large is certainly a credit to the entire faculty at Kwantlen.

I would like to ask the minister if he could update us on the major new campus requirements and plans for both Richmond and Langley. Both of those areas are growing very quickly, and the demands on the Kwantlen College facilities presently in existence are stretching the available facilities to the limit. Could we please have an update on what is being proposed for Richmond and Langley with regard to Kwantlen College?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's always a pleasure to be able to respond to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Speaking of bridging programs, I might need a few myself.

The new Richmond campus is in place. We have a very good budget for it. As I mentioned the other day to the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), we don't normally release our budgeted figures until such time as we have the tenders in. But that is proceeding well. In terms of the Langley campus of Kwantlen, that is an announcement that I'm going to be making on June 4 along with the Minister of Transportation and Highways and essentially all of the other Members of the Legislative Assembly from the Fraser Valley east to Hope. That gives me an opportunity, Madam Minister, to advise the committee once again that on June 4, in conjunction with the Members of the Legislative Assembly who represent Delta, Surrey, Langley, Central Fraser Valley and Yale-Lillooet, as well as Dewdney, I will be making that announcement with respect to what we're going to have to do to accommodate the enrolment pressures in the Fraser Valley generally. Probably half a million people will be moving there in the next 20 years. The pressures on this ministry and many others to accommodate that and provide an infrastructure are going to be extensive.

We are proceeding. We recognize that we have a responsibility to continue to build. We do not at any point want to cut back on our capital building program, as another government did some 16 years ago. We are going to continue to build our capital programs.

I can assure the member that Kwantlen at Richmond and at Langley are proceeding in a first-class fashion. I see no reason why they won't be very successful campuses. I thank the member for her questions.

[4:15]

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to comment on the remarks of the member for Vancouver South and the minister as we proceed in our discussions about economic opportunity for women through training.

First of all, on the comment of the member for Vancouver South about pay equity, it would be helpful if the member recognized that this is future policy of the government. If we look at any of the longitudinal studies — meaning studies carried out over many years — on women in the workforce, we know that there is no such thing as pay equity. There is not equal pay for work of equal value in both the professions as well as other jobs available to women.

I haven't yet had an opportunity to read the recent federal study which talks about the class ceiling, the point beyond which women find themselves unable to go for a whole range of structural and attitudinal reasons that have a very significant effect on their remuneration. Recent studies have been done impeccably by very talented people in our B.C. Employment and Immigration central offices. They tell a sorry story of where women sit economically.

The reason for these discussions today is that I believe that this minister — and his ministry, which has training and technology as elements of it — needs to be paying special attention to and be cognizant of the needs of women and be developing policies, programs and funding to meet those needs.

Let me just note the minister's comment about the relative number of men and women in many programs. Yes, it is true that the number of women equals and in some instances goes beyond that of men in many post-secondary programs, but if one looks at the demographic information on those women or at their socioeconomic status, one finds

[ Page 9685 ]

that the women in our post-secondary institutions are clustered in the advantaged socioeconomic area of our society. They come from backgrounds and homes that can provide the financial support to enable them to continue their education.

Men, interestingly enough, come from a broader spectrum, including a less-advantaged socioeconomic spectrum. I would theorize that one of the reasons men are able to access post-secondary education more readily across any socioeconomic range is that they earn more when they go out to take jobs to help them pay for their education. And when they get out of school, they know that their jobs are going to pay them more, so that if they have to borrow for their education — since we don't have grants in this province — they will earn at a higher level, thus enabling them to pay off those loans.

It's a fact of life that women face. It's a structural fact of life which has nothing to do with anything other than our failure, still, to address the economic and training needs of women. My concern is that if we don't do this, it's we, as well as those women, who will be disadvantaged. We as a society will lose the product of their participation and will perhaps have to support them through our social services at a higher level than we might otherwise do.

The minister talked in a very general way about the available bridging programs. However, there have been extensive studies commissioned by this ministry which tell us that those programs are not adequate to meet the needs of women. In many instances, by the time women have got through some of the bridging programs — if available — there is no further assistance for them unless they are going to borrow their way to a more extensive education.

I noted earlier in this House — it's simply a good representative example of what women face — the story of a young woman in an adult basic education literacy program at Douglas College. She has aspirations to enter a profession where we have a shortage — teaching — and will have to do all that work on borrowed money, where there is no assistance for her beyond what will be available for the number of months she is attending the upgrading program. That woman has a family. She will not have available to her any resources other than borrowed money or whatever she might be able to earn in the summertime to assist her into a profession where we need to have her skills.

My concern is that we are not looking at the needs of women in a way that relates to their lives and their geographic, family and cultural situations. That has been very well documented for this ministry on many occasions. Yet we see no specific programs targeted to goals to enable women to have a higher participation rate, whether it is in trades and technology, in the professions or through apprenticeships. I want to ask the minister if indeed he can tell us of any programs specifically targeted to women— recognizing their economic, family, geographic and cultural circumstances — that give them, as we say, some kind of additional support and recognition for the reality of their lives, to enable them to achieve the training levels that are essential if they are going to participate in society and be economically self-sufficient.

Let me ask one other question before I sit down and give the minister an opportunity to answer. I'd also like him to comment on the makeup and work of the task force on employment and training, which he referred to in his earlier remarks. That task force was established, I think, by this minister's predecessor in August 1989. In the announcement of the work of that group, it was noted that their first report would be available on September 30, 1989, and that they would meet quarterly for a period of at least two years. I have not been able to find any information on the work of that committee or on what recommendations they are making. Two years is a long time for such an important committee to be working without any interim recommendations for action by this minister.

I would also like to ask him why, in the makeup of this committee.... The minister who announced it made this comment: "The membership of the task force reflects the government's commitment to a comprehensive and coordinated attack on structural unemployment." First of all, why is two-thirds of this committee made up of men and only one-third made up of women? Why are there no representatives on the committee from women's organizations that work in the sector of underemployed and unemployed women? In fact, we are not looking at a representative group of women on the committee. I recognize the calibre of those people who are there and am delighted to see them there. But this committee is not well balanced in presenting the needs of the women I am talking about.

Furthermore, I note that there is no representation on the committee from community colleges. There is representation from universities, government, the private sector, labour, organizations representing people with disabilities and youth. There are no representatives, though, from women's groups and none from community colleges, which is the entry point for the vast majority of the women I'm talking about, who need bridging and flexible, accessible programs in order to do the laddering that will enable them to participate in the economic life of our communities; to have decent wages and, hopefully, pay equity at some time, when some government — not this one, I'm afraid — is prepared to deal with it; and to have the kinds of the opportunities that need to be in place to make them full-fledged participants in the economic life of communities.

On the issue, then, of more detail about the goals of the ministry around special access and opportunities for women, and on the status of the provincial task force on employment and training — both its makeup and its reporting — I look forward to the minister's response.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, the member asked me about specific programs. As I said earlier, probably every institute and college in the province has a specific program or an interest in

[ Page 9686 ]

training and bridging for women. I would think there would be far too many to mention, but any perusal of any college calendar would point out what our various colleges and institutes are doing.

The member makes a reasonably good point about community colleges not being represented on the Task Force on Employment and Training, although I really can't discount again the presence of Thelma Plecas and Norrie Preston, who are, I am advised, experts in the field of training for women and for that reason were specifically put on this board.

The member also points out that out of the board, one-third are women and two-thirds are men. I guess the member looks at a quota system. I've never really thought too much about quota systems or that type of affirmative action. I think it's awfully dangerous — the idea is to get people from areas of expertise, male or female — because statements like that are sexist in themselves. If you accept the notion that we're all equal and there is equality here, then one doesn't look at that type of setting out in numbers — that there shall be this, that and the other thing in terms of women or men on a board.

Just to give the committee a brief description of the Task Force on Employment and Training, it was announced in the 1989 throne speech that we would have a Task Force on Employment and Training and that we would have it chaired by Dr. Kenneth Strand. Ken Strand is known in B.C. and throughout Canada as being expert in this, a true scholar in terms of good labour negotiations, employment and training, and understanding the issues. There's no question about his credibility.

The members of the task force were to represent a wide variety of interests: Claude Heywood, Deputy Minister of Labour, Jim Matkin, president of the Business Council of B.C.; Jean McFee from Burns Lake, chairman of the B.C. Youth Advisory Council and a student at UBC, Thelma Plecas and Norrie Preston, whom I've just mentioned; Hugh Robinson, from Nanaimo, who represents IWA-Canada; Kathy Sanderson, B.C. and Yukon director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Rob Sorenson, a member of the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities; Ken Strand, the chairman, as I mentioned; Dave Weller of the B.C. Construction Association and a member of the Provincial Apprenticeship and Training Board; and Len Werden, president of the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council and a representative of the B.C. Federation of Labour. I think that's a board with some pretty good representation. It really does capture the labour and the employer side, and it contains two experts on training women for the workforce and a first-class, internationally known chairman in Ken Strand.

I have met with Dr. Strand and discussed his work with him. He's proceeding very well. This is a large task that they have been asked to handle. As I said earlier, there is no such thing as a perfect world, and nothing happens immediately. But the fact that we did recognize that we had a concern here that we had to address is something in itself, and I am confident that this Task Force on Employment and Training is going to be of significant benefit to the province and to those who need training, including women.

One other thing I'd like to point out is with respect to student financial aid. I talked about this the other day to the member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones); he was concerned about it. We made the point that with so many students applying to attend post-secondary institutions and with us having record enrolments now, we have to conclude that there aren't too many impediments to post-secondary education.

[4:30]

However, we do admit that our data is not complete. We know inherently that there are students.... You've mentioned a class, Madam Member. You're thinking that female students from a particular socio-economic background may not be attending. You may have a point. I'd like to see your data if you have it, because I have asked staff and have set resources aside to begin assembling that data myself, because I want to know too. I made that commitment to the Canadian Federation of Students when I met them in January. I said that we recognize that there may be some students who, for whatever reason, have serious impediments to attending training and that we'd like to identify them. It may sound glib, but you don't know who doesn't attend. You know who does attend because they're there and the registrars of the various institutions can tell you: "Yes, we have registered Miss So-and-so." We can look at that data, and student financial aid data will tell us the relative income and ability or inability of her or her parents to assist her in university or training. We have that, but we don't know who's not attending.

There are ways that we can gather that information, and I am advising the committee now, Mr. Chairman, that I have made the commitment to the Canadian Federation of Students and to anyone else who would listen that we are going to take some time in terms of spending money and our human resources on identifying and establishing a better database in order that we can better track and identify the concerns that the member has presented to the committee this afternoon. As soon as that information is available it will be provided, and from that we will develop remedies. It could be in the area of better student financial aid; it could be in the area of tuition-free in terms of some of the ABE programs; there could be lots of recommendations that we could undertake. Until we identify the database, until we identify those for whom an impediment exists to attending post-secondary training, it's difficult to say in this sort of vacuum. But I can assure the member and the committee that we do know that there is more data we have to develop, and we are working on that now.

MR. GABELMANN: I would ask the House for permission to make a very brief introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 9687 ]

MR. GABELMANN: A very good friend of mine from Campbell River is in the gallery this afternoon. I would like members of the House to welcome Mr. Jack Chicalo.

MR. RABBITT: When a person attends a debate such as we've had going here today between the minister and the critic, you sit back and you certainly learn a lot about a subject on which many of us, without that background, don't get the benefit of all the finer details. It's appreciated.

I have some concerns I wanted to address with the minister. The access for rural students has been a concern of mine for the three and a half years I've been a representative for Yale-Lillooet, and I certainly want to commend the government for the movement they've made in that time. There's been a substantial recognition in cash dollars of the problem that had to be addressed. The problem, as I see it, is still there to some degree and still will have to be recognized and identified, and I'm going to help the minister do it.

One of the problems that I have encountered in assisting students in obtaining loans for education is that the funding formula, which I believe the province has negotiated with the federal government.... The formula is based on figures and cost-of-living standards dating back to the early eighties. In the nineties those figures are totally inadequate. I would suggest that the minister, now that I've identified the problem, beat a trail down to Ottawa and make sure that that part of the agreement is renegotiated so that we don't end up with problems being related to the funding formula itself.

The other subject that I wanted to discuss briefly with the minister is the Nicola Valley Institute of Technology, which right now is British Columbia's best-kept secret. For those of you who aren't aware — and I'm sure that the minister is very aware — NVIT is a native post-secondary institution located in the Nicola Valley. What makes it unique is the fact that its success rate with native students is above and beyond anything else that's been experienced in the province. We certainly have to take our hats off to those individuals who had the intestinal fortitude and the vision to get that institute off the ground. I would like to commend the ministry for working with them as closely as they have in the past couple of years to ensure that we keep that a viable institution.

The native community is served well. We have students right through to age 60 years old and better who attend the institute. It serves the native community very well. I know the ministry is watching the success rate that I mentioned, and I suggest that by working with the institute we can make it even better

The cooperation that we have between Cariboo College and other universities and colleges in the province has enabled NVIT to deliver a wide assortment of courses.

I think one individual should be recognized, and that is Gordon Antoine, who I commend the ministry for appointing to the board of Cariboo College. With that appointment we've been able to bridge part of the gap that has developed between our standard institutions in British Columbia and that which the native community is bringing onside.

My question to the minister on this subject is quite simple. I would like a commitment from the minister and his ministry that they will support — and continue to support — NVIT throughout the current year and assist in developing programs to make sure that NVIT will have a stable future and be able to continue to deliver quality education to the native community and to those non-natives who wish to attend in the Nicola Valley in the province of British Columbia. Thank you, Mr. Minister, and I look forward to your reply.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I appreciate what the member has said. I must admit that I was engaged in another conversation with a member on the floor when I heard your reference to the federal government, so perhaps I'll just.... What was the issue again? Could you perhaps just whisper loudly— sotto voce?

MR. RABBITT: Funding formula for student loans.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me get to NVIT first, because I've written some notes about that. Then I will respond to the funding formula for student loans.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, what the member has said is absolutely correct. NVIT is a model institute for native education in the province of British Columbia. There is no question about that; I have said that publicly before, and I'll say it again.

Also, what the member has said with respect to the good works of Gordon Antoine is absolutely correct. He really has been a leader in terms of not only his own area of interest — the Nicola Valley — but in terms of native education throughout the province. Gordon was one of the co-chairs of the native Indian education task force along with Peter Jones, president of Fraser Valley College.

One of the items that the native Indian education task force report indicated — and NVIT is the best example of this — was that the best education for natives is done by natives. That was clear in the report. I think it is something we have to pay attention to, and we certainly are. We are going to ensure that if we are going to have successful education programs for our native community, it's best that they be done by the native community. The success rate, which the member for Yale-Lillooet alluded to, is very good at NVIT, and it's because of that. It's because it's an institute for native people that is, in fact, operated by native people.

I can tell you, Mr. Member, that although I can't give you any hard numbers at this point, NVIT will be receiving a significant increase in their budget this year. As we work through our budget numbers for the institute budgets throughout the province, we will be advising you and NVIT of what their increase

[ Page 9688 ]

is going to be. It is going to be significant, and it is going to recognize the excellent work they have done.

I don't think there is much more I can say about this, because I spoke about it at some length the other day. I do want to repeat, for the benefit of the committee, Mr. Chairman, the fact that NVIT is a model institute for native education in our province, and Gordon Antoine has been a significant leader in that area and throughout the province in this form of endeavour. They are all to be commended for doing a superb job in favour of the community they so ably serve.

MR. RABBITT: I realize that the minister was distracted while I asked the first half of my question, but I will catch his attention now. Mr. Minister, the point I was making was with regard to the funding formula that students fall under when they are applying for funding. As you know, every student who takes post-secondary education in my riding has to leave home. That means that the vast majority of them are applying for assistance along the way.

We found through assisting students with the colleges that the funding formula is based on some 1980 figures. The funding formula, I understand, is agreed upon between the provincial government and the federal government. In order to have this funding formula changed, we have to renegotiate the formula with the federal government.

I would like to ask the minister to get these negotiations underway because I find that the 1980 figures are totally inadequate for the 1990 expenses the students are facing. That's the issue I wish to bring forward and have the minister address.

[4:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I understand now; the member is absolutely right. I am sorry I missed his comments earlier; I was distracted momentarily.

The member is correct. The federal formula is seriously out of date. The criteria are antiquated and there is no question that we have to ensure that that is improved; otherwise it works to the disadvantage of students right across Canada.

I am pleased also to say that the British Columbia contribution has increased over the years — particularly in the last three years with the stewardship of my predecessor in this ministry, the member for Comox (Hon. S. Hagen).

I would like to point out a couple of items with respect to the member for Yale-Lillooet's comments and the federal position. The Council of Ministers of Education — which I belong to as well as my colleague for North Peace (Hon. Mr. Brummet) — continues to challenge the federal government to work with the provinces in providing effective assistance programs for all of our students. We have been in contact with our counterparts in Ottawa to determine how we are going to better serve those students. That dialogue is ongoing, and our Council of Ministers of Education is very proactive on this issue. It is our hope that we can reconcile this concern to the benefit of all those concerned.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am very pleased to enter into the debate on the estimates of the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

One of the things I heard the other day was during the questioning by the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari). Unfortunately, whenever that member wanders outside her constituency, her expertise and her accuracy leave much to be desired. I noticed a number of inaccuracies in what she was saying to this House and I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of these inaccuracies.

Basically she was talking about Nelson-Creston and somehow had the Robson ferry involved. That has nothing to do with your ministry, nor has it anything to do with Nelson-Creston since that's in Rossland-Trail. So she should have been addressing that question to her colleague.

She was actually in error as well when she talked about the university in Nelson. The university in Nelson actually ceased to exist in the mid-1970s, as I am sure you are aware. Since that date there has been post-secondary education carried out in Nelson in a number of ways and through various vehicles like UVic, Gonzaga University, Selkirk College, and lately even Eastern Washington University. In connection with Eastern Washington University, we have a group of people working very closely with them. They have started, in a very modest way, the post-secondary education again. I am sure that the information you put in the House the other day will be of great assistance to them in allowing their students to access student funding.

In addition to this activity at NUC, by NUC, we do have Canadian International College, which was also mentioned by the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I would like to correct one implication that she made, and I understand that she has been told about this by the people involved and has been asked for an apology. I certainly look forward to a retraction of what she did say.

She left the impression In the House that they had received federal and provincial subsidies. She went as far as to say "in the millions of dollars worth of subsidies." I understand that to be completely in error. No provincial funding, no federal funding, ever went to CIC in spite of the fact that they do have approximately, I believe, 279 Japanese students learning all about Canada and our culture on that campus on a yearly basis.

One of the things that is going on there as well — and the one that I would really like to ask you about — is the music program being conducted by Selkirk College. I would certainly like to bring this to your attention because I was able to attend a concert just recently in the Capitol Theatre that was put on by students of that music program, and it was an excellent concert. It was well received by the public, and there is great enthusiasm in the community for that music program.

I was wondering, Mr. Minister, if you could assure me that that music program will be able to go into second year. As well, while I have your attention, I wonder if you could assure me that the apprentice-

[ Page 9689 ]

ship programs that were reinstituted at the Rosemont campus will indeed continue and there will be some effort to expand those programs.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad the member for Nelson-Creston was able to put on the record some of the incorrect references made to Nelson by the former speaker, the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. LOVICK: She hasn't been here. This is based on old stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's not here today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They're never here, are they?

MS. A. HAGEN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. It should be noted that members should not be impugned for their absence. The member for Vancouver–Point Grey is absent on public accounts business for this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that the intent of the minister was to lay blame on any of the members for not being here, or anything. I think what he was mainly dealing with was setting the record straight on what has been said and what may or may not have been true. I think the minister was going to answer on that, so I'd like to ask the minister to proceed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: During my estimates, which have been going on for some time now, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey made some comments about Nelson, and the member for Nelson-Creston has simply responded to them, which is what happens in committee. I don't have any problem with that. Committee gives us the opportunity to speak as many times as we wish about the issues that affect us and which we are concerned with. The member for Nelson-Creston quite correctly has just responded to comments that were made earlier about an institute in his riding.

With respect to the music program at Nelson, it's something that's near and dear to my heart, although I haven't seen it. As members of the committee will recall, I had that trade as a vocation for some years. I think it's a very good program that they're running at Nelson, because it does train students to enter the commercial field of music, which I can assure you can be quite rewarding. It's good to see that proceeding.

I saw a very good program many years ago at Grant MacEwan College in Edmonton, which was doing the same type of thing: training young people for a vocation in the music business, for a commercial sense of playing music, and it was very successful. As I understand, Nelson is doing the same thing.

I can tell the member that we have funding in place to allow that program to continue to present second-year programs. I'm sure the member and the students are looking forward to it. I'm advised that there is incredible pressure to get into that program, and I can understand that there would be. It has become very successful, so on the basis of that we are prepared to generously fund the second year of that program.

I would commend to the member for Nelson-Creston my best wishes to the faculty and students there, and I offer them congratulations on a job very well done.

MRS. BOONE: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. BOONE: In the gallery today is a group of students with their teacher Roxanne Toll from Blackburn Elementary School, a Prince George school. It's not very often that either the member for Prince George South or I get an opportunity to introduce schools, because it's a long trip from Prince George. They've made that by bus, and it's a 13-hour bus trip. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them here to the capital.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to resume the dialogue the minister and I were having before there was input from other members.

I want to take a moment to echo the comments of the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) about the Indian centre there. It is really doing quite outstanding work. I think everyone in the province is watching the outcome of that institution as it develops. I would certainly echo his comments about anything that can happen to enhance opportunities for native people in that centre to gain training and educational opportunities.

That same circumstance needs to be there for women across the province. When other people entered the debate, we were discussing the minister's acknowledgement that women across the socioeconomic spectrum were underrepresented, and the minister asked for studies. The federal government, interestingly enough, has done extensive studies in this area, Mr. Minister. They should be available to you, but if they're not I'd be happy to make them available to your officials.

Interjection.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm not able to give you a name of the study here, because I don't happen to have the documents with me, but those studies are available.

I think it's fair to note, around many of the funding issues we're talking about, that without the federal government, many students would be less well resourced than they are at present. It's this government's record that we need to criticize even more than the federal government's. That was certainly true through the eighties. Although there have been some improvements, we still don't have, especially for women, the kind of financial support that enables them to participate.

Let's just acknowledge that there are 37,000 households in this province that have women as their

[ Page 9690 ]

heads. Forty-two percent of those families live below the poverty line. Many of those people cannot survive unless they have opportunities to upgrade their skills and to be full participants. Most important of all — and I know that a number of people on this side of the House have said this over and over again — we need these women in our workforce because we are going to have trade shortages.

I've said over and over that I don't want us to be looking offshore or to other provinces for skills when we are not doing the job we should be doing for people who deserve opportunities for that kind of skill-training in our own province. For heaven's sake, let's make sure that the 52 percent of our population who are women get the opportunities they need to enable them to fully participate.

I would like to conclude this section by giving the minister the opportunity to respond with some of the specific initiatives he's going to be taking around, providing for better trades, technical and upgrading opportunities for women. Perhaps he could tell us what specific goals his ministry has this year in that area. Perhaps he can tell us if his ministry is looking at the possibility of access to loans for part-time students. Many women cannot afford to attend school full-time, especially if they have family responsibilities and live in areas of the province that are not urban, where there is the problem of access.

[5:00]

Perhaps he can tell us if he is prepared to have targeted funding for women, which means that they're not in a revolving door of six-month courses, most of which qualify them for clerical jobs that pay well below the poverty line. Perhaps he can tell us whether in looking at loan applications and in working with the SAR agreements — the four-cornered agreements with the Social Services ministry, his ministry and the federal government — he plans to advocate for child care and transportation allowances, which deal with the reality of women and without which women are not able to participate in post-secondary education.

Perhaps he can tell us if he's prepared to deal with information and media presentations that show men and women participating equally in what for women is still in very large measure nontraditional work.

Perhaps he can tell us, even though he seems to feel that affirmative action is not something he supports, whether he would consider some kind of affirmative action program to increase the representation of women in nontraditional trades and technology. Perhaps he can tell us whether he has, as part of his consideration, a plan to deal with employers and co-workers through education, to enable them to have a more enlightened view of women in nontraditional trades and technology. That's a barrier, too, and it's one where education might perhaps be part of the resource.

Perhaps he can tell us whether he plans to fund, in the base funding of colleges, women in trades and technology programs so that they are fundamentally available in every college across the province. Perhaps he could tell us when his Task Force on Employment and Training intends to provide us with an interim report on its work. Or do we have to wait two years, which is a long time in the lives of most women, before we hear anything about what that committee is doing? That's just one of a series of questions I could ask.

In concluding his discussion on this matter, I hope the minister will give us some tangible indication that he recognizes that women are disadvantaged in their access to education because of institutional, cultural and geographic reasons that have nothing to do with their ability or incentive, but a great deal to do with the hampering of their opportunities.

We need to see a leadership role on the part of this ministry that is not, in my view, represented at present in the programs, goals and priorities this minister put forward. I'd like him to tell us what he has in mind in the coming year to deal with some of these issues.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd also like to welcome the students from Blackburn. It is nice to have students from Prince George visit us, as the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) pointed out. You're our second group. We had the Kelly Road band down a couple of weeks ago. It's always pleasant.

The member alluded to some federal studies. As I indicated, I'd like to know the name of those studies; the member said she didn't have the name of them. Also, do they pertain to British Columbia, or are they just Canadian in general? I think it would be productive for both of us, if we're going to use statistics, to have the documentation and the ability to cite where certain information is from.

With respect to women in nontraditional training, it is happening and has been happening since I was in the college system a long time ago. That's when we first began to see it. I saw women entering welding, heavy-equipment operating and other vocational programs at the college, and I also saw an increase in the technical programs. Forestry and forest resource technology began enrolling women quite successfully in the late sixties and early seventies at CNC.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

As I've indicated, there is now at the college and university level a majority of women studying at the undergraduate level in colleges and universities. I think you're seeing a lot of that happening naturally for many very good and different reasons. Attitudes change, and institutions change and begin to encourage more women to enrol in nontraditional programs. To say that we don't have that as a focus is incorrect. We have as a policy better access to education in all types of training for all students across the province. There is no way that our record over the three and a half years that we have been government can be challenged, because there has been a considerable increase in enrolment, institutional funding, student financial aid and capital spending, through-

[ Page 9691 ]

out this ministry — not just for women but for education in general.

As for what the institutes have done themselves, I don't think there's one that you could look at that hasn't improved its ability to attract women in any field, whether vocational, technical or university transfer training. They have been proactive in that sense, and I would defend all their initiatives and say that they would stack up against any initiatives in North America in institutional ability and willingness to provide increased opportunities for women, be it day care or whatever. The thrust is there, and I certainly support the institutes' doing that.

To say that we don't have a specific policy is wrong. We are encouraging our institutes to do whatever they can to be as attractive and accessible to as many students as possible, irrespective of gender. I want that on the record, because that is the way I feel, the way the former minister feels and the way the ministry feels about nontraditional education.

Someone alluded to the September meeting of the task force. It was simply an update on progress, and we anticipate an interim report by this summer. The task force may not be proceeding as quickly as you would like, but it does have excellent people on it. As I said, they are noted B.C. experts in their fields, in what they do and what they're studying. If they are taking that much time to do a good job, I presume it's because they want to take that amount of time. I couldn't say anything negative about the constitution of the group; they're all superb people. I would expect that the report they're going to deliver will be first-class as well. I will not be critical of their sense of timing, because if they have an agenda, I can assure you it's a proper one. If they want to do the appropriate studies and appropriate work and present a first-class report to me in their own good time, then I have no problem with it.

MS. A. HAGEN: I just want to conclude my comments. I gave the minister an opportunity to answer a number of questions in the form of goals that he might want to make some commitment on to improve training and educational opportunities for women. I'd just like it to be noted that he has given us a warm fuzzy but no commitments on any of these issues. I think women will know that that is the outcome of this particular discussion.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I want to canvass a couple of issues with the minister, leading off with the issue of apprenticeships. We've undergone some changes over the years in our requirements. The recession of the eighties caused a considerable decline in the number of people being trained; in fact, there was a considerable decline in the number of people working. I suppose in that sense we can understand the numbers during that time.

In my view, the employers of this province have never really made the investments in human capital that I think are appropriate. We often forget. I know that when I read the government brochures and when they talk about the economy, they always cite statistics in terms of investments in new machinery, new equipment and new technology, but I have never heard them talk about investments in real people. What kind of investments are employers in this province making with respect to another obligation they have to the people who live and work and operate the plants and companies in this province?

I have a particular feel for this, having been educated as a millwright through the apprenticeship program. I've been a booster, if you like, ever since, because I feel that it's one of the best ways that a young person, male or female, can acquire a skilled trade and at the same time make a decent living and gain some mobility in terms of the future. Those are important issues for working people. So many jobs are not rewarding and not fulfilling. I've seen young people who enter the workforce who run up against that wall — some of the very mundane jobs that we have in our society — and it really turns them off.

There is some reward in terms of.... There is a difference between maintenance or mechanical jobs and routine operating jobs. People can see the rewards of their own labour. Quite often, in many jobs, you don't see that; you can't grasp a tangible thing and say: 'I've been at work eight hours and here's what I have produced." I used to have a job when I was younger as cleanup man in a woodroom. My job basically was to shovel chips off the floor onto a moving belt....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're still shovelling.

MR. MILLER: The cleanup hitter. The minister of whatever you are now.... I can't even remember. The minister from Burnaby says I'm still shovelling, and that may be. I may have acquired some skills in that regard.

Early in my life we used to call a shovel "the banjo." It was actually quite a dangerous occupation. In fact, there have been lots of injuries with people sticking that shovel in the back end of the pulley to try and clean the pulley out, and away you go.

Anyway, I am deviating from my point, and that is that the job basically had no reward, because every time you cleaned the floor and went away and came back, it was dirty again. At the end of your shift.... Believe me, when you're working a midnight shift and that's your job, if you want to talk about the least incentive to continue, you've got it right there.

I quickly discovered that acquiring a skilled trade gave me more of a sense of fulfillment. I could look and say with some satisfaction that I repaired that pump, or that I constructed that stairway, or that I did something. I left a mark. It's hard to convey this, and working people don't often talk about it, but I think there's a lot to it.

Back in 1982, apprentices accounted for about 2 percent of the workforce; that is, the ratio of skilled people to people who were learning on the job was about 2 percent. In 1988 it had declined to 0.7 percent. That in itself, in my view, is a very startling figure, and it's indicative of the failure to pursue with employers in this province some system where

[ Page 9692 ]

they would be required to live up to their responsibility to invest money in the human capital, if you like.

While we were at 2 percent there were about 19,000 people who qualified under that category as apprentices, and we currently have only 14,000 by my reckoning. The minister may want to comment on those statistics, but I do have a printout from the ministry: all trades as of March '90 is 14,000. 1 think that's probably fairly close. It may be a little under that. In terms of closing we're talking about just under 14,000, but I'm not quibbling — we're talking about roughly 14,000.

[5:15]

I have raised this issue a couple of years in a row, pushing and prodding and trying to get some action in terms of this government dealing with employers. I have proposed previously that we institute a compulsory system. Perhaps I shouldn't use the word "compulsory." What I'm proposing is that there be some kind of grant-levy system put in place, because one of the things that employers fear is that having expended the money to train new tradesmen, particularly in times when there is a general shortage of specific trades, those people will simply leave; because they are much more marketable — labour is a commodity — they go away to a more desirable location or whatever, and the employer, having invested some money, loses it.

I think that one of the ways that you can deal with that is through a levy-grant system: some system of rewards and penalties where employers who make a commitment to undertake a reasonable level of training.... I don't want to be necessarily confining in terms of reflecting my own experience in the industrial workplace. Certainly there are a variety of trades in a variety of employment places. My own experience is in the industrial area. But a levy-grant system would reward, in some sense, employers who undertook to make those kinds of commitments and would penalize employers who, for whatever reason, declined to do that.

I wanted to know from the minister his views on why we have such a low level. Unfortunately, I've not received enough statistics to go through any great lists, but I have been informed that there's a pulp mill not too far from here that employs 1,400 people and has no apprentices. I'm not certain how many tradesmen there are, but it's a large pulp mill in Harmac, and there are no apprentices.

The information I generally get from people in that industry is that the employers are not committing. At the same time as they are committing a fair amount of money to the expansion of their industry — taking advantage of the increase in the commodity prices by putting money back into expansion and hoping to be ahead of the game in the next wave — they are not really putting money into training people and giving opportunities, particularly to young people. I have a focus on young people, and they are just not given those opportunities.

Has the minister done any analysis of this issue? Perhaps he has talked to the minister who previously occupied that position. Is he generally aware of the issue? Is he concerned about the statistics I've cited? Has he any plans to deal further with the issue?

I would point out that we are going through some changes in British Columbia, as I think we are right across Canada. We're seeing a shift in the age of the workforce. Last year I cited the fact that in meetings I'd had with the homebuilders, they advised me that the average age in the homebuilding industry was about 57. I assume, with a fair degree of accuracy, that it might now be 58 or 59. So they were concerned. How are they going to meet their future requirements? Where are the skilled people to meet their future requirements?

We see the expansion in the pulp industry — some of it underway, some of it real; some of it less real, in terms of simply announcements. Nonetheless, it's fair to say that there probably will be an expansion in that industry. There will be a requirement for more skilled tradespeople. I think it's probably true to say — and I can't say this with absolute certainty, but I am reasonably convinced it probably is true — that the....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, at least I admit it, hon. member from Golden, who hasn't stood up in this House and spoken about the need to train young people and give young people opportunities in this province, and who is now ducking out the back door. You know, I suppose that there is some degree of honesty in admitting you don't have all the facts and saying that you think, with some degree of certainty, that something is the case. But if you don't want to raise the issues and deal with the problems the young people have in this province, Mr. Member, keep going out the door.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Oh, the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall). Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was diverted.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I don't really want to talk about the member for Columbia River; I'd rather talk about apprenticeships.

There has been a shift. We are looking at an older workforce. Statistics indicate that the youth share of the workforce is actually declining. I don't know what implications that might have for training programs. It's quite remarkable to note that from a high of about 27 percent in 1976, it is projected that we will decline to about 17 percent in terms of just the youth part of the workforce in 1996. In a 20-year span, there is a considerable decline. I would like some of these young people to have these highly skilled and well-paid jobs so they maybe can take care of me in my old age — not to mention having a rewarding opportunity for employment themselves.

[ Page 9693 ]

I've got some more on the subject that I would like to raise, but perhaps I should take a break and allow the minister to respond.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member has quoted some statistics which are generally correct; I have no disagreement with them. I will just round them out a bit for you. The member is correct that in 1982 there were 20,000 apprentices in the system. That declined seriously to 9,500 in 1987, when the federal funding cap was imposed, but it has risen to about 14,000 currently. It is the opinion of the ministry that 20,000 was probably an anomaly and probably far too high. It is our opinion that a number of about 17,000 apprentices in the system would be appropriate, in terms of the training requirements of the economy of our province. That's what we are working towards.

In terms of your specific questions with respect to the levy in rebate — or the "grant and levy," as you call it — we are currently discussing that with the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. The ministers responsible for labour policy are discussing that as well, so that is being considered on a proactive basis.

There is no question that we need more apprentices in the market. As I said, 17,000 appears to be a target to shoot for, and I think we can achieve that We are seeing some increases.

Your comments with respect to the building trades are bang-on. There is an aging population in that specific training area. I am encouraged when I see joinery and carpentry programs being put on at colleges such as Terrace — which I am sure you are aware of — and other institutes, because we need those programs in place to ensure that we have a healthy building market.

Of interest to you, Mr. Member, will be the information that, in terms of the apprentices of late, the construction trades have really captured a lot of those people. With the construction boom that we have seen — because of this remarkably good government in the last three years — you and I both know that there is a lack of skilled trades in the construction industry. We really must work to accommodate supply in that industry.

With respect to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association — or pulp mills in general and the trades required by the pulping companies — I can advise the member that we are currently in discussion with the training committee of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association. Staff are working with them now in an effort to better understand how we can provide apprenticeship training for them, and how we can satisfy the need of that labour market.

There is no question that in British Columbia we are always going to have pulp mills; we are building more and more, it seems, every day. We are going to continually need people trained in the types of trades that are needed in a pulp and paper operation. So our ministry has clearly seen it as a mandate to carry on discussions with the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association to ensure that we are meeting their training needs and to identify what they are. But that's a two-way conversation — as all conversations are — and I'm sure from that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I've had one-way conversations, but only with myself.

In any event, we have a healthy dialogue with that association and, I would presume, with other trade groups as well, because one thing this ministry does, particularly with the apprenticeship branch, is ensure that it stays in contact with the various industries and their training needs.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it's difficult, but in terms of expressing frustration.... Back in 1976 or 1977 I attended a seminar. Somewhere in a dusty drawer I've got a flashy button that was produced by the provincial government at the time. The Minister of Labour happened to be the MLA for Prince George — probably an old colleague of the current minister — and he said the same thing you're saying. Two years ago your predecessor said the same thing, and last year your predecessor said the same thing, and it leads one to conclude that you can stand up and say, "Oh yes, we're aware of the problem," and throw a few statistics around and say, "We're talking to this group and talking to that group," but at some point in time one has to say that it hasn't gone much beyond the talking stage. There seems to be a reluctance to really take the bull by the horns.

I appreciate that if you can, by discussion, convince a particular industry or an industry group to finally start to do the right thing, that's fine. But, Mr. Minister, you have to be convinced that after this long a time, there's very little credibility in standing up and saying: "We're having discussions." It doesn't wash. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as an old Scottish friend of mine used to say, and it ain't there. The numbers are not there. Clearly the industry is not meeting any kind of reasonable target or reasonable expectation that they should be responsible for training people who will be required to work in their industries.

I have gone through, as has anybody who has worked in British Columbia, the successive waves of skilled tradespeople who are virtually all imported. Companies in this province regularly used to send out kind of a scouting team, like they were looking for ball players. They traveled the world trying to find skilled tradespeople to run their operations, at the same time ignoring the relatively high unemployment among young people in their back yard.

I asked the minister last year whether he was prepared to go beyond the discussion stage if there was no tangible evidence that discussion would produce the desired result. I'm going to pose the same question to this minister. Are you prepared to go beyond that? Are you prepared to do the right thing in requiring employers in this province to meet some kind of reasonable target? Are you prepared to offer that kind of opportunity to our young people?

[ Page 9694 ]

Or when we see the next wave of expansion, when we see pulp mills being added onto and new ones being built, will we see those employers heading for European shores?

Perhaps with the opening up of the eastern bloc there might be lots of people who would be attracted. I don't suggest for a moment that we cut it off, or that we not have that healthy flow of people immigrating to this country. All of us came from some other place, If you go back far enough, except the native Indian people; and I guess if you went back far enough, it might be the case there.

[5:30]

1 think there needs to be a statement that's a little more convincing from the minister. I hope he would be prepared to offer one, because my personal experience in this House after two years is: oh, yes, we're talking.

Dealing with a couple of the responses the minister gave, surely the construction trades have been responsible for some of those increases, because there has been some type of building boom in various locations in British Columbia. But the construction trades offer a degree of uncertainty that the minister may not be aware of. It varies, of course, but it is fairly common for young people to be taken on as apprentices and to take a long time before they can finish. Particularly in small shops, I've seen situations where: "Oh yes, we'll take you on as an apprentice." Really, we're talking about small employers using the system to get relatively cheap labour, and when it no longer suits their needs the person is gone — they're out the door and they can't continue. I don't know if that would tend to inflate or, in other words, give a cast to the numbers.

It's suggested that if you look at the statistics of, say, a four-year apprenticeship.... If we look at 1990, and we have X number of people in the first year, in four years we're automatically going to have that same number as tradesmen — counting for people who may drop out. A lot of those people simply don't make it through to the final because of the nature of the employment, so that may indeed inflate the numbers.

Is the minister prepared, as I said, to really make a commitment beyond our talking about it? Are you prepared to consider the levy-grant system that I've outlined, and that if employers don't make the commitment I think is reasonable, we will say: "It's a requirement. It's part of doing business in British Columbia, to give young people an opportunity to learn those kinds of skilled trades"?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I indicated earlier, there are some serious national discussions going on with respect to the levy-rebate system, and those will unfold as they're about to.

The member indicated we're doing a lot of talking but not producing any results. I want to point out that's not correct. There has been a remarkable increase of apprenticeships in the last three years: 9,500 in 1987, to 14,000 in this year.

I'd like to point out as well that apprentice numbers in the 18 major construction trades have risen from 4,000 to over 6,000. They are as follows: carpentry — what we were talking about earlier — has increased from 1,211 to 1,691 over the past year; electrical has increased from 1,356 to 1,714; and plumbing has increased from 580 to 774.

Apprenticeship numbers are also increasing in the non-construction trades. For example, in industrial instrumentation: in 1988, there were 61 apprentices; in 1989, 111 apprentices; in 1990, 144 apprentices. That's an increase of 236 percent. That's not just discussion fodder, Mr. Member, those are real apprentices in real programs, and those are real increases.

MR. MILLER: The minister didn't answer the question. I did explain that I thought that the construction tended to give a cast that wasn't completely accurate.

It's clear when you look over the statistics that 16 aircraft mechanics is hardly something to brag about. Boat-building may be going out, but 22 in boat-building. Bricklayers, 112 being trained currently in British Columbia. Drywallers, 50. Those are hardly statistics that are worthy of any bragging. There are serious deficiencies in industrial instrument mechanics, who are becoming more and more fundamental to heavy industry, in terms of technology — 140. I don't think we are meeting our requirements.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A hundred forty-four.

MR. MILLER: A hundred forty-four; my apologies. My figures are only to March 31; perhaps the minister has more up-to-date figures. But cite the best and I'll cite the worst. We're not meeting a reasonable target in terms of training young people.

Marine mechanics, 19. Pile-driving — again, maybe some people just get into it — 12. Who's going to do all this stuff on the Victoria waterfront? Steam fitting, 220. Again, hardly enough to meet the requirements of industry.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I don't back off from my contention that there has been a reluctance on the part of this government to simply sit down with industry and say: "There's a price for doing business in British Columbia, and it's a reasonable price. You're going to do your part. If necessary we'll reward the people who are prepared to do the work and we'll penalize the people who are not."

It's even more critical — and the minister should be aware of this — in some of the northern and more remote areas of our province. I'm not even dealing with the issue of skilled professionals in areas like health care — I want to talk about that in a moment — but just with the requirements of industry. It's even worse in those situations, because of turnovers and presumably people's lack of desire to relocate into those areas.

[ Page 9695 ]

One of the best ways is to take people who grew up in those communities and offer them the opportunity — like so many parents I've seen in those small communities. It's even worse in the native communities — far worse. People leave those communities because the opportunities aren't there. They end up parking cars in Vancouver or getting the kinds of jobs that fall into the category, in my view, that I described earlier.

So I don't accept the minister's answer; I don't think he answered the question. Are you prepared to seriously consider — and in fact implement — that kind of system?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll tell you for the third time that there is a major national study going on, because you can appreciate that this program would have to be a national program to be successful. This is a country — Canada. The Canadian ministers of labour policy, and other bodies, are meeting on the issue. I would be remiss if I wouldn't accept their recommendations. But I would also, I think, be foolish if I did something unilaterally as one province. I don't think that would be productive at all, and that is the current position of the government of British Columbia.

You can say all you want and be encouraged or discouraged or whatever, but nevertheless we recognize there is valuable conversation to have on this issue. It's a very important issue, and we will deal with it in the national forum, which is where it should be dealt with.

Let the record also show that although the member doesn't think we're doing well enough in terms of apprenticeship training, there has been a major increase in the last three years and, as the member says, a good amount of them have been in the construction industry. But that's where the activity has been. You will find that someone looking for training and job security normally goes where the activity is.

I think I'd be a little disturbed if we had students taking up apprenticeship programs where there were no opportunities or jobs at the end. That's why we've seen the 18 construction trades rise so significantly in terms of apprenticeships in those trades.

Also, let's not discount the fact that there's more training done in British Columbia by the institutes that we administer than just the apprenticeship programs. There are lots of other ways to achieve training, and apprenticeship is just one part of it.

Needless to say, I feel that 14,000 apprentices is a bit low. I am advised that the appropriate number in our labour force should be about 17,000, and we will continue to build, and encourage employers, students and people wishing to be indentured into apprenticeship programs. We will continue to encourage the whole system.

For the record, Mr. Member, I will tell you that in January of this year I met in Prince George with about 20 people dealing with post-secondary education. I included in my invitation and discussion a business agent of the IWA, the construction association, educators, the faculty association from the college, and district teachers' association representatives. Most of the discussion we had was focused on vocational and trades training. It was very productive for me, for the employee groups and for the employer groups. I can assure you that I take this whole issue very seriously, as you can appreciate.

As you and I both know — we live in resource communities — I live in a community that has over the years undergone remarkable growth. The population has trebled in the 25 years that I've been in Prince George, and we're seeing remarkable growth again in terms of residential housing and industrial construction as well. So I'm as aware as anyone in this Legislative Assembly of the necessity for training tradesmen and technicians and having our people trained in the north to recognize the opportunities of the north and also to assist the north in growing. That is clearly an issue that I am close to, and that I insist the ministry watch very, very carefully and address.

I would submit to this committee that our record in the past three and a half years of this administration has been excellent. It's been as good a record as you will find anywhere in Canada, and we have been as reactive and as proactive as we possibly could in terms of the field of apprenticeship training, as well as other trades and vocational training.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, it's a fact that the minister is waiting for a study. I don't dispute the numbers — there's been an increase. I don't know if the minister is prepared to quantify that increase in terms of how many came as a result of government programs and how many simply as a result of increased economic activity in the province. I think that might be an interesting debate. I don't really want to get into it, but I think increased economic activity has been in the main responsible for those increased numbers, not really anything that this government has done.

The fact is that the private sector pays about 83 percent of the cost of apprenticeship training. The cost to the government is relatively modest, and the only thing to conclude on this — because I don't want to belabour it — is that in 1988 your predecessor told me — and I'll quote him from Hansard: "We're continuing to look for ways to improve the system. We currently have a study under review by Price Waterhouse." He told me at that time, two years ago, that we've got a study, and when we get the study, presumably we're going to take some action. Now you tell me you have a study. I hope you take some action.

I want to turn briefly to the question of enrolment in the forestry faculty at UBC. I don't know if the minister is aware of some of the numbers there, but certainly they are alarming and also, to some degree, puzzling. In a province that relies so heavily on the forest industry, we find a declining interest among young people in entering that profession. I don't have the numbers for the technology, but certainly at the faculty itself, the numbers are down considerably. I would suppose that may give rise, as well, to the possibility.... I have a lot of faith in the forest

[ Page 9696 ]

industry and believe that there are opportunities for expansion far beyond pulp. I also believe strongly that our universities in British Columbia should be world leaders in everything there is to know in forestry, forest technology, the industrial part of forestry, the environmental part and all the rest of it. We have that responsibility, given the fact that nature bestowed on us this tremendous resource. I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to consider that issue and perhaps advise the House whether any specific action is being undertaken by the government — any kinds of programs at the discussion stage or elsewhere — in terms of trying to encourage our young people to enter what I think should be truly an honourable profession and certainly one that's quite critical to the future well-being of British Columbia.

[5:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the member for Prince Rupert, I am aware of the forestry program problem at UBC and view with alarm the declining enrolment. The central interior group of foresters submitted a brief to the implementation planning group that was recommended at the University of Northern British Columbia. Their brief is public, and it's quite good. You should perhaps write COFI in Prince George about it, and they could provide it for you. Among other things, it said that for a lot of reasons the University of Northern British Columbia should seriously consider a school of forestry. The forests in the central interior are truly representative of what type of forestry practices should be taught and studied.

It also pointed out — and I found this alarming — that 40 percent of the foresters working in the central interior and the north did not graduate from UBC; they were from other forestry schools. UBC is the only game in the province, so obviously these students are coming from other places. I found out that they are coming from Alberta and Ontario; and the employers, regrettably, tell me that the better forestry graduates in terms of central interior practices are from outside our province.

A lot of that is because a student who has spent four or five years in Vancouver doesn't want to leave. He has also been trained and has spent a lot of time in coastal methods, so he's not going to be that comfortable or familiar with the type of logging that would occur from Terrace east, essentially. I also think that the whole environmental movement has maybe given forestry a name that's not too popular with young people. They think that a forester is typically one of those guys who leaves those clearcuts that no one likes to look at. They don't realize that foresters are taught to be environmentalists and that probably you could do some of the best environmental work with a background in forestry.

Nevertheless, you are right. You have identified a problem. I would certainly want to see the University of Northern British Columbia look at the good work of the forestry faculty review committee, I think they called themselves — the COFI group out of Prince George. It would be a very good opportunity for that university to consider such a program, which would be most popular. Because of its setting, you could do something better than you could at Point Grey, and you could be quite productive in that type of program. Of course, it would be good because, as we know, if you train students from the north in the north, they'll stay in the north.

With that said, I think I'll leave it alone. There are a few more things I could say about the UBC program, but I don't think it would be appropriate to say them publicly.

Mr. House Leader, I was going to adjourn, but let them respond.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It doesn't matter. They're wasting the public's time anyway, so we may as well continue.

MR. MILLER: I am truly disappointed that the Minister of Forests thinks it's a waste of the public's time to talk about declining enrolments at the faculty of forestry at UBC. I don't think it's a waste of time; the minister I was just communicating with didn't think it was a waste of time. It is certainly disappointing to hear the Minister of Forests suggest that it is a waste of time.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: "Oh sure," the minister says.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, the minister might have some other problems, but talking about forestry and UBC is not a waste of time at any time.

I want to ask the minister, as the minister responsible for universities, whether — and I don't want to get into any kind of intensive analysis — the recent evaluation of the faculty of forestry has caused him any concern or whether any action is being contemplated by the ministry in terms of that. Particularly disturbing to me was the suggestion that ties to industry prevented the university from complete freedom in its academic approach to the question. Would the minister be prepared to...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I can assure you that universities in British Columbia have complete freedom. I hope you're not suggesting that they don't. They have total freedom in terms of their course content, their personnel policy and how they are going to manage themselves. About the only thing I can do is.... I have to approve a new faculty beginning; but once it's begun, it's in place and we have no control over them.

There was an internal review. I'm not going to comment on that further, except to say that I have taken the appropriate measures. That's all I can say publicly, and I am sure you are aware of that.

[ Page 9697 ]

MR. MILLER: Total freedom — that begs the question of the report.

I was just going to ask the minister quickly: what is your target for achieving 17,000 apprentices? Can you give me that in any definable terms?

AN HON. MEMBER: Soon.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the fullness of time.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad my colleagues are around to help me, because I was having difficulty with that answer. Seriously, it will be as quickly as it can be done. We see 17,000 as the appropriate number. There's also the capacity of the system to increase....

MR. MILLER: Surely you must have some idea. What's a reasonable time to expect it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: July 23, 1991.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: I'm not quite sure how to read the government, Mr. Chairman — whether they simply want to adjourn debate or what. We're prepared to....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We want to pass the vote.

MR. MILLER: Well, no, I have questions. If you want me to go until 6 o'clock, I'll do it.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: You know, you guys are hard to read. A moment ago, Mr. Chairman, I thought there was going to be a motion from the government side to adjourn debate. If you want to make it, make it. I said one more question. If you want me to go to 6 o'clock, I'll go to 6 o'clock.

I wanted to canvass the minister with respect to student assistance programs, particularly the program that was in place to provide assistance to students from remote regions of the province who, in return for that assistance, would be prepared to make a commitment to serve for some reasonable length of time in another remote community.

It was applied, I believe, briefly, in a very small way, to the nursing program. I'll outline it briefly. Let's say you were working in health care but didn't have all of the qualifications to become a registered nurse. The government would assist you beyond the normal kinds of programs that existed. In return, you would make a commitment to serve for some length of time in a remote community. In Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlotte Islands we have a very difficult time attracting health care professionals, whether that be nurses or the whole range of health care professionals.

A couple of years ago I commended the Minister of Health, who I think may have been the spur for the program. It was a very modest budget. Has the minister considered expanding it? Is he satisfied with what that program has produced? Have you measured that in any tangible way? Can you see a benefit coming out of it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We leave the responsibility for that type of incentive to an employing ministry, and I can give you one example for sure. The Ministry of Education does pay down the loans of teachers who settle in the north, and they have a policy to assist there. If I am not mistaken, I think Health has a program as well. I don't have those details available to me, but I would be prepared to provide them for you.

I remember that some years ago I saw a policy — as a matter of fact, the current Speaker, I think, introduced the policy — in the Ministry of Health that if you attended university, assistance would be given if you promised to stay in the north and serve out...whether you were a dental technician, nurse or whatever. I am sure that policy was in place. But I would have to get more specific details on that to be totally accurate with you. I am sure there is something there.

Let me say that generally I totally agree with what you are saying, and although this ministry would not be the ministry to give that type of assistance — because we would not be the employer or the employing ministry — I would certainly advocate this to my colleagues in Education, in Health, in Social Services and in other areas where they are the employer, and they need to attract trained and talented people to remote areas.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to make a motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourn tonight, I remind the House that tomorrow, for the purposes of the Legislature, will be treated as a Friday, and the House will adjourn at 1 p.m.

MR. ROSE: I want to ask, at the time of this announcement, if it's going to be a Friday — and we had a very successful Friday last Friday in terms of resolutions — if the government House Leader plans

[ Page 9698 ]

to call any resolutions. We haven't discussed this matter with him, and I feel that I'm the one who should have raised it earlier. If he does, I would be prepared to consult with him on a couple of non-controversial resolutions, one from each side, based on the ten-ten principle that worked so successfully last Friday. I could do that at the conclusion of today's debate.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had a request for a resolution from either side of the House, so we hadn't planned on any tomorrow. We certainly could do some a week from Friday, but not tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.