1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1992
Morning Sitting
Volume 3, Number 23
[ Page 2015 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I announce the arrival into British Columbia of Carly Elizabeth Allen, eight-pound girl, granddaughter of my wife and myself, daughter of my daughter and her husband, Pamela and Mark Allen.
Hon. G. Clark: This morning and this afternoon until 6 p.m., I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In Committee A will be Advanced Education, and I don't anticipate that finishing. In Committee B we have Environment, and then if finished we may proceed to Women's Equality.
The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS
On vote 32: minister's office, $342,279 (continued).
Hon. J. Cashore: As we proceed with the estimates for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks today -- our discussions have been moving along quite well -- it would be helpful if the official opposition and the third party could give us some indication as to when we might have our officials from Lands and Parks stand by, when you're getting ready for those questions.
J. Tyabji: As we are following our outline, we're still on the first section of Lands. However, just for the minister's information, our understanding is that the third party has requested that they take up the majority of the morning estimates, which we've agreed to, and we will then follow the outline again this afternoon. The first order is from our Agriculture critic. He has two brief questions before we pass the floor over.
R. Chisholm: Has your ministry commissioned any studies on the effects of urban and agricultural pesticides on the water supply in this province, especially relating to the health problems that we seem to be getting in the Fraser Valley?
Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, with regard to the cause of the illness affecting some residents of the Fraser Valley, which was so difficult to identify, there was a review conducted that involved our ministry as well as other ministries, and it was led by the Ministry of Health. As the member for Chilliwack knows, findings have been announced as a result of that process. There was also an announcement around May 21 of a $0.5 million groundwater monitoring project study. Those are the only two study processes that I'm able to identify at the present time.
R. Chisholm: Can you tell us when we will see some results, or give us a possible time-frame for results from either of those studies?
Hon. J. Cashore: It will be about six months for the groundwater study.
R. Chisholm: My second question to the minister is in reference to the B.C. Cattlemen's Association and the problem with the water supply in the interior due to cattle grazing. Does your ministry have any plans for protecting water sources for the towns and villages in the interior from cattle effluent, or is it strictly the Agriculture ministry that is taking care of this problem?
Hon. J. Cashore: The issue is certainly a complex one. Our ministry does have an important role, working with the ministries of Agriculture and Forests, and in some cases the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Health, in addressing issues that relate to the need for integrated management and the increasing and burgeoning impacts on watersheds.
An excellent example is the Naramata watershed. I'm very pleased to announce that the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests, working with the regional district and local citizens, recently came up with an action plan, which is going to involve a study. There has been some good dispute resolution there, because they've come up with a consensus on the approach that will be followed, recognizing the issue of grazing cattle, the forest and logging activities in the watershed and also the impacts on the Naramata water supply. One of the results of that study will be to identify some of the factual bases that are needed to make the necessary decisions. That's a good example of how dispute resolution can be applied to bring people together and recognize that they have a common ground.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
Our long-term way of approaching these issues is through our announcement that we will be bringing forward a new Water Act. That discussion process will be underway. We will be inviting a process of public responses to the paper on water that will be going out. There has also been considerable work done in this area by the Round Table on the Environment, which also produced a paper, part of which relates to this issue. Watershed planning provisions will be in the new Water Act when it does emerge from that consultation process.
R. Chisholm: With that Water Act, are there provisions to keep the cattle away from the open water? Or how will the open water be protected to keep the cattle away from it?
Hon. J. Cashore: The legislation will emerge through the process of consultation, so I'm not in a
[ Page 2016 ]
position at this time to announce what that legislation will be in terms of its specifics. I think we do recognize that cattle being adjacent to a community water supply is obviously a problem. There will have to be mitigating planning done, and it will have to be done in the context of the various users coming together and recognizing the common values that they can identify in order to be able to achieve the best possible approach.
[10:15]
Obviously the health of the people in an area where they are drawing off water for their own use has to be a major consideration. The traditional role of agriculture also has to be a major consideration. We cannot cast off either one of those values lightly. In addition to that, the importance of looking at methods that have worked in various areas and seeing how they can be applied is an important way of going about it. Again, I refer to the Naramata example, which was very contentious and has been very difficult, but it appears that in that local watershed some very forward-looking leadership is now being applied. I think what they are coming up with will be helpful to us as we review this whole process.
R. Chisholm: Can the minister give us a time-frame when the cattlemen and the municipalities can expect to see this legislation which will help clean up their water supply?
Hon. J. Cashore: They'll see the discussion paper this summer, and I wish I could say when the legislation will be in the House. I would say in the spring session of 1994 at the latest.
R. Chisholm: The problem is here now, hon. minister, and I would suggest that we try to speed up this process. Meanwhile, people's water supply is contaminated.
But on another question, in reference to banned chemicals coming across the border and being utilized in British Columbia, are you in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and the federal counterparts to try to cease this practice of allowing banned chemicals across the border?
Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, we are in consultation with the federal Department of Agriculture on this issue.
R. Chisholm: What results can we expect to see there, hon. minister?
Hon. J. Cashore: We are continuing our discussions with the federal Department of Agriculture authorities. We don't have anything in particular to report at this time. The hon. member's question about how soon we will see results -- that's going to depend on the political will of the federal and provincial governments to move appropriately on that issue.
R. Chisholm: I suggest to the minister that you are in the position and that political will is yours to present to the federal government and to light the fire under them. We have orchards right now that are going out of production due to the lack of commercial viability. Due to this, we have other orchardists who are dumping twice as much chemicals onto their farms to keep the pests away and this type of thing. Has your ministry looked into this area of contention in the Okanagan?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're in contact with the Ministry of Agriculture on this issue. There is an interface between the two ministries. Your earlier point about political will is well taken, but sometimes when you are dealing with political will and two governments, federal and provincial, it becomes partly the sound of one hand clapping.
P. Dueck: Much has been said in the last number of years about auto emission and the dangers of all that comes from driving these gas-powered automobiles. I heard the other day that they have perfected an electric automobile that can drive from Vancouver to Toronto without recharging -- I don't know if the minister has heard of that one -- but they can't find a cord long enough! That is not part of my question.
I do believe that the electric car will come along in the not-too-distant future. But why don't we lobby the federal government to put in some type of time-frame, where by an arbitrary date -- 2010 -- all automobiles must be powered by natural gas or propane? That would send a message and would clean up our environment. But until we do that, it will never happen. The lobby of the oil companies is so great that this will go on and on, and we'll talk about it forever. I brought this up at Health ministers' conventions; of course, I never got anywhere. Perhaps the Minister of Environment could lobby the federal government and say: "We believe the only way we can solve this problem is to put in a date -- not arbitrarily: in Canada no automobiles will be allowed by the year 'whatever' unless they are powered by propane or natural gas."
We have natural gas everywhere. There would be stations going up in every community once they knew that on a certain date natural gas would be the fuel to use. I don't know how much power you have with the federal government, but if you could get a consensus from other provinces across Canada, this could be a reality. I believe that is one way we can get to the root of the problem and say: "This is it." Until that happens, we say yes, and some people switch over to natural gas. But there aren't stations, and then they have to switch over to the other gas, because really it's a nuisance. These are very conscientious people who say we must save the environment. But unless somebody with power, who could do it by legislation.... The federal government would be the power that could do that, but it has to have a nudge. At least, let British Columbia come on the map by suggesting this and pushing hard, even if you don't have success in the first two years.
I believe that eventually it could be accomplished. If it is, then we're on the road to really cleaning up the environment. The automobile is 90 percent of our problem. When I look up the valley when flying into Abbotsford, I can see that ribbon of pollution all the way to Chilliwack. I think it is a very serious matter, as well as perhaps tobacco use. If we could clean up those
[ Page 2017 ]
two items, I think we would have a fairly clean environment.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the point the hon. member makes -- being from Abbotsford and recognizing the way in which the accumulation of pollutants arrives out in his area -- is a real concern. As I said yesterday, it's our breadbasket out there. It's unfair that people who happen to live in that area would have to experience the accumulated pollution coming out and hovering over their community. Obviously a great deal needs to be done, and we need the political will and the public will in order to accomplish it.
With regard to the recommendation that we set a standard that by the year 2010 all autos be natural gas or propane, it would have been helpful -- prior to this member becoming an independent member in a previous incarnation when he was actually a member of government -- if he had moved that political agenda forward at that time. I can only assume that he tried to advocate it at that time and didn't succeed.
However, that might be a bit of a narrow way to focus that recommendation, because we also know that propane and natural gas, while a better alternative, are still fossil fuels and are still non-renewable sources of energy. Therefore we would look at those as interim measures toward a much more environmentally benign approach. Even when we talk about the electric car, we still have some serious questions about how that electricity is generated. Is it causing a demand for another dam on a river in which the salmon spawn? So all of these things are difficult questions that are interconnected.
I read an article the other day about what you're going to see pretty soon when you drive the Crowsnest Pass and come out by Pincher Creek. That's not far from where I grew up. With the prevailing winds there, we're going to be seeing a farm full of windmills and the generation of electricity in that way. That certainly is one of the most benign of all methods of generating power.
I agree with the hon. member that we need to consider the concept of setting time-dated standards as a means of putting everybody on notice that we're serious about addressing these issues, but you still have to have the political will in order to achieve that. There has to then be an array of approaches, and I think that in the long run the carrot approach is better than the stick. We need to be finding ways of enabling people to find alternatives that are part of the solution.
F. Randall: I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Randall: In the gallery this morning we have 15 hearing-impaired students from grades 8 to 10 from Burnaby South Secondary School. They are accompanied by Mr. P. Shaw. Would the House please make them welcome.
P. Dueck: I appreciate what the minister mentioned: a stick is perhaps not as effective as doing it gradually and with love. I believe it will never happen unless you have some stick, even if it's a small stick.
I didn't exclude the electric car. I said anything other than the present use of the engines that we have now.
I believe that it takes political will. I'm not saying that British Columbia can do much about it singularly or even have the power to enforce that type of legislation, but I think if we lobbied the federal government.... I have done that. I've been an advocate of this for a long time, and I haven't had much success, because we're getting closer and closer to people agreeing who are willing to take a stand and say: "Yes, it is a real, genuine problem." When we look at cities -- not just Vancouver or the pollution down the valley, down the 401; it is in every city -- we all accept the fact that a very large percentage, 85 to 90 percent, of our pollution problem is the automobile. We have to nip it in the bud. We have to have political will. We must do our part as a province to send that message to the federal government.
Yes, I do believe we have to have dates. We must come to the realization that unless we have some very set dates where industry and automobiles must comply.... Once the manufacturers have that date, you would be amazed how quickly they could come up with an electric car or maybe a very efficient propane-powered or natural gas automobile.
I think that is our biggest problem today. We can talk in glowing words about all the other things we have to do, but the automobile is the biggest villain of air pollution in our country, and the United States as well. Take, for instance, Los Angeles, where they are banning gas-driven lawn mowers. It's a step in the right direction, but if they were ever brave enough and had the political will to say that by a certain year automobiles on all those highways must be powered electrically, by propane or natural gas, I'll tell you it would make a whole lot of difference to Canada and the United States.
I would urge the minister to make a commitment today that he will in fact lobby the federal government and ask that they entertain these ideas.
[10:30]
Hon. J. Cashore: I think the point is well taken. As a member of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, I work within that context to try to achieve much stronger standards than are presently there. It's something like the dilemma that I face going to the UNCED conference in Brazil. You're always faced with: do you sign an agreement even though it's not as good an agreement as you would like to sign, and at least look upon it as a base line and from there try to improve and ratchet it up and get a better standard? With the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, British Columbia is really in a leadership role, and we've tried to use that forum to influence the federal government and other provinces to take stronger positions on a wide variety of issues, and certainly issues with regard to air quality. There are also bilateral discussions that take place between the provin-
[ Page 2018 ]
cial and federal governments with regard to mutual concerns dealing with air quality. Often the problem is not so much Environment Canada, but other ministries of government that have their own vested perspective in not wanting to see those protocols come through with the kind of strength that is needed in order to really address these issues.
I know that part of the background to the comments that the hon. member has been making is the example of California, which has done something similar to what she is recommending, which is that by the year 2010, 10 percent of the cars must be electric. That's a pretty clear target. Also I think that we have a lot to learn from California. Dr. Larry Berg, who is with the south California air quality authority -- I don't quite have that term correct -- has been in a key leadership role with regard to air quality issues in California. He was recently here at the Globe conference. I met with him, and I am planning to visit him and have a firsthand look at some of the initiatives and the way they are implementing them in southern California.
We also need to recognize that because they have the critical mass in California that is impacting the marketplace so that auto makers are going to be coming out with electric cars, B.C. will benefit from just the fact that California has brought forward that regulation.
With reference to what the hon. member was saying, often a government decision with regard to a standard can have all sorts of impacts, including beneficial economic impacts, because it helps often to create new industry and business. A good example would be the first generation of catalytic converters for cars. The auto industry resisted with everything it possibly could. It was something similar to the lobby that we saw recently put on by some opponents of the beverage container strategy. They really lobbied very hard to prevent that catalytic converter.
I attended a meeting of the senate committee on air quality in Washington, D.C., three years ago. They were questioning the big three with regard to a second generation of catalytic converter, and they were hearing the very same arguments: it's going to be too expensive, it will price us out of the market, we won't be able to do it, it won't work. One Senator said: "You know, you said those very same things to us back in the 1960s. We said do it. You did it, and it worked. We're going to say do it again."
I think the hon. member does make a good point, but we always have to recognize that taking that type of approach has to be in the context of an array of provisions that is providing the public with suitable alternatives. I don't think that we want to see ourselves get into a situation where people have no way to turn. Therefore we have to be addressing transit. We have to be addressing bicycle paths. We have to be addressing the type of infrastructure that can really work.
Just one other example. B.C. Tel has opened up a satellite office in Langley that uses fibre optics. That's really getting back to the livable region community concept that came out of the GVRD 20 years ago, before the planning function was lost from regional districts. This means that people in Langley and area can ride and cycle to work instead of spending two and a half hours a day getting into the B.C. Tel office downtown. They're able to communicate electronically with their co-workers, and they maybe go into town once every two weeks for a meeting. They haven't used up all their personal energy getting to work and back, and in the evening they're able to participate more in community activities and have more time for their families. It also gives a better quality of life. I think that finding ways to have satellite offices is a new possibility that will keep people off the roads.
D. Symons: I have just a few comments and questions. I have some concern about the discussion that just took place about automobiles and alternative fuels for them because I see the government saying one thing and then bringing in a bill that does another thing. One of the things that we would want to do is to encourage people to use alternative fuels: alcohol, a gasohol arrangement, propane or natural gas. These all burn cleaner than ordinary gasoline. It seems this government is not really encouraging people to do that.
If we take a look at Bill 8, which we just recently passed, section 13 has a sunset clause in it that is going to remove exemptions for using cleaner fuels. On the one hand you say yes, we should be moving in this way as a temporary means of waiting until new technology comes along. On the other hand you're removing an incentive that would encourage people to use that type of fuel. It's going to become non-cost-effective from the viewpoint of just saving money -- not the environment -- for people in the next few years to convert their motors over to using natural gas or using propane, because they're going to lose that incentive year by year, and the years that they can be having a payback on getting lower-priced fuel won't be there. Can you respond, please?
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member refers to Bill 8. He should know that he's completely out of order in discussing another bill during estimates.
I think that if we take his point in a more generic sense and not refer specifically to that bill, he does an incredible disservice. He makes that comment out of context, without looking at the total spectrum of provisions that are provided for in our clean air strategy paper. He selectively chooses to ignore our smoke management paper. He selectively ignores the process and the commitment of this government to totally revamp environmental protection legislation in the province. Hon. member, if you want to use that approach, go right ahead, but this government is moving forward with some very, very innovative programs. I just met with officials from the West Coast Environmental Law Association, and they informed me that they're very pleased with the direction the government is taking. Their message to me was: "Keep up the good work."
D. Symons: I still have some difficulties, because this was an incentive that seemed to be doing some good. In a sense, it's been removed. The other things mentioned are papers to bring things about, but this was actually something that was in place doing some-
[ Page 2019 ]
thing. In effect, it's been taken away by the removal of that.
Let's move on to another topic, the B.C. government's response to the federal environmental assessment review panel recommendations dealing with the third runway at the Vancouver International Airport. I gather that the provincial government was going to have a response and a paper out on that and their stand in relationship to what that environmental review process had recommended. That is a rather large document that the environmental crew came out with. What is the provincial government's response to that report?
Hon. J. Cashore: The Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade is the minister of government who is taking the lead in relating to that process. Within the Ministry of Environment, we have been holding a watching brief on the emerging process with regard to the third runway. We have had presentations made to us with regard to some of the findings. We are concerned about the issue of replacement of habitat, and we know that's an important recommendation.
I would also mention to the hon. member that in looking at the airport study, I'm not at all reluctant to state very clearly that when we're looking at the alternatives.... First of all, there's a question of whether or not a third runway is needed. Does the projected population growth warrant an expansion in terms of that type of facility and process? That's a valid question and subject to environmental tests. That's important. But suppose you get to the point where you say yes, it does appear that the population is increasing and there is going to be a need for some sort of expansion. What are the alternatives? Well, there is Boundary Bay and there is also Abbotsford. If one had to choose between the three, in terms of those values, I would choose the third runway, because I would not want to create the environmental problems that would result from the need for ground transportation between the present airport and Boundary Bay or Abbotsford, as well as the impacts of any expansion on the agricultural lands and wildlife lands that exist, especially in the Boundary Bay area. I think it's important for us to be able to say where we would stand -- and I would invite this hon. member to be willing to say where he would stand -- vis-�-vis those kinds of alternatives.
I think we also recognize the need, in terms of our watching brief, to identify those areas where there is a need for mitigation and compensation. Our wildlife branch is very attendant to the issues of identifying what will be required, given the impacts on wildlife.
D. Symons: I hadn't really intended on the trip you took me on in the Fraser Valley and to Boundary Bay, because I was asking specifically about the Vancouver International Airport. If you want my stand on it, that's where the third runway should go and it is going to be a necessity. We're a growing community here. I want to know the government's position on that environmental study. For instance, the north side of the third runway when it goes in.... The recommendation was that it be left in its natural state, yet there are moves on the part of some organizations and municipalities to put some development in there. Where does the provincial government stand on that?
Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to acknowledge a number of school students who are in the gallery and say that it is nice to see you here from wherever you are from, witnessing the process of democracy at work here in the Legislature.
With regard to the provincial stand on the study, as I have said, we are maintaining a constant process of interaction. We have a watching brief on the process. Our officials within the ministry are discussing the various issues. I'm not going to be commenting at this time on the specifics of one particular plan at that particular place in the province. We are in close consultation with the federal government and the other participants on that issue.
D. Symons: I would gather that I'm not going to get an answer on that. This study has been around for a long time; I'm just surprised that this government during its period in opposition and its six months in government has not really come up with any firm plans or even thought on the direction in which they're heading on this.
I'm concerned also.... Are there any new regulations on the testing and use of pesticides and herbicides within the province? We've seen widespread use and promotion in the past of such products as DDT, 2,4-D and Captan, which were passed by the federal government. They were supposed to be beneficial to mankind, but we found out later about their harmful effects. I'm curious what your government is doing to see that these sorts of mistakes of the past are not going to be repeated in British Columbia.
[10:45]
Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I don't know if the member is aware, but this is the third time that this question has been asked during these estimates. I would like to think, given the time that's available, that he might try to find some new questions to ask. If he wasn't present during those debates, we do have the Blues. There are different research techniques available to you to find out what questions have already been given. Basically, you're asking me to repeat what's been said before.
We're working towards a 25 percent reduction in the use of pesticides. There's a very definite process of reducing the amount of aerial spraying. We have announced recently a certification program with regard to the use of pesticides in agricultural applications. It is a certification program that involves taking some training and achieving a certificate. In that way we're seeing some really good results with regard to people who work in farm situations, upgrading their knowledge of pesticides with an awareness of the dangers and appropriateness with regard to health, both for individuals and the environment.
[ Page 2020 ]
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure for me to stand up and speak on the estimates of the Minister of Environment. It's a ministry that is most intrusive into all of our lives. The environment is simply everything that surrounds us. I've had the opportunity of working with a group of kindred souls in that particular ministry, and I would just like to compliment not only the senior staff that I see here with us today but all staff members of the Ministry of Environment, whether they're in Victoria or in the districts scattered throughout British Columbia. I have found virtually all of the individuals that I've ever talked to or associated with to be very competent. They have the knowledge, experience, wisdom, commitment and dedication. I really believe that of all the provinces in Canada, we're perhaps the most ably served by the quality of staff. I certainly compliment the minister on his ministry. I consider that in the short time that I had the opportunity to be Minister of Environment, I cultivated friends and acquaintances that I hope are lifelong friendships. It was a tremendous honour for me, and I believe it is a tremendous honour for you, Mr. Minister.
I have a number of questions, hon. Chair, and we'll get on with it. I'll try to follow the format of your speech, minister. I know I will have your gracious accommodation if I happen to ask something that may be redundant, but perhaps we can explore certain phases of it.
The first area I would like to touch on is the sustainable environment fund, at $18.3 million this year. At the inception of that fund, in '90-91, it was approximately $50 million, as I recall. We've had a dramatic reduction. I know that forestry initiatives have been removed. Would the minister indicate what the revenue sources are for that $18.3 million?
Hon. J. Cashore: When the hon. member referred to $18.3 million, he was really referring to the Ministry of Environment portion. As I understand it, $22.95 million is the total amount of the sustainable environment fund.
The hon. member was asking about revenue sources. They are: tire levies, $9 million; battery levies, $4 million; disposable diaper levies -- that's a contentious issue -- $3 million; waste discharge fees, $4.1 million; prosecutions -- meaning fines -- $1.6 million. This reflects, as I know the hon. member is aware, the improvements that have been taking place in prosecutions under the Waste Management Act. We have a long way to go, but that's quite a dramatic improvement. Compared to the years 1986 to 1989, when we were averaging under $40,000 a year in total fines, now we're up to $1.6 million. That's quite a significant improvement. Then there are federal government recoveries of $570,000, and miscellaneous, about $100,000. I'll leave it at that.
C. Serwa: We have $13 million with respect to the levies charged on tires and batteries. How much of the $13 million is actually directed towards research and development toward subsidizing the transportation indicated with respect to the recycling of those particular materials? How much of the $13 million for tires and batteries is actually used in association with tires and batteries?
Hon. J. Cashore: Around $6 million to $7 million.
C. Serwa: So when the levies were introduced, they were the figures that were picked out. At the present time we're receiving more into the sustainable environment fund than we're paying out, directly associated with those. Obviously there are other areas where that income is being used to enhance the sustainable environment fund.
Hon. J. Cashore: That is correct.
C. Serwa: Is there any thought from the Ministry of Environment, again in accordance with your user-pay scenario, that it would be appropriate at the present time to reduce the levies on tires and batteries, now that the program is well underway, research and development has proceeded, and incentives for utilization, collection and manufacturing have all been placed? Would it not be appropriate at this time to consider a reduction in those?
Hon. J. Cashore: We're not at a stage where we can see us taking that step at this point. We still have targets that we need to achieve. It's perhaps a little bit misleading to say that there should be an absolutely direct relationship, given that these products have contributed greatly over time to the problems we've faced in dealing with waste management issues. I don't think we need to feel it's somehow inappropriate that the amount of revenue coming from a particular levy might be more than can be identified as going directly back in, because we are addressing an array of issues here. These are all interconnected. At this time we don't see a change being made in that.
C. Serwa: Could the minister indicate at the present time where the expenditures lie in the $18.3 million -- the Ministry of Environment's portion, certainly to the major expenditures in that particular ministry? I don't have receipt of a current list of expenditures with respect to that.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the Environment, Lands and Parks portion: the municipal solid waste management strategy, $11,682,500; Partners in Recycling, $950,000; municipal sewage treatment grants, $1,358,500; the East Kootenay conflict resolution, $237,500 -- that is really a wildlife interface with other values; the Boundary Bay study, $145,000; Vancouver Island trout hatchery, $1,375,000; fish hatchery information and education, $406,000; the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, $1.8 million; and the Crown land information system, $300,000.
C. Serwa: I have several questions developing from that. Formerly the government funded the Environment Youth Corps out of the sustainable environment fund. There was an expenditure of somewhere between $7 million and $10 million. It happened to be one of the
[ Page 2021 ]
best programs that the government was involved in. First of all, for the youth involved, many times it was an opportunity for a first-time job and certainly for job-related experience. It was widespread throughout the province, and communities certainly benefited. Finally, of course, the environment was the greatest beneficiary of all. In my constituency, we had work done on the spawning channels in the Maude Roxby Bird Sanctuary. There were a number of very important programs that directly benefited all people of British Columbia.
I'm well aware that you've been under a substantial amount of pressure for its continuation. I know that it's a matter of priorities. But when you look at all of the topics that you were talking about.... Certainly the word "partners" comes to mind, whereby we should encourage youth to become aware of and to participate in environmental issues. On educational aspects -- whether it was going through the various schools with Ecosaurus and that sort of thing -- the Environment Youth Corps did an outstanding job.
Perhaps the minister can indicate if there is a potential for re-establishing that very important program through this sustainable environment fund. I know that it was funded through lottery grants as well -- money that went into the sustainable environment fund. Perhaps the minister could elaborate on that.
Hon. J. Cashore: The fact is that last year -- prior to the current fiscal year -- $3 million for the Environment Youth Corps came out of the ministry vote, not out of the SEF, although I believe it did in its origins. That's what gave it access to the initial $50 million lottery grant, when the SEF was set up to begin with.
[11:00]
I'm sure the hon. member knows that when you're trying to decide where to put your priorities, it's really difficult. There's no question that the young people of British Columbia are valued as being important by virtually every ministry. But we have a mission statement within the Ministry of Environment, and we also have certain values listed within the context of that statement. Given the fact that there are some pressing needs within the province and that we did get what I felt was a very important increase in our budget, in which this government recognized the importance of the environment, it still behooved us to review our current programs in light of our mission statement. In doing that, I simply have to say that the value that was being achieved for the environment as a result of the Youth Corps did not stack up, for instance, to the value of increasing the conservation officer service or being able to hire another 35 wildlife biologists. It did not stack up to the fact that we have a desperate need to get caught up on inventory and baseline data covering a wide range of issues.
We simply had to make some really difficult choices. One of those was that while we realized that the Environment Youth Corps has been really valuable for the province, it did not fit into the priority listing that we had come up with when we were making those tough budget decisions.
On the question of whether it may come back again some time, it's a hypothetical and future-oriented type of thought. It's the type of thing that we would be discussing in the context of the Ministry of Social Services, which continues to carry on a program that does have some of the elements of the approach of the youth corps.
C. Serwa: Thank you very much for your response on that, hon. minister. I lament the tack that the decision took, because I was certainly a very strong advocate, and I'm confident that you are as well. I understand the very pressing needs of the Ministry of Environment. I think that we all have a collective responsibility to continue to work hard to raise the profile of the Ministry of Environment and ensure that the appropriate level of funding is directed towards this important ministry.
I note that the minister took the opportunity to take some shots at the previous administration, in indicating some sort of a financial difficulty. It was inappropriate, hon. minister, in that the current.... We hate to get political in this forum -- I know that -- but the fact is that revenue and expenditures are on an annual basis. We're confronted with the reality -- whether it's a worldwide recession or a downturn in the economy -- that we're certainly captive to the overall thing. The positive aspect is that of all the provinces in Canada, British Columbia is faring the best. Hopefully, with proper initiatives, we can increase the amount of revenue that goes towards government and enhance the amount of revenue that falls into the Ministry of Environment.
Perhaps the minister would enhance my understanding of Partners in Recycling. The minister had mentioned that some $60,000 of SEF -- the sustainable environment fund -- were going to be directed to that. I would like to know what the Partners in Recycling program actually is -- the specific nature of this particular program: the initiatives, whether it's educational or capital-cost-oriented and the number of FTEs, if any, included in that. I'd like a sort of comprehensive overview of that particular initiative.
Hon. J. Cashore: The Partners in Recycling program is underway. The company that is most on board is B.C. Tel, having contributed, I believe, $50,000 towards a partnership initiative with regard to the recycling of telephone directories. The other two businesses where there are active negotiations going on at the present time are Safeway and Overwaitea. Ruth Lotzkar of the Environmentally Sound Packaging Coalition has worked very closely with us in developing this initiative. It's an initiative working with business that tries to recognize the opportunities that we have with business, customers of business and the government, to come up with approaches that enable us to all work together in finding environmental solutions. That's beneficial in the sense of what happens in the context of each of those approaches, but it's also beneficial in that it helps to develop models that could then be used in other partnerships which we hope will spread throughout the province.
[ Page 2022 ]
C. Serwa: Certainly recycling is a very necessary and very important initiative. There are many challenges to recycling. I think it's apparent to all of us that the collection aspect is the easiest one to get a handle on and to start to pull the material in. We're all sadly disappointed, of course, when we see a newspaper photograph of a large stockpile of crushed glass with no market, which is then hauled to a solid waste landfill site. We're all disappointed when we read of large numbers of warehouses filled with recyclable plastics, which we haven't yet established a market for.
I'd like to ask the minister if he has contemplated developing some sort of a central purchasing agency to act as a global brokerage, which would assure communities and societies throughout the province of a market with a relatively firm price in recycled materials. Whether we look at plastics, newspapers or glass, we're confronted with the reality that each of these individual societies or communities must find a purchaser for their commodity. There's a variability in the market, so they are in a very weak position to get the best price in order to reduce the cost of recycling. There is a cost associated with the recycling that we rightfully all must bear. But it appears to me that there should be a mechanism -- I think the government has to provide leadership in developing this type of system -- so that individuals, societies and municipalities that collect recyclable materials can actually get the best possible price from this overall global concept.
The other aspect of this is that the consumers of the recyclable materials should be willing to pay substantially more for those materials on the basis that they have a dependable, consistent source of supply, rather than the variability of whether it may come in or not. If we introduced such a system, we would really enhance the potential for active recycling to take place.
Whether it's the blue box collection system.... We have a strong commitment to that as part of the recycling system and the cost of it, and we would really facilitate what we know must transpire in the province of British Columbia and perhaps in all of the jurisdictions. I would like to hear if the minister has contemplated this and if he feels there is merit in that, because we obviously must do something better than what we're doing at the present time.
Hon. J. Cashore: Another school group has come into the gallery. I'd like to welcome them. I hope you're learning lots about democracy here today. I don't know who you are, but the movie The Bells of St. Trinian's comes to mind, which is from long before even your teacher's time.
The comments that the hon. member just made are very wise, and they're consistent with the private member's bill that I had introduced while in opposition. It's very clear that we need to find ways to make use of economies of scale to enable the marketing and availability in order for the loop of recycling back to consumers to really work.
In a province like British Columbia we have our large population in the CRD and the GVRD. Then you have people all over the province in a variety of communities. As government, because we have made an appropriate commitment to reduce solid waste by 50 percent, we find that the problems in each of those areas are very unique and sometimes extremely difficult. When you think about the availability of computers, for instance, connecting with trucking companies that are deadheading back down to the lower mainland, there may be some way in which economies of scale could be built in to enable people to get their recycled goods down to markets. When those markets are assured, we would have a better chance of making that whole process work. I think those are good points.
Dorothy Caddell was retained by the government prior to the election to research this issue involving the government, the GVRD and the Capital Regional District. I know that she has been back to the eastern states and to Ontario to look at some of the ways in which they have been trying to develop markets. Obviously, the concept of a central purchasing agency would fit in with recycling depots. Eventually we might see not only returnables and refillables, but also white goods and a means of removing the Freon gas from refrigerators and freezers and recycling that. The fact is, there will always be people who will have older refrigerators, and that would help to keep them going.
Also, the idea of waste exchange. I've heard of some really good community events where people get together on a Saturday morning and have a waste exchange where they exchange paints and other products, which for some people are extra materials but to others would be very useful. We're moving on some of these fronts, hon. member. I think that's good advice.
C. Serwa: I'm pleased to hear that the concept of utilizing expandable modules in the design of the depot system is still within the ministry and being seriously considered. I think that when it comes to a number of issues, be it household hazardous wastes or other aspects of recyclable materials, perhaps the system and the legislation that we're discussing will empower you to work towards an expanded bottle-deposit system. This could form the nucleus for a very efficient collection system throughout the province. I will be watching that with a great deal of interest and certainly a great deal of commitment and support, because I think it is the practical and logical solution to the dilemma that confronts us at the present time. We're in our infancy, and I think that we all understand that it is evolving and growing. We're doing a great deal of learning at the present time.
We will leave that at the moment and go on to the topic of conservation officers.
If I hop, skip and jump, perhaps it's because of your layout and my short notes. We're spread a little bit thin at the present time. I beg your indulgence.
We have a wide variety of responsibilities imposed on our conservation officers. Fundamentally, every time a little bit more enforcement is required, the conservation officer has to pick up the responsibility for that. The paradox is simply this: conservation officers, again, happen to be spread so thin it appears very difficult for them to do the comprehensive job that society expects and wants of them.
[11:15]
[ Page 2023 ]
My concern has to do with both the green side of the Ministry of Environment and what I call the brown side, the pollution-control side of the Ministry of Environment. It appears to me that we're requiring different types of people with different qualifications. The senior staff are well aware of my feelings on this. I've expressed them before, but I'm expressing them to the minister. It is apparent that we should have people in pollution control monitoring, whether it's with pulp mills, municipal liquid wastes, corporate liquid wastes, or perhaps air emissions, who are fundamentally engineering technologists and specifically aligned and related to that particular field of endeavour. They have to be specialists. They have to be exceedingly accurate, because it takes a great deal of technical expertise if the charges, prosecutions, enforcement aspect is to be successful in our court system.
On the other hand, I particularly like the concept of the old style of game warden, which we formerly had in the Ministry of Environment, and certainly related to fish, wildlife and integrated resource management, where a conservation officer would be more aligned to that.
First of all, I'll leave the minister with those two questions: is the minister contemplating a split -- rather than having an enforcement entity separate from the major divisions, having one directly connected and subservient to the waste management section -- the pollution end of things -- and having another section of it related and under the influence and control of the fish, wildlife and integrated management?
Hon. J. Cashore: First, a little background. As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Environment always speaks at the annual convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. The knowledge that we had increased the conservation officer service significantly this year, for the first time in many years, was greeted with a great deal of enthusiasm by that gathering. The fact is that we currently have 127 conservation officers in the province. That's 107 general duty officers, 15 environmental enforcement officers and six regional managers. They are distributed throughout the province in 51 district offices. It's also true that workloads are always increasing.
With regard to the point that the hon. member is making that we need to.... If I understand it correctly, the hon. member would like to see more of the conservation officers' service being focused towards the fish and wildlife management aspect. I would point out that 87 to 90 percent of the time of the regular district conservation officers is spent on fish and wildlife enforcement now. It is true that the 15 environmental enforcement officers, whom I referred to in that listing, spend all their time working on pollution enforcement, but the fact is that by far the significant portion of the time of a conservation officer's service now is spent on fish and wildlife. That is a fact. That information is taken from the daily logs of conservation officers.
So in a sense, what the hon. member is asking for has already been achieved. I think that I might enlist the hon. member to help me in my efforts to further increase the number of conservation officers in the province, and that's another issue and another question. With regard to the present situation, I think we need to recognize that the time management is heavily balanced or focused towards fish and wildlife management.
Something further on some of those figures: of the new people hired into the conservation officer service, there are 13 new conservation officers, plus two into the special investigations unit, four CO support staff and one person for the bioassay lab, which adds up to 20. So we have enhanced that significantly this year.
I think the hon. member would be interested to know that fish and wildlife prosecutions increased by 12 percent in 1990-91 over 1989-90, and it is still moving in that direction. The enforcement is more than stable; it's actually increasing.
Also, enforcing pollution laws is the best way to ensure clean water and therefore a good fish habitat, so it's beneficial for fish. Again, recognizing the web of life, the interconnection of all of these things, when you're enforcing with regard to pollution, you really are doing something on behalf of fish and wildlife. Those are interconnected; pollution control and fisheries management are not separate entities.
C. Serwa: I'm most appreciative to see the increase in conservation officers. There has been a good growth this year. I might remind the minister -- he should be aware of it -- that only two or three years ago there was an increase, I believe, of 35 FTEs to the Ministry of Environment, all 35 of whom were supposed to go into conservation officer services. At that time there was an erosion of those FTEs that went to the Ministry of Environment; only approximately half of them went into the conservation officer services. When you look at our neighbouring province Alberta, for example, and the number of conservation officers they have compared to what we have, we certainly have a long way to go. We live in a province whose splendour and whose diversity of big game are almost without peer in the world. Only portions of Africa and perhaps the state of Alaska can compare with us. We have a great number and a great diversity, and we must do a better job.
I note that the minister is indicating that 87 to 90 percent of the time of conservation officers appears to be spent with respect to that. I have a number of concerns. First, during the restraint period of the early 1980s there was a tendency, for the sake of efficiency -- whether it was realized or not -- to consolidate conservation officers into specific district offices. When this was done, the conservation officers lacked the opportunity to relate directly to the communities, to actually be a part of the living dynamics of the community in every aspect. They were formerly Rotarians or Kiwanians or members of other organizations, and they had the credibility, the familiarity and the respect of the communities.
At the present time a substantial amount of a conservation officer's time is spent either in paperwork, at a desk or in driving on blacktop to and from areas. It seems to me that decentralization would be an appropriate tack to take. I remain firmly committed, hon. minister.... As a result of the diversity and the degree of policies, regulations and legislation that the enforc-
[ Page 2024 ]
ers have to work with, there should be a definite separation.
Perhaps the minister would respond to those questions.
Hon. J. Cashore: Perhaps it would be helpful, in response, to outline the deployment of COs throughout the different offices in the province. We're referring here to the new COs. As a background to this, let's remember that in deploying people to different offices, we need to be concerned about those offices where there is a single CO, and where there's a real concern for matters of safety, where an individual might be going out on a field trip and sometimes is in a situation where it's not possible to be in communication. So there are some real concerns about that.
Concerning the deployment of those 20 FTEs, four went to the Vancouver Island region, three to the lower mainland, 1.5 to the southern interior, 2.5 to the Kootenays, one to the northern interior, 2.5 to the Skeena, 3.5 to Victoria enforcement and two to CO support, for a regional total of 20.
C. Serwa: What I and most people concerned with the green side of the environment are looking for is the opportunity to have the COs spread throughout all of the communities, wherever possible.
There is an aspect of the conservation officers that you spoke about and promoted a few minutes ago in your comments. You indicated that enforcement is the best way. There are different schools of thought on that, and I certainly hold a different view. I know that some of our most effective conservation officers are not the ones who get the most prosecutions. Because of the emphasis on the enforcement aspect, you've had a lot of Mickey-Mouse-type ticketing, which is not substantial. I'm really concerned, and I believe you are, with the protection, preservation and enhancement of the resources. It seems ludicrous to me to have a conservation officer stand behind a tree and wait until someone shoots a deer out of season so that we can go forward with a prosecution. I would rather see that that deer is not shot at all. I have a great deal of difficulty with the enforcement concept being emphasized to the degree that it is. It seems to me that education is one aspect that we have to continue to work on, through our various sportsmen's associations and fish and game clubs.
The other aspect that I'm an advocate of -- you've probably heard me speak on this before in this Legislature -- is an auxiliary conservation officer force. You just mentioned the difficulty of having a single officer in the area. Throughout the province of British Columbia there are a lot of sportsmen who are seniors and are perhaps not as active as they once were. Many people would like to become part of the conservation officer force in a way similar to the RCMP auxiliary police officers.
I have a great inability to understand that the life of a conservation officer is more hazardous to one's health than that of an RCMP officer. It seems that there are many advantages. As far as government goes, there is a tremendous cost advantage, because many of these people would willingly go on patrols, road checks, game counts or whatever is required of them with no pay whatsoever -- perhaps the cost of fuel and that's about it.
The other opportunity we have, again going back to the auxiliary COs, is the educational aspect to the community, because they represent citizens throughout the community as well as the people in various fish and game associations. Would the minister consider looking at auxiliary COs? It does work with the RCMP, and it should work well and right away give us a great deal more potential to more effectively cover the province not only during hunting season, but throughout the year.
It's important to realize that approximately 50 percent of our game is taken through poaching, illegal hunting or whatever, and that this is a very serious issue. It doesn't matter whether it's black bear taken for gall bladders or ungulates taken out of season; it's a form of theft and we have to control it.
Hon. J. Cashore: The hon. member referred to my having mentioned enforcement as the best way. I wouldn't want that to be misunderstood. I meant the best way in the context of our discussion, and that was with regard to the deployment of conservation officers and their activities.
[11:30]
Frankly, I don't think enforcement is the best way. I think we need a strong enforcement regime, but we need an array of methods out there. The hon. member referred to one, especially with regard to industry, when he talked about some of the ridiculous ticketing procedures that are really a slap on the wrist. Yet we have the study of Murray Rankin and another professor from the University of Victoria pointing out that if we followed the process used by the Workers' Compensation Board, we could have a real impact with administrative penalties that were real penalties and sent a clear message but avoided the extensive cost of lengthy court procedures. Even though we're taking in $1.7 million or $1.3 million in fines, those are very expensive dollars. So we have to look at more effective ways.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
With regard to the point the hon. member was making about deploying COs throughout the province, bear in mind that there are 51 offices, and we have COs working out of every one of those 51 offices. It may be that deployment could go further, but that's quite extensive, given the nature of the province.
With regard to the concept of having auxiliaries, I would just want to acknowledge the work -- while we wouldn't call them auxiliaries -- of the various people that are out there in the hinterland of the province: environmentalists, naturalists, trappers, hunters, fishing people and photographers. These are the people who are often a first line of defence in identifying and notifying on what's going on out there through such programs as the observe, record and report program. Often those people are the eyes and ears of the ministry, enabling us to be aware of situations. I would just like
[ Page 2025 ]
to mention one person, a friend of mine who is very much involved in the fish and wildlife organization in the Coquitlam area. Chuck Zukerman recently gave evidence at a fairly high-profile trial, where there was a very serious offence against the Wildlife Act with regard to illegal killing of bear. He had enough sense of how to do this to provide the evidence that resulted in a very significant conviction. I commend Chuck and others out there who are being diligent about trying to ensure that appropriate procedures are followed in terms of wildlife.
I would also like to mention, when we're talking about the conservation officers service and the auxiliary concept, that we are looking at some innovative approaches in cooperation with native Indian communities in the whole issue of interim measures and comanagement. I think there's a real potential win-win there, where we can be working together with native Indian communities in developing procedures.
Another point I would like to make, hon. member, is that when we consider our entire conservation officers service in British Columbia, I personally feel that this is an excellent vocation for women. I would like to see us doing a better job, not only of enabling the process at the high school level so that it's seen as a career opportunity but also.... Even though I have a strong desire to be recruiting women into the conservation officers service, the fact is that, given that we now only have three women out of about 120 in that entire service, we really have to do a lot better. But if you go to Malaspina College or the University of Lethbridge, you find that in order to recruit conservation officers, we have to have qualified people. So we have to do a better job of encouraging women to seek out those institutions as a means of gaining those qualifications. I would hope that we can look back in a year or two and say that we've made some real progress in that area, and indeed in other areas of staffing within the ministry.
C. Serwa: Just for the notice of the member in the Liberal opposition, an agreement has been reached with your House Leader that I will be able to continue until noon, and then we'll turn it over to you.
While we're on the topic of conservation officers, I hope that the minister would seriously consider auxiliary COs as formalizing that opportunity, regardless of the sex of the conservation officer. I'm certainly an advocate for more conservation officers through the province in all areas. I'm in complete harmony with your aims and objectives and most supportive of that.
While we're talking about conservation officers and their present responsibilities, certainly on the pollution side of the matter, I wanted to know what the ministry's policy is with respect to reducing pollutants that are going into the atmosphere and pollutants that are going into the water. I believe you mentioned the other day, in response to one of the questions, that you were looking at economic incentives, which would mean that the accountants of a corporation, be it a pulp mill or any other industry, would recognize that they're not being charged simply on the quantity of effluent, but there would be some sort of a sliding scale to acknowledge a reduction in pollution permits, for example, because of the quality of the effluent.
Again, whether it's fines through enforcement, fundamentally what we want to do is reduce the number of pollutants going into the environment. Is the ministry moving in the direction to provide direct incentives through reduction in permit fees, for example, which would encourage the installation of fairly expensive capital equipment so that they can see a benefit, rather than the present situation which at the moment is that if you have a certain volume, you pay a certain fee? There's no incentive to reduce the number of pollutants contained in the effluent.
Hon. J. Cashore: I expect that the hon. member has seen the waste discharge fee discussion paper pursuant to regulation that will be coming forward relating to this issue. Basically, the principle in that program is that the permit and the permit cost are to be based on the quantity and quality of the effluent. It is moving in that direction. We canvassed this to some extent yesterday. Given the total amount of income that would come into the province from the costs of pollution, it would be more fair for those industries and municipalities that have improved or are improving. They would receive an economic benefit, given the fair way in which this process of charging for permits is established. Those principles are fairly clearly outlined in that paper. We'd be glad to get a copy of that for you if you don't have it.
C. Serwa: I am very pleased that government is moving in that direction, because I do believe that using the carrot rather than the stick will get compliance in the end. Whether it's a municipality or an industry, we're moving in the right direction with that type of initiative.
On an environmental issue with respect to air quality, most of the areas that involve you overlap other areas. Cogeneration and smoke emission from a number of beehive types of burners -- and even later-model burners -- associated with sawmills is a fairly serious problem throughout the province. One of the realities that prevail in cogeneration plants is the establishment.... We have a unique situation in Williams Lake. Some 400 or 500 loads of logs come in daily to the four mills in the community, so everything is quite centralized. But there are many areas of the province where we are accumulating and combusting an enormous quantity of waste that we could convert to useful electrical energy. At the same time, we could gain a major environmental plus with emission control equipment.
In order to accommodate this, we have to establish some sort of freight subsidy so that it makes it economically attractive to transport waste materials from more remote sites to a central facility where we can utilize that cogenerating capacity and come out winners in all ways.
Hon. J. Cashore: The point is well taken. It certainly is an alternative that needs to be actively considered and pursued. We know that the Williams
[ Page 2026 ]
Lake example is one. We're also looking at some initiatives in the Houston area. I know that along the north shore of the Fraser River, people in the Maple Ridge-Mission area would certainly like to see some movement in that way.
We're floating a policy in our smoke management paper, which was released just a few days ago, that would see us phasing out beehive burners within five years. Of course, we realize that in order to accomplish a goal like that, we have to be up and running with alternatives. I guess another one that the hon. member is familiar with is Port Mellon.
I don't think that anything is a panacea. We have to look at any of these technologies and critically examine the efficacy of them with regard to how well.... We keep hearing about state of the art. We need to have a good method of monitoring, enforcing and ensuring that the new technology is as benign as it can possibly be.
C. Serwa: Moving on to water management, I note that there are a number of water management initiatives coming from the central Okanagan, where surface water is certainly in high demand and very important to the economy. I think about 50 percent of the water consumed in the central Okanagan comes from the upper lakes. It's a very important asset.
I note that there is a plan to license groundwater. One thing that I guess you're recognizing -- and certainly it's something I've recognized -- is the limitations on funding. We have other problems in water management where the water applications and the licensing process is a complex type of field, and because of the increase in population in the province, the demands for this, we're still facing fairly substantial waiting-lists. I'm not certain what the exact status is. But a year, and sometimes longer, is part and parcel of that.
What is the ministry doing, hon. minister, with respect to water licensing to strive to streamline the process? I would be very interested in where the economic resources are going to come from to undertake a major licensing initiative of groundwater sources.
Hon. J. Cashore: In the discussion paper on water, which is to be released sometime this summer, there will be some strategies put forward for discussion with regard to how to address that issue. I also think that the bill that passed last night -- now that it is an act -- as it takes effect, will give some ability to get on with that backlog, because it will take some pressure off other areas. I recognize the point that there is a problem there. We know there are urgent and pressing matters in the province regarding water. At the same time, we think it's so important that it behooves us to take the time to do it right, so we are following through on our commitment to follow this process of discussion leading to legislation, and we certainly do welcome the input.
F. Gingell: I seek leave of the House to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
F. Gingell: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce members of the grade 7 class from English Bluff Elementary School in my constituency of Delta South, led by their teacher Mr. Gary Ayres. I ask this House to make them welcome.
[11:45]
C. Serwa: It's always a pleasure to recognize students in the gallery. All members of the House recognize that all of the tomorrows belong to the young people up in the gallery. We're hoping to improve our track record so that they can continue to work and continue to act as stewards of the environment, and again, ensure that all of the tomorrows are in fact greater, better and more beautiful in every way. That's what our ambition for British Columbia is.
A question from my experience with respect to the way policies are implemented throughout the various regions -- through regional offices and regional directors. It appears that it would be a desirable opportunity to take and move regional managers, perhaps, or directors throughout the province so that they are not established in one area for an inordinate length of time. We tend to get a policy interpretation that is subtly different in one area than the other. The other aspect is that there seems to be a dissociation of aims and objectives from Victoria and the regions. It would be appropriate if there was some sort of an opportunity to move people to Victoria and move them back out into the field again so that the communication is certainly more effective.
I think that we would serve the people of the province far more ably, and it would enhance the awareness of some of the challenges in the different regions if we interacted more. It seems often that the meetings you have.... This is perhaps an in-house Ministry of Environment matter, but I'm concerned about it, because we fail to serve the people of the province in a consistent and effective manner. Has the minister contemplated encouraging movement? I know it's not inexpensive, but the potential is there, and certainly the necessity is there.
Hon. J. Cashore: I think generally everybody's in agreement with that. It is important to be able to have a broadening of awareness of issues throughout the province and try to ensure that the best possible evenness of application of standards is achieved throughout the province. Therefore being able to see personnel work in different settings and situations is probably something that would assist in achieving that goal
But we do need to recognize personal considerations as well, such as thinking about uprooting a family that happens to have established roots in, say, Prince George, Kamloops or wherever it may be, and the impact that might have. I know that our regional managers meet on a regular basis with the very purpose of reviewing how standards are being applied, and there are professional development activities and so
[ Page 2027 ]
forth that take place within the context of the service. I think that's worthwhile.
I just want to say that I feel the people who work in the Ministry of Environment are by and large a group of people serving a very important value for the province. Most of them went into that job because they wanted to make a difference and felt that they could make a difference, whether it was with a background in biology, in the conservation officer service or administration -- whatever it might be. Obviously they are working in a ministry they really believe in, and I think it's incumbent upon us to try to facilitate the best that can come out of that.
I have made a personal decision to get out and visit as many of the offices as I can, and of our 2,400 employees I would say that I have personally met about 900 already. To me that's very valuable, because when I get out to their workplace and see what's going on on the job -- in a small bioassay lab or how somebody in Lands is relating to mapping and that sort of thing -- it gives me a much better sense of the kinds of work they're doing.
Basically I agree with you, hon. member, but I think we have to balance that with the consideration of the fact that some of these people are performing well within the community in which they exist. We do try, though, to move people around within reason.
C. Serwa: Thanks for your remarks, minister. You mentioned Aboriginal Affairs a few minutes ago, and certainly you are aware of the court ruling that took place with the Nisga'as and that the province has a fiduciary or trust obligation with respect to ensuring that our aboriginal people have access to traditional hunting rights. You mentioned the fact that you would be working very closely with what sounded like aboriginal conservation officers or perhaps auxiliary conservation officers. What is happening with that particular responsibility in the ministry? Are negotiations taking place with respect to allocations of game animals? What is happening? Does it take place with trophy-type animals such as sheep or the traditional animals? They used ungulates -- for example, moose, caribou and deer. What is happening with those negotiations at the present time?
Hon. J. Cashore: We are conferring with the ministry and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on this issue so that we can finalize guidelines for staff and have effective interim measures that come out of the Delgam Uukw case. We know that we have a fiduciary responsibility, but I want to make it very clear -- this comes back to the mission statement of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks -- that we recognize we have a very clear policy in our ministry that puts conservation above any use by humans, no matter who they are.
So our conservation policy is number one with us. We feel we have to be true to that part of our mission. But in being true to that part of our mission, we also recognize the importance of fostering relationships and partnerships that enable us to do so in the most effective way we can, given the diversity of people in the areas under consideration. We will certainly be discussing allocation of wildlife with both native bands and third-party interests. We think we can arrive at a solution that will satisfy both native and non-native hunters. We think the way to do that is to bring people to the table and to approach it in a partnership kind of format. Our first priority within the ministry is the protection of wildlife.
C. Serwa: It's rather paradoxical, from my perspective, that the most important part of the ministry is the green side, and that the pollution control side is of lesser importance. However, it has become dominant in the ministry with the effort to protect the green side. I readily appreciate and understand that, because we, as individuals, are the cause of most of the problems and challenges confronting the Ministry of Environment.
We have time for one or two more questions, hon. minister. With respect to the Chilliwack River, it was a very high-profile issue. I know there has been a substantial commitment. It's a very important recreational fishery. As a matter of fact, I understand it's the most heavily used by anglers for the steelhead fishery. What is the progress on that? There was a substantial amount of erosion, and the floodplain was very riven with a tremendous amount of movement of gravels. But the major concern has been with the erosion of clay banks and the sediment flowing down and actually sealing off the riverbed. What is happening with respect to the Chilliwack River and steelhead in that system? While we're on the topic of steelhead, perhaps you can tell me what the Ministry of Environment is doing -- other than catch-and-release -- to ensure that the steelhead fishery is no longer threatened but is actually turned around and grows stronger.
Hon. J. Cashore: There is a study on flood control, which is soon to be released, dealing with the area that the hon. member mentioned. It's going to be dealing with both flood control and improving habitat. One month ago I met with the mayors of both Chilliwack and Abbotsford, and flood control was on the table in that discussion. We are being responsive to that issue. Work is ongoing. That study is to be released fairly soon.
With regard to catch-and-release, I didn't hear all the points the hon. member made about that. Catch-and-release is a developing standard in the steelhead fraternity, and that's worthwhile.
C. Serwa: Just one last comment, and then we'll close. Again with respect to fish, wildlife and integrated management, yesterday you mentioned the Khutzemateen. It's certainly of major concern to the ministry with respect to grizzly bear habitat. We're all aware that 50 percent of the world's grizzly bear population actually resides here in British Columbia. While we're very proud of that, we're also concerned with the erosion of habitat. It's probably one of the areas under study. Because of the relatively low timber values and the remoteness of that area, it seems to me that it would be ideal to set that aside as a wildlife area, which wilderness tourists could use. It would certainly be a
[ Page 2028 ]
haven to ensure that the biological diversity of the species is protected.
With that statement, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 10:15 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED
EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY
On vote 10: minister's office, $315,100 (continued).
Hon. T. Perry: While I'm on my feet, I might simply provide reference to the letter I referred to towards the end of the afternoon yesterday, instructing the chairs of boards of governors of the three operational universities to treat college transfer students on the same basis as their own enrolled students. I'll quote from a letter sent to Mr. Ken Bagshaw, chair of the board of governors at the University of B.C., dated March 26, 1992, which was attached to the budget letter. I'll quote very briefly:
"It is imperative that our universities and colleges continue to operate as an articulated system. Thus, wherever possible, I want to ensure that each university is able to offer second-and third-year advancement opportunities to college transfer students and your continuing students on a 'level playing-field' basis. I wish to discuss with each institution, possibly at an early meeting of the University Presidents' Council, the manner in which this transfer issue will be addressed. This meeting should take place before admission criteria for the fall semester are finalized."
That's from a letter I sent, signed by me, dated March 26, 1992. We will be following up with a meeting on June 19 of the University Presidents' Council and chairs of the boards of governors of the four universities.
If we are ready, I was going to respond to one other question taken on notice yesterday, I think from the hon. member for Abbotsford, regarding policy on the number of educational terms a student may fail to attain a satisfactory scholastic standard before student assistance will be denied under the student financial assistance program. I can confirm that the period is three educational terms before aid is denied. That might be three consecutive terms or it might be a student who makes one attempt, for example, in a fall semester, is unsuccessful, later comes back -- possibly at another institution -- and makes another stab, and under the present policy would be given a third option. This is a matter of ministry policy rather than legislation or regulation. It's consonant with federal government guidelines under the Canada student loan program, and is periodically under review. This is probably an issue that will come before the Orum committee. It is one where we're trying to balance fairness, in the interests of giving students the maximum possible shot at advanced education, with the needs of the taxpayer.
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for providing that information from yesterday. I'd like to pick it up at the point where we left off yesterday.
We were talking about funding issues relating to post-secondary education; we were talking about operating grants in particular. We were discussing access, which is, of course, one of the key elements in the debate that we've been having so far in this committee, reviewing the budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. Access is a key. We were raising some concerns, and we were debating yesterday whether or not this budget really does meet the objectives of the government as stated in both the election platform of the governing party and statements made by the minister in terms of improving and increasing access for British Columbians to post-secondary education and training.
There seems to be a lack of congruence between what the government says it wants to do, is going to and what it is in fact doing. We've been discussing access. I wonder why the government doesn't simply fess up. Why doesn't it simply admit that its policy and budget for this year is not going to meet those goals that we all agree on -- the overall goal of allowing British Columbians who want to, to engage in training, to participate in our post-secondary educational system, as we've been describing it? They don't have the opportunity to do that. So the access goals are not being met.
To start off this morning, I would like to ask the minister a question with respect to access in the lower mainland in particular, because during the course of the review we're certainly going to be discussing in more detail the issue of access on a provincewide basis, on a systemwide basis. But I'd like to take a look at the lower mainland, because there is a particular problem here. Let me just preface my question by saying that Kwantlen College, for instance, in the lower mainland, is now opening a new campus in Richmond, and it's expected to increase its student population by some 800 students this fall. That was expected. But now, only 150 new spaces are going to be open, because of funding
[ Page 2029 ]
shortfalls. The college has cancelled summer courses for about 1,100 students, and yet applications for the fall are up 55 percent from last year.
Take a look at BCIT. At BCIT there are currently two and a half applicants for every one seat available. This year it will open only 100 new spots. The demand is far outstripping our ability to meet the need. The capacity issue is not being addressed by this budget. The lower mainland is the fastest-growing region in the province, with the highest number of grade 12 students, and yet this region has the lowest per-capita funding for post-secondary education on a regional basis. As a result, participation rates are half that of the provincial average.
Given that, I'm wondering if I could ask the minister: is he aware of the large inequities in funding for the lower mainland's post-secondary institutes compared to those in other regions of the province, and does the minister plan to address this inequity and bring participation rates in the lower mainland up to provincial levels? How does this budget address that? How does this budget that we're being expected to approve address that problem in the lower mainland?
Hon. T. Perry: While the principles the hon. member is referring to are sound, I think he has fallen into a trap of making a relatively superficial comparison. In the lower mainland, students have privileged access to large universities, UBC and Simon Fraser; and within the academic stream, which is the largest component of the college system, the universities and the colleges are effectively competing for students. So to compare a lower mainland college region on a similar basis to a region like North Island, Northwest, Northern Lights or East Kootenay is not appropriate. The educational opportunities for students in those communities are so much more narrowed by geographical factors -- the distance to travel and commute periodically back and forth from their home to the lower mainland; by cultural factors -- for example, in the case of native Indians, the importance of being close to their family and their home village; and other factors that are a requirement -- perhaps a student from the Peace River district may be needed to help out on the farm. It's difficult, therefore, to make simple across-the-board comparisons of one region to another.
To the extent that the member is asking whether we acknowledge the significant undercapacity in the Fraser Valley and the Kwantlen College region, of course we do. We are very concerned about it. We are doing our best to correct that historical anomaly which reflects a virtually astronomical rate of growth in the south Fraser region, which has exceeded the ability of governments to respond -- not only provincial, but municipal and regional governments. The response that we made this year, while it falls short of what Kwantlen College had requested, is nonetheless the most generous that we achieved anywhere in the province for a non-university college. Specifically, we increased from 4,559 full-time-equivalent students to 4,992, a net increase of 443, which represents a percentage change of 9.49 percent. In terms of the operating grant, there was a 7.5 percent increase, which is considerably higher than the system average of 4.2 percent. That reflects some economy of scale, in getting more students proportionally in percentage increase than the required percentage increase in dollars.
D. Mitchell: Which college was that?
Hon. T. Perry: That was Kwantlen College. The practical issue that we faced.... I certainly agree with the member, with the members for Surrey and Delta, who have lobbied me vigorously on this issue, with the college board at Kwantlen, with the president, Dr. MacLaughlin, and with others that it would be desirable to more rapidly increase their enrolment. It would be, in general, an excellent investment. Right now the problem is that with this year's budget, in our view, it was beyond the means of the taxpayers of British Columbia. The only way we could have exceeded the allotment to that region, which very clearly has the most rapid growth in the province and is likely to have the largest number of students turned away.... The only way we could have done more for them this year would have been at the expense of regions like the one represented by the hon. member, where students perhaps have greater access to alternatives such as universities, but where they also felt a compelling need for expansion at Capilano College; or the area bordered on by the hon. member for Langley, from whose constituency some students are likely to be oriented towards Fraser Valley University College, where we felt obliged to deliver the largest percentage increase in student enrolment, as I explained yesterday, because of commitments to students emerging from second and third year of the university-college program. Or we might have saved money nominally by curtailing some of the apparently less efficient programs, like those of North Island College, which operate in very small rural communities like Kingcome Inlet, which has a population of perhaps a hundred people and yet has an adult basic education program on a continuing basis; or Kyuquot, which has 100 or 200 people and has a small education centre shared by North Island College; or Alert Bay, which I referred to yesterday, or Woss Camp, or some of those very small communities.
We could have argued that these are less efficient in terms of our dollar, that we're getting less FTE output out of them. But when it came time to look at those issues, I must tell you that I felt that we had to recognize that we have an equal, if not perhaps greater, responsibility in the smaller communities to ensure some delivery of post-secondary educational services to people who have virtually nothing else of what we take for granted in the lower mainland or the Capital Regional District or the larger centres around the province.
[10:30]
In short, my answer is the same as I gave the hon. member yesterday: yes, I would love to do more. When I tossed over last night as I was going to bed some of the thoughts we exchanged yesterday, I felt that I would come back today and ask him to join me in making the case to his own constituents, who are probably among those best able to carry the burden. In the long term, all
[ Page 2030 ]
of us will need to make some further sacrifices and either find ways where we can operate government more efficiently or ways in which we can increase revenues to government in a way that will convince the public that their money is worth parting with.
There is only one other alternative. I felt it would be interesting to know in the committee today the views of the official opposition and the third party -- whether or not the opposition parties feel we should follow the lead taken by other provinces, including Ontario recently, which is to allow a progressive increase in tuition fees.
D. Mitchell: I was trying to make my question specific to the demand, capacity and access issue in the lower mainland; I was not attempting to make comparisons with other regions of the province. I know that the minister wants to make those comparisons. I know that during the course of canvassing the range of issues in these estimates, we will talk about some of the other regions and other issues. But I don't know that this is a zero-sum game. The lower mainland has some very significant demands and pressures. The capacity issue, if it's going to be addressed in British Columbia provincewide, systemwide, has to be addressed. The lower mainland, as the area with the highest growth, has some particular pressures. That's why I was asking in particular: what does the budget we're being asked to approve in this committee do to address those concerns?
Certainly we'll get into some of the other questions relating to student financial assistance and tuition. But before we leave this issue, maybe I could ask a question specifically about Kwantlen College, which the minister referred to. As the minister knows, Kwantlen College is opening a new campus in Richmond this year. The college base has been increased by some 1,000 full-time students, but the ministry has only granted Kwantlen half the number of FTEs it requested. I wonder about the kind of planning that went into this; I wonder about the lack of planning that might have gone into a situation where the Richmond campus will operate half-empty this fall. This newly opened Richmond campus is going to operate half-empty this fall; with students pounding on the door to be admitted, it's going to operate half-empty, or half-full. When there is rising demand for access to post-secondary education in the lower mainland, how can this minister justify the situation at Kwantlen College? Why did the minister not grant Kwantlen College sufficient operating funds both to accommodate the capacity and to utilize this new facility that's been built? Is this a sign that there has been a lack of planning, and is the minister willing to admit that to the committee today?
Hon. T. Perry: No. Good try, but I'm not prepared to agree to that. The standard practice for the ministry is to phase in projects. It might seem, simplistically, that at opening day all campuses would be instantaneously filled. In practice, gearing up staffing, support staff and laboratory facilities is not quite as easy as that. One could take other examples, like the University of Northern British Columbia, which will be gradually phased in. This has been the experience not only with other post-secondary campuses but with hospitals recently constructed. Sometimes one is able to achieve full capacity faster than other times, and in some cases mistakes have been made. Full capacity was never actually achieved in the hospital sector. I'm glad to say that we're not faced with that problem in post-secondary. As I said yesterday, it's a problem for a minister like me to face upset students, but it's also, in general, a good thing for society to have more students than we can handle. We would be much worse off if we had fewer students than we could handle.
The answer is simply that we're doing the best job that we can within our limited fiscal resources. We were significantly constrained by the planning initiatives undertaken by the former government -- which, in general, were good ones. I'm not, as was implied in the discussion yesterday, simply dumping on the former government. I think that the univeristy-college initiatives, for example, were an excellent, flexible manoeuvre to address the issues of demand in a cost-effective way. A choice was made, for example, to expand initially into the upper Fraser Valley rather than the Kwantlen region. Although the upper Fraser Valley certainly had the necessity, one might have made an argument for doing Kwantlen College first as an alternative because of the even more compelling population pressures in that region. Those were decisions made by the former government. The tradition of government in British Columbia is that the current minister is not fully privy to all of the rationale that went into some of those decisions. To try to second-guess them now is not particularly productive. We were faced with decisions and policies that were in the process of being implemented, and it made sense to meet the needs of students in British Columbia. We fulfilled and honoured those commitments. That left us with limited discretionary room to meet some of the obviously compelling problems that faced us.
I can stand here and feel confident in telling you that I believe that during the course of the Harcourt government we will be able to make a significant dent in meeting the problems of underservicing in the south Fraser region, including the Kwantlen College region. Whether we'll get completely to the point that we or the college would like over four years, I don't know. There's a long way to go resulting from a very significant historical failure to plan for that region, which goes right back, in my view, to the sacking of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board back in the sixties by a former, Social Credit government. We then had destruction of the planning power of the Greater Vancouver Regional District in the late seventies, early eighties, by the former Premier, Mr. Vander Zalm, when he was Municipal Affairs minister, and the consequent trend to chaotic unplanned development throughout the south side of the Fraser Valley. That's not something that we can overturn or undo overnight. It will require years to attempt to make up for some of that problem of sprawl and unplanned development. I can assure the hon. member and other members of the committee that I, and the ministry, are fully committed to doing everything in our power to achieve that redress.
[ Page 2031 ]
D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for his remarks. If, in fact, the lack of planning is a historical problem, then surely we hope that this minister is going to do something to rectify that problem by bringing in some rational planning that will address the issue of capacity and truly serve to meet the goals of increasing access to education.
There's a problem with this budget. The problem with the budget isn't the amount of money that's being spent. We're not quarrelling with the fact that there's a need for a good, tough fiscal approach to this, given the state of the finances of the province today. We're not arguing with the total amount. What I argue with is the rhetoric that accompanies the budget, including that in the minister's opening statement yesterday. If we can't meet the goals of increasing access, if we can't meet the problem of addressing the capacity issue and the demand for post-secondary education or training, then why not just be honest and admit that? Why wouldn't the minister simply be honest and admit that, rather than mouthing the platitudes that we continue to hear from him and from the government in terms of the lofty goals that they have but are not meeting? Why not admit that this budget is a failure? Something has to give. If we're not going to provide the institutions in our post-secondary system of education the resources to do the job that we're telling them they must do, then something has to give. Something is going to fall through the crack. Unfortunately, most often it's going to be students, and that's tragic. Unfortunately, it's going to be the quality of education and training that those institutions are providing. They can't continue to meet the goals as stated and do that with less resources over the course of time. This budget fails.
I'd like to address the issue of quality. I'd like to ask the minister to comment on quality of service in our post-secondary educational system. With the 2 percent increase in the operating funding and the tuition freeze, administrators across the province are grappling with significant funding shortfalls. Perhaps the more remote colleges will be able to get by with simply trimming some of the fat -- perhaps. If there is any fat in the system, it might include transportation and communication allowances, library and student services. They might have to suspend other growth plans. Colleges in the lower mainland and universities are having to cut staffing and enrolment levels and programs right now, and I think that's going to have an impact on quality of service.
To get a little more specific, as a result of this budget the College of New Caledonia is not able to establish much-needed health services and technological programs this year. These programs are in great demand. The minister knows this. It's difficult to recruit and keep skilled labour up north in the areas served by the College of New Caledonia. Northwest Community College has had to suspend plans to establish student advising centres on campuses, as well as a tourism program at its campuses at Prince Rupert and Smithers. At Malaspina College there have been four layoffs in administration, and more than 20 instructors are facing layoffs. Cuts have been made across the board in terms of programs and services. However, they hope to serve the same number of students. With all these cuts they hope to serve the same number of students. In fact, the ministry has directed that they must.
The most dramatic cuts are in first-and second-year courses at Malaspina College. Approximately 10 percent of first-year courses, 80 sections, have been cut this year. At SFU a hiring freeze on staff and faculty is already in place as a result of this budget. A vice-president of finance at one community college has told me that the political push is to make it appear that you are doing more for less. However, that isn't possible for much longer without seriously affecting the quality of post-secondary education in this province. I'd like the minister to comment on this large issue, the quality of service. How can it be maintained given the constraints imposed by this budget? Another vice-president of a community college said to me: "Not paying the price for a product gives us nothing in return over the long run. It's a fantasy game."
Does the minister know the extent to which post-secondary institutions in this province are having to cut and trim their services in order to balance their budgets this year? Does he know that 10 percent of first-year courses have been cut at Malaspina College? Does he realize that once again the College of New Caledonia has put on hold plans to implement these much-needed health services and technological programs that I referred to? Does he realize that Douglas College will not be able to expand its applied programs in the summer semester this year? Does he know what sorts of impacts cuts in administration, services and staffing will have on students? How long is he going to ask administrators to go along with the charade of a government's seeming commitment to post-secondary education?
[10:45]
Hon. T. Perry: There are some fascinating questions there. I was beginning to think philosophically as he asked the questions. I guess I was intrigued that the critic representing the party which purports to represent the interests of the individual, the primacy of the individual -- according to some of the speeches I've heard in the main chamber of the Legislature recently.... Implicit in the remarks made and the question posed just now by the hon. critic for the official opposition is the feeling that government has all the answers to these questions.
As I listened to the question, I was thinking how ironic that my own perspective is that the minister has only a modest role, if that, in assuring the quality of advanced education in our post-secondary institutions. It's not that the minister wouldn't like to, but the minister is not the professor, not the tutor, not the laboratory instructor, graduate student teaching assistant or department head. In some respects the minister is a student -- or is trying to be -- but not in the role we're talking about today. The quality really depends on the activities of all of those people in the chain of education. First of all are the attitude and intellectual capabilities of the students -- or the capabilities in non-intellectual areas in the case of acquisition of some other skills -- and the inherent capabilities, dedication
[ Page 2032 ]
and enthusiasm of the teacher; the environment, created by the institution itself, of respect for learning and differences of opinion, encouragement of diversity of opinion, and the climate of friendliness and acceptance of students; the quality of how women are accepted in an institution, something which continues to disturb me. Not only the administrations, not only the student societies, but also the faculty and the students themselves in some institutions appear to tolerate blatant sexism, or in some cases racism or intolerance for aboriginal people. All of those things determine the real quality of education and the educational experience. There's a limit to how much can be done -- from the position of the minister at the top of the pyramid -- to direct that. But that is not to shun my responsibility or that of the ministry. We must, in the interests of the whole public -- in particular, the taxpaying public -- exercise our responsibility to run the system within the means of British Columbians. If one did not do so, there would be no incentive whatsoever for the more than 100,000 people who make up our post-secondary system to innovate and to question themselves about every possible way to improve the system. Without the discipline of some realistic financial constraint, there's no incentive to ask those questions.
I also found it ironic that the hon. member seemed to diverge yesterday from his faith in the post-secondary educational capacity of British Columbia as a system rather than a series of individual institutions -- for example, in respect to the College of New Caledonia. I'll come back -- if the hon. members wishes -- to the specific comments on health services and technological programs, as I'm not always familiar with that level of detail.
Systems thinking suggests that for both CNC and Northwest Community College one ought to be thinking of the total educational and training capacity provided to the region of northern British Columbia by the three colleges -- including Northern Lights College and, to some extent, the Cariboo College region, and a fourth if you take in Cariboo and the new University of Northern British Columbia. Looking into that integrated systems view, some services presently provided by the colleges might potentially be better provided by the university or by a partnership. Conversely, some services proposed by the university might better remain in the colleges or might be better not taken up by the university. Therefore it's natural that periodically there will be changes, proposals and programs which it would be nice to elaborate and develop, but which cannot go forward within the financial constraints that we all face.
Consistent with that, for us to better serve the students of the region within the entire system, I'm just going to ask if the staff are familiar with any of the details. We're not familiar with the apparent health services difficulties at CNC, but we could look into it if the hon. member wanted us to and could get some further detail. We're not familiar with the Northwest student advisory program. I might add my personal view that, to the extent this may refer to counsellors for native students, there has been a trend within the community colleges to bring on counsellors specializing in the integrated counselling of aboriginal students. They have developed a very good reputation, for example, at Camosun College. I'm trying to think of another example. They all have them now. Naturally I would be particularly disturbed if the colleges were feeling that they couldn't support that type of program.
I would just add one final comment. I think it's ironic that.... Although I naturally sympathize with anyone facing a layoff and job loss, the hon. critic cited an example of layoffs for administrators and yesterday reminded me that my responsibility is to restrain administrations from growing geometrically. I certainly agree with him. Competent, effective administrations and administrators are increasingly necessary in a very complex system. However, it's always worth remembering that the ultimate work of the institution is done by the students and their teachers. There is a limit to how much growth in administration can be tolerated in the post-secondary system, just as in the public school system, the hospital system or anywhere else. I hope he's not suggesting that we should not exert what influence we can to restrain the growth of the administrative sector.
D. Mitchell: The minister hasn't really addressed the specific questions I raised about quality of service -- quality and how quality is going to be maintained. I don't want to belabour this point, because there are certainly many issues that we wish to canvass during the review of these estimates. I don't want to go over points to the point of repetition. I think I'll let the minister's comments stand on the record.
In terms of his comments, I'm surprised at the minister's self-deprecation. I think he's indicated that the minister has only a modest role to play. I think that, in itself, is a very modest view -- too modest -- of the role that the Minister of Advanced Education should play in the system. I think that the minister has a leadership role to play. Certainly he is a partner in the system we talked about yesterday that we're hoping to create and that is not yet functioning as we would like it to. The minister and I both agreed on this yesterday. But the minister is more than simply another partner in this system. The minister is, by the very nature of the job of Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, required to play a leadership role in that system. He shouldn't be modest. He should provide leadership on the key issues where the system needs to be created and where there are particular failings that need to be addressed.
I can only point out that one of his predecessors we know as well, the Hon. Stan Hagen, when he was Minister of Advanced Education, tried to play a leadership role in an admirable way in the system to bring about positive change to improve access in the system. We would hope that during the tenure of this minister -- and I would hope it is going to be a long and successful tenure -- he will also accept that challenge of leadership. Certainly I'm disappointed by your comments, which suggest that you can only play a modest role. We're expecting much more of the minister, Mr.Chairman.
[ Page 2033 ]
I agree with the minister that a systems approach is necessary, but we did agree yesterday that the system is only now being created. It's not yet fully integrated in a functional sense. The system does have some failings that need to be addressed specifically on their own, on an institution-by-institution basis.
In terms of restraint, you're absolutely right, Mr. Minister. We're not arguing with the amount of money expended on advanced education in this budget. This budget fails because of the rhetoric that is attached to it. The budget does one thing, and yet you're expecting the institutions to do another. You're denying students the access that you're saying you're trying to give them. There are failings with this budget.
In terms of restraint, I'd like to address an issue relating to wage and salary settlements. I'd like to ask you a general question about wage and salary settlements and ask you to respond. Almost all the post-secondary institutions in our province have at least one contract that has already or is now set to expire. Of the unions with a membership of 25 or more at post-secondary institutions, 22 have contracts that are expiring this year, 1992. Administrators in the various institutions are saying that the most they can raise wages and salaries with this budget is 2 percent. That is basically what they're given; that is the general operating increase that is granted to them. For many, though, even this minimal increase can only be accomplished if there are staff reductions. UBC has frozen salaries for senior administrators for a second consecutive year now.
Since the minister has come to office -- since November 5 of last year -- the education of thousands of students at both BCIT and then UBC was disrupted by serious labour disputes. I know that the minister and senior officials in the ministry spent a lot of time trying to find a way, in a very constructive manner, to prevent the disruption from causing more pain. But I wonder if the minister realizes that by increasing the operating funding by only 2 percent he is inviting further labour conflict at B.C. post-secondary institutions. A number of institutions -- I would mention Capilano College, Douglas College, East Kootenay College, Fraser Valley College and the University of Victoria -- are already committed to incremental salary and benefit increases at levels higher than 2 percent as part of existing contracts. Does the minister realize what a difficult financial situation he has put these institutions in by only increasing operating funding by 2 percent when agreed contracts are already committing these institutions to provide more?
I would also refer to the infamous Peat Marwick report -- the Peat Marwick manifesto, as we call it -- which really forms the basis for the budget we're reviewing today. This is the Peat Marwick budget after all. I worry about that because I worry that this minister and his officials really haven't written the budget; it was the Peat Marwick group that wrote the budget. If that is the case, perhaps there should be somebody here from Peat Marwick assisting us today.
I wonder if the minister realizes that the Peat Marwick manifesto showed that many teachers in the public school system are paid $6,000 to $7,000 per year more than instructors in the post-secondary education system with roughly the same qualifications and experience. That is what the Peat Marwick reports told us. Is the minister aware of this wage discrepancy? And does he accept that some college instructors in this province are being paid less than high-school teachers with the same qualifications?
Funding has been provided in this budget for implementation of pay equity for support staff and management ranks that apply. This government says it is committed to eliminating wage discrimination in this province. I would like to know what the minister's plans are for providing pay equity assistance, where appropriate, for the other management, professional non-union and exempt staff as well.
There are a few questions in there. They're all under the heading of wage and salary settlements. If the minister could address those in turn, we could go on to the next topic.
Hon. T. Perry: Naturally, at the discretion of the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, it would be more convenient to me if he could ask slightly fewer questions at once. I'm having some trouble keeping up with all of them in my notes, but I'll do my best.
I first feel obliged to thank the hon. member for recognizing my modesty. I think that's probably the first time in my three years and going into my fourth session in the Legislative Assembly that anyone has accused me of modesty. But my mother will be very pleased, even if she doesn't agree with it herself.
[11:00]
As to whether I accept the challenge of leadership, of course I do. I wouldn't be spending an 80-hour workweek if I didn't relish the opportunity to show some leadership in the post-secondary field. I think I'm simply trying to be realistic. That there are some areas where I can afford constructive leadership that will produce solid achievements, and there are other areas, like the question of what the real quality of education is that a student receives, where it would be foolish for ministers to delude themselves into thinking they have a great deal of power. I have too much faith -- too much experience, I guess, with very good and occasionally very poor teachers, to delude myself on that issue. Looking back on my own experience, my brief stints in as many as seven different universities around the world and a variety of public schools, it's the great teacher who really makes things different for a good student, and it's the good student who really makes things different for a motivated teacher. Perhaps I am modest, but I think I'm realistic on that score.
I was pleased to see that.... I wanted to give one further example of where the minister has exercised leadership. Perhaps the universities would have been prepared to do so on their own, but I certainly made it very clear to them, through their presidents, that I expected them to show restraint with the salaries of senior administration, particularly at a time when, in the case of UBC, women earning in the range of $25,000 or less per year and apparently some retiring without any pension felt themselves obliged to strike. I made it crystal-clear many times to the university administrations that in my view it would be inflammatory, unjust,
[ Page 2034 ]
unfair, inappropriate, wasteful, if not scandalous, to raise senior administrative salaries. And I reminded senior officials at the universities that members of the Legislature had accepted, for the second year, a freeze on their salaries -- in the case of private members, at rather modest levels. Cabinet ministers had accepted a freeze, and for senior administrators, who were earning sometimes as much as twice what a cabinet minister earns, it was entirely appropriate to accept a voluntary freeze. Fortunately I wasn't obliged to show any additional leadership. I think the universities saw the writing on the wall, in the same way as many other people in society have.
I was pleased to see that the critic was not arguing about the total amount in the budget; if anything, he seems to be, in his last comments, more satisfied with the total budget than I am. So be it.
He asked whether I was aware that I have placed the institutions in a difficult position to meet obligations under their collective agreements, or obligations which might arise out of collective agreements negotiated this year. I disagree with his thesis that I have placed them in that difficult position. I do agree that they are in a very tough spot, but I think that the way they got there relates in no way to my performance as minister -- and in every way, perhaps, to the, at times, exaggerated expectations of society about how long we can go on living well beyond our means with a burgeoning budget deficit and, at times, to unrealistic communications between the institutions and their staff. It relates to a past record of relative secrecy in the budgeting process within the institutions; a relative lack of openness in encouraging the employees of the institutions to understand exactly the financial dilemmas that they were in; and, sometimes, to morale issues in which senior administrators have, frankly, treated themselves very generously at a time when the lowest levels of staff were not treated generously.
What I hope will be achieved in the difficult period that all of the institutions are facing over the next few years is a new kind of social contract based on honesty, openness, frankness, attempts to agree between management, trade unions and faculty associations on the real facts, and a collective will to achieve the best possible situation for the people of British Columbia.
I absolutely reject the suggestion that we, as a government, have put the institutions into that bind. They have evolved to that position as part of a society in which the same thing has happened throughout the public sector -- in the schools and hospitals -- and sometimes in the private sector. I remind the hon. members that our increase in funding this year is the most generous in Canada. Our economic circumstances are slightly better, perhaps, than some other provinces, but not so much as we occasionally like to think. Where other provinces, in some cases, are taking absolute reductions in funding -- zero and 1 percent increases, which will be below inflation -- we have provided an inflationary increment based on the Finance and Corporate Relations ministry's best estimate of the true inflation rate at the time that we made that decision.
The hon. member's last question related to our plan for the disposal of funds allocated for pay equity. I would point out that the government, shortly before the end of the last fiscal year and early in this calendar year, made a basic philosophical and political commitment that some provision within the means of the taxpayers should be made to redress the historical inequities affecting women employees. In our general instructions to the boards of governors of the post-secondary institutions, taking scrupulous care not to interfere directly in the collective bargaining between the institutions and their unions, we -- and I, as minister -- did provide a very clear philosophical instruction that the present government would not, on principle, tolerate discrimination in the wages paid to women purely because they were women. I frequently made it very clear to boards of governors, particularly when they asked for my advice, that the government's overall goal was very simple: to redress the inequality suffered by women who, purely by virtue of their sex, were paid less than men doing an equivalent job or a job of equivalent responsibility or utility. That's the very simple principle that underlies the government policy.
In an attempt to implement that policy in a very complex bargaining environment, our ministry staff are currently consulting with representatives of other ministries to ensure that our policies regarding pay equity in the post-secondary field are consistent with those being developed across the government and with the likely direction of future pay equity legislation. The ministry staff are continuing to consult, as they did earlier in the year during the labour disputes referred to by the hon. member, with the representatives of institutions, to attempt to ensure that pay equity policies in those institutions are supportive of existing initiatives of the government. I point out that in our initiatives we have focused clearly, and will focus, on our intent to relieve the greatest pay inequities existing for female staff. Typically, those are at the bottom of the heap, as hon. members know -- often not for faculty, but for non-faculty support staff -- in post-secondary institutions. We are concerned about that, and we will continue to be concerned about that.
A. Warnke: It is with some genuine pleasure that I want to participate in the Advanced Education estimates. As the minister may know himself, I am also an educator, especially post-secondary. It has really occupied my professional life.
I'll get to the point. The first subject I would like to pursue with the minister with regard to these estimates concerns the tuition freeze and the tuition freeze compensation that goes with it. I'll just give a very brief background, although I'm sure the minister is aware of this. Most of the colleges and the universities had planned to increase tuition fees, ranging from 4 percent to 10 percent. In response to this, the ministry has engaged in a policy of tuition freezes. In connection with that, as well, as a compensation package for the lost revenue from the freeze, the institutions will receive generally 2 percent of their 1992-93 tuition revenue. Therefore I'd like the minister to outline that there is a view -- in response to the view that since the ministry was not willing to grant a reasonable level of compensation for the tuition freeze.... I'm sure the
[ Page 2035 ]
minister has heard that. The view being expressed is that a decision such as this will have serious budgetary implications for post-secondary institutions throughout this province. Perhaps for our benefit the minister could outline why the ministry took this course and generally justify the freeze. In addition, hon. Chair, maybe the minister could comment as to whether the minister is satisfied that the 2 percent compensation package was enough.
Hon. T. Perry: That's a very interesting question. I'm delighted to welcome another ex-educator, hopefully a current or future educator, into the discussion. I have to point out that under the legislation the situation in the community colleges differs somewhat from that of the universities. The minister has the right to set tuition in the community colleges, whereas the universities enjoy a greater autonomy under the University Act. Perhaps that should or should not be the case, but that is the way it is right now.
In the case of the colleges, therefore, we were not legally obliged to offer any compensation. In the case of the universities we relied upon the cooperation of the universities with an overall government policy, which respected an important election commitment. The universities and colleges had clearly predicated their proposed tuition fee increases on some principles. In the case of the universities they were clearly enunciated. I'm less familiar with the details of how the college boards had rationalized their position, but I presume it was similar. I'll refer to the universities, where they had argued in advance of the election, in some cases as long as a year or more ago, that they would impose an estimated inflationary increase in their fees. At that time, I believe they estimated that in the range of 4 to 4.5 percent, predicated on a CPI somewhat higher than the current one. There were to be additional increases of up to another 4.5 to 5.5 percent, depending on the institution, some of which was specifically to be targeted toward increased student financial assistance by the institution itself.
[11:15]
Those, in my view, were not inherently unreasonable propositions. I do not share the view of some people that they were grotesquely greedy or attempting deliberately to hurt students. There was a widespread reaction, as the member will know, from students and the education community, including the College-Institute Educators' Association. I'm not sure whether the university faculty associations took a similarly strong position, but in general they tended to sympathize with the student-body positions that at this point, given the large loan burdens affecting many students and the increasing cost of living, particularly in urban areas, tuition increases of that magnitude would pose a substantial barrier to many students. I'm well aware that there are conflicting points of view on this question and on the issues of fact that arise. We attempted to consult as thoroughly as possible with the relevant organizations, particularly the student organizations -- not only the Canadian Federation of Students, which represents, I believe, roughly 70 percent of students in British Columbia, but with other students as well. The largest single alternative group is the alma mater society at UBC. They took, on behalf of their members, a very consistent position that tuition fee increases would be directly harmful to many students. I personally raised with them, very clearly, the possibility that the government would not, within the limits of our budget capacity, be able to make the institutions whole on the revenue that they would otherwise have received from tuition fee increases. We raised with student organizations the real possibility that that might lead to reduced access for some students.
We received a very clear opinion from the Canadian Federation of Students that they felt not only that a tuition freeze was essential in the interests of their members, but, in fact, that government should move towards the European model -- eventual abolition of all tuition fees. We received a somewhat different view from students at the alma mater society. A student election was held in the midst of this process, and on the basis of that election, their view was solidified in support of an inflationary increase, which they defined as about 4.5 percent, if I recall correctly -- somewhere between the policy eventually adopted by the government and the policy advocated by the University of B.C.
We always regarded the interim measure as exactly that -- an interim measure to respect a campaign commitment, which had been made very clearly and which it seemed clear the majority of concerned people expected us to keep as a new government. I expect that the Orum committee, which is reviewing barriers to student post-secondary participation and financial assistance issues, will review carefully -- I've asked them specifically to review carefully -- the factual issues involved in this question, because government will be obliged in the next budget to decide how we now approach the issue of tuition fees. It's well known that other provincial governments throughout the country have elected to let fees rise with inflation, in some cases substantially higher than inflation. In the case of Quebec, the situation is the most dramatic. I see the member nodding; he's familiar with this. I believe that in the early seventies fees were frozen absolutely and remained frozen until approximately 1990, give or take a year, and they now have to increase dramatically.
I think the member obviously understands, as well, that movement towards a tuition-free system would require a dramatic overhaul of our taxation policy, something which is impossible to do at the provincial level alone. The real question in my mind is how we ensure that we minimize the financial barriers for competent students who can benefit from post-secondary education, maximize the social equity of our system and do so in a way which ensures that we educate the maximum possible number of students in B.C. That's the task that we've handed to the Orum committee for advice. I challenged them very directly, when I met with them a couple of weeks ago, that the government will, of course, have to address these issues itself and that I hope they will provide us with very concrete, practical advice to assist us in forging a consensus. I would certainly take the chance again now to encourage the hon. member and others -- perhaps through the official opposition critic -- to make a submission to the
[ Page 2036 ]
Orum commission and to include in the submission the official opposition's views on how we should address that issue, which is a very contentious one.
A. Warnke: I appreciate the minister's comments. I also appreciate some of the dilemmas that the minister is facing, especially the point made just a few moments ago about how to balance some of the problems facing students and yet maximizing social equity. At the same time, this does beg -- I suppose, from the student's perspective -- where we go and what ought to be done from here, considering the implications that it has on students. As a matter of fact, earlier this year the Simon Fraser University student newspaper quoted the minister as saying that to honour any sort of tuition freeze commitment -- I believe "to honour this commitment" were the direct words -- would mean fewer admissions in the fall and either higher taxes or severe cuts in funding for other areas. Further: "If you were in my shoes, would you do it even though it meant nothing for your library, day care or residences?" I don't know. The minister can confirm the accuracy of that. I know that on student papers, once in a while they're very good, budding journalists, but of course one never knows whether the quote is accurate or not.
Nonetheless, there is something in this particular statement. The minister saw what may in fact come about: cutbacks in spaces, especially when we take a look at some of the problems -- and I believe the minister addressed some of these yesterday -- and how universities are interpreting their situation and the tremendous pressure that's placed on them, and then how to facilitate students coming in from the colleges. Overall there seems to be a problem of cutbacks in spaces and in services.
There are a few other ways that this has been illustrated. The University of British Columbia has cancelled a $1.5 million contribution to a student aid fund and, I believe, another $1.5 million to a teaching excellence fund. Here in the city of Victoria, the University of Victoria has mentioned that a tuition freeze represents a loss of $2 million in anticipated revenue for the coming year's operating budget. The administration of the University of Victoria is concerned that if any similar funding cuts continue in the future, the implementation of some sort of pay equity program -- that's been described by the minister -- as well as a planned expansion of the engineering faculty and the graduate students in general in the future, could be at risk.
All of these are dealing with, I suppose, the implications of the policy that the ministry has embarked on. I would appreciate if the minister could perhaps respond by recognizing the implications of this decision and whether these implications were part of the decision to place a freeze on tuition fees. Perhaps the minister could outline whether some sort of results are anticipated from this and whether indeed he is willing to accept those results.
Hon. T. Perry: I think the hon. member has raised questions which sound very familiar. They are the kinds of questions we were asking ourselves since we prepared the budget, debating with our staff and with colleagues who have the ultimate responsibility to make the decision.
I'm just being reminded by my staff that it's a good chance to read into the record, in case anyone is following this, the meetings of the committee to review B.C. student assistance and barriers to post-secondary participation, chaired by Jennifer Orum and otherwise known as the Orum committee, which will be on the road a little bit in June, starting tonight in Terrace -- if anyone up in Terrace is somehow listening; I guess we're not on TV, but if anyone is fanatical enough to pick up this feed -- at Northwest Community College at 7 p.m.; tomorrow night at Northern Lights College in Dawson Creek; Thursday night at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George; next Monday, the 8th, at Okanagan College in Kelowna; Tuesday the 9th at the University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops; Wednesday in Courtenay; Thursday, June 11, at 7 p.m. in the senate boardroom at UVic -- I'd certainly welcome any members who are able to come, even to sit in and listen, to the discussions; Thursday the 18th at Malaspina; Monday the 22nd at Selkirk College in Castlegar; Tuesday the 23rd in Cranbrook; Wednesday the 24th in Abbotsford; and Monday the 29th in Vancouver, at Langara Campus of VCC.
I'll be happy to make copies of this and have them passed around to members of the committee. Perhaps we could do that either before we break or for this afternoon.
To come back to the hon. member's question, yes, I think we debated all of the issues that the member raised. I'm not sure if I saw the Simon Fraser clipping, but from what the hon. member read from it, it sounds like a reasonably accurate rendition of the hypothetical considerations I raised, I think, to the students' society and the graduate students' society, in a discussion of what we had to consider. It certainly wasn't meant to imply that there would be no funds for the library. You can come back to that if you wish; I'm not familiar with those details of the SFU budget. There would be trade-offs within a fixed total budget available for Advanced Education and for each of the institutions.
I think the member asked whether I was happy with the result. I would have liked the institutions to all get substantially more money. I believe that we honoured a clearly enunciated campaign commitment, which the public at large expected us to honour. That is one of the fundamental principles of the democratic process, and it was important for the public to see that politicians were not making empty promises that they had no intention of keeping. It's equally important for the public, including students, faculty and the institutions as a whole, to understand the implications of that policy, and I think some of them had probably not understood it as clearly before the election as they understand it now. I did everything in my power in the period during the development of the budget to honestly make the implications clear to the various concerned parties. I think that many of them, like other British Columbians and like all of us, had and continue to have difficulty grappling with the reality that as a
[ Page 2037 ]
society we have been fiscally living beyond our means. It will take us some time to come to grips with that.
[11:30]
With respect to the $1.6 million contribution to student aid that, according to the member, UBC is prepared to sacrifice, I'm not challenging that; I'm just not familiar with the details. Staff are pointing out that the saving to students at that institution alone, through the failure to raise the tuition fees, will amount to $3.4 million. Now, whether that's targeted equally well to the students who really needed the assistance is another question that I expect the Orum committee to examine.
A. Warnke: Another aspect of this which I suppose is necessary to explore is the relation between the ministry's intention to place a freeze on tuition fees and at the same time to deal with the question of broadening access to post-secondary education in this province. There is some documented research, one example being an Australian study that found when tuition fees were eliminated entirely, university student demographics remained identical to when tuition fees were in place. While there is that kind of evidence, the effect of the tuition freeze in this province illustrates that a reduction of the fees will have no impact on access unless funding is put into place to create more spaces. Therefore perhaps add student financial aid. If student financial aid is more easily accessible, this might also help the places.
At the same time, this year the University of British Columbia is cutting undergraduate spaces by 400. I know from my own experience that in the city of Richmond, Kwantlen College has cancelled its summer courses. I believe the King Edward campus of Vancouver Community College is expected to cut its adult basic education program by 80 percent over the course of this year. I'm not absolutely certain about that figure, but it's something in that range, I understand.
Given that the three universities are reducing undergraduate enrolment levels this year because of funding shortages, I'm wondering if the minister could comment on whether the tuition freeze is really achieving the goal of broadening access to post-secondary education in this province.
Hon. T. Perry: One of the failings of our estimates process -- I would admit to being equally guilty of it myself in the past -- is that we sometimes ask questions that are redundant. We dealt with some of these questions yesterday. I might refer the member briefly to my answers to his colleague the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi yesterday. UBC will not reduce the number of undergraduate spaces this year. It will increase them. If it were to carry through on its threat to reduce them, it would find itself substantially impoverished. The money would likely head out towards the Fraser Valley.
[L. Stephens in the chair.]
Similarly, Vancouver Community College's adult basic education program.... I think of Mark Twain's famous quotation, that the rumours of his death were greatly exaggerated. The full story has not yet been played out at VCC, so I might refer the member to yesterday afternoon's debate. I'm advised that the cancellation of the academic summer programs at Kwantlen, although it's a significant inconvenience to students this summer, will not directly result in a net reduction of service. Kwantlen has decided to reallocate courses initially planned for the summer to September '92 and January '93 semesters. That level of detail is getting beyond my ability to understand, but we can come back to it if the member wants.
Did the fee freeze improve access or not? That was the real question the member asked. I do point out that although we would have liked to have done more, we have increased the total number of FTE spaces in the province this year by 3,129. I honestly think that we don't know the answer to that question yet. I hope that the Orum committee will be able to reach some consensus. That may be too much to expect, but I hope that they'll take up the challenge I've given them.
Clearly -- and I'm referring to the net effect -- for some students a proposed tuition of $200 might have pushed them over the brink. I received enough representations from students and their organizations to convince me there were students in that position. There were also prospective students at the high-school level for whom the size of the fees appears such a formidable barrier, at least psychologically, that they don't consider post-secondary education. I received that message rather convincingly from student organizations. In that case, the answer is not necessarily to freeze fees, but to design a better counselling program at the high-school level to inform students effectively of the alternatives open to them in grants, loans, scholarships and bursaries, and perhaps to redesign some of the system. There were also students for whom the fee freeze made no difference, and there are many students for whom the cost of living in rental accommodation will increase far more. University administrators informed me that at times the cost of accommodation in residence goes up far more than $200 per year, with very little reaction from students.
I think the real question is: what is the net effect on society, and in particular on those people who have enjoyed the least equitable access to the system -- poor people, aboriginals...? In the case today we're given limitation of federal funds for aboriginal post-secondary education. The band council has run out of its allotted funds, and a qualified student wants to attend and has no sponsorship from the band council. Historically, those students are, severely underenrolled in the system. We were very worried about them. Disabled students, single parents -- in the case of the latter, the barriers often are much less the tuition fee and more the structure of the loans program, as we discussed yesterday afternoon, or housing problems, physical access and day care. In those respects, I think, over the next six months we will be rethinking all these issues, and we welcome the suggestions of the opposition.
A. Warnke: Just one more question, then I'd like to defer to other members on the committee that are here today who may also want to discuss the question of the
[ Page 2038 ]
tuition freeze. I suppose this is one problem of splitting the committees: there are not two of us. When I was over in the House, I did miss the question that was addressed, and I appreciate the minister's remarks. Definitely I will be taking a look at the answers the minister provided yesterday.
I would like to explore just one quick point with the minister. Nonetheless, there is a view that the loss of revenue caused by the tuition freeze will have implications on the quality of service provided by post-secondary institutes in this province. I suppose I have some concerns for the community colleges. I know from my own experience at different colleges and universities that they are all looking to make cuts in libraries, students services, staffing levels and so forth. As a matter of fact, Malaspina College in Nanaimo has made substantial cuts in administration and services. Indeed, I understand that more are expected in the first-and second-year instruction, especially when there has been this difficulty of follow-through on implementing the third-and fourth-year programs. Perhaps we'll raise that point a little later. Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if the minister could perhaps comment in recognition of the effect the tuition fee has on the quality of service provided by post-secondary institutes in this province, with specific emphasis on community colleges.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
Hon. T. Perry: How to reply? Of course I am concerned about quality in all of the institutions. As I indicated earlier, I think the real guarantee of quality resides primarily in the instructors and the students. Good, competent administrators do their share as well; I don't mean to disparage them.
I think the real challenge that we all face -- we as a society -- is that we must accept that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody is always paying the shot, be it the student through the tuition fee; the student's parents, in cases where they are able to help out; or the taxpayer, in the case of a student loan or in the case of the five-sixths of the total cost -- 82 percent -- of advanced education which is paid directly by the taxpayer through the general operating cost.
I guess I rely on the intelligence and the wit of all British Columbians, including college and university faculty, to recognize that for the foreseeable future we will face a period of budget constraints, and that government has directed, within the envelope we felt the taxpayers could accept, as much funding as possible to the essential social services -- education, advanced education, social assistance and health -- at the expense of some other important services, be they to the mining industry through the Ministry of Mines, or in highways improvements, agriculture and fisheries, and economic development. Not that we wanted to reduce expenditures in those areas, but we felt that if we had to make a choice, we would. We did, and we're comfortable with that.
That situation is likely to persist in the foreseeable future. I guess we rely on the colleges to recognize.... I'm being reminded that Malaspina, in the case of the example the member gave, received a budget increase of 6.38 percent, somewhat more than the system average of 4.2 percent.
[11:45]
Of course we recognize they have difficulties. We rely on them to examine themselves not just at the administration level, but at the level of the faculty, the support unions, the student societies -- everyone working within the institution -- and figure out how they can get the best possible output for what we have available to pay them. In that sense, they're no different from anyone else in our society right now, including members of the Legislature. Despite the public perception, I don't see any hon. member in this room who is not working hard, who was not here late last night attempting to deal with constituency issues. All ministers are working very hard for the same salaries as last year. Whether one regards them as exorbitant or modest, they're the same; they were frozen. We're all working, if anything, harder than we were, because the province needs it of us. We have to throw out that challenge to everyone in the province, including those in the post-secondary system.
Having ended on that note of leadership and modesty, and in light of the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:47 a.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada