[ Page 9721 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Fuel Tax Validation Act (Bill 30). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 9721

Oral Questions

Foreign lottery sales. Mr. Sihota –– 9721

Doctor's refusal to refer heart patient to Seattle. Mr. Davidson –– 9722

Foreign lottery sales. Mr. Sihota –– 9722

Use of credit cards at PNE racetrack. Mr. Williams –– 9722

Tree-spiking under Crirninal Code. Mr. G. Jansen –– 9723

Payment to former NDP employee. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9723

Ministerial Statement

Ministry of Environment reorganization. Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 9724

Mr. Miller

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and

Technology estimates. (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

On vote 5: minister's office –– 9724

Mr. Lovick

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Perry

Mr. Miller

Mr. Barnes

Ms. Cull

Mr. Jones

Private Post-Secondary Education Act (Bill 24). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan)

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 9747

Mr. Jones –– 9747

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to have in the gallery today guests — with whom I also had the good fortune to have lunch this afternoon — who are representing the Victoria branch of IPAC, the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, which is a very important discussion group and resource group for our dedicated public servants. I would like the House to welcome especially Heather Dickson, who is the secretary of the Victoria branch of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, and Dr. Tim Padmore, who is a director of IPAC. Will the House please welcome these two distinguished civil servants.

MR. LOVICK: I note in the gallery today a constituent of mine, a young man who serves with distinction on the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Mr. Murray Charleson.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: In the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Ron Wood, past president of the West Vancouver-Howe Sound constituency and also a businessman of West Vancouver. Let's make him welcome.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to pay tribute today to a former senior official of government who gave great service to the province. Richard Lawrie Colby, better known to his friends and colleagues as "Dick" Colby, passed away last week at age 79. He began working for the provincial government in 1929 as an office boy and during his 47-year career, which ended with retirement in 1976, rose to become the Deputy Minister of Travel. His career of almost five decades had many highlights, including some major achievements in raising British Columbia's profile as a tourist destination. He founded Beautiful British Columbia magazine, which today enjoys a worldwide reputation for its superb coverage of our province over the years. He oversaw the production of many fine promotional films that were distributed through the National Film Board.

Dick's hobbies and interests were many and diverse. He had a lifelong interest in astronomy, was an accomplished model railroader and was active in a number of community organizations. His record of service was long and honourable, and I ask the House to join me in extending our sympathy to his family.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will send the appropriate messages. Is that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, as Premier and first member for Richmond, on behalf of myself and the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), it is a pleasure for me to introduce to the House today a group of grade 7 students and several adults from the Garden City Elementary School of beautiful, sunny Richmond. I would ask the House to extend them all a good welcome.

Introduction of Bills

FUEL TAX VALIDATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Fuel Tax Validation Act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, Bill 30 retroactively validates the tax which was collected from all taxpayers under the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act and the Motive-fuel Use Tax Act between '74 and '76. These acts, which were two of the three predecessor statutes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act, were held to be constitutionally invalid by the courts because they imposed an indirect tax. The third of the predecessor statutes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act was also held to be constitutionally invalid, but was amended retroactively in 1981 to protect the revenues collected during the 1974-76 period.

Bill 30 amends the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act and the Motive-fuel Use Tax Act retroactively to impose constitutionally correct taxes during the 1974-76 period to ensure the consistent application of all three predecessor statutes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act and to protect revenues which were collected and spent on essential government programs during this period.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

FOREIGN LOTTERY SALES

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. The Provincial Secretary is reported to have said on Saturday that there is no indication of any links with organized crime and no connection between the Ginnetti death and offshore lottery sales. Could the minister advise this House what evidence he has to substantiate the statement he made?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I believe that in this great land called Canada, the onus of evidence is on the other side.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister didn't answer the question, so let me rephrase it. The minister has indicated that there is no linkage between crime and offshore lottery sales and the death of Mr. Ginnetti. That's what the minister said. I wonder if he could advise the House what he based that statement on.

[ Page 9722 ]

DOCTOR'S REFUSAL TO REFER
HEART PATIENT TO SEATTLE

MR. DAVIDSON: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week a heart specialist refused to refer a patient to Seattle until the government paid for his telephone call. In light of this outrageous act, what steps has the minister taken to deny any such doctors access to the B.C. Medical Services Plan?

HON. J. JANSEN: It is of a lot of concern, I am sure, to both sides of this House when we see such actions as we witnessed last week with a doctor refusing medical service to a patient as a result of what was, in his opinion, additional costs. This doctor had billed the system last year some half a million dollars, in addition to his payments received under WCB and ICBC, and disputed the cost of an additional burden of referring a patient to Seattle as opposed to Vancouver. What that additional cost might be I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, save and except a few pennies in terms of postage and other small incidental costs.

I am deeply concerned about this action, as I am concerned about other initiatives of the BCMA. I am sure the health critic opposite also shares my concern about this. I intend to ask the doctor in question to explain his actions. I further intend to ask the BCMA for their position on this matter and to ask the college for action in regard to this act.

FOREIGN LOTTERY SALES

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a new question. The Provincial Secretary, responsible for lotteries, knows full well that there's an interprovincial lottery commission, of which B.C. is a member. It is my understanding that we now have a third study done by that commission into the matter of offshore sales of lottery tickets. The report indicates that they are also concerned about the possibility of this jurisdiction of British Columbia becoming a haven for organized crime, should the province not cease the offshore sale of lottery tickets. Can the minister advise the House what the lottery commission has done with the recommendations of that study?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite would refer to the recommendations in the report that was submitted I must admit it is a report to the ILC. If he refers to the recommendations on page 59, he will see that: "...as a first priority, legislation be immediately enacted at the provincial level." But to be effective, it must be uniform in all essential aspects, and it must be introduced by every province at approximately the same time. That's part of the recommendation that has to occur. That hasn't occurred. There has not been cooperation between the provinces to bring in legislation such as that.

MR. SIHOTA: My information from the interprovincial people is that B.C. is the reluctant partner; that British Columbia is not prepared to introduce the legislation, largely because, according to them, British Columbia is soft on crime. Will the minister show leadership today and make a commitment that British Columbia and he as minister will bring forward the appropriate legislation?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Obviously the member opposite is talking about future policy. But I can tell the member that this government did make the statement at that time that if there was cooperation from the other provinces, we would certainly go along with that. Indeed, Bill 115, which was brought in in the Ontario Legislature, died on the order paper, and that was the extent of the legislation.

USE OF CREDIT CARDS
AT PNE RACETRACK

MR. WILLIAMS: To the hon. Premier. Exhibition Park racetrack now allows you to bet on your VISA card. Is it the policy of this administration to allow betting on the tab — or plastic?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, such questions should be directed to the Solicitor-General.

HON. MR. FRASER: I was pleased to see that on page B5 there was an article on racetrack betting, as opposed to 121 pages from the front of the Sun, where we had the severance pay for that friend of your former leader. It was interesting that the report on severance pay came right near "Career Opportunities, " which I thought was quite good for a guy who just lost his job.

The issue at hand is one that should concern us all. But the fact of the matter is that there are bank machines all over the city where you can get cash. I am advised, as you are, that the bank will be putting a cash machine at Exhibition Park. It does worry me that people would bet on credit, and I think that would be everybody's opinion in this House.

[2:15]

MR. WILLIAMS: I am pleased on a personal level that that is the minister's opinion, but this could go right up to the maximum on your credit card in a day. That could be $5,000. Is the Solicitor-General advising the House that he's asking the Racing Commission to revisit this question in view of the concerns expressed today?

HON. MR. FRASER: The use of credit cards, which puts people into debt on any material good or whatever else you want to buy and which puts you into serious credit problems, concerns us all. The fact is that it's not illegal to use a credit card to get money out of a cash machine. There will be a cash machine at the racetrack, as I understand and you do as well.

You also know that in Canada you are allowed to have a betting account at a racetrack, provided that you have an account with the racetrack and you make a deposit of a minimum of $100. While I would agree with the member and all of you here that there could

[ Page 9723 ]

be a potential problem The limit on this particular issue is $200. There's no question that people could spend thousands of dollars in a month if they cared to; the question is that it's not illegal. It does concern me. If it's of concern to you, I will let you all know that we intend to monitor this particular situation very carefully.

MR. WILLIAMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, At the moment, the limit is $200 per phone call, any number of phone calls per day, which could get you to the maximum on your credit card in the same day — $5,000, $10,000 or whatever your maximum is. Is that acceptable with this administration?

HON. MR. FRASER: There are banks and credit institutions, such as Surrey, VanCity and others, that have credit application machines and bank machines in their banks. I know it's a problem for some people. It is a question that has to be monitored carefully; we will do that. We don't want people to bet themselves into trouble. We don't want people spending their food money on horses. As I've said, we will monitor this very carefully to make sure that it is not extended.

You must remember, of course, that the issuing of credit is a question for the bank. They will know daily what the account is, as many people have found out when they went to buy something at the store. Indeed, the bank will be monitoring the bank risk, apparently, on that one. But is there possibly a conflict here with you and your credit union and the bank? Or what is the problem?

MR. SPEAKER: It's inappropriate to ask a question of a member. This is the final supplementary I'll allow on this question.

MR. WILLIAMS: The gratuitous comments in terms of financial institutions don't deserve a response. What the minister does not seem to understand.... He confuses cash machines with credit. Let's understand here and now that you could spend $5,000, $10,000 or whatever your credit card allows at the track in any single day. Is that acceptable, Mr. Minister — to go betting on the ponies to the tune of ten grand on credit?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the limit, I understand, in this particular account is not $5,000 a day; it's $200 a day. And that is serious, I agree with you.

TREE-SPIKING UNDER CRIMINAL CODE

MR. G. JANSSEN: A question to the Attorney-General. Last week the lives of workers at the Somass sawmill in Port Alberni were placed in danger by the processing of trees spiked with nails. What representation have you made to the federal government to have this offence declared under the Criminal Code?

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, there have been three matters that play on this issue. One is that I have advised the IWA, as well as the mayors of the municipalities in the area who were concerned about this issue, that the provisions under the Criminal Code today in the area of public mischief are available to us. And indeed, they will be used without hesitation where there is evidence pointing to the bringing forward of charges involving an individual who can be shown to have put people's lives at risk.

Secondly, last year, following or at the conference of Attorneys-General, representations were put to Canada to go beyond the public mischief sections of the Criminal Code and make a specific charge in the Criminal Code for tree-spiking. The Justice department in Ottawa declined that request and some time ago stated publicly that it would not be making that amendment.

Subsequent to that, British Columbia announced that we would make an amendment to the Forest Act, which will be introduced later on this spring. It will — to the extent that we are able to and not impinge upon the criminal jurisdiction or power — make it a specific offence under the Forest Act of British Columbia.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I raised this matter with the Deputy Attorney-General almost a year ago, when an ad advocating tree-spiking first appeared and came to my attention. He promised to inform me of the results of the investigation. Now it's been almost a year. Those trees are showing up in the mills — two in the last two weeks — and lives are being placed in danger. Can the minister explain his government's failure to take action to end this threat in the last 11 months?

HON. MR. SMITH: I am not sure what more I can add. I know the member has a prepared script of questions and so on. I can only repeat what has been done since last year. I can tell him as well that if information and circumstances are presented to Crown counsel, that will enable us to put before the court — on the test that we use of substantial likelihood of conviction — a charge against individuals who are reprehensible in the extreme, individuals who would put in jeopardy people's lives by trying to advance their own political propaganda by driving spikes into trees. Then without hesitation will the full weight of the Criminal Code, using the public mischief provisions, be used. In addition to that, because Canada has declined the indication to make it a specific charge, we will make amendments to the Forest Act to do so where they have failed.

PAYMENT TO FORMER NDP EMPLOYEE

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Provincial Secretary. We've just been made aware that the former provincial secretary to the Leader of the Opposition has just received an $89,200 settlement for wrongful dismissal after seven months' employment with the Leader of the Opposition. It is

[ Page 9724 ]

reported that one-half of this expenditure will come out of the opposition NDP global budget. Is this a legitimate government expenditure?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question on notice. It is a very serious matter.

Ministerial Statement

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT
REORGANIZATION

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce a major change in the organization of my ministry. Effective immediately, my ministry will be establishing a new division of fish, wildlife and integrated resource management. This new division will be headed up by an assistant deputy minister and will consolidate the activities of the existing wildlife and recreational fisheries branches, a water quality unit and planning staff.

British Columbia's fish and wildlife are unequalled anywhere in Canada for their abundance and variety. Their conservation is a challenge with global implications. Our province has a unique opportunity to maintain the quality of life associated with all our living resources, including these exceptional fish and wildlife populations. Using the resources being made available for integrated management through the sustainable environment fund, combined with other environmental protection initiatives, this government will ensure that our fish and wildlife remain healthy and abundant throughout the province.

The creation of the new fish and wildlife division is a further indication of our government's commitment to strengthen and reorganize the Ministry of Environment to meet its challenging mandate for the 1990s.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, in response to the statement by the minister, there is, I suppose, a degree of cynicism with regard to announcements about reorganization. I particularly cast back to the third, fourth, fifth or sixth — whatever number — reorganization we've gone through in some other ministries, particularly regional development, where now you've got a minister, now you don't; now it exists, now it doesn't.

We're dealing with a very serious issue in terms of integrated resource management. There has recently been some further information, or further testimony, in the province which describes some of the difficulties we're facing. I think they go beyond the simple announcement that a ministry, or a branch of a ministry, is going to be reorganized.

There is confusion within ministries of government over whose turf it is, who's supposed to be doing what. There clearly is uncertainty with regard to the sustainable environment fund. It has not yet been debated in this House. There is uncertainty whether or not the government is prepared to designate all of the funds that they've taken from the Ministry of Forests for silviculture, to designate those funds for that express purpose. The minister was wrong in his statements last week, and we'll explore that further with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond).

The leaked memo last year from top officials in your ministry expressing their frustration For example, there were only 14 individuals in the ministry to vet, I believe, more than 4,000 logging plans right around this province. That's clearly a problem that requires more than a simple reorganization.

Currently there is confusion regarding the whole area of integrated resource management. A senior official in the Ministry of Forests testified last week at the Forest Resources Commission that timber comes first; we don't consider those other values, those fish and wildlife values; they're secondary. He had to hurry back to the commission later that day to correct himself, obviously on some kind of instruction.

We have an interview with the chairman of the commission, who has indicated that if the government accepts integrated resource management as their mandate — and there's some confusion about that — the inventories are simply not available for them to carry out that logical function.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important area, and it deserves a cohesive answer. In fact, there was an attempt to try a truly integrated resource management approach in this province a number of years ago through the secretariat to the Cabinet Committee on Environment and Land Use. There are a number of models in the province that you can look to, where that committee actually started to impose integrated resource management.

It's going to take more than announcements in order to cure the deep malaise that we have in this province in this area.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before calling committee, I would ask leave for the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands to meet at 4 p.m. today in the Douglas Fir Room.

Leave granted.

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).

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I know that a considerable amount of time has already been spent on these estimates, and I don't propose to take up a great deal more time. However, I have a couple of

[ Page 9725 ]

questions I would like to pose to the minister if I may.

[2:30]

The minister and I go back some time in shared experience, as far as the community college system of this province is concerned. I therefore noted with interest his reference in his opening remarks introducing these estimates to the fact that the principal defining feature of a community college system has been its transferability and that we have had that rather good relationship with the universities. Indeed, both of us have probably been on those committees that have gone back and forth between colleges and universities over the years.

I'm concerned, however, that many years later — when the community college system is well and truly established, when its functions are clearly understood by all and when we've even gone beyond the community college framework to give three colleges the capacity to offer third- and fourth-year courses — we might have got in a bit of a problem in the process. In fact, things have got muddled, and perhaps we are making errors that we thought we had overcome years ago.

I would refer the minister specifically to the problem that Malaspina had in dealing with the University of Victoria regarding transferability. I see the minister nodding, Mr. Chairman, so I suspect he's familiar with the case. Let me just very quickly, for the record, establish it. My understanding is that the third- and fourth-year program at Malaspina College in Nanaimo, the multi-disciplinary studies program that they are introducing there, is having some difficulty insofar as they have not been able to work out transfer arrangements with the University of Victoria philosophy department. I'm wondering if the minister can shed any light on that particular question for me. Given the great amount of attention and effort that has been paid to the whole area of accessibility and broadening accessibility — a laudable goal, to be sure — why is it that a well recognized and well established college, which has had about 15 years of experience dealing directly with the University of Victoria, has been unable to effect any kind of system whereby they can transfer students from one institution to the other?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for his reference to the previous movie we were in. Those were very exciting days.

On the specific question you're dealing with now, Mr. Member, I regret I don't have details for you. I met with the Malaspina board early in my mandate — I would say in December. Of course, our colleague, Gary Bauslaugh, whom I worked for in Prince George and whom you later on worked for in Nanaimo, was in charge of the program. Gary explained to me that there were some difficulties but that he was proceeding slowly and surely in a measured way. He thought he would have some success. Until I get more details, there's not much more I can say. But I can tell you that if any mind is going to prevail on this issue, it's going to be that of Gary Bauslaugh, because I have a lot of faith in him and his determination. He makes things work, and his life's work essentially in B.C. has been dealing with these articulation committees and establishing transferability. So if anyone can pull it off, Gary can. I have a lot of faith in him.

MR. LOVICK: I am sure that our mutual friend Gary Bauslaugh is going to quite enjoy reading those laudatory comments. I'll try to refrain, of course, from offering similar things, because I, too, have a number of friends there, many of whom admire and respect Gary a great deal. But, as we know, there is the other side too. Gary, I'm sure, will enjoy reading the transcript of this debate and recognizing that I've decided to play coy and not offer any praise at this point.

However, the question I wanted to get to.... The minister effectively took this on notice and said that he doesn't know enough about this issue at this point and therefore would get back. What I want to read into the record, though, is what I think is a more serious problem. My information is that the University of Victoria has effectively said: "We will not grant you transferability." It has nothing to do with the fact that it's Malaspina College proposing the courses. Rather it's because of their lack of faith in the entire Access for All program. What the philosophy department of the University of Victoria refer to is the less than competent, less than well-organized and less than well-planned initiatives on the part of government.

Let me quote to the minister from a letter written to Gary Bauslaugh, vice-president of instruction at Malaspina College, by the head of the philosophy department at the University of Victoria:

"We believe that the government's initiative is poorly conceived and that there is little promise of it being a satisfactory way to increase access to university study in the province. As far as I am able to tell, on the basis of my discussion with various administrators here" — that is, at the University of Victoria — "our reservations have already been proved well founded. The problems that are being encountered now are not surprising, and the scheme of it did not have at the outset either a clearly thought-out goal or clearly articulated procedures."

That, I'm sure you will agree with me, Mr. Minister, sounds on the face of it to be a pretty damning commentary on the Access for All initiative. I'm wondering if the minister would like to respond to those comments.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The head of the philosophy department may have his opinion about how things have been managed in the Access for All program. I can tell the member and the committee that I understand that the articulation committee dealing with this is of the opinion that it will resolve the question.

I also find the letter you have read to be curious, not from your point of view but from the author's point of view, particularly with respect to UVic, because one of the strongest proponents and support-

[ Page 9726 ]

ers of the university-college model is Dr. Howard Petch, the president of the University of Victoria. In his meetings with officials in the Okanagan for sure and the Cariboo as well, he felt generally very good about the UVic presence at those two campuses.

I don't know what's gone astray at Malaspina. I do find that letter difficult to understand. Maybe the philosophy department has a different opinion of how things are going, but I can assure you that really doesn't square with what Dr. Petch has said about the Access for All program and the UVic presence at the other community colleges.

MR. LOVICK: I'm wondering if the minister could tell me if there are any other colleges, programs, courses or universities which have recorded similar problems, or are there similar problems that have been brought to his attention?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Nothing that comes to mind or nothing overt. I would imagine, in fairness to the committee, that there are always going to be questions asked by faculties at universities of faculties, departments, staff and personnel at colleges. I think that's just part of the game, and I think the university people have the responsibility to continue to question what is being taught under their name at another institution.

I don't have any problem with that. I think that's healthy and really what universities are all about, as a matter of fact — to explore critical thought, to look at a program, at a thought, at what people have said about one thing or the other and be critical of it in a constructive and informative way. I will accept that there are going to be difficulties, but I would accept that that's part of the process, and it's probably a very healthy and beneficial part of the process.

MR. LOVICK: I'm always pleased to hear a Minister of Advanced Education invoking the spirit of Cardinal Newman or Matthew Arnold, or some such thing. That's nice to hear.

I'm wondering, though, whether the minister would agree with me that the existing situation vis-à-vis the University of Victoria philosophy department and Malaspina College's multidisciplinary studies is untenable and that some action ought to be taken, and if the minister would be willing to give me and this House his assurances that he will at least instruct his staff to see whether they might do something to assist those two parties in resolving their differences, for the simple reason that the program's integrity and legitimacy is obviously going to be called into question, insofar as there is one whole area of academic discipline that is apparently excluded at the moment. Could the minister respond to that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My opinion at this point would be that we, as government, should maintain an arm's-length relationship with this committee chaired by Dr. Grant Fisher, for whom all of us have a lot of respect. I'm sure the university community as well as the community college constituency has that feeling for Grant Fisher.

At this point, Mr. Member, I would say that it would be my position to stay at arm's length. If things become very difficult with UVic and Malaspina, I would be prepared to certainly look at the concerns you wish to express — or Rich Johnston, the president of Malaspina, or Gary Bauslaugh, or Grant Fisher.

My gosh, I can't forget this: Rendina Hamilton is also on that committee, so I must mention her name. Two very sound thinkers.... Rendina Hamilton, in particular, is one who doesn't suffer fools gladly at all. I'm sure if there's a way of resolving this concern, it can be done by Rendina Hamilton and Grant Fisher.

I can give this committee my assurances that if it does come to my desk or the desk of the ministry, we will be prepared to assist in any way we can.

MR. LOVICK: I shan't belabour that point. I would just remind the minister that the abstract principle of maintaining an arm's-length relationship surely must be called into question when we recognize that the principal point made by the philosophy department at the University of Victoria was that it was the government's initiative that was poorly conceived, etc. Nothing to do with the players; rather it's the government's initiative. In short, the problem would seem to sit rather squarely and securely on the desk of the minister.

Therefore I would suggest that maybe to suggest an arm's-length relationship ought to be invoked and used as the explanation. It probably doesn't hold up; however, I've made the point. The minister has heard the case. Perhaps he will look at it somewhat more closely. I hope he will.

I want to turn briefly to another area, Mr. Minister. I notice that the budget for Advanced Education has gone up significantly, and of course we're all delighted by that. We're happy that we have managed to weather our way through ten years of turbulent and stormy weather, in which the community colleges and provincial institutes of this province were endangered species. I say that as one who had some hands-on and very particular experience with that system — and I think my words aren't overstated.

In any event, we are happy about the new funding. That's good news for all, of course. I understand that some $68 million of the Advanced Education budget has been directly allocated for the Access for All program. I assume I'm correct in that. I'm sorry, I haven't pulled out my estimates book with me to look closely, because I found out only a few minutes ago that I was going to do this now. But am I correct that just $68 million is for the Access for All program?

Okay, then I'll just pursue from there.

I'm wondering if the minister could give me some more specific, regional breakdown. We're looking at three different institutions — are we not? — or colleges that are now part of the college-university program, as well as a fourth factor in there: namely, the university of the north at Prince George. I am

[ Page 9727 ]

wondering if the minister could give us a more discrete and specific breakdown of how that $68 million is being allocated.

[2:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to catch up on a few things.... With respect to the department of philosophy, let me put on the record that I will have a look at that to examine what that department is saying about government and have a response to them and to the member.

With respect to the years of turmoil and the critical times you went through, Mr. Member, I guess a lot of people like you are lucky to have their job, because those were pretty tough times. I don't necessarily agree that government made the right decision with respect to those colleges. Although I was an MLA by that time, I still had an awful lot of friends in the system, and I wasn't particularly happy with the way the system was being treated. So I will agree with you to that extent.

With respect to the access programs and enrolment, I'll put on the record with more than just a nod — which I indicated earlier — that our estimate for 1990-91 is $68,393,600, and that's almost a 100 percent increase. It provides for the continuation of the 3,000 full-time academic spaces in the university, college and institute system that was begun in fiscal 1989-90, and it provides for an additional 3,846 full-time student spaces broken down into 2,641 academic and 1,205 non-academic in the system for the 1990-91 academic year.

The colleges and institutes will receive a lift for inflationary pressures related to the '89 enrolment growth portion of the Access initiative, and 1,170 new full-time student spaces will be added to the three universities in order to meet new program and enrolment demands. One thousand four hundred and seventy-one new academic FTE student spaces will be added to the regular college system and to the three university-college programs, and 1,205 new full-time student spaces will be added for employment-oriented training programs: apprenticeship, adult basic education, career tech and vocational.

Then, as you know, $2.5 million is allotted to the University of Northern British Columbia for the beginning of their interim board of governors. That is not educating anybody for this year, but it is certainly doing all the other things one has to do when one begins a university, such as seeking a president, convening the board meetings, doing the site selection process and that type of thing.

In terms of a particular college or site-specific question, I don't have that information, but I am sure we can find it here with all this material we have available to us. So if that's not enough, and you have a specific question about access and how it impacts on one particular college or institute, ask me and I will be more than happy to find out for you.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, indeed, I would like to get a more regional, specific sense of where those funds have gone.

Let me pursue another part of the funding question not about how many dollars specifically went to what specific place, but rather this: I understand that the system of payment or the grant system to the institution that is going to be used at the university is going to be different from the one used for the university-colleges. Is that the case? In other words, the system of paying for FTE — full-time equivalent — will be different. Is that the case?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's an interesting question. The process is different, but the outcome is the same. The process of the university indicating to us the funding required is different than what the college-university has in terms of process, but the outcome is the same: the money is advanced.

MR. LOVICK: I don't customarily think of myself as obtuse, but I think that one went by.

I am asking whether, in fact, the formula for payment to the institutions differs from the university to the university-college system. In other words, does the amount paid to the institution per full-time-equivalent student differ from one system to the other? That's the specific question as directly and simply as I can put it. Can the minister answer that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's very little difference per FTE between the university system and the university-college system.

MR. LOVICK: Then there is no difference arising from the fact that college faculty traditionally will teach something like 15 or 16 hours a week, and their university counterparts will teach traditionally some nine hours a week and will therefore....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: That's right. I see the Minister of Education shaking his head. You clearly weren't aware of the system, I can tell.

But that's the way it has worked traditionally. The question, then, is whether in fact we set up a different funding mechanism in order to accommodate those different kinds of teaching loads.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The difference is in the system itself. We know that a college instructor will have a different teaching load than a university professor, who will be required to do research and will not have the student contact hours. Nine would be more appropriate in a university setting, as opposed to 15 in a college setting. But in terms of funding, there is still an expense per student, and that is still provided to the institution. Whether it's a university-college or a university, that expense is there.

MR. LOVICK: A very direct question now: what happens to the College of New Caledonia? Given the existence of the university of the north in Prince George, what happens to that institution, which has a

[ Page 9728 ]

pretty good track record? Would the minister be good enough to describe for us the relationship between those two? Are they partners in enterprise, or what?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I described that last week, but I'll do it again. As you know, the implementation planning group had some recommendations about which institution in Prince George would do first year and second year. We have agreed since that probably the best way to resolve this concern is to have the two presidents, when they are in place, resolve and manage that concern. I have indicated to the president of the faculty association, Kathy Conroy, that I am aware of the CNC Faculty Association concern. We are going to present to the two presidents, when they are hired, some thoughts we have on faculty protection at CNC, of grandfathering of contracts, of a hiring process that the University of Northern British Columbia may consider to look after the CNC instructors.

We are considering many ways of alleviating any potential problems between those two institutes and the faculty they're going to have. So we have said at this point that we recognize there is a concern. We recognize that it must be fairly dealt with. And we recognize that we are going to leave that management problem with the senior officials, the chief executive officers, but we as a ministry will assist them in every way we can. It's not in our best interest — and you can appreciate that, Mr. Member — to have any deficit in terms of educational programing at CNC or to have any sort of cloud hanging over that faculty there. It will not serve education if we have that concern in place.

I have said publicly, as I said to the faculty association — and I've discussed this with staff — that there is going to have to be a way of managing this. The chairman of the interim governing board, Murray Sadler, is aware of this as well. He sees this as an acute concern, but one that can be managed if people of fairness and good reason come together to manage it.

I've got a lot of faith in CNC and what they can do and do very well. I don't see it being second-rate at all, just as I don't see Camosun being in any sense second-rate to UVic. In spite of the fact they're within a stone's throw distance of each other, they are still very good institutions. It really is in my best interests personally, politically and from an educational point of view to maintain first-rate faculty and first-rate relationships at the College of New Caledonia.

MRS. BOONE: Last week we discussed this same issue, and I brought up the fact that faculty members were looking elsewhere for employment and the difficulties that this was going to have at CNC because of the unsureness around there. The minister gave a response similar to the one he just gave, that he had been in contact with the faculty and Kathy Conroy and that he had no knowledge of this type of thing happening. I'd like to quote to the minister an article from the newsletter of the College-Institute Educators' Association, written by Kathy Conroy. The subheading is "Uncertainty." It says:

"University transfer faculty at CNC have not been reassured by these developments" — meaning, what's going to happen with them. "They still do not know what courses might be transferred to UNBC, they still do not know what chances they have of working at UNBC, and they still do not know what choices they may be forced to make. Unfortunately for CNC, those faculty who wish some certainty in their careers are using this time to seek positions elsewhere. Many are looking to the three universitycolleges, which are actively recruiting faculty for their third- and fourth-year university programs."

I think this is a very serious problem, and I don't think any of us want to see the College of New Caledonia depleted of its very highly qualified staff — and I don't think you would question that at all — giving first and second year courses at the college. Obviously there's a problem. There are faculty members looking elsewhere for employment, and I know of some long-term employees who have actually received offers elsewhere. I am very worried about what this is going to mean for education in our college.

It will be at least another two years before we see any light with UNBC. It's not even a matter now of ensuring that we have third and fourth years, which we discussed last year; it's making sure that we are going to have first and second years available to our students, if our faculty are looking elsewhere for employment because of the unsureness there.

I would like to know what the minister is going to do. Well, surely he can acknowledge that there is a problem. What does he intend to do to ensure that our staff at the college will stay there, to ensure that they have some guarantee of employment at the college?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll repeat what I said earlier — I guess this is the third time now — that it is not in anyone's best interest to have CNC faculty leave or to have any feelings of discontent at that institution. What the member read is a correct assessment of how faculty feel now, which is understandable. Whenever you have change, you're going to have people who are resistant to change and concerned about it. That is a fact of life. However, I will say it again: it is my opinion and that of the interim board at UNBC — and we have shared this opinion with Marion Nielsen, the new chairman of the board at CNC — that we can manage this problem. We have instructed both chairmen that the ministry will assist. We have instructed both chairmen that when both presidents are in place — the committee should be aware that a president has not yet been selected for UNBC; neither is there a president at CNC, that position being vacant at the moment — they will manage their way out of this concern to the best advantage of all.

I don't think there is much more I can say at this point except to assure the committee that in order to ensure the good management of that concern, all our resources that can be made available to them, in

[ Page 9729 ]

terms of both staff and funding, will be made available to ensure that we serve the Prince George community in a first-class fashion from the point of view of both the student and the educator.

[3:00]

MRS. BOONE: just one final question to the minister. When the Premier was in Prince George last week — I was there for his speech — I noticed that he also referred to it as the university of the north, so your leader as well as my leader have referred to it by its wrong name, Mr. Minister. It is the University of Northern B.C. He indicated that we would see the legislation presented early last week. To date we haven't seen that legislation come forth in the Legislature, and I would like to know if the minister can give us, please, a status report on when that legislation will be forthcoming.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply doesn't allow for one to discuss the necessity for legislation, but let me say just briefly that the legislation is at the cabinet level now, there was a good discussion, and it will be coming in the fullness of time as quickly as possible.

Let me also say — I guess you want to get it right — that it's a very different type of bill we're putting forward, because there is no model for legislation to create a university in British Columbia. So the creation or the genesis aspect of this legislation is interesting and exciting but quite a new process to us

MR. LOVICK: I want to move away now from the specifics of Prince George and ask a couple of very brief questions regarding the overall operation of the system. I understand that as part of the Access for All initiative happening at what are now called the university colleges — is that the right terniinology? — in order to get the process underway, we are dealing with what are called "non-recurring funds." I assume that it's some kind of start-up or seed money to get them over the hurdle for the first year. I am wondering if the minister could explain to me exactly what those non-recurring funds are, what their purpose or function is and whether the withdrawal of those funds the following year would have a significant negative impact on those institutions.

The basic question is: tell me, please, about nonrecurring funds. What are they? How widespread are they? What are they used for?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Both staff here, Mr. Member — by the way, I'll introduce Jim Crone and Har Singh, our financial staff — would like the term "non-recurring funds" further defined; we don't quite understand it.

MR. LOVICK: My understanding is that part of the Access for All initiative — in other words, the introduction of third- and fourth-year courses at Kamioops, Kelowna and Nanaimo — or part of the process of effecting that changeover is to make use of what are referred to as "non-recurring funds, " which are clearly enough defined in terms of their intention.

However, I am wondering if we can get something more specific on that. I think the minister made reference a few moments ago to what I'm talking about when he talked about lift-off funds or some such thing. Perhaps that's what he means. Could you give me any elaboration or explanation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member, in his own erudite way, has answered his own question — as he always does. I'm not saying that glibly; it's just that he's a very articulate person, and I thank him for his description of non-recurring funds, which is exactly what they are.

I didn't refer to them as lift-off, but they are an expense that you incur for the first time: library acquisition, lab acquisition, the hiring of new faculty and that type of beginning. I'll use the other term I used earlier: genesis costs — the creation costs. They don't occur again, because once you have them in place — the library acquisitions, the equipment or whatever it might be — then they are there.

I guess they become part of an operating expense later on down the road. But the initial kick-start is expensive; then those costs diminish. That's what I referred to as non-recurring.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would be willing to share with me — not necessarily here, but at some point — some more elaborate and detailed description of precisely what is covered by those funds. Is that possible, if I could have that assurance?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, by all means. If the member wants to go on to something else, that's fine by me. I will, by instruction to the staff now, ensure that the member is made aware of these types of funding, what they have covered and how they've been applied.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I have one other quick question regarding the three specific institutions I referred to a moment ago. I'm wondering if the ministry has any information yet in terms of projected enrolments for next year for first- and second-year programs.

As you know, for at least a couple of years in the last four or five years, there have been problems at those institutions with overenrolment, the creation of waiting-lists and therefore, in fact, having to turn students away in some cases.

It would seem to me a painful and sad irony if we get more demand for programs at those institutions because of the creation of third- and fourth-year courses and then we discover we're not able to finance the first- and second-year courses. I'm wondering if the minister has any response to the potential catch-22 situation that I can see happening already.

[ Page 9730 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good question, Mr. Chairman. We're working now with the institutes at this time of year, with respect to their September enrolment. We also have a three-year planning process in place. Although I can't provide details to the committee of what's expected in September, I will certainly endeavour, by instruction to the staff now, to provide that information to the member so he can be better informed of, first of all, the process of how we establish this, what dialogue exists between the ministry and the institutes, and then, what those numbers are from that process.

MR. LOVICK: This will be my last question. It concerns another area entirely.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't provoke him.

MR. LOVICK: How wonderful it is to be appreciated, Mr. Chairman.

This is a question that cuts a little closer to my own personal feelings and commitments to the community college system — and dare I say convictions about that system.

I noted that the minister began his comments about the college system by pointing with pride to what it had accomplished and the fact that it was somewhat unique in this province. Certainly I share those views.

He referred specifically to the fact of transferability as one of the great features of the college system, What I would refer to as one of the great features — and I suspect the minister would share this view — is the whole concept of accessibility, and the fact that what the community college system achieved in a relatively short space of time in this province was to make post-secondary education available to people who prior to that time would never have had that opportunity. It's a tremendous accomplishment.

All the time I taught in the college system, I felt that in many cases we were dealing with individuals who, simply by bad luck, would never have had the opportunity to be in the system to get a post-secondary education if it weren't for the college system. I think that's a key feature, and I'm sure the minister would agree with me.

You can probably guess, Mr. Minister, where I want to go with that premise. It has to do with the concern I have that post-secondary education is becoming more accessible in a geographical way, but in economic terms and financial terms, it is perhaps becoming sadly more and more the preserve of comfortable, middle-class young people.

I think that would be a tragedy — I really do — because one of the great achievements of the college system is that by taking it into the communities that didn't have it before, we suddenly found people involved in the system who would never otherwise have dreamed of going on to post-secondary education. It was a wonderful model and a wonderful construct then.

My fear is that that dream is perhaps becoming a little tarnished. Perhaps we are losing that battle. As the costs of education go up and especially as the economy constricts and the kinds of well-paying jobs for students that used to abound are no longer so evident, I'm wondering if fewer and fewer of the kinds of students the college was designed for will be able to take advantage of it.

In the last two or three years, for instance, I have met with at least two or three delegations of students: the Canadian Federation of Students plus two incarnations of the Malaspina College Student Society. All of them of course enunciated the same theme: that we seem to be caught in a constant upward curve with tuition fees, and therefore it is highly unlikely that students who ought to be attending will indeed be able to attend.

That's the concern I have, and I would like to invite the minister's comment, I am aware, Mr. Minister, I haven't been in the House for much of the debate, but I have certainly done a little of the reading of what's gone on, and I am aware of the Standing Committee on Student Financial Assistance that's been established. We seem to be going through the motions of addressing the problems, but I'm wondering if the minister can give any comfort to students about to enter the system or currently in the system that they will in fact be able to afford the system. Will the minister be good enough to respond to that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for his concern, but let's examine what the member led with. The member admitted that we are expanding access geographically, and I think it's axiomatic that as you expand geographic access, you in fact expand all access. And as you present a program in a community where you had not presented that program before, you have alleviated to a large degree the costs for a student to attend that program. Therefore I will conclude on that basis that as you open up more and more classroom spaces in more and more and smaller communities, you in fact are really cutting back. You're cutting down on the costs that the students are going to have to consider as they take those programs.

We've had some debate, as the member said, on this ministry with respect to the costs and whether there are students being disfranchised or potential students being impeded from attending a university. I generally concluded that the answer to that was no, because we have these remarkably increasing enrolment rates. But I did agree that there may be a class of students.... I mentioned last week single parents and other people who because of their economic circumstance do not have the financial resources to attend a university, college or institute program.

To that end, Dr. Singh, who is with me today, has expanded the database. We're going to attempt to put real resources and some real effort into identifying those whom we don't hear about. Now that's difficult. We know whom we do hear about: they attend, they seek student financial aid, they show up at the registrar's office — they are real numbers that we can

[ Page 9731 ]

look at. We can examine and find out how they're doing, and by and large they are doing well.

But what about the people we don't know about? That's what I've asked the staff to identify, and I've discussed this with the CFS — that there are people who aren't coming to the registrar's door. There are people who aren't asking us for student financial aid. They have just said to themselves: "There's no way I can attend." That to me is unacceptable, and that's why I want to put some of the resources to work In this ministry to identify those people who are not knocking on the door, whom we must have a look at. That's a bit more difficult, because if they're not there, how do you identify them? But I'm sure, with the good resources of this ministry and some very dedicated and hard-working people working on the expansion of that database, we can have some real and measurable results.

[3:15]

MR. PERRY: This has suddenly become a tremendously popular debate. I'll try to be fairly brief. I think my colleague for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has covered probably most of the major issues, and other colleagues have gone over them fairly exhaustively.

I'll just raise a few particular concerns that have arisen recently from UBC and from President Saywell of Simon Fraser University. I recall listening to him at a meeting of the New Democrat caucus with the Business Council of B.C. last fall, at which he spoke with concern, if not alarm, about the impending flip of the faculty applicant from a present ratio in the range — if I remember his figures — of approximately 1.2 applicants per position to an expected ratio in the range of 0.8 applicants per position in universities throughout North America in the mid 1990s. I realize the minister can't answer this question. I'm interested to know how he and the ministry look in the long term at this issue.

I'd like to give one concrete example. It happens to be from Vancouver Community College, from the president of the Langara Faculty Association, of whom I asked some fairly pointed questions recently when they met with members of our caucus during their recent labour dispute. I asked him quite pointedly what was the evidence that higher wages were necessary to recruit people. The president of their faculty association, Prof. Keith Gilley, wrote me a very interesting article. I'd just like to quote a couple of examples from it to frame the question, and then I'll listen with interest to the minister's response. Mr. Gilley says that at Langara, for example, the computer science department has had numerous applicants elect to go elsewhere: into industry, where starting annual salaries are typically $20,000 to $25,000 higher, and to other institutions, in particular to BCIT, where salaries on average are $8,000 to $9,000 higher and job security is more certain. He then lists about ten examples of recruitment problems in various departments — nursing, physical education, early childhood education, English, psychology, women's studies — due to the difficulty of competing with higher salaries in other institutions.

To bring it back to the University of British Columbia, I'll give a relevant example from Professor Klawe, the director of — as the minister knows — a very exciting computer science department and someone in whom the university has invested a lot of optimism and confidence and who has taken the fairly bold move of leaving IBM Corp. to come to British Columbia. Professor Klawe describes her recruiting problems: for example, her ability to pay a top-flight PhD computer science professor at the starting level of assistant professor a salary in the range of $45,000, whereas the same professor can command at a more modest American university a starting salary of $65,000 U.S. and can acquire a house for a small fraction of the price in Vancouver.

HON. MR. FRASER: Where would you rather work?

MR. PERRY: The Solicitor-General asks where I would rather work. I would much rather work at UBC. That's why I still attempt to hang on to my job there, even though it's an unpaid one.

The real question is: how do we face this into the 1990s, competing in an international market, when we are told by authorities such as President Saywell that there will be fewer applicants than there will be positions? I'm interested to hear how the minister and the ministry see that in the long term in this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's a good question. It's a concern that has been expressed to me not only by Dr. Saywell but also by Dr. Petch and Dr. Strangway, respectively the other B.C. presidents. As I toured Canadian universities last January, I heard the concern expressed by other university presidents, senior administration and also board chairmen.

My response to the presidents, as this concern was expressed to me, was this: 'What have you done in terms of your ability to recruit and your ability to tell your good graduate students that there is a good career here in staying at the university?" They admitted that that was something they had to look at.

I am advised, though — and this just came recently — that we are seeing a significant increase of students taking graduate programs. I think that's good. As we see an increase of graduate school students, you're going to see an increase in those wanting to stay on and teach at a university.

In terms of the funding to the university.... I've got to be reasonably careful here, because we are discussing an issue that could end up on the bargaining table, and the minister said this, that and the other thing; I don't want that to happen. But they have been given a lift which is over inflation this year in the budget. They received a reasonably good lift last year. I suspect they can negotiate as well as anyone in terms of attracting new people. As a matter of fact, the example the member gives of Dr. Maria Klawe is a good one. UBC was able to attract her from IBM in the United States. As a matter of fact, I think you were at the breakfast as well — yes, we

[ Page 9732 ]

were there. She was delighted to be coming back to Vancouver. So that kind of recruiting can go on and be quite successful.

I'm aware that there are selected areas of problems in some of the disciplines. The member has pointed out computer science, and I understand that as well.

One of the problems, or I guess one of the features, of university faculty bargaining, or discussions at least, is that they bargain as a block. That may or may not be a good thing; I'm not going to be judgmental on that. But I'm going to say that it could be seen, when you're trying to attract people to your university, that this block bargaining is not going to make it attractive for those people who are in demand. Computing science clearly is one of the disciplines where we have that problen. Maybe if the faculty association wished to address their negotiating stance, there could be some remedy there.

I can tell you one thing. I know from visiting across Canada this year and speaking to other presidents, and in some cases to other ministers, that the B.C. system is going to be by far the best funded this year across Canada. Other provinces — notably Ontario — will receive about a 2 percent lift, whereas in B.C. It's 6.53 or something like that. We've been quite generous. It's going to continue to put B.C. universities, at least at the middle, to a little better ground in terms of what they're paying faculty, and will I think allow them to be more attractive as recruiters.

The other thing that I have found — the member, who is a faculty member, could expand on this more than I can, because I didn't have the opportunity to attend that level of education — is that it's not always a matter of money that makes a faculty or a university more attractive to a good scholar or researcher. Sometimes it's administrative flexibility that makes a place more attractive. Sometimes it's the ability to do some specific research that just wasn't available to you in another place. Sometimes in a large institution you might be following — as they say — the dead man's shoes. In other words, you're in a position where you're going to be for the rest of your days; the guy ahead of you is only a year older than you, and he's not going to die. You do have that concern. There are many ways by which, if a university wants to be innovative and flexible, it can do some very good attracting.

The evening I arrived in Sudbury to meet with the acting president and senior staff of Laurentian University, it was a delightful evening; it was cold. There was a wonderful cocktail party going on at the president's house, and they were welcoming a brand-new faculty member who they had stolen from the University of Alberta in Edmonton. As you can imagine, with the mining activity Laurentian has a certain appeal to geosclentists, and they had stolen this particular Canadian scholar in geoscience — rock mathematics, actually — from the University of Alberta. I don't know if they paid him more money; I doubt it. I think they just gave him an area of research that he wanted to do, and they made life very exciting for him. It was on the basis of that that they were able to recruit successfully against a major and really well-funded western university.

I'll agree that there is a concern out there that there may be a declining number of people who want to be university faculty and undergo that very rigid pursuit of their discipline. But I understand that graduate school enrolment is increasing. I know that if a university is flexible and smart, it can be an attractive recruiter. I'll close by saying to the member that I appreciate his concern, but I think you can always manage your way out of those problems.

MR. PERRY: I have known for about a year now that the minister was an excellent pianist. I've enjoyed singing while he played. But I suspected we agreed on more things than might first meet the eye, so I was glad to hear him allude to the importance of factors other than salary in faculty recruitment. Because my next point was to ask him about an issue that has troubled me a lot around my own university and troubled people within my constituency. Again, I'd like to describe it very briefly and ask the minister to comment on how he sees this fitting into his answer a few moments ago about the importance of factors other than salary in faculty recruitment.

My university has recently embarked on a housing project called Hampton Place, which has been quite controversial in its own community. The basic motive for the development is to provide the university with some independent source of funding to resist the vicissitudes of government funding.

I might point out that while there may be a reasonable budgetary increase for B.C.'s universities this year, I don't think it would be correct to say that they are among the best funded in the country. They have long been underfunded compared to other provinces. A correction is most welcome, but let's not pretend that our universities are sitting in a very rich position. Otherwise, perhaps the present board of governors wouldn't be pushing so vigorously a proposal to raise what they hope will be $3 million from the Hampton Place development.

[3:30]

This project has come under a certain amount of criticism not only because of the process that was followed in the development but also because it appears in many ways to fly in the opposite direction of trends within the city of Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Regional District — and even arguments put forward by the minister, in his recent capacity as Minister of Environment, towards environmental planning and protection.

One of the single most compelling reasons not to accept a new faculty appointment at a university like UBC is the difficulty for a junior faculty member — or even a senior one — to afford a house anywhere within a reasonable geographic range of the university. I see the minister nodding; this isn't news to anyone. But I think it should be disturbing to all of us not only in terms of the air pollution burden but in terms of the waste of intellectual resources in faculty and students commuting as long as an hour and a half in each direction to get to work.

[ Page 9733 ]

One of my strong criticisms of the Hampton Place project has been that it utilized land, originally set aside for the benefit of the university, for housing for people who are likely not to work at the university. By the nature of the prices that will be charged, the majority of the new occupants are likely to be either retired people who are independently wealthy now, or who work in downtown Vancouver. And the university is thereby forgoing an opportunity to provide housing at an affordable cost to faculty, students and staff who could live within walking or cycling distance of their work.

Although I find the argument persuasively rational, and I think it fits with the recent "Clouds of Change" task force report on Vancouver and the changing atmosphere and the philosophy embodied in that report that we need to site people closer to where they work, the argument has fallen on very deaf ears within the university board of governors. I have said this publicly before. I don't think there is anything new about commenting that when I raised that issue at a board of governors meeting last December, even the chancellor of the university really thought it was a humorous argument that it would be a good idea for people to live closer to where they work.

Fortunately, ideas change; people's perceptions change, and six months later I don't think it sounds quite as ludicrous as it apparently sounded to Mr. Peterson at that time.

Does the minister view the housing problem for faculty in a university like UBC — or perhaps even Simon Fraser — in the near future as a problem? And has he considered whether he might be able to exert any constructive influence over the university to review such plans?

I emphasize this is not a question of interfering in academic freedom; this is a question of the university's real estate development and whether they might be encouraged to perhaps — even at this late date, when the site is laid out but not tendered — utilize more of that site for some creative housing project for new faculty or students or staff or some combination of those three.

I think there is room for improvement there. I admit, frankly, I have not been very successful in my attempts to modify the policy, and perhaps the minister could have more influence.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to quote a few things on the record here. First of all, I guess I can't help but agree with the member that yes, we should have good affordable housing close to any workplace if you are going to be a responsible employer and want to be as attractive as possible as an employer and if you want to recruit the best people. There's no question that that part of Vancouver is probably one of the highest real estate markets in the western world, and therefore they have their problems.

I understand that the Hampton Place development is not going to be as expensive as the member indicates. I also understand that the profits or revenue from that are going to be rolled into further development of student housing. That's my understanding. So in fact, we could see this development as a benefit to bringing more affordable housing to Point Grey.

The last thing I want to put on the record is that I am also of the understanding that the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) was invited some two years ago to meet with Dr. Strangway to discuss this issue, and that member declined. So I wonder about the real concern of the NDP caucus on this issue.

MR. PERRY: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I can't let the last remark pass without some comment, in the absence of the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey. I can't comment in specifics on the minister's last statement, but it should be noted for the record — in case anyone ever reads such things — that both the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I have gone to great lengths, against considerable resistance from the UBC administration, to raise the kinds of issues I just raised. We succeeded, at our own request, in meeting with the board of governors. There has been an attempt by that administration to portray a record of cooperation and consultation with the local community which did not in fact exist. The spokesmen for the local ratepayers' group and the homeowners' groups in the surrounding community have made that clear on a number of occasions.

But the real question is not what was in the past; I think it's what's in the future. The minister reminded me that perhaps we have had more success than we realized in encouraging the university to make a stronger commitment to turn proceeds from that project toward the provision of student housing in the future. Yes, there was some commitment when the project was announced, but it was very vague, and it has progressively become firmer.

Because the minister is the former Minister of Environment, what I am really asking is: while the ground is now turned, the forest clearcut and the buildings not yet committed, would it not be appropriate to show some leadership — and encourage the university to show some leadership — toward the development of innovative housing, perhaps even at higher density than what is proposed presently? I repeat: perhaps it could be at even higher density but in more innovative design, which could accommodate this severe problem of the inversion of the ratio of would-be faculty to positions.

If, as Professor Saywell warns us, we face this severe recruiting problem, will we not be grateful to have opportunities for junior faculty to acquire housing — even on a temporary leasehold basis for the first few years of their appointment or some flexible structure which makes it easier to recruit people? Might that not be in the long-term interests of the province? Might that also not be a good example for other employers, or for the province in general, to reverse the trend which has governed us for the last 20 or 30 years: that people will live further and further away from their place of employment, will commute longer and longer distances, consume more

[ Page 9734 ]

and more non-renewable fossil fuels and pollute more and more of the atmosphere-just to get to work?

If we take those environmental issues seriously.... Many of us are very regretful that today we have lost a federal Environment minister who seemed to show some serious understanding of such issues at the national level. If we take issues such as he raised seriously, shouldn't the university be showing leadership on these issues? Perhaps the minister has some role in encouraging that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, what the member is saying is valid. As I said earlier, I agree with any initiative that is going to make the university more attractive as an employer and, of course, with any issue that's going to alleviate the carbon dioxide assault on the environment, which can come from driving your car too far and too often.

But I'm not so sure that the University of British Columbia is not, in fact, attempting to achieve that. The discussions I've had indicate that from Hampton Place there will be returns to allow for the construction of closer and more affordable student housing and maybe junior faculty housing. I have no argument with that. Maybe the member has more details. But in my discussions with Dr. Strangway and in public statements he has made, I believe that to be the case.

So I'm going to presume that UBC, with the excellent resource of their board of governors and their senior administration, is making the right decision in terms of what to do with this property. I'll leave it at that.

I believe there's probably a limit as to what you can do, and we're going to have to consider student spaces other than at Point Grey, Burnaby Mountain or Oak Bay. That's why we have spent these times and resources on the Access program, and why we're considering the University of Northern British Columbia, and why we have spent extensive time looking at the Fraser Valley concern where we know we're going to have to respond with student spaces in a very major fashion soon.

I'll be making an announcement June 4 with respect to that — as to how we're going to develop a plan for Fraser Valley access. That will certainly alleviate some of the pressures on UBC and also Simon Fraser in the Vancouver area. That's the type of initiative we have to look at if we're going to provide access for students, more affordable locations for faculty and a decrease in miles driven by gasoline-burning automobiles.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I feel slightly encouraged. Maybe the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey and I have been more successful than we realized in our representations on the last issue.

Let me just raise two other issues briefly. Last year, I believe in the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education — or perhaps under Health — I raised an issue which lies somewhere between the two ministries, and I'd just like to raise it again for the attention of the minister.

One of the more difficult areas of funding within the University of B.C., paradoxically, is the faculty of medicine. I spoke last year of the problem of junior faculty members, often with many years of training in advanced research, for whom the faculty of medicine does not have the resources to offer salaries.

Therefore such faculty are typically on short-term, so-called scholarships or grants from either the B.C. Health Care Research Foundation, the Medical Research Council or a similar granting agency. Parenthetically, people in that position are actually in one of the least advantageous employment situations that exist, because they receive no benefits such as Medical Service Plan payments.

They're also unable to contribute to a registered retirement savings plan, even though they have no retirement pension contributions made by the employer. They're in a strange loophole in the federal Income Tax Act which has put them into a very awkward box financially.

It becomes increasingly difficult to retain such people in the system. Last year I gave examples in the debates of some very accomplished young scientists in that position. It is particularly difficult to retain them in competition with either of two alternative employers: universities which are better endowed in the medical sciences, such as the University of Alberta, the University of Toronto or McGill University, or the private sector, namely practice under the Medical Services Plan, which is far more remunerative for the same hours of work.

One of the difficulties that has been identified to me by administrators within the system — such as the leadership of the B.C. Children's Hospital — is that in contrast to some other provinces, such positions in B.C. are funded only through the university's budget, and therefore through the Ministry of Advanced Education. In provinces such as Ontario, some such positions are funded directly by the Ministry of Health.

I guess what I'm looking for today is....

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MR. FRASER: You want to take away the university's autonomy.

MR. PERRY: The Solicitor-General suggests I want to take away the university's autonomy. Far from it. I don't think he knows what he's talking about, with all due respect.

[3:45]

Interjection.

MR. PERRY: He says he knows more than I suspect.

I won't take the bait, Mr. Chairman. I'm simply asking the minister if perhaps he could make a commitment to review this issue with his colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen).

[ Page 9735 ]

I did bring it up in the estimates debate last year, having talked recently with people — for example, the administration of the B.C. Children's Hospital. These are not actually the academic administrators; these are even the hospital administrators who make the same point.

There are a number of needs which are extremely difficult to meet without salaried university personnel, such as an adult cystic fibrosis clinic in the Children's Hospital and Shaughnessy Hospital complex, a pediatric rheurnatologist and an infectious disease consulting service for children. The nature of the work is so difficult and time-consuming that fee-for-service medicine is not a reasonable or viable option. Salaried positions in the university system is really the only reasonable way to provide these services.

Perhaps I could ask the minister for a commitment that he would be willing to review this issue with his colleague the Minister of Health over the next few months to a year, and look at the evidence of how well that system is working.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, it's an excellent suggestion. I wasn't aware of the arrangements in other provinces, but I will take the member's comments under advisement, investigate what is happening in other jurisdictions and see if there is a British Columbia application of that principle.

MR. PERRY: Thank you for that assurance. One final question. In the budget debate I raised the issue of the nursing school at the University of Northern British Columbia, or the nurses' training program The former minister indicated that he could answer the question on the spot, but he didn't. Perhaps the minister could advise us where the issue now stands.

We know that the Registered Nurses' Association advocated in a brief last September the fairly urgent introduction of a nursing curriculum in Prince George, not only to meet the problem of supply of nurses in B.C. in general, but in the hope that training nurses in the north would lead to better retention of nurses in that geographic area.

Can the minister tell us where that stands and give us some encouragement that we may see a nursing school there in the near future?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is a nursing school now. The College of New Caledonia graduates, I think, 25 RNs a year. Now that's RNs. If the member is speaking of BScN, then we don't have that, because we don't have a university. But I think that's a reasonable observation.

Coincidentally, I was with the director of our government Northern Interior Health Unit last week, Elsie Gerdes. Elsie is a degreed nurse and has a master's degree as well. She pointed out that government now does not hire nurses unless they have a bachelor's degree. As an employer ourselves, we have a lot of interest in ensuring that there is a university program for nursing at UNBC.

That's about all I can say at this point, except that it's a good suggestion. I can assure you that I've had an awful lot of mail on this item, all of which has been referred to the interim board of governors, and they are responding in their own way. I recognize the member's concern and would see that, no doubt, as one of the priorities that the board of governors and the senior administration of UNBC should consider.

MR. MILLER: just a couple of issues I didn't quite get finished the last time I was up in these estimates. They didn't come up when I thought they would, so I just wanted to quickly.... I've got a meeting at 4 o'clock. One of my own colleagues said: "Good."

First of all, I'd like to thank the minister for the activities of his staff. I had an issue the other day regarding a young student trying to get into a college on the lower Island who was advised that he had to fly down to register, and your staff very ably handled it. Mr. Minister, I won't name names, but you can pass on my thanks.

With that, I'll ask you about the difficulty that students from remote parts of the province — or more remote; I don't like to use the term "absolutely remote, " because they are not in and of themselves — have had accessing the universities. I note that there was some improvement in the types of assistance available, but I'm wondering if the ministry has looked at that to see whether people are really taking advantage of the assistance programs that are available.

I've had some complaints about and have advised or tried to assist people with the application forms themselves. They seem to be confusing; they are very difficult to figure out. It is very difficult to look at those forms and go through the whole process, and then try and figure out exactly what you're going to get in terms of your own budgeting. Have you looked at that? Do you have any specific targets to try to bring up the relatively low percentage of students from outside the three major university areas? Has it been successful?

I'll try and put it all in one for the minister. There's the question of mature students and the problems they face in acquiring student loans. I spoke the last time I was up about what I thought was a good program — in fact, one we should expand — which is for mature students, who would agree to serve in some remote location, to receive some assistance over and above what would normally be available. I think there's an opportunity, a potential, to fill the gaps that we face in many of the professional fields, particularly health care, where getting a speech pathologist or audiologist or people with those kinds of qualifications is very difficult. Pharmacy is a little more, but we've had to shut a pharmacy in Masset. There's now no pharmacy available, because they can't recruit anybody. These mature students, when it comes to accessing loans, may have acquired assets throughout their life. If they have a car that's too new, they have to sell it. They're disqualified on a number of levels. Have you looked at that program specifically to try to liaise with the

[ Page 9736 ]

other ministries, such as Health — which can identify those shortfalls — and to put some program together that would plug in those holes?

I'm wondering about this: is there a $500 allowance for northern students? I'm not certain about this. Is the additional allowance being accessed? Are people aware of it?

Finally — it's really all on the same relatively general topic — I note that other ministries have toll-free lines. I'm quite happy in my constituency office to do whatever I can to help people having trouble with these forms, but quite often we're not available or people don't think of coming to my office for assistance. Has any thought been given to having a toll-free line for students having difficulty interpreting these forms? Perhaps there could be someone designated in the community — a counsellor at the high school, for example, or someone in the school district office — who had some expertise in the forms and could guide people through the pitfalls so they really do obtain the maximum assistance they are entitled to.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank the member for his comments, Mr. Chairman. Of course, he and I share a concern as members of the Legislative Assembly for students who, for whatever reason, are having trouble attending university because they live in a remote area. Just for the benefit of the committee, you're aware that the member represents the Prince Rupert area, and I represent Prince George east to the Alberta border — very remote country in there. So I share the member's concern.

Just to give the committee some background on financial assistance, I'll read some numbers into the record. This is for university students. There is a good financial assistance program available. The maximum assistance for a student with no dependents is $210 per week for each week of study. Then we also have an equalization formula that takes into account some other factors. It's funded to the tune of $25 million for this year.

The member asked about an additional $500 grant. It's for students required to relocate more than 50 kilometres to attend a post-secondary institution. They are eligible for up to an additional $500. So we are recognizing that.

The member is absolutely correct in terms of the forms being complicated. Although it was not my task to do financial aid when I worked at the College of New Caledonia, occasionally I attempted to do it when the financial aid officer was on vacation or ill, and I couldn't do them either. It does take someone trained in financial aid to handle these properly and to ensure that there are no glitches. But all institutes have a financial aid officer. You have one in Prince Rupert at your college office. If you have a student who has a question, they can see the financial aid officer at the Prince Rupert office of Northwest College and assistance will be given. We also have an 800 number to the ministry to answer those types of questions.

I don't think anything is ever perfect, but clearly the ministry has identified all of the problems that can arise with a student seeking student financial assistance or other information about programs. We've attempted in a variety of ways to identify a very good information system, including the establishment of financial aid officers and also the establishment of the 800 line.

MR. MILLER: I thank the minister for his response. Could I simply ask the minister whether he would be prepared to put on the form, at the bottom or wherever it might be appropriate, a little sidebar to say that if you're having difficulty, contact the financial aid officer of the college nearest you or telephone the advertised number? Sometimes information that we think is available the public are uninformed about. It may be a matter of drawing their attention to it. But if that kind of information could be included on the form, I'm sure it would improve the situation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's on the form now, I'm advised.

MR. BARNES: I just want to see if I can get the minister to respond to a question I gave to, I believe, one of his assistants last week. We didn't get an opportunity to canvass the question with respect to student assistance programs and the remission policy.

I had a recent graduate from the Technical University of Nova Scotia who is now an architect. The issue that she wanted to raise is really one of policy. I am trying to get some information on this in terms of whether the minister is satisfied that the spirit of this policy is effective and fair in all cases. Her concern was initially that she would be getting a remission after she completed her degree, which is a professional degree in architecture. However, she changed her mind and did not attend the University of B.C. school of architecture, which grants a professional degree after four years of study, but chose to attend the Technical University of Nova Scotia in Halifax, where she was given an interim degree, an environmental design studies diploma, which is not really a professional degree; it's just a way of granting a sort of interim level of achievement at that university which is somewhat unique in terms of architectural degrees across the country. She was quite disappointed to find that because of the policy for student assistance in this province, that diploma was being counted as one of the steps with which she would be charged as having achieved another level, although it's not a professional level. It was not her objective to pursue the diploma; it is just an administrative procedure at that university.

[4:00]

Does the minister have any comments with respect to the fairness of this? If a student applies for assistance to pursue a professional degree at UBC, changes her mind and attends another university where that same degree can be pursued but the university provides an interim diploma halfway

[ Page 9737 ]

through that program, should that student be penalized any more than if she had attended UBC? She ends up with the same professional degree in the end. I'm just wondering if it's the intent of that program to penalize these students.

In this particular case, I should add, this is a female student. We were talking just last week about encouraging females to get into non-traditional careers, etc. This student graduated in 1988 with a degree in architecture. We were just talking today, of course, about accessibility for students who want to take out loans. Some of them don't realize they can get them. Here is a student who has been very successful but who was surprised to find that she had been assessed something in the neighbourhood of $6,000 above what she had anticipated having to remit to the student loan program.

I would like the minister to assist us so that we can at least have a policy where people know in advance what they are liable to have in the way of a financial obligation after they've graduated.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: To the second member for Vancouver Centre, I read his correspondence and I have responded back to him. The letter left my desk Thursday, so he should have it now. It was a regrettable situation and I don't know what I can say about it

First of all, generally, let me say that I have referred to the Technical University of Nova Scotia before in this debate, because it is an interesting school. Perhaps the member wasn't here. It's a technical school that has a higher participation rate of women for a school that is architecture and engineering, which is basically what it does. As you know, there is not a high participation rate of women in those sciences, but at times there is a higher-than-the-Canadian-average participation rate. Maybe the young lady went there because she knew of this. It's also a very good school, I would imagine.

However, back to her particular financial aid dilemma. The argument you present is correct. For that reason, on two occasions the information has gone to an independent body that looks at appeals On both occasions they have held firm and indicated there are three degrees there and they are going to stay with that decision. That's not my decision; it's not a ministry decision; it's the decision made by an appeal body we have that is independent, has students on it, and has guidelines to follow. I would like to be more helpful to you and to your constituents, but at this point it's very difficult to do, and I would certainly not rule against a decision that has been made twice by an independent body.

MR. BARNES: I accept the minister's explanation and response, with perhaps this inquiry. As far as the future policy is concerned, would he not feel it good practice to inform any student pursuing a professional degree, who is under the impression that that is the only assessment that will be made against him, of these regulations which talk about the various levels, certificates, diplomas and any documentation that they receive and is going to be counted? Because I am under the impression this student was totally unaware that this was going to be the consequence when she made that decision not to go to UBC and to go to the Technical University of Nova Scotia.

It's a matter of clarification, I think, in the future.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member makes a very good point. And inasmuch as TUNS is a bit different than other universities, I guess that's something we should make students aware of — particularly B.C. students going to Nova Scotia for that type of training. Just us talking about it today in this debate will alert the student financial aid people in my ministry, and I'm sure we will alert every architect and engineering and science faculty in B.C. that if students are considering the Technical University of Nova Scotia, there are some other factors they have to consider, this financial aid wrinkle being one of them.

It's a good point and I thank the member for his observation.

MS. CULL: I want to start off on a positive note and add my congratulations, I guess, to the increased funding that has been made available for Advanced Education this year. It is certainly very much appreciated by the two institutions that are within the riding of Oak Bay-Gordon Head — that's the University of Victoria and Camosun College.

I want to go on and talk specifically about the University of Victoria, though. And I want to speak a little bit about the operating grant increase they have had and then review a number of issues of concern to the University of Victoria that all tie together into this one issue of the amount of funding available.

I'm sure the minister is fully aware of this, but for the record the University of Victoria has received a 6.5 percent operating grant increase this year, which, once inflation is taken into consideration, means approximately a 1.5 to 2 percent increase. Herein lies the problem, because there are many demands on the University of Victoria and not a terrific amount of increase actually available to the university to meet all the demands. And I want to talk about the various pressures that are therefore placed on the university and on the students who either are attending that university or who would like to attend it.

I'm going to start off with an issue of housing, which was raised by the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry). As we are aware, the availability of affordable housing in greater Victoria is very tight. There is a very low vacancy rate and of course this affects many different groups within our community, and students are one of the groups affected by the shortage of affordable rental housing.

Last September there were — as of Labour Day — about 2,000 students who were still looking for suitable accommodation. Many of those students eventually found a place to live one way or another, but quite a number of those students also gave up and returned to their home communities — wherever they were — and were unable to participate in a university education at the University of Victoria.

[ Page 9738 ]

When we look at the question of access to increase our participation rates.... I know that already in this debate we visited the fact that British Columbia has the lowest participation rate for universities. Once we include all other post-secondary institutions in that figure, it then rises to the fourth-lowest in Canada. But if we're going to look at the question of participation rates, then one of the things we have to look at for the University of Victoria is the cost of getting a university education, which includes housing.

A few minutes ago the minister said that one of the ways the ministry was addressing access was to provide more spaces for post-secondary education in other parts of the province. Presumably this will assist, because students won't have to come to Victoria or to greater Vancouver — where the housing market is very tight — and compete with other lower income families looking for the few units that are available at rents they can afford.

But if we look for a minute at the cost of a university education in greater Victoria, we're looking at almost $1,600 for tuition. When we add books and other fees on top, that will come to over $2,000. Once we've put in living expenses, I think it's not unreasonable to say that the cost of a university education is approaching $8,000 a year in greater Victoria.

Returning to the issue of housing, the University of Victoria, last year when the student society approached the university with respect to the housing issue, said that providing student housing wasn't the responsibility of the University of Victoria. The local municipalities have said the same thing: that it is not their responsibility to provide housing for out-of-town students wanting to attend the University of Victoria.

So the question I want to ask the minister is: if it's not the university's responsibility and it's not the municipality's responsibility, then whose responsibility is it? Are we going to ignore the fact that housing is a significant cost of providing a university education through the University of Victoria? Are we going to say that only those who can afford that considerable amount of money are able to come to the University of Victoria?

I think we have to look at that question. There is going to be more housing built as a result of the Commonwealth Games, but I don't think it's fair for university students to have to wait until we hold an international sporting event in their community before they get the kind of housing they need.

If we take another look at the impact of the 6.5 percent operating grant increase, which, as I said earlier, translates to about 1.5 percent to 2 percent, once inflation is taken in.... If we look at the impact of that increase on the university, another thing that we find it affects rather negatively is the whole question of salaries. As the minister is aware, approximately 80 percent of the operating costs of the university, like many educational institutions, is tied up in salaries. Because we are dealing with a situation — if we look long-term, back to 1980 — where we're repairing the damage that was done to our educational institutions during the restraint years of the eighties. We're in a catch-up situation.

So while it is comfortable for us to look at increases this year and feel good about it, we have to recognize that these are being built on top of zero percent increases in some years and even rollbacks in other years, and that the university is in fact having to catch up, to repair things that were left undone and to make good advances that did not occur during the eighties.

With respect to the whole question of salaries, I'm quite concerned about the position of university salaries at the University of Victoria relative to the rest of the country — for two reasons. We know that we're going into a period of time when we're going to be competing for the top-notch university personnel that we want to have at our universities. One of the ways that we compete is to offer them a competitive salary.

The second issue relates to the number of women on faculty at the University of Victoria, which is currently about 17 percent and has been inching upwards incredibly slowly, as has been female participation in professional fields — both in the public and the private sector — over the last number of years. Again, when various departments of the faculty are asked why there are not more women being hired, they are saying that women are not applying. Now we know that women are now a larger and larger proportion of graduates, so again I wonder: is it the lack of a competitive salary at the University of Victoria that is hampering the university in dealing with its own goals with respect to increasing female participation in the faculty?

[4:15]

I mentioned a few minutes ago that the university has to come to terms with a funding history that was inadequate during the earlier part of the decade. As a result, not only are they now trying to meet current needs as they grow from year to year and also to accommodate the overall provincial program of increasing university participation to the average in Canada, but they're having to catch up from past years. When I met with the current president, Dr. Howard Petch, earlier this year, he pointed out to me that the University of Victoria, in terms of its current needs, is 20 percent behind the allocation of space that it requires just for its current needs today. So it has to catch up that 20 percent, even if another student doesn't walk through the door next September and the population remains static.

It's worthwhile to consider this when we look at the funding increase at just a little beyond inflation. Not only does it have to pay for enrolment growth, but it also has to pay for this 20 percent catch-up.

One of the things that has happened in the last number of years to the University of Victoria, and also, I assume, to the other two universities, is that funding has become more and more targeted. This year the University of Victoria is fortunate to be receiving grants to deal with the business school, and there have been other specific grants given to engineering and other faculties over the last number of

[ Page 9739 ]

years. I am pleased to see this. The University of Victoria very much wanted that business school. It will make a significant contribution to business education in the province through the plans that they are going to put in place.

Again, one of the things that concerns me, as we move to targeted funds such as this, is the neglect of the social science faculties. What I see happening at the University of Victoria over a period of time is funds being tied more and more to the provincial objectives and less and less to the university's objectives. The university is forced to cut and to somehow accommodate the overall goals of its institution within the framework of provincial objectives.

I think the neglect of the social sciences is of particular concern because of the problems that are facing our society over the next decade. To resolve the crisis we have in resource management in this province and to resolve some of the crises with respect to national unity, we are going to require the kinds of thinkers and the kinds of skills that come from the social science faculties. It disturbs me to see the social science faculties neglected as other particular areas are targeted for funding.

Earlier in the debate, just to turn to another aspect related to funding, I believe it was the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) who commented on the fact that universities have always been the preserve of the upper-income groups and that we are not having terrific success in changing that.

There was a study done last year by the student society at the University of Victoria which showed that the participation rate of students is proportional to the parents' salaries. Students with low-income parents had a very low participation rate in the university. The same thing obviously occurred with the parents' ability to assist students. The higher the income, the more likely the student was to receive help from his parents, and the lower the parental income, the more likely the student was to experience financial problems.

I won't dwell on this very much, but we did earlier in this debate talk about the whole question of the role of tuition as a barrier to post-secondary education. I think that has got to be looked at again. The student society's call for a tuition freeze deserves further attention, and the role of financial barriers in keeping students from even considering post-secondary education, particularly university education, has not had the thorough investigation that many of us would like to see in this province.

I want to close with just two final remarks. One, there has been a lot of discussion in the last six weeks on various subjects about multi-year funding. Particularly from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) we have heard that it's very important to have funding be predictable over a number of years so that whatever the organization is, it can plan and know what's going to be happening, not only this year but for the next number of years. This is certainly something that's been missing from the university system in the past, and I ask the minister what changes are being made so that universities can look more than one or two years down the line and can have the kind of predictable multi-year funding that the Minister of Finance was suggesting is necessary for public institutions.

Finally, the minister sometime earlier in this debate talked about students who don't even bother to think about attending a post-secondary institution. He said: "I wonder how we reach out to these people who have assumed that they're not going to be able to do it because of financial reasons. How do we tell them what is available and what kinds of assistance could be made available to them; how they could be assisted to complete their education over a period of time?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, under standing orders I must advise you that your time has expired.

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I was fascinated by the remarks of my colleague the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. Very clearly she was providing important information that the minister should be aware of, and I would ask that she continue.

MS. CULL: I'm almost finished. I just wanted to mention that Dr. Petch told me, when I met with him in January, about a booklet that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities in Ontario produces and puts into the hands of every high-school student and parent so that the student is aware of the opportunities available to him or her. I was wondering, again, whether such a booklet has been considered by the ministry here — something that would not only tell prospective university students about what their options are with respect to the universities and programs, but would also explain to them all of the information about financial assistance and their options. I think this should be a very broad document that would go to grade 12 students, or perhaps even earlier. Perhaps grade 10 is the level where it should be addressed, so that students can start preparing themselves for post-secondary education, and so their families are also aware of what is involved in terms of financial commitment and other opportunities.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued to hear what the member had to say. I would like to comment on a few things, particularly with respect to the University of Victoria. As the member has alluded, but only briefly, they have had a remarkable increase and additional funds for the University of Victoria school of business. I think that's important.

By the way, if you include the school of business initiative this year, their general lift in the UVic budget is 10 percent, not 6, and I want to put that on the record.

Also, in terms of space, we have a design in progress for phase 3 of the MacLaurin Building. That is an estimate of $16.6 million. I think government is being quite responsible with the University of Victoria in terms of recognizing their capital construction

[ Page 9740 ]

program and the fact that they may be at a deficit in terms of space.

I couldn't let it go unsaid, though, that in terms of catch-up, you must realize that the NDP government of '72-75 cut back capital funding to post-secondary institutions by about 25 percent. So there's a lot of catching up that has to be done, and a lot of it's not totally the responsibility of the restraint funding. The budget, Madam Member, went from $14 million to $11 million — small numbers now, but reasonably big during those days.

With regard to student housing, the member is absolutely correct. Student housing is always a concern. But the problem is less here, of course, than it is in the Vancouver area. For that reason, I see many Prince George students who attend the University of Victoria because they like to live here: it's less money; it's a smaller community and a smaller campus. They find UVic very attractive for a lot of reasons.

Also, Madam Member, don't lose sight of the fact that I too rent in Victoria, and I'm aware of what the rents are. They're far less than what one would face in Vancouver.

Although it's always a problem, I really haven't seen much of an impediment yet in terms of financial concern from students coming here from the north and the more remote areas. Once they've made up their minds to come to Victoria, they always seem to find a place to live, and a place within reason. The Prince George students that I talk to would certainly indicate that.

I would be really repeating a lot of comments that I made earlier about student financial aid. As I've admitted to the committee, Mr. Chairman, we believe we have a good program in place. We know that with increasing enrolments, students are being made aware and taking advantage of student financial aid programs.

We have identified that there are maybe people who are not finding the system totally open to them, and there are some students who are not participating. We have committed time and resources to better identify those students who are not being treated as well as they should be in terms of this ministry. I don't know what more I can say about that at this point, except to ask the member to refer to comments I made earlier.

In terms of the planning, we have a five-year planning cycle, Madam Member. We also spend some considerable time with the three university presidents, and they give valuable input to us. I think it's a very good system.

As I've indicated before, Dr. Howard Petch is now the dean of university presidents in British Columbia. He tells us that the climate has changed considerably since he first arrived here some years ago.

He now gets along very well with the other presidents and as well with government. In his own words: "It's a remarkable change in terms of the political and academic environment and university environment in British Columbia."

The awareness the member speaks of is a concern that I have, being a member who represents a large rural area. I'm allocating and I'm asking staff now, particularly in the case of the University of Northern British Columbia, to consider awareness programs. Students have to be made aware of what post-secondary education is all about and what financial and academic resources are available to them if they're going to consider carrying on in school. I will be announcing spending funds to that end as the year progresses. I agree with the member that more and more high school students have to be made aware and counselled for what is available for them to attend the university programs.

With that said, I will take my place. I acknowledge that what the member has brought to the attention of the comndttee is generally correct. I acknowledge that in many cases we are working as quickly as we can to ensure that UVic and also Camosun provide a first-class educational opportunity to students in the lower Vancouver Island area.

MR. JONES: Let me, first of all, ask a couple of questions relative to the minister's budget. If we look at the budget with respect to administration and support services under vote 6 last year and vote 6 again this year, what was approved in the estimates in this Legislature for the line item "Administration and Support Services" under the previous minister was $22,342,549. That was what was voted on last year. I appreciate these things are not going to be held accountable to the penny; however, it was a substantial increase from $19 million the previous year, so it was up between 10 and 15 percent last year.

Then when we received the estimates this year, we see that rather than recording for that line item under the very first heading "Total 1989-90 voted expenditures" we don't see the $22 million. We see a new figure of some $26,415,554. In other words, what happened between the approval in this Legislature last spring and the preparation of the budget last fall was an increase in that line item of some $4.1 million.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's $4.2 million.

MR. JONES: Even $4.2 million; it's a substantial change in the line item of the budget talking about the same figure in the same year. The ministry underestimated. Even though the section of the ministry's operation received something in the nature of a 15 percent increase in that year, they found that even with the 15 percent increase, the amount was some $4.2 million short — in other words, about 18 percent short. The ministry, even with a 15 percent increase, guessed 18 percent wrong on the low side. What we really see from the previous year is a 30 to 33 percent increase in the one line item.

[4:30]

First of all, I would like the minister to comment on the change. Why was such a large change necessary in that particular figure from the same year? In other words, why was the prediction of that area so poor — predicting a 15 percent increase was adequate when actually a 33 percent increase was adequate? Secondly, in addition to a question about the

[ Page 9741 ]

predictability of expenditures in that area, where would the money have gone?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Good technical questions, and I'll provide the committee with the answer.

Just briefly, a bit of history. This ministry was formed as individual programs transferred from other ministries. It's been referred to by the senior staff sometimes as "a confederation of orphans." This collection did not allow the development of a proper central administration budget, and it traditionally required transfers of program funds to cover shortfalls in administrative budgets.

For '90-91, the administrative requirements were properly identified, and the administration budget for '89-90 was then restated to more accurately reflect expenditure trends. The '89-90 budget was restated to include Treasury Board — approved transfers from program subvotes which were required to address funding shortfalls in administration for the '89-90 year.

The increase in funds — and there has been a 10 percent administration and support services budget increase over '89-90 in the restated budget — is largely due to BCGEU salary increases, reclassification of ministry employees, increased communication requirements relating to the expanded mandate of the ministry and higher operating costs associated with the expansion of the student financial assistance computer systent

We continue to recognize the flexibility of utilizing professionals, and there has been an increase of $1.6 million in the professional services budget over the '89-90 year. We continue to recognize the flexibility of using professionals to conduct financial organizational reviews and to participate in planning and advisory committees to help articulate program requirements and direction.

I hope that does explain, briefly, a realization of the proper administrative infrastructure that we had to put in place, and funding which recognized the read ministration or organization of the administration part of that budget.

MR. JONES: I think when the minister was reading his briefing note there were a lot of relative factors, and I didn't catch all of them. The one that I would be interested in is "increase in staffing and personnel."

Has there been an increase, and can the minister give me a percentage figure of increased staffing under that line item?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The actual FTEs went down from 25 to 23, but there was an increase in spending in contracted services. That's the answer.

MR. JONES: What we've seen is a budget, in the line item for administration and support services, go from some $19 million in '88-89 to some $29 million in 1990-91. So it's a $10 million increase in that area of the budget on a $30 million budget — a 33 percent increase. All the while, the number of ministry staff has gone down.

We see a government that prides itself on management and responsibility in the fiscal area, yet I don't think the minister has in any way adequately explained the large increase in that line item of the budget. I think the minister owes the public of British Columbia a better explanation than the one he gave. I am not convinced that we should be increasing budgets by 30 percent when there is no increase in staff.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Quite simply, the budget as stated in '89-90 was not adequate, and we had to transfer from program subvotes. This year, in order to stop that practice of transferring from program subvotes, we just accurately restated what the administration budget should be.

MR. JONES: I think that's a sorry explanation.

Perhaps we could try another area of the budget. I assume it would be in the section under "job training, apprenticeship and labour market policy programs." We see a $1 million decrease in that budget, but if we look at a part of that budget — and I'm assuming it's part of that budget, and if I'm wrong the minister can correct me — where we find the summer employment programs....

If we look at that part of the budget, which to my understanding was some $10 million last year, this would include $6.6 million for the private sector, $1.4 million for the travel info centres and $2 million for post-secondary institutions. That budget went from some $10 million down to $8 million.

Let me, first of all, ask the minister how he accounts for that decrease of $2 million in the B.C. summmer employment program — a 20 percent cutback.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The economy improved and there was less take-up by students. I question your numbers. My sources indicate $25.9 million in '89-90 to $24.8 million in '90-91. This decrease is tied to the reduced take-up of summer employment funding by employers over the past several years, which in turn is related to the overall decrease in youth unemployment. In other words, the participation or take-up rate is not there, and we have restated our budget figures to reflect that lower participation rate.

MR. JONES: Oh dear, Mr. Chairman, we're running into one of those problems with different figures again, which makes it very difficult to get things clarified. Maybe the minister could check again. I am referring to the B.C. summmer employment program, which is perhaps only part of what the minister was referring to. That program was cut back by 20 percent, from $10 million to $8 million. This is the program that operates a wage subsidy primarily for the private sector. I understand that last year the subsidy was 50 percent to a maximum of $3 per hour, and this year it's down to 3316 percent, a third of the wage rate, to a maximum of $2.50 an hour. Maybe the

[ Page 9742 ]

minister is agreeing more with those figures now — or maybe not — with respect to the B.C. summer employment program. He doesn't indicate, so I'll let him respond.

Perhaps the minister could also explain.... I appreciate that the economy has changed. Perhaps there is less need to subsidize student employment, and maybe that explains the 20 percent cutback.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: I was just reiterating your answer, Mr. Minister.

Let me reiterate the reiteration. If it is a fact that the economy has improved and there is less need for an employment incentive for students in support of their overall needs to further educational funding, that could explain the dollar difference to me. Maybe the minister could explain the variation in the actual wage subsidy. I can appreciate that there might be fewer jobs there. Why are we funding differently than we did last year: 50 percent going to 33 percent; $3 an hour going to $2.50 an hour?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset I'll explain to the committee the difference in numbers the member and I had. When I quoted $25.9 million, I was speaking of the total of job training, apprenticeship and labour market policy programs; whereas the member was speaking of a smaller portion of that total budget.

That still doesn't change the answer: there has been less of a take-up rate in terms of the assistance needed, because of a far lower unemployment rate for youth. We have adjusted that accordingly; we have adjusted the budget amount and also the formula for that reason. That is the plain and simple and obvious answer.

[4:45]

MR. JONES: I would like to ask the minister a further question with respect to the University of Northern British Columbia. It's been estimated that the cost of that facility could run to some $400 million over a ten-year period. I think the minister's figure is $349 million, and clearly that will inflate significantly over a ten-year period.

I am wondering in which part of the budget the funding for the next year for development of that institution will come from. Will that be from the operating contributions to universities, from the capital debt servicing budget or from the Access programs and enrolment?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We're dealing in a hypothetical area here inasmuch as we don't even have a site selected yet, so it's difficult for me to say that it's going to cost this, that or the other and come up with any hard numbers. However, in terms of hypothetically saying yes, we will have a site and the building costs are going to be this, we would fund it in the normal way — in this case through the access portion of the budget and capital funding, the way we fund any expansion, the way we fund the new science building at SFU. It's just the standard format for capital financing in this ministry.

MR. JONES: I thank the minister for the answer. I would like to refer back to what may seem like a small point, but let me assure the minister that students — in particular, student activists — at universities take this point very seriously. It's the issue of governance.

In a discussion in the earlier stages of this estimates debate, the minister talked about the composition of the board of governors and indicated to this side of the House that a majority of the membership of the board of governors was not appointed by the government. I would like to ask the minister how the alumni representatives on the board of governors get chosen.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The alumni association makes nominations to the government, and from them, two are selected by the L-G-in-C, as I recall from the act. I don't have the act with me, but I could quickly look it up.

MR. JONES: I raise this point, Mr. Chairman, because of a serious problem at Simon Fraser a couple of years ago, when the alumni association did provide a list to the ministry which was in order of success on a ballot from the alumni association. Yet rather than appointing those who received the most votes in that contest to serve on the board of governors, the minister of the day chose to pick and choose from among that list. So in that particular instance, at least, the government did appoint — because it did pick and choose — a majority of the members on that board of governors.

It seems to me that the method the minister described should be followed by the alumni associations and by the government, so that a majority of the members of the board of governors are not appointed by the government. In that instance, eight out of the 15 members of the board of governors were appointed through order-in-council. Certainly the government picked from a list, but at the same time, it was their choice and not specifically that of the alumni association. It is a point for the minister to contemplate, that this section of the act allows for such an appointment process. It is certainly unsatisfactory to many people in the universities of this province.

While we're on the question of governance, the members opposite have raised a number of times the business of the history of the college. The college system in this province was really an outgrowth of community interest in the sixties and seventies. We saw colleges formed in response to local initiatives and, in fact, local referenda. The government members opposite like to take credit for this creation, but I think it points out, through the attitude of government members, a fundamental flaw in their view of our community colleges and community college system. It was an outgrowth of community interest, of a

[ Page 9743 ]

grass-roots movement, very much like what the minister has experienced in the last year with the Interior University Society. The government can take credit for that, but it was those northerners who provided the impetus for that university to be achieved. I know that when the ground is broken or the cornerstone laid, the minister is going to give full credit to those northern British Columbians, very much with the origins of our college system being a community-based system.

Its origins were community-based and community-oriented. It was developed to serve the needs in a particular area, again an analogy with the university of the north. It was so important for that university to be established, because of the distinctive needs, character and desires of that region. It was the same kind of genesis that produced our college system.

One aspect of the college system was that it was formerly governed by board members, the majority of whom were school trustees — the minister was formerly a school trustee. It had an accountability mechanism built in, in that they were elected from their particular regions that were served by a college

So we had accountability, we had responsiveness' and we had responsible government in place. It was a number of years later that we saw this tremendous centralization of power and authority taking place, and we saw the removal of that particular method of providing membership on our college boards in this province.

Since that time we've seen increasing centralization, less responsiveness to community needs, and everybody being disserved by that process. I think it's patently unfair for many of the college board members in this province to be accused of being political hacks, of not being interested in serving community needs or of being a rubber stamp for the Ministry of Advanced Education or for the Social Credit government. It's doing a disservice to those people by strictly having them appointed through order-in-council and not having any other mechanism that allows them to really be seen and to be representatives of the communities they come from.

There are many very capable people who have been appointed through that method. Once they get on those boards, I think they find that they become passionately interested in the welfare of the college and the students in that area. But because of that method of appointment, they are being disserved.

Clearly, the image they have in the communities is not one of being an advocate for their college or their region. Every time there is a controversy, their method of appointment comes up. If there's a strike, then it's that college board representing the Minister of Advanced Education, or that college board representing the Social Credit government. It's not seen as the college board performing its logical managerial function. So the government does a disservice to those people they appoint by not having a mechanism whereby the public can be properly represented on our college boards and can properly determine what the needs are in their communities and that those needs are at least being attempted to be met.

The minister — I think, quite correctly — on many occasions in this debate has indicated to me that that's really a matter that the CEOs or college boards decide. Very clearly demonstrated in this Legislature last year was the tremendous power and influence of the ministry, in terms of affecting minor as well as major personnel decisions at the B.C. Institute of Technology. The method of appointment certainly raises that spectacle, but that spectacle is there. There is documented evidence of that kind of government interference in what should be community colleges — and we need to put the community back in community colleges.

This may be a totally innocuous memorandum, but to me it indicates that kind of influence. It can be innocuous, or it can be the kind of system that needs to be eliminated in this province. This is a memorandum from the president of Okanagan College, earlier this spring. At the time there was to be an announcement on the new Kelowna site for the college there. As I say, there may have been a good reason for this announcement, but it's the kind of thing that illustrates the influence of government on day-to-day decisions in the college. The memorandum says: "Cabinet has asked the college not to announce the location of the new campus. Therefore the previously scheduled staff meeting on Friday, March 9, 1990, at 12:30 p.m. in the Elm Building has been cancelled."

So we can see the ministry — not even the ministry.... The cabinet has asked the college not to announce something they had planned to announce. We don't have autonomous boards. We don't have boards that represent their community. We don't have boards that see that local needs are met. We have presidents of colleges being dictated to by the cabinet of this government. And that's wrong, Mr. Chairman. It's inappropriate, and it's a sore point with many in this province, and it's going to have to change.

Maybe the minister wants to respond before I raise one more point.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a lot of things to say to this. I appreciate the member's comments.

I'd like to refer to the University Act and the appointment of the board of governors, because the member did refer to that. Section 19, "Composition of the Board, " says: "The board shall be composed of 15 members, as follows: (a) the chancellor; (b) the president; (c) two faculty members elected by the faculty members; (d) eight persons appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, two of whom shall be appointed from among persons nominated by the alumni association...." That doesn't say there has to be a rank ordering of priorities or preference.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It was a week or two ago. That's good enough.

[ Page 9744 ]

Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I had another conversation I had to indulge in with my colleague for the Okanagan with respect to that memo you were reading.

So there is no reference to rank ordering, saying that we have to take the first two, second two or five and six of the six recommended; in fact, it doesn't say anything about a long list. It said: "...nominated by the alumni association."

Clearly, if you figure out the numbers, that means we only appoint six of the 15 at the cabinet table. The other two have to be persons nominated by the alumni association. It does give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the minority position in terms of board composition, because we cannot select people who have not been nominated by the alumni association. I thought the member should be aware of that feature of the University Act.

[5:00]

The member talked about the old days when school trustees were nominated by their board to be college board appointees. I was part of that system. I don't know if it was the best system. As a matter of fact, one of the saddest decisions I ever saw was made at CNC  — and I won't get into the decision — by the School Board 57 rep to that college council. I don't know if that was always the best way to go.

What's better about the system we have nowadays is that it allows college boards to go out and seek people they are going to need to sit on the board to make those representations to the government and say: "Listen, we need expertise here — an accountant or whatever. We think it's appropriate we have these people on board." You wouldn't get it just with the school trustees. You don't, because I was there.

I'll give you a good example with CNC. In 1985, CNC was going into a dental hygiene program. My colleague the first member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was the Minister of Post-Secondary Education at the time. The college desperately needed a dentist on the board for reasons of expertise, for reasons of lobbying the College of Dental Surgeons, for reasons of lobbying the government that in fact we should have this first dental hygiene program to be built outside the lower mainland and that it had to be at Prince George.

On the basis of that, I cast about for one of the strong players in the dental community: Dr. Frank Lo, a well-respected orthodontist, a member of the Lakewood dental clinic. I nominated him to sit on the college board. It's that type of ability to nominate the appropriate people that makes this system far better.

As well, I have — at the request of the former minister — successfully nominated to the college board people from the labour community, including one who was a New Democrat. He sits on the board. He's my nominee, but he's a strong supporter and someone who understands labour very well. He's not a Socred hack. If you accused him of that, he'd tear your head off, because he is a member of the New Democratic Party, and proudly so. He represents labour well. He is my appointee to the College of New Caledonia board. He is there because the board needs someone who is strong and consistent in determining labour policy.

As well, I have norridnated to the CNC board members of the native Indian community as well as from the Sikh community, because that is a large part of the Prince George population. Again, not necessarily people.... As a matter of fact, there aren't any people from the Sikh community or the native community on the school board. So if you followed your democratic process system through, you wouldn't end up with a board that is as well balanced as this one is.

That is the reason and the wisdom that we do this. I think it makes for better boards and for better management. For you to say that they're all Socred hacks is doing a disservice to some very dedicated men and women who serve the community college system.

Plus, you have to acknowledge the fact that the government is providing 100 percent of the funding to those boards. I think it's appropriate that we have the ability to determine the composition and the membership of those boards. It makes for a far better board. It gives us the ability to respond to. the board, who will come to us and the senior executive of the college, and say: "Listen, we need an accountant. So and so is leaving because he wants to or because his term is up. We need someone with financial strength. We need someone from the native Indian community. We need someone from the labour community. Please select someone you think is going to represent those interests at the CNC level in a first-class fashion."

In my case — and, I'm sure, in the case of all the boards I've met — MLAs in government who have been part of those discussions and decisions have made excellent choices, choices that have done a first-class job of ensuring the board is truly representative of the community — far more so than your model would do. I'm not at all bothered by the way the boards are composed now.

MR. JONES: I must take exception to something the minister said. What I was pointing out to the minister — and perhaps he wasn't listening or doesn't want to listen — was that he and his government are doing a disservice to college board members in this province by their method of appointment that allows the public and those in the educational community to accuse them of being political hacks. I didn't say they were political hacks, and I believe the minister heard me clearly, yet he chose, for some reason — because I don't think we've played a lot of political games during this debate — to twist my words to make it sound like I was calling those college board members political hacks. What I did say was that they were left vulnerable to that accusation. At the same time I said that there are very many good men and women; and particularly once they get appointed, they take their job seriously and are good advocates for their college and their area.

At the same time, I think the minister should send out a press release based on the composition of his own college board, because very clearly the public

[ Page 9745 ]

perception is not the kind of thing that the minister talked about. The public perception is that you get on a board by knowing somebody who knows the minister or you worked in the campaign or at a cocktail party Brian Smith will come up to you, for example — and this was reported a couple of years ago — and say something to the effect: "Well, you worked on the campaign. Do you want to govern a college?" Basically the perception — and I would be willing to test it, because I think those that the minister described were the extreme exceptions to the rule — is that the major criterion for appointment to a college board in this province is a Social Credit membership, period. Perhaps the minister pointed out a couple of exceptions among the hundreds of college board members that we have in this province. But I think the board members themselves are unhappy with this system. They don't like being left vulnerable to that method of appointment, and I think they would happily seek public election to represent their areas on the college board. They are unhappy. The minister is very happy.

Let me raise one more point with the minister. I guess the minister has read the polls and understands that one of the areas of extreme vulnerability of the government's popularity is with respect to the women of British Columbia. In the past three and a half years the women of this province have become very disaffected with the government's record as advocates for women's issues, so a number of efforts have been made to prop up the public image with respect to women. The minister has carried that out to some degree in this debate. Basically what he has said is that he laments the fact that our post-secondary education system is not doing enough for women in this province. He points out that a majority of students in our post-secondary education system are women, but laments the fact that that's not the case in graduate schools or on faculties.

Let me say to the minister that he is the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and he has a great opportunity to influence the direction of things. One of the things that the minister might consider doing is looking at the sad fact that in the college system we have only one survivor of the many fine women's studies programs that were initiated in the sixties, seventies and eighties. They are virtually all gone, all wiped out, not resurrected. I know the minister will say it's the autonomous boards that make those decisions; they are the governing structure. But the minister, as I pointed out earlier, has considerable opportunity to provide some leadership in encouraging those boards of governors to implement again some women's studies programs that have been eliminated.

The minister could do some other things as well, because in his appointments to college boards, boards of governors of universities and boards of trustees of other organizations that he has responsibility for, the minister can start appointing women. The record of this government in such appointments — a few minutes ago the minister indicated some of the appointments he has made, and I think they were all men — has been abysmal. Only 30 percent of members of the boards of colleges and institutes in this province are women. I think we would expect a much larger percentage. At BCIT it's only 20 percent. At the Justice Institute it's only 11 percent. On the Simon Fraser board of governors, last time I checked, only one of seven was a woman; at UBC, only one of eight; and at UVic, only two of eight. Those numbers may have changed, and they may have improved. But this minister has a tremendous opportunity to make a difference in terms of who is making the decisions, who is governing our colleges, institutes and universities in this province.

As the minister turns to his male senior officials to get a response, I say to him: take this business seriously. Let's get off the agenda of paying lip-service. You have a tremendous opportunity to encourage our post-secondary institutions to take some affirmative action; to hire faculty; to encourage women to enter postgraduate school; to change the governance structure so that.... If you are not going to allow a democratic method of appointments to our colleges, universities and institutes, and if the government is going to appoint them, then very clearly it is a great opportunity for more women to be appointed. So let's get off the agenda of lip-service. Let's get on to the agenda of making a change. Let's make a difference. Let's start appointing; let's start encouraging. Let's create the awareness. Let's create the climate so that we can see some progress in the abysmal record of this government in allowing women to take their rightful place in our post-secondary institutions and society.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll just read the names of some of the chairmen — chairpersons — in the system: at VCC, Colleen Miller....

MR. JONES: Wasn't she a Socred president in Vancouver South?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Something wrong with that? She's also a very good chairman. Are you opposed to her because she's a woman?

Myra Tollestrup at Okanagan College; Marion Nielsen at CNC in Prince George; Elizabeth Fleet at Selkirk; Stella Black at Kamloops; and Myrna Popove.

MR. JONES: What's the percentage?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That would be about half of the chairmen who are female.

MR. JONES: There are 15 colleges, aren't there?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that's not bad — there are six there. Maybe they don't have the quantity on the boards; but with those chairmen, they certainly have the quality. Those are quality chairmen, I can tell you. "Chairpersons, " one says nowadays, I guess. This whole thing of gender and neutralizing: what do you do with the term "female"? That bothers me. Does it become "feperson"?

[ Page 9746 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay. In any event, all that aside, I take the member's comments to heart. I know that it's always been the position of my predecessor, the member for Comox, the current Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen), that we have well-balanced boards. It's been my position as well that we do that, and we try to involve as many people from as wide a variety in the community as possible on the college boards.

[5:15]

As I said, it's not just because they've had a Socred membership. I respect what the member said in regard to Socred hacks — I said that; he didn't. He was perhaps referring to an image problem that's out there. I'll acknowledge the member was correct on that observation.

Your point's well taken, Mr. Member. We can always use more input in terms of having women sit on the college boards. But I can tell you that with the quality we have and with the number of women we have as chairmen on the those college boards, they are obviously becoming a leading force in post-secondary education.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The other name I wanted to mention was Valerie Buchanan from the B.C. Association of Colleges. We are seeing a real leadership role being taken by women in the community college system, I would submit. Maybe the numbers aren't high enough, but there's a way of addressing that, and I respect what the member said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye.

MR. JONES: Who keeps saying "aye" over there?

I want to wrap up, Mr. Chairman, and thank the minister for his time and his answers to members on this side of the House during this debate.

I think it's very clear, though, that we've got a long way to go in post-secondary education in the province of British Columbia. We still lag far behind other provinces in Canada in terms of our participation rates, in terms of our degree-completion rates and in terms of our student financial assistance program.

What we see in so many areas of this government's activity — it pertains as well to post-secondary education — is the government paying lip-service to a really serious commitment to education in this province. It talks about the importance of post-secondary education. It talks about the need to use the post-secondary sector to help stabilize our economy, and to change our economy from one of using our natural resources to one of using our human resources. It talks about the importance of post-secondary education in adding value to our natural resources, in dealing with our environmental problems and in making our economy more effective and efficient.

But it's not really there, although there's been some modest improvement in terms of operating contributions to our institutions. By and large, on the commitment coming out of the last half of the eighties, when we saw serious devastation of that sector, the real proof of the pudding is not there. The government only pays lip-service to the importance of participation rates, of having the young people in this province have the opportunity to participate in our post-secondary sector.

We've seen very little increase in terms of participation rates beyond what would normally happen and what normally happens in other provinces. We heard the minister brag about some 4,000 spaces created last year, when in fact a normal increase would have seen, particularly in good economic times, almost that many without any effort on the part of government. So the effort on the part of the government to improve our participation rates has been largely a public relations exercise.

In this province we are still turning away our young people at the doors of our post-secondary institutions every fall. I suggested to the minister that there were some 10,000 last year. It is not just those young people who have not had the opportunity, who have had the door slammed in their face; it's also those young people who get through the door and who are forced to take a course selection that is far from what they desire.

We also see lip-service in terms of creating the kinds of institutional capacity that will accommodate the kinds of growth and development needed in our post-secondary institutions. The facilities are not there. There has been improvement in the facilities in terms of replacing old and outmoded facilities, but not in terms of providing the increased institutional capacity to take care of the growth that's really needed for us to get our participation rates just up to the national average.

So we see facilities staying the same in terms of their capacity, but more students entering the institutions, and getting crowded into larger classrooms, and having less time for their professors and their teachers to spend with them. And so the students of this province, who are paying increased fees, find that they are getting less for more. They are paying more and getting less in terms of the quality learning environment they deserve.

I believe it's a cynical government that strikes committees of capable, talented and sincere people, who work hard and produce excellent reports — with excellent recommendations for improvement in literacy, native education, job training and a variety of other areas — only to see those reports sit on the shelf. Only the implementation and planning group of the University of Northern British Columbia has had any concrete response to their recommendations, and I think that is very clearly a desperate attempt to have the minister be seen in northern British Columbia as an educational leader.

It's not good enough for the students of this province; it's not good enough for post-secondary education. Post-secondary education deserves better,

[ Page 9747 ]

the people of British Columbia deserve better, and the future prosperity of this province deserves better. And I think, Mr. Minister, you have had your chance, and this government has had a chance to govern the post-secondary education sector. Clearly it's time for a change. I think it will take a change of government to restore integrity to our post-secondary education sector in this province.

Vote 5 approved on division.

On vote 6: ministry operations, $1,072,425,900.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Speaking of reduced budgets, this is up 13 percent.

Vote 6 approved.

Vote 7: science and technology, $49,290,000 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

PRIVATE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In moving second reading, I would like to say the following. This bill will reorganize the contributions that private post-secondary education institutions make to education in the province. This bill will also set standards for consumer protection and educational quality. This bill will establish a mandatory registration and voluntary accreditation process for private post-secondary institutions, and create an independent commission to perform the registration and accreditation functions.

The government has made a commitment to protect education consumers, ensure accountability for public funds and support the growth of quality private post-secondary education in British Columbia. This proposed statute will reinforce that commitment. I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its speedy passage. With that said, I move second reading and advise the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's all, but you'll have lots.... It's the second reading stuff. Not only that, but because of previous proceedings which have kept me quite busy in the committee, I'm going to have to be excused while you respond in your second reading debate. I'll be back in a couple of minutes. I've been here since about 1:55, and it has been an exciting afternoon. I will read Hansard carefully, as you debate second reading of Bill 24.

I move second reading of Bill 24.

MR. JONES: We have before us second reading of Bill 24, the Private Post-Secondary Education Act. That act is a privatization act, a self-regulation act and an Americanization act. It's wrong-headed, and it's an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What we have in British Columbia is an inadequate system, but it's a system of checks and balances that has been in place since 1936. That system has charged a small ministry staff with a huge responsibility: regulating the largest private training institution sector in Canada. We have one-third of all the private training institutions in Canada; we have roughly 450, producing some 50,000 graduates annually. When we think of the magnitude of that number, we see the tremendous importance of this industry. We see the numbers as almost comparable to the public post-secondary sector. We have something like 100,000 full-time-equivalent students in the public sector, and roughly half that many graduates annually from private training institutes.

The problem has been — I'm sure the minister is aware of it — that the ministry has not taken seriously its responsibility for overseeing the operations of this tremendously large industry. They have understaffed that division, and in the face of numerous examples of serious problems of institutions taking advantage of vulnerable students, they have ignored the cries from many in the community, including the opposition, for a mandatory accreditation process. Rather than responding thoughtfully, by beefing up the division that looks after this area, the minister has thrown out the baby with the bathwater. It has jettisoned its educational responsibilities assigned to it under the constitution.

That industry, as I said, Mr. Speaker, is an important industry. It's important because we have a reputation to protect. We are a province that does a number of things well, and one of those things is education and training. It's critical, in order to maintain that reputation, that we not have the kind of horror stories that we've seen in the past. It's essential that we do not repeat the horror stories of Western Canada College, Alouette College, Success Unlimited, Alpha College, CompuCollege, Western Media Institute and a number of others.

What happened to those? We found that with a number of those institutions, students paid enormous fees of $4,000, $5,000, $6,000 or more. Then partway through the term, they showed up at school and found the doors were locked, the furniture was removed, and the principals of that company had absconded with their hard-earned funds.

[5:30]

The Ministry of Advanced Education in its last annual report.... Of course, that is not a recent report, because it has been some time since we've had an annual report from the Ministry of Advanced Education. In that report, under the section "Science, Technology and Job Training, " the ministry pointed out that the private training institution branch maintains contact with the many private training institutions registered to operate in British Columbia. To protect the interests of consumers and the quality of

[ Page 9748 ]

instruction, all schools providing employment-related programs are required to be registered and bonded in accordance with the Apprenticeship Act.

Very clearly, in the minister's annual report, we're pointing out for all to read that the ministry has a responsibility there. It has a responsibility to protect those consumers and to ensure that it isn't caveat emptor, and that those students — many of whom come from all parts of the world to take advantage of educational opportunities in British Columbia — are not vulnerable to the unscrupulous activities of a small segment of that important industry.

When we saw these horror stories and these despicable situations of students being abused, being taken advantage of and their hard-earned student fees being absconded with, the government was roundly and widely criticized. There were news stories that reflected badly on the government. And what was the government's response to those criticisms? What did the government do to bring about an improved situation? It jettisoned its responsibilities. It abrogated its responsibilities under the BNA and under the constitution of Canada to provide education, or at least to supervise education, as is done in other provinces of this country.

So what's wrong with this act? What's wrong with Bill 24, the Private Post-Secondary Education Act? First, it replaces a system that has a basis of being extremely workable and extremely valuable to the students of this province in providing the kind of consumer protection that's necessary. What we have in place is a division of the ministry staffed by responsible, capable civil servants whose primary motive is not profit, whose primary motive is public service and the public interest. Those competent, fair-minded civil servants who are there to oversee this industry do their job in an evenhanded and fair way, with favours to none and, hopefully, strong accountability to all. They are there for the public interest; they are not there for the profit motive. They have no vested interest in the success of that industry. What they have is a vested interest in the public interest and the interest of consumer protection for those students.

They take their responsibilities seriously, but we have in British Columbia fewer staff persons monitoring the private post-secondary sector than any other province in Canada. If that division was properly staffed we would have to double or triple the number of people in that division to oversee the fact that we have the largest private post-secondary industry in Canada, with more than a third of all the private training institutions in Canada located in British Columbia. So we have a situation of understaffing.

The other problem we have with the current practice is the fact that the accreditation process is voluntary. To my knowledge, only one institution in the province is voluntarily accredited: Columbia College in the municipality of Burnaby.

So we have a system there with checks and balances, manned by civil servants who have the public interest at heart. All we need is improved staffing and mandatory accreditation. We don't need to jettison our responsibilities as a province for post-secondary education.

What will this proposal produce? It will produce a commission. There's nothing wrong with the idea of a commission, but as far as addressing the problem is concerned, we'll see, with that commission, a chairperson, a couple of staff and some secretarial support, and we'll be no further ahead in monitoring the industry than we are right now. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's replacing a basically good system that needs minor improvements with a totally unworkable system.

The second reason why this system and this act are inappropriate is accountability. As I mentioned, we have a system now that has a powerful built-in system of accountability with our public servants, which goes all the way up to the Minister of Advanced Education. I was able to ask questions in this House and hold the minister accountable for activities that happened in private training institutions in this province. That may have been embarrassing to the minister opposite, but that's no reason to abrogate the responsibilities.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: When did you do that?

MR. JONES: The issue was raised in this House with Western Media Institute, CompuCollege and Alpha College, and by the way, I am still pursuing cases of students of Alpha College who were basically left out in the cold with that institution. Ministry staff of a different branch have been very responsive in trying to ensure that our international reputation isn't severely damaged by the fiasco at Alpha College.

So those questions have been raised. The minister of the day was asked to be accountable for those operations, because there was a branch to oversee those operations. The government's response is: "Well, we'll jettison that responsibility. We'll set up a commission that will be self-regulating and self-financing. It will be an industry-controlled commission and will not be there for the public interest. It will be there for the industry's interest."

Let's just suppose that we have this commission composed of a diverse group of people, some of whom represent the industry — and perhaps the majority, because there's been some suggestion that it's going to move in that direction — and I'm a student. I come to the commissioner, and I'm there in an adversarial relationship with the owner of an institution who's paying your salary as commissioner. Who is the commissioner going to listen to? Is the commissioner going to listen to me as a poor student who has been taken advantage of by this school-owner? Or are you going to listen to the school-owner who is paying fees and paying your salary as commissioner?

What we're going to see is favouritism and nepotism. What we're going to see is unfair treatment of students, worse than we have now, because that commission will not have adequate staff. That staff and that commissioner will be funded out of student

[ Page 9749 ]

fees, so what we'll see as a result is the students paying for poor treatment by a commission and a commissioner.

As I've said, there's nothing wrong with the idea of a commission. I don't see a problem with a commission that is there to set standards and criteria, that's to assess curriculum and do a number of policy things, but not to run the branch that oversees the industry.

The third thing wrong with the commission is that it's impossible to do what the government is trying to do with this commission. The original proposal of some two months ago was that we would have a chairperson, six members of private training institutions, three employers, four members representing public institutions, and one ministry representative. I assume, if these are government appointments, then again, as we talked about a few minutes ago, the primary criterion for appointment to this board will also be a Socred membership.

We have this makeup of the commission. The government has indicated it's willing to reduce the number of public representatives. Some people have a real problem with that. I don't have a problem with that in particular, because it's impossible to set up a proper commission to oversee this incredible industry.

The government may look at these representatives and say the divergent interests of this industry are going to be represented on that commission, but there's no way you can represent Bible schools, private colleges, visa schools, and schools serving native Indians; that you can have representatives that are going to adequately represent institutions like the Nelson University Centre that we talked about recently. There is no way that a commission can adequately service and represent the interests of all the ESL schools and those private training institutions, or serve all the trade schools — some of those being union-sponsored, some being co-ops, some being associations and many being private entrepreneurial institutions.

So to have a 15-person commission that would be broad-based to service all those interest groups is virtually impossible. What we have is a tremendous diversity there with the 15, but it would have to be a 100-person commission to represent the broad interests that are there in the post-secondary private sector.

So what's going to happen? Well, I think we may find certain prejudices — certain private beliefs — against private training institutions, because there are going to be quite a number of representatives from public institutions.

We are going to find no consensus; we are going to find no commonality of interests; we are going to find that most of the people on the commission do not have experience in the industry. The ministry representative won't; the four public representatives won't; the three employers probably won't. And so we're going to see only the six representatives from the private training institutions having knowledge of what they are dealing with. I see nothing wrong with a commission to oversee the development of the industry, but not to police the industry.

I see real problems with the makeup of this commission. It's too broad to do anything, but it's not broad enough to represent the wide range of interests in the industry.

The fourth reason that I think this is a wrongheaded bill is the direction it is going in. It is privatizing a branch of the Ministry of Advanced Education. We've seen that when this government gets into privatization, there are all kinds of problems in terms of the public interest not being represented and only the private interests being represented.

It's also introducing self-regulation. This is a question that I think the public would be very interested in, because the public is not very keen on self-regulation. The public would like to move away from self-regulation. The public is not trusting enough of organizations to do their own policing; I think they want independent policing of industries. So when we privatize something and give up the responsibility for it, we should at least allow some policing to be done by those people who have the public interest at heart — by a branch of the ministry.

[5:45]

Thirdly, it's an Americanization of what we had in this province and what we have in other provinces in Canada. The author of the report that spawned this particular proposal, the registration and accreditation report, indicated:

'While their methods (those of accrediting agencies in the U.S.) have succeeded in protecting the autonomy of private schools, they have not always succeeded in maintaining high educational standards or protecting the consumer from poor-quality educational programs. Recent studies have stressed the need for closer state scrutiny of the activities of independent accrediting agencies to alleviate this problem."

So what is the direction in the United States? It is moving away from this independence from government, moving away from self-regulation and moving away from the industry policing itself, because they have all kinds of problems with that situation.

What is this government doing? It's moving in the exactly opposite direction. They know the water has been drained from the pool, and they are still going to take a big dive. What happens in the United States — this has been widely reported — is that there is a population of many poor, many mentally handicapped, many with limited skills, who are preyed upon by "counsellors." These counsellors go to foodbank lineups and prey upon the poor. They will suggest to those people promises of a lucrative career, if only they will sign on the dotted line. They sign on the dotted line and get a government loan. Some of these government loans are to train in exotic places like Bermuda. If you are in a food-bank lineup, who wouldn't sign up? Who wouldn't want a few weeks of training on a computer or whatever in Bermuda? But the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the training doesn't take place, the students don't get the lucrative jobs, they can't pay the loans back, and

[ Page 9750 ]

something like 40 percent of U.S. government loans for these kinds of institutions are in default.

So if we jump into the American pool, as we're doing with this bill, we're going to end up having the public fund, through this government, all kinds of student loans that are going to be in default. We're going to see this lack of regulation of the industry, this lack of policing, and this self-regulation, and not be able to properly monitor the industry, because there won't be the staff, because the institutions won't pay the high fees to properly staff that division. We're also going to have conflict of interest, so there isn't going to be proper policing.

The United States is moving away from this self-regulation and into more state control. They don't want to see their taxpayers being stuck with funding these supposedly educational trips to Bermuda. As well, they are beginning a crackdown. The U.S. Department of Education is beginning a crackdown on what can only be described as scam operations in the United States that aren't properly monitored or regulated.

That's the direction in which this government wants to go. No other jurisdiction in Canada is thinking about moving in this direction. The Ministry of Education in this province, in the K-12 independent school system, is moving towards or has moved towards a mandatory accreditation system for those K-12 institutions. Yet in the advanced education sector, for some reason unbeknownst to me, this government wants to move in the opposite direction. They want to jettison the responsibilities assigned to them by the British North America Act and the constitution of this country.

We have had this kind of monitoring of private training institutions in the province since 1936. Have we been wrong all these years, or is it just this current administration that won't properly staff the division that is charged with the responsibility for monitoring private training institutions?

We haven't been wrong since 1936. All we needed was to make accreditation mandatory, as we're doing in the K-12 independent system, and staff the division properly, as the Ministry of Education independent school branch is staffed, so that the job of overseeing education in the private sector is properly done, in seeing that those consumers of private training institutes' education are properly served. We haven't been wrong since 1936. It's only this government that has taken a little bit of heat for the shortcomings of a few operators of these institutions That has embarrassed this government and the previous Minister of Advanced Education to come up with this hare-brained scheme.

It's not the responsibility of the private sector to police itself; it is a provincial responsibility. This responsibility in other jurisdictions, in other provinces in Canada, is jealously guarded. What we see in other situations when other sectors are privatized is that there is still staff maintained to ensure that highways contracts are properly carried out. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways isn't going to totally jettison the ministry and not properly supervise those contracts. I am sure that when the environmental health labs are privatized there is some mechanism there to do some checking, to ensure that those tests are properly done. But this government, when it comes to an enormously important part of the post-secondary sector, servicing thousands and thousands and thousands of young men and women in their training and education, is going to abrogate its responsibilities that it was given historically to carry out.

This government does have the responsibility for education and training in British Columbia. For some reason, through Bill 24, they want to abrogate that responsibility. It is wrong to divest themselves of that responsibility. It is wrong to abrogate that responsibility. It's wrong for them to jettison that responsibility and not live up to what was indicated in the Ministry of Advanced Education annual report of a couple of years ago, that they had the responsibility to protect consumers.

Caveat emptor was bad enough before, but under this new regime it is going to be a disaster. It's going to be a disaster for that industry, it's going to be a disaster for our reputation abroad, and it's particularly going to be a disaster for the students of this province.

MR. ROSE: I wonder at this point whether it would be more prudent to arise and report progress or else to give my fun-packed speech on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: In any event, hon. member, we are not in committee and therefore the motion would be adjournment of the debate.

MR. ROSE: Well, I guess you're going to have to listen to the fun-packed speech then.

MR. SPEAKER: It would be acceptable, though, to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting the House.

MR. ROSE: Accepting your judgment, sagacity and refined wisdom, Mr. Speaker... I got so involved in thanking you that I've forgotten the motion. I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of this House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A procedural item first, Mr. Speaker. Standing orders advise us that on every Tuesday the Legislative Assembly must be advised if the House will be sitting on Wednesday. The answer to that question is in the affirmative. We will sit tomorrow at 2 o'clock.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.